France and the freedom of the seas

The freedom to travel the high seas unhindered is one of the cornerstones of the maritime industry, commercial and leisure. The recent rise in piracy off Somalia has prompted France to send a warship and use force to free a captured yacht, accepting with determination and sorrow the high price involved.

Alas any form of prompt and determined action is apparently not feasible closer to home. French fishermen have blockaded several French ports and refusing to allow ships to travel to or from the UK. This is seriously damaging trade, with the M20 motorway in Kent now little more than a parking lot for trucks.

I'm seriously at a loss to understand why these fishermen aren't just moved off. They are breaking the law, inconveniencing many, causing financial hardships at the worst possible time, and to do all this so that they can continue to over-fish?

Stock in these waters are approaching critical levels, and we have seen in the disaster of the Newfoundland cod banks how the destruction of through over fishing can be near complete.

What's more they already get subsidies (i.e. my taxes) and the majority of illegal fishing incidents involved French fishing boats.

Thankfully we have a tunnel that isn't affected by this blackmail, but enough is enough, time to stop the blockade, and not by just giving greater subsidies.

The policemen, their blog, and the round the world sailing fraudsters

Still reading Liza Copeland's "Still Cruising" (review to come) but in the mean time here is a morality tale about how not to sail off carefree into the sunset.

Shashi Bacheta of Wales claimed she was so ill she was unable to get out of bed and needing 24 hour care in order to get about £40,000 of invalidity and housing benefits (for those non-Brits that's money the Government pays out of our taxes). But really she used it to fund the adventure of a lifetime, sailing off around the world with her partner in a 70 foot boat Kismet (above).

Alas just like the canoe couple (you remember, husband faked death in kayak accident, couple went off to central America with insurance money) that got caught out in a photo this pair also was snapped somewhere other than the sick bed, namely living a rather more energetic life sailing the yacht in the Canaries.

The cruising community being a friendly social bunch, they made friends with another boat also in the Canaries. Alas this was sailed by some retired policemen, and they mentioned meeting them on their blog which was spotted by council investigators.

Having spotted yacht on the blog, the investigators made contact with the retired policemen who dug up the photo and it was a case of red faces all round "its a fair cop, gov" as the couple pleaded guilty this week.

More on this story here and here.

They are facing jail and their yacht Kismet is now up for sale.

Update on March 20th: Today they were sentenced and Shashi Bacheta received 21 months in jail and Jeffrey Cole nine months. More here.

Update on Ouzo

On a weekend where the coastguard strike highlights the issue of safety at sea, there's this interesting article at the FT site looking back at the loss of the yacht Ouzo almost exactly 2 years ago.

It gives a more comprehensive description of the cases put forward by both the prosecution and defence teams in the trial for manslaughter of the Pride of Bilbao's officer of the watch.

Its worth reminding ourselves of the two key claims of the defence:

1) That in a force 5 with favourable tides the average speed of the Ouzo was just 2 knots (this explains the backward position of the yacht that wasn't clear in the BBC report I referenced earlier).

2) There was another yacht similar to the Ouzo out sailing that night which had a close encounter with the Pride of Bilbao but didn't report it

Its hard to believe either claim on its own, but both must be believed simultaneously for the defence's claim to accepted.

I've seen articles saying simply "So what? Its up to small boats to keep out of the way of big ones". Yes of course you should do everything you can to avoid getting too close to them. But sometimes things go wrong - there are engine failures, medical problems, and so on - and the big boats can not just plough on regardless.

At night its hard to find the person overboard and even in August life expectancy in the water is all too short.

Safety of life is the responsibility of all at sea.

Captain Calamity says Shetlands not Scottish

You couldn't make it up.

Stewart Hill got the nick-name "Captain Calamity" after a disastrous round Britain started badly, getting into difficulties off Yarmouth, and ended badly as he was rescued off the Shetlands when his converted 15 foot rowing boat (with its windsurf sail) capsized.

And he stayed there - the Shetlands that is - where he now owes a local accountants £1,200 pounds.

But rather than paying up he's decided to argue that the contract, written under Scottish law, does not apply as the Shetlands are not part of Scotland.

The argument is that apparently "when King Christian of Denmark pawned the islands to Scotland in 1469, he was not entitled to do so as under Norse udal law the land did not belong to him". And the reason King Christian needed the money was that his daughter Margaret became engaged to James III of Scotland and he needed to pay her dowry.

However the court hearing today was canceled when the recent bad weather grounded flights - so the snow stopped the sheriff.

Can't wait to see how this goes!

Missing Canoeist Pleads Guilty

Remember the canoeist who was lost at sea, whose wife claimed on his life insurance, then upped sticks and went to live in Panama.

But then who re-appeared walking into a police station claiming amnesia, before it was noted he had been photographed with said wife in their Panama apartment.

Oops.

Wondered what happened to them? Well this week he pleaded guilty to "seven charges of obtaining cash by deception".

Latest here.

The Ice Prince and the Wreckers

Another case of wreckers vs the law this week along the south coast of England.

These piles of drift-wood come from the boat the "Ice Prince" which sank 20 miles off the Dorset coastline a week ago. Its cargo of planks is now piled high on the Sussex beaches, and again is being picked off by wreckers looking for new floor-boards.

Alas experts say they are too water-logged to be useful. Full story, pictures and video via this link.

Real Wreckers?

While the Timewatch program last night on the BBC was about the history of wrecking, there was an article in the today's paper about a more recent example.

About a year ago the container ship Napoli (below) was beached to avoid worse damage in heavy seas, several containers were disloged and washed up on Branscombe Beach in Devon. This resulted in the feeding frenzy of scavengers (above).

The law in this situation is given in this post at the MCA. The owner of boat and containers has appointed contractors to clear up the area and recover that which has value. Any voluntary salvage should be reported to the receiver of wrecks, as described here.

However in the minds of many - in particular those that recovered goods - if they find it it's theirs.

This might work for small scale things - the odd trainer where the cost of recovering exceeds the value of the item. But does that approach, that the value is so small there is no harm in just taking it, apply when the goods in question are brand new working BMW motor bikes?

Ouzo Again

Back again to the story of the loss of the Ouzo and its crew (above).

I read this article on the BBC web site that one of the defence arguments for the master of the Pride of Bilbao was that there was a "close encounter with a yacht, but .. it was not Ouzo and that the boat sailed away safely".

So we're meant to believe there was another close encounter on the same night with a similar boat that was not reported despite the deaths and hubbub of the story in the news?

Well its possible - like its possible the Harry Potter film I'm watching now is a documentary.

Its just I don't believe it.

Ouzo Verdict

The verdict came out today on role of the crew of the Pride of Bilbao in the loss of the Ouzo - and it was not guilty. This was despite the fact that the yacht was clearly within at most a couple of feet of the ferry with its walls of steel and swamping wash.

Of course it is necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt to find someone guilty, and those high standards are there to ensure that the innocent do not suffer, and so it is right that if there was such doubt that the verdict can only be, as it was, not guilty.

However what I don't understand is the figure above (taken from the BBC web site) which shows the defence's claim that the sinking could be due to the tanker Crescent Beaune and happened at 01:40 after the encounter with the ferry at 0107 but further back towards port.

Maybe the figure is wrong, but the only way the Ouzo could have been at that position would have been if it had been returning to port, which would only be plausible if it had been damaged in its encounter with the Pride of Bilbao.

So is he defence's argument that though they damaged the Ouzo in a close encounter and didn't stop to assist, that is ok as the yacht would have been still afloat? Which to me would be admitting to poor seamanship even if not manslaughter.

Does anyone know any more details of the arguments other than this from the BBC site?