Why do THEY deserve their freedom, more than anyone else?
What about victims of miscarriages of justice, I dont see you harping on and offering my money to those, who are likely far more deserving.
Anyone in these circumstances usually profits from their 'adventures' through the media, lets have an agreement its all paid to the tax payer then I am all for risking lives to get them back, you seem to forget that if we send people in to get them even with a ransom package THEY risk their lives for people who refused to listen to HOME OFFICE advice about that area, they didnt have to take that route, they chose too.

Tha Taliban are not terrorists al-quaeda are, they may support terror acts but we as a nation also do by entering an illegal war for oil and regime change.

Will not say anymore for fear of being binned lol

We are all entitled to an opinion , just mine are based in fact and not emotion.

I think in most cases (apart from Spain, I think) the ransom has been paid by the various ship's owners, not Governments. They have a responsibility to their employees in terms of safety at work so I'm guessing that they could be sued by the families if they didn't do anything. Also, their cargo and ships are worth a lot of money to their companies.

This is a completely different issue - money is offered to victims of miscarriages of justice - eg legal aid?

Anyway, that aside...

I'm not bothered about the tax payer being repaid - lets be fair I think they'd happily give any profits back so they escape with their lives?!?!?!

Even if they did choose to take the route, if you read their blog, they actually delayed the trip they were making when they got captured to avoid pirates....they did what they were advised to do. I'd rather tax payers money wasn't spent on giving criminals degrees etc because quite frankly why should we pay thousands of pounds a year and they get it for free, but no one will die from that, this couple may well lose their lives whilst Britain sits here and b!tches about how stupid the couple were to go in the first place - maybe they were naive but they did what they felt was right to keep themselves safe and frankly an error in judgement which would cost Britain £2 million and an increase in security doesn't in my opinion justify us allowing them to die!

Some info on security measures already being taken:

http://www.economist.com/world/middl...ry_id=15214052


A long war of the waters

Thanks to greater vigilance and naval patrols, the seas off Somalia may be a bit less dangerous than they were. But they are still the riskiest in the world

Jan 7th 2010 | NAIROBI | From The Economist print edition
EPA
TWO years ago Somalia’s weak transitional government agreed to let foreign navies chase pirates into its territorial waters. Since then, the sea off Somalia’s coast has seen an increasing number of warships mainly from rich countries trying—with partial success—to fend off pirates from the poorest. Ships steaming along maritime corridors in convoys are safer than they were. So the pirates are being forced to venture ever farther out into the Indian Ocean to seize their booty. This means that the remoter reaches are still very dangerous.
Many of the world’s most powerful navies are involved. The French and American ones have killed Somali pirates while freeing their own citizens. For the past year the European Union has deployed its first-ever joint naval force, named Operation Atalanta, to protect ships passing in and out of the Red Sea on their way from or to the Suez canal. Russia has an active anti-piracy mission, helping, among other things, to revive its rusting navy. China has asked if it could set up a naval base in Kenya or elsewhere in the region to support its anti-piracy patrols. The Japanese and South Koreans have sent warships to protect ships carrying their cars. India, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Africa have also joined the anti-piracy fray.


Yet the pirates are still hijacking ships and receiving ransoms with apparent impunity. In the past fortnight they have captured four more big ships. Two of them, the Singaporean-flagged Pramoni and the British-flagged St James Park, both tankers carrying chemicals, were nabbed under the nose of the foreign navies patrolling the Gulf of Aden.


The pirates’ methods remain rudimentary. They use hijacked tuna-fishing boats or local dhows as the mother ship, then launch attacks from skiffs, usually at dawn or dusk. They hold the crews hostage with machine-guns and semi-automatic pistols, then force the captain to anchor off the northern part of Somalia’s coast for several weeks until a ransom is paid.


The patrolling navies say they have begun to do better. Yet the number of recorded hijackings rose from 32 in 2008 to 42 in 2009. The average ransom paid by shippers also rose, from $1m to $2m. If unpublicised pay-offs are included, some by Spain’s government, the pirates probably earned around $100m last year. That must be shared with their financial backers, especially in Lebanon, Somalia and the United Arab Emirates. Well-organised criminal gangs in Yemen also help.

To avoid the patrols, the pirates’ geographical range has increased sharply (see map). Shippers must pay extra insurance premiums, even if they ply a course far from Somalia’s waters. A Greek-owned freighter, Navios Apollon, was captured by Somalis on December 28th, fully 370km (200 nautical miles) east of the Seychelles, which is more than 1,300km from Somalia.


Plainly there is no purely naval way to stop the pirates. Somalia’s coast is more than 3,000km long. They seem unafraid of the warships. If accosted, the pirates usually dump their guns and grapple-hooks in the sea. The patrolling navies are reluctant to arrest them because of the legal complexities. On the rare occasions when pirates are taken aboard, they are usually given medicine, water and enough fuel to go back to Somalia. Within days they will set off again to seek their prey.


The EU has signed a deal with Kenya to imprison captured pirates. But there are concerns that Kenya is asking for too many favours in return for embarking on what is bound to be a messy legal process. If the EU and other concerned countries could get the governments of Tanzania, the Seychelles and other countries in the region to agree to prosecute pirates in their own courts, the legal deterrent against them would be stronger.


The pirates’ main advantage is the lawlessness of Somalia which has long been enmeshed in a civil war. Western governments fear that if they were to send their security forces to attack towns such as Haradheere, a pirate haven, the Islamist fighters of the Shabab militia, which controls much of south and central Somalia and is linked to al-Qaeda, might be strengthened.


Besides, the pirates could yet prove to be odd allies in stopping the Islamists from spreading their jihadist net. The Shabab considers piracy for profit unIslamic. The militants violently disapprove of the pirates’ boozing and whoring. The pirates and the Shabab could yet fight each other, which might benefit everyone else. So far, however, the pirates’ wealth protects them at home. Somalia is one of the world’s poorest countries, yet a low-ranking pirate can probably earn at least $20,000 a year.


The EU says its naval force’s main mission is to protect freighters carrying the food aid on which Somalis have depended for the past five years, and has thus staved off a full-blown famine. Its next priority is to “deter and disrupt” piracy in general. The warships may also deter illegal fishing in Somali waters and the dumping of toxic waste. But they are a small force in a big sea. At last count, there were seven patrolling vessels from six EU countries.


In any event, some shipping people privately say that the effects of piracy have been exaggerated. It may still be cheaper and more convenient to pay higher insurance fees and risk being attacked by pirates than to incur the extra cost of diverting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope.


The International Maritime Bureau in London says that last year 22,000 ships passed safely through waters in range of Somali pirates, whereas actual attacks were in the low hundreds. The bureau also reckons that, as ships take more precautions, the pirates’ success rate will drop.


Most ships now steam along narrow corridors at night and at full speed. In the Gulf of Aden they are usually in a convoy. Many raise the height of the freeboard (between the waterline and the deck) to make it harder for pirates to haul themselves up the side. Others are poised to use sirens and fire hoses. Some American-flagged vessels now have security guards, though it is generally agreed that they should remain unarmed, otherwise the violence and deaths would probably increase.


Plainly, the problem is far from solved. As ransoms go up and get paid, pirates will think it worth taking the risk. Above all, they are sure to persist as long as most of Somalia, including its ports along the coast, remains an ungovernable hell.

Its clearly a HUGE problem, but the ships may not have governments paying for the ransom but they are being paid - how much more could this encourage them to do than is already happening?

Also, it says that in the past foreign authorities have killed the pirates to get their citizens out....where are our SAS guys??

It encourages them to change targets. At present they have gone for commercial ships.

As I understand it, taking the Chandlers was an opportunist action spurred on mainly by their misunderstanding about their wealth (I think they thought that all Europeans are millionaires).

If this is a success for them, they and others all over the world will start to target Brits.

The pirates learn who will and who won't pay ransoms.

I am sure force is constantly under consideration, but it will not be as easy as you think. The pirates will no doubt be keeping them in inaccessible places where it is easy to see anyone coming. and of course them being held seperately will make it even more difficult - if you rescue one only, you are far more likely to signing the death warrant of the other.

The government will be assessing risk - they would not send in a team unless (1) they were very sure of success (2) that the likelihood of the pirates killing the couple was so great as to be worth the risk.

If the Government pays, it will be a free-for-all on all ordinary British citizens, by anyone who fancies their hand at kidnap, with the Government expected to pay out each time. Ordinary people have got to be pretty easy prey for the pirates too.

I agree with the second point, as Rich said too. I wish the Navy had done something up front when it all happened, instead of saying their hands were tied.

One vessel has been working very hard against the Somali pirates. Is it HMS Portland, under Commander Tim Henry? I can't remember.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=45890
http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item_10240.html

But what I'm trying to get my head around is that if they do nothing then the couple are condemned to death...