A search is being carried out for a British couple who are feared to have been taken captive by Somali pirates while sailing near the Seychelles.
Paul and Rachel Chandler, aged 58 and 55, of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, were heading for Tanzania in their yacht, the Lynn Rival.
They sent a distress signal on Friday but have not been heard from since.
Recent reports on the television news suggest that they have, indeed, been taken.
I’m afraid I cannot find it in my heart to feel sympathetic. They knew the dangers – the Somali coast out into the Indian Ocean is a known hot spot for piracy. Apparently they believed that the weather conditions made piracy less likely. But, given that the conditions were suitable for them to set sail, the same would obviously be the case for pirates. To venture into an area known to be rife with piracy in a small (and unarmed) yacht is foolhardy to say the least. Now someone else will have to bail them out.
Whatever happens, there should be absolutely no ransom paid. Every time these pirates succeed in extorting money is encouragement for them to go out and do it to someone else. There is only one way to deal with piracy on the high seas and that is the cannon and the rope.
As for the Chandlers, frankly, they brought this on themselves. Their fate should be left in their own hands. They got themselves into this mess, they should be left to get themselves out. If this sounds harsh bear in mind that someone else will be expected to cough up or risk their lives as a consequence of their action. That’s where my sympathy lies.
———————————-
Update: Further to suggestions about insurance picking up the tab, recent reports are suggesting something else:
Hostage negotiator Dr James Alvarez said the Chandler’s family would have to pay a ransom to get them back, but added that there was no history of mistreating hostages in Somalia.
”The bad news is they will have to pay a ransom,” he said.
”One of the things about kidnappers is they think the people they have taken have money.
”If you are white and have a boat the impression is you have lots of money. These guys don’t understand about mortgages and having to pay rent and, of course, comparatively, the hostages will be wealthy from their point of view.”
Much as I love my family – I both could not and would not pay a ransom to pirates for their release. I could not, simply because I don’t have the money to spare. I would not because firstly, giving in to extortion enables the practice and secondly, I am not prepared under any circumstances to bankrupt myself and pay over money that I simply don’t have to buy someone out of a situation that they got themselves into despite warnings, no matter how much I care for them. No one has the right to make such demands on others.
Oh, and just for once, I agree entirely with Gordon Brown – Britain does not pay ransoms. He is, just for once, absolutely right.
I knew a couple who went to Mogadishu because their were jobs there. Really?
.-= My last blog ..Late evening listening – take it away, gentlemen =-.
Too damn right. Who are these cretins? They seem to believe that they are somehow insulated from the very nasty world out there.
Abroad is unutterably bloody and foreigners are fiends.
Some people deliberately court danger in the idiotic belief that the worst would never happen to THEM, and they can then gloat, in a Jack Horner-ish way, about how clever they have been. Others are secretly – and sometimes unconsciously – masochists who want to be caught and punished.
I came across many such in my active counselling years – frequently husbands who enjoyed cheating on their wives (or vice-versa), or wives who enjoyed being deceived by their husbands (or vice versa) so that they could have a hugely enjoyable and mutually satisfying row with tantrums and screaming fits when the deceptions came to light and the balloon went up; maybe a divorce in extreme cases.
Sadly, such games don’t always pay off in real life. I bet whatever’s happened to the Chandlers is far more thrilling than the hum-drum existence of home life in dull old Tunbridge Wells, though.
Im sorry I dont agree. They seem to have been caught out by a situation that has gone downhill quickly. See this posting from someone familiar with the situation:
Report sent by Dominique, Wednesday 6 May
The situation has seriously deteriorated in the Seychelles archipelago during the last three weeks.
According to the EU coordination, the Seychelles are surrounded in a 150NM radius around Victoria in ALL directions. Somali mother-ships are pre-positioned North, South, East and West. The latest reported attacks were in the NE one day ago (Tuesday 5 May).
There is no longer any 100% safe exit/entry route. Several boats underway from the Chagos have already altered their course to Mauritius. More than 20 boats planning to sail to Madagascar and Mayotte have cancelled their passage.
On Monday afternoon (4 May) a mother ship and two skiffs were arrested by the Seychelles Navy near Marianne island, 35NM south-east of Victoria! Our own boat and another vessel doing a 90 degree route last Thursday was informed by the navy that one incident took place 50NM ahead of us. We decided to return to Mahe to assess the situation. The next morning, not only one attack were confirmed but two.
Apparently the mother-ships have ventured too far East because of the very quiet sea and have decided to operate far beyond their usual 400NM radius from the Somali coast. According to military inetlligence the pirates on their skiffs are abandonned on the high sea by the mother ships with one mission: catch a boat, this is your return ticket…
A coordination anti-piracy committee was created last Monday in Victoria by a group of 45 yachts and power vessels intending to travel.
The coordinator can be contacted on [email protected]
http://www.noonsite.com/Members/sue/R2009-05-14-5
“There is no longer any 100% safe exit/entry route.” – Bloody hell!
This doesn’t alter my point, I’m afraid. The area is a known piracy risk – even if it has deteriorated rapidly.
Your report is dated May – plenty of time to choose an alternative course. Knowing the risks, a sensible precaution would be to avoid the area.
“risk”… ah that old chestnut. Crossing the road is risky but I wouldnt not pay taxes to have them in traction for 6 month if they were unlucky enough to be hit by a bus. “They knew the risks; sod em”. How do we pick and choose?
jono
Not really a valid comparison. These people deliberately sailed into an area where armed pirates are known to operate. Getting hijacked in this instance is not “unlucky” it is pretty much a foregone outcome. This is not even close to crossing the roads – although if someone is stupid enough to knowingly step out in front of a moving vehicle, they will get a similar lack of sympathy from me if they are struck.
When it comes to risk, we make a sensible judgement. A sensible judgement in this case would be to choose an alternative course. If they were the only ones affected by the risk, then I wouldn’t have a problem. Unfortunately someone else is going to have to get them out – either by paying the ransom, thereby enabling the pirates in their activity, or by attempting a rescue. Either way, they have exposed others to a risk not of their choosing.
Given that, yes, sod ’em.
“Unfortunately someone else is going to have to get them out” – probably the insurance copmany… I think rock climbers are nuts but I wouldnt stop them falling if a cliff if thats how they get their jollies. Problem with this “risk” thinking is that eventually someone will decide to ban it because its an “unacceptable risk”.
I’m not suggesting this at all. However, even if it is the insurance company that picks up the tab, the pirates get the go-ahead to have another go. Therefore, someone else is going to suffer as a direct result of their decision to take this risk.
I don’t care how much personal risk people take with their own lives and property. I do care when they drag others into it.
The insurance company – if they have any sense – will refuse to pay anything as the couple failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid the loss. To go back to your roads parallel – if I leave my bike unlocked with the key in the ignition, my insurer will wash their hands of me if it is stolen.
The issue here is not “risk” it is “personal responsibility”.
Or…
To put it simply; sailing round the world is fine and I am vaguely envious of them. Sailing knowingly into pirate infested waters is bloody stupid.
“I don’t care how much personal risk people take with their own lives and property. I do care when they drag others into it.”
Hmmm… well the other party is the insurance company; nobody held a gun to their head and demanded to have insurance from them; it was a business decision. I see theres a new post on risk, this time biking at unholy speeds… Will the above posters feel just as upset with the driver?
BTW: I reakon doing 166mph on Scotish roads rivals loony rock climbers.
So do I – and I updated that post to reflect the parallels with this discussion.
As to the insurance company, they will, reasonably, expect the insured to take reasonable precautions with the insured risk. That’s why they sometimes refuse to pay out – negligence on the part of the insured. Given the definition of negligence, I would suggest that it applies in this case. Therefore, they should do just that on this occasion. After all, the more they pay out, the higher premiums become for everyone else. I have seen this happen in the motorcycle world and it infuriates me that people riding badly and getting themselves injured and killed causes my premiums to rise. Why should I pay for their risk taking? You see, it isn’t the insurance company that picks up the tab, it is everyone else through their increased premiums.
“risk” is an infuriatingly slippery beast; see the f**kup in the city/banks for possible the worst example ever. Squish risk in one area and it pops up in another with all sorts of unexpected consequences. Atempts to minimise risk often come up and bite you in the arse elsewhere.
Anyway this discussion is prehaps going off on the wrong tack (as it were) maybe as you suggest its personal responsibility. They have insurance and are, by all accounts good and experienced sailors.
Being of a libitarian bent Im happy with that.
As we used to say in the Army, adventure training (rock climbing, sailing, skiiing etc) has to be adventurous. We cannot illiminate all risk but rock climbers do learn to mitigate them. Things go wrong and climbers get in trouble and need resuing, but we souldn’t ban it.
I also believe that these activities are good for us and we should encourage young people to take them up. I for one would be happy to risk my life helping to get young people off Bodmin moor, for example, if the weather suddenely turns bad. It happens and those young people are better people for learning to manage risk and getting off their arses. Others feel the sam about the sea, see RNLI for example.
In the case of these sailors I see your point but I’m not sure we know enough to say if they have taken unncessarily high risks. How many other yachts sail in and out of the area safely every month? If its a large number then maybe the risk is acceptable. The best test is the insurance market, if they were happy to offer the insurance then they will have known the level of risk, too high and they wouldn’t want to offer insurance. They did have insurance for the area, didn’t they?
.-= My last blog ..BNP Question Time – Winners and Losers =-.
GS – I don’t know what insurance cover they have or what get-out clauses exist in the policy. There are always get-out clauses.
What we do know is that this area has been rife with piracy for some while now. Given that, I would expect premiums for that area to be sky high – or possibly uninsurable for a small pleasure craft.
I have no problem with your point about so called dangerous sports. People who indulge manage the risks and yes, sometimes things go wrong despite their best endeavours. In that case, I see nothing wrong with rescue and the risks associated. The difference here is that this couple were sailing into a known pirate hot-spot with recently reported high levels of activity. That is not taking a calculated risk, that is foolhardy. Therefore, having got themselves into this fix, they should get themselves out. What should absolutely not happen is a ransom payment.
We should never enable extortion and we should never accede to ransom demands. Every time we do, we endanger someone else. It is the extortion element that makes this case different to risk taking in dangerous sports. If they had been caught out in a tropical storm and needed rescuing, you wouldn’t hear a peep from me.
PS – both you and Jono have intimated that I am advocating some sort of ban. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am merely saying that you lie in the bed you make.
Longrider,
Sorry, I wasn’t implying that you were in favour of a ban, just that that is the way things work nowadays.
.-= My last blog ..BNP Question Time – Winners and Losers =-.
That’s fine, I just didn’t want anyone to get the wrong impression 😉