Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Looks like a hero emerged in this saga that I myssed at the time i.e. Dahr Kadiye.


"The ransom, believed to be in the region of $740,000 (?460,000) is made up of funds given by the Chandlers' family, Somalia's government and the Somali community in Britain. Mursal Kadiye said: ?The whole Somali community here in London are very happy and we very delighted. There is also relief.


?We want to thank the Somali community, Dahir himself, the Somalia government and everyone who was involved in this.?


Tremendous effort from Dahr and others.


Well Done !

  • 1 month later...
Not enough military vessels to do it unfortunately and patroling the sea is not an easy thing to do. It would be far more effective if commercial shipping companies hired armed security guards on their vessels. Smaller pleasure cruise vessels should perhaps avoid the area altogether. And the Somalian government could do more than it currently does to police it's own coastline of course.

Not true. There is a US/ethiopian backed federal government attempting to restore constitutional rule to the country.

It currently governs much of Mogadishu and other territories in Somalia but the are many factions in charge of other parts of the country, the split Islamist movements in the south, traditional warlords in the north.

It is along way away from being a vaguely normal country, so not sure what the government can do, especially with much of the piracy emanating from the north where they have no say at all.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not enough military vessels to do it unfortunately

> and patroling the sea is not an easy thing to do.

> It would be far more effective if commercial

> shipping companies hired armed security guards on

> their vessels.


A number of commercial vessels are carrying armed security guards although this is not encouraged by many insurance companies; there is a clear indication of an escalation of violence at the time of attack and it does not guarantee that the attack will fail as the pirates simply take more military equipment with them. (There are some serious discussion papers on the Internet regarding legalities and increased insurance risk). Although it does seem that flying a Russian flag helps to protect a ship - but only while there are others apparently unprotected.


Smaller pleasure cruise vessels

> should perhaps avoid the area altogether.


From what I've read they generally do but there are a number of yachts that have 'got caught' in The Indian Ocean, i.e arrived 2-3 years ago when the risk area was much smaller, intending to potter around the 'safe' bits, put off leaving when things got a bit scary and now they can't get out. The risk area now stretches all the way across to the beaches of India, and South to all the tourist islands, and now to Madagascar and the Tanzanian coast.


And the

> Somalian government could do more than it

> currently does to police it's own coastline of

> course.


There is no government in the region where most of the attacks are sponsored. Even in Mogadishu members of the TFG don't go outside the presidential palace without military escort and the level of funding they receive from international sources may seem large but they haven't sorted out the daily killings in Mogadishu yet so I doubt they'll get to the rest of the country any time soon.

Again, to put things in perspective...


Around 21,000 ships cross this particular stretch of water every year, and only 49 were pirated last year.


Whilst even 1 kidnapped victim is a tragedy, there is evidence that someone's doing a pretty good job!

I've actually heard that some russian ships go disguised as merchant shipscarrying rich businessmen so they can have a pop at pirates with lots of fun weaponry.

Nutters, no wonder the pirates avoid them.


I heard of similar 'adventure' weekends by German business types on the Croat lines during the the Bosnian conflagrations.


There are seriously screwed up people in this world!!

The reason pirates avoid targeting Russian shipping is because of the example the Russian Navy set last May.


After docking, the captain faced an eager, ad hoc press conference and simply shrugged before delivering an indifferent release after he and his crew had captured a gang of Somali pirates, took them out into the middle of the Indian Ocean and cast them adrift with no food, water or navigational equipment. On inquiring after the Somali pirates' fate after being captured by the Russian Navy, the captain simply shrugged and calmly announced to the world's media: "They're probably dead by now."


Russian Navy Abandons Somali Pirates and Condemns Them To An Agonising Fate. Oh Well, Tough Break, Comrade - BBC

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Again, to put things in perspective...

>

> Around 21,000 ships cross this particular stretch

> of water every year, and only 49 were pirated last

> year.

>


So true.

There is a view that the pirates realise that as long as their activity is kept to a level where the insurance companies are prepared to provide policies then the whole business will carry on with only minimal intervention from any military (Most governments won't spend serious money on something unless it affects their economy or endangers the lives of significant numbers of their citizens). When a gang of pirates attack a commercial ship, but fail to gain control, they don't want to come back from the sea empty handed so they attack a vessel that's not inherently valuable (not insured - either pleasure craft or small fishing boat) but that doesn't follow their business model which is clearly targeted at where the money is.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...