Roughan on Bethune

April 10th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

John Roughan writes in the Herald:

mortgaged his house to build himself the boat of his imagination, a weird biofuelled motor trimaran, and set out to race around the world in it a few years ago. That adventure ended when his craft collided with a fishing skiff of Guatemala and a fisherman was killed. He was detained by Guatemalan authorities but not charged and was allowed to leave after paying compensation to the dead man’s family.

So Bethune has had a collision before, and was liable for a man’s death to the extent he was obliged to pay compensation for the death.

If someone wants to hurtle around a working ship with the expressed intention of getting in the way of its operations I don’t have much difficulty deciding where fault lies.

Sea Shepherd have had eight collisions with other boats. As far as i know the Japanenese whalers have never ever collided with another boat – except Sea Shepherd ones.

Sea Shepherd has done stuff like stick 100 tonnes of concrete on their bow to enable it to ran and disable other ships. They have even laid mines three times on ships to sink them. They throw acid at crew members.They have fired guns at police.

Even Greenpeace regard them as violent nutters. Before he became their biggest fan in Opposition, even Chris Carter denounced them:

New Zealand Conservation Minister Chris Carter criticized Sea Shepherd as irresponsible for using tactics such as running into the other vessel with a “can opener” device, a seven-foot steel blade on the starboard bow designed to damage the hull of an enemy ship

While today Carter says:

He has a few sympathisers in this country. Labour MPs like Chris Carter call him a “great New Zealander”

Such consistency.

In this case Bethune is probably content to stay where he is for a while, drawing continuing attention for his cause. Back here, his family may be missing him but they are accustomed to long absences. When he got himself taken by the whaler his wife Sharyn said: “Nothing really surprises us these days.” She estimated that over the past five years he had been home for a total of one.

Puts into context the newspaper stories about how upset his family were that he would not be there for a child’s birthday.

Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

Tags: , ,

48 Responses to “Roughan on Bethune”

  1. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    I think what we see with Carter is that when in government he was bound by an obgligation to represent New Zealand as a respectable state. Criticizing Sea Shepherd is the only option.

    Now that he’s just an opposition MP he can say whatever he likes if he thinks it’ll earn him some votes.

    Over in Australia, there is a more extreme example. Previous “Environment” minister Ian Campbell would frequently be forced to denounce Sea Shepherd. However these days he actually sits on Sea Shepherd’s board of directors. And the Aussie Labor party has actually given up on whaling as an international issue and uses it solely for domestic political purposes.

    By the way, Bethune spoke with Japanese TV the other night from his prison cell. He was quoted as saying that he recognises whaling is one of Japan’s traditions, but he has his own beliefs and that’s why they are having a “war sort of thing”, or words to that effect. The quote was in Japanese so unless he’s learnt to speak the local lingo I don’t know exactly what he said.

    His best way of getting out of there would be to just front up and accept he overstepped the mark, but if he’s prepared to stay in prison for much longer because of his idea to “save whales” then the Japanese authorities appear willing to oblige, rather than encourage similar antics from Sea Shepherd next year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    People who perform criminal acts to make a protest point have what is coming to them – prosecution possible conviction and sentence – or worse. Protest points can be easily made online it is not necessary to do something criminal to get newspaper coverage and publicity. I regard Bethune is a pirate, intent on risking lives on the high seas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Grizz (613 comments) says:

    The Waihopai 3 defence will not apply in Japan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Michael (913 comments) says:

    Sea Shepherd claim they are in a war with Japan over their whaling. Therefore any Sea Shepherd should expect that any operatives that are apprehended will be detained (in humane conditions) until the ‘war’ is over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mickysavage (778 comments) says:

    Hmmm

    Looking for a bite DPF?

    1. Guatemala – The Ady gil was cruising out of the harbour at night when it hit an unlit fishing boat. Regrettably lives were lost. No charges occurred. The worst that could be said is that maybe someone should have seen something but did not. This is not proof of culpability and you stating that Bethune was “liable” for the death is an extreme stretch.

    2. Fault – it is clear to me that the Japanese ship changed course and hit a depowered Ady Gil. This should have attracted some protest, at least some protest from our Government. A kiwi flagged ship with kiwis on board is rammed and sunk by a foreign ship engaged in an illegal whaling operation and Key and co do what? Chris Carter is showing the leadership that this Government should be showing.

    3. She Shepherd – So let me get this right the fact that a ship has strengthened its bow justifies the Japanese ramming and sinking another boat made of the flimsiest of materials? As if.

    4. Pete Betheune being willing to stay where he is – What an absurd comment. He is being held on trumped up charges after the boat he was caprtaining was rammed and sunk and his – our – country does nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Japan is governed by the rule of law. Bethune will get a fair trial and he can take the consequences. Just exactly what is the NZ Government supposed to do about Bethune. Declare war on Japan??? Bethune should be charged with Piracy when he gets home to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    “Sea Shepherd claim they are in a war with Japan over their whaling. Therefore any Sea Shepherd should expect that any operatives that are apprehended will be detained (in humane conditions) until the ‘war’ is over.”

    http://images.google.co.nz/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=Japanese+War+Atrocities&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=dwfAS4P6F8eonQfqnJ2tCg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQsAQwBA

    I hope they have checked this out and realise just what ‘war’ with Nippon really entails.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MikeNZ (3,233 comments) says:

    Bethune committed piracy and must face the consequences, both he and the other skipper endangered lives by their actions and intentions.
    Therefore whatever Maritime board we have that holds their masters tic kets must convene and inquiry and suspend their tickets immediately until it is proven they are safe to operate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Lets face it. Even his wife thinks he is a dick.

    “In this case Bethune is probably content to stay where he is for a while, drawing continuing attention for his cause. Back here, his family may be missing him but they are accustomed to long absences. When he got himself taken by the whaler his wife Sharyn said: “Nothing really surprises us these days.” She estimated that over the past five years he had been home for a total of one.”

    Nough said!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    I’m with tvb, Bethune was a fricken menace out there. No sane law abiding person can claim right to defy the laws of physics with boat size and robustness playing chicken in the south seas. Lock him up for his own safety.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    @ mickysavage – wtf was a boat like the Ady Gil doing, being deployed in the most inhospitable waters on the planet? The Ady Gil was clearly not being used for the purpose for which it was designed, which was express around-the-world travel.

    Sea Shepherd was being provocative in deploying the Ady Gil in that environment, and it was always likely to end in tears. You can have my hankie if you like, because I’m not shedding any tears for the Ady Gil, for Bethune or for Sea Shepherd. They got what they wanted, in a perverse sort of way; unlimited publicity.

    The only sympathy I feel for Bethune is dietary – apparently he’s getting sick of cabbage. I hate cabbage too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. david@tokyo (260 comments) says:

    mickysavage,

    The Ady Gil had been running circles around the Japanese vessel (SM2) for hours the day of the collision, and the captain of the SM2 would not have had a clue what the Ady Gil might do next, except that it would potentially but only that the Ady Gil was behaving dbe a continuation of the dangerous activities. The Ady Gil had been acting dangerously with no regard at all for rules of the sea designed to prevent ships from accidently colliding with one another.

    In the collision video warning noise from the SM2 can be heard alerting the Sea Shepherd eco-hooligans to the danger. We can also see from the videos that rather than take any action to ensure their safety, the Ady Gil crew stood around laughing about the situation. “I’m scared”, one of them says sarcastically. And why Bethune ordered the Ady Gil to be stopped in the general path of the SM2 in the first place is something I am yet to hear an explanation for, although I can take a pretty good guess.

    Also it’s interesting to observe the following comments from Sea Shepherd. They state, “it is not technically possible for the Sea Shepherd ships Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin to attack or ram a Japanese harpoon vessel. The reasons are simple: every ship in the Japanese fleet except the Nisshin Maru is faster and more manoeuvrable that the two Sea Shepherd ships. The top speed of the Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker is around 17 to 18 knots. The top speed of all three Yushin Maru vessels and the Shonan Maru 2 is 22 knots. These harpoon vessels can catch the Sea Shepherd vessels but the Sea Shepherd vessels cannot catch them.”

    Yet, by the same logic it is not technically possible for the SM2 to attach or ram the Ady Gil, for the simple reason that the Ady Gil is (was) faster and more manoeuvrable than the SM2.

    The other thing you will notice if you watch Whale Wars is the eco-hooligans wear sweaters denoting the names of the ships that Sea Shepherd has rammed. Why would they produce these sweaters if its a lie that they have been ramming multiple Japanese vessels over recent years, and therefore why should we believe this case was any different?

    Finally, the Japanese boat may or may not have changed course, I do not know for sure. It depends on the waves etc… But I come back to the point that the Japanese captain has no clue what the Ady Gil crew is trying to do, and its possible in the instants before the collision he was forced by the lack of action from the Ady Gil to ensure their own safety to take measures into his own hands. He certainly wasn’t helped at all by the fact that the Ady Gil crew were not making any sincere efforts on their own part to avoid collision. Just before the impact we see the Ady Gil clearly moving forward in the water – maybe a last second mistake from the crew member at the wheel of that vessel as well.

    All in all there is no doubt that the Ady Gil was responsible through either negligence at best, or otherwise.

    Finally, none of the charges against Bethune are trumped up.
    a) He boarded the SM2. That’s a fact, and it was illegal to do so.
    b) There is photographic evidence of Bethune delivering projectiles of some sort by way of bazooka or something on to the decks of a Japanese vessel. This is a dangerous thing to do, and under Japanese law such acts which can lead to injury to others not to mention damage to property are illegal. I suppose in NZ you’d be arrested for smashing bottles of acid on someone’s house or car, if you were caught.
    c) Bethune was in possession of a concealed knife which he did not declare to the captain. This was a violation of Japan’s weapons laws.
    d) Bethune was the captain of the Ady Gil which had been harassing the SM2 vessel, which consists an obstruction of duty/business charge under Japanese law. It is illegal to obstruct others going about their work.
    e) … gee I forget what the last charge was but I do believe he was guilty of that as well, whatever it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (14,163 comments) says:

    I’m of the opinion Bethune is another common terrorist who should not be assisted by the NZ government.
    Let this offender serve his well deserved sentence in a Japanese jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Inventory2 (9,371 comments) says:

    You make a strong case Manolo; it’s hard to argue with you there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    “Finally, the Japanese boat may or may not have changed course, I do not know for sure.”

    The SM2 did alter course, it was her change in course that caused the collision, after watching the 3 videos only an idiot, or a liar, would claim otherwise.
    It’s probably reasonable for Bethune to face charges of trespass, I doubt he assaulted anyone after boarding the SM2, and carrying a pocket knife is only sensible in that environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. niggly (832 comments) says:

    Johnboy (2305) Says:

    April 10th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    Lets face it. Even his wife thinks he is a dick.

    “In this case Bethune is probably content to stay where he is for a while, drawing continuing attention for his cause. Back here, his family may be missing him but they are accustomed to long absences. When he got himself taken by the whaler his wife Sharyn said: “Nothing really surprises us these days.” She estimated that over the past five years he had been home for a total of one.”

    Does Bethune have any kids? If so, what a wanker he is for being away from his wife and family for 4 years out of five. If he has kids, there’s a good chance they will grow up detesting him for his time away from them. Or go off the rails somewhat possibly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Michael (913 comments) says:

    Yes, his daughter was complaining that the Japanese were holding him on her birthday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    “what a wanker he is for being away from his wife and family for 4 years out of five.”

    Well, I agree that fathers should spend time with their kids, but if being away from home as much as he is makes him a wanker, many of the parents in the armed forces must also be wankers.

    If Bethune’s a wanker, it’ll be his personality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Murray (8,803 comments) says:

    Bethunes family misses him because he has chosen to abanodon them, no other reason.

    He’s also a pirate and can count himself lucky that no navy still enforces the hang on capture law. If he did what he did off Somalia Delta would have dropped him and everyone would be saying good job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Put it away (2,872 comments) says:

    Idiot. Hope they serve him nothing but whale meat in japanese prison where he belongs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Swampy (147 comments) says:

    Anyone can see, and marine experts who have watched the video have stated, it is clear that the Ady Gil turned into the path of the Japanese ship just prior to the collision. In all probability, instead of taking the option of reversing away from the Japanese ship, they have put their engines to full ahead and tried to turn away instead, hoping they would build up speed fast enough to complete the turn before the Japanese ship intersected their path. However, it is clear, they could not turn fast enough and have crashed into the Japanese ship before they could turn away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    “marine experts who have watched the video have stated”

    There were 3 videos, the one from the SM2 was released first and it looked like the AG may have turned, in the other 2 videos, one from the AG, and one from the Bob Barker, it’s clear that it was the SM2 that turned to ram the AG.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    Andrew, are you an expert? go read the rules of the road at sea, and figure out that the Ady Gill is at fault precisely because she made prudent effort to avoid the collision.

    After that, go have a cry with Psycho Milt, he couldn’t understand either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    “the Ady Gill is at fault precisely because she made prudent effort to avoid the collision.”

    Crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    Read the rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    Quote the rule that says a vessel attempting to avoid being rammed is legally at fault if the ramming vessel is successful in its attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    Colregs

    Rule 5 requires that “every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
    Bethune fail #1

    Rule 6 deals with safe speed. It requires that: “Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed…”. The Rule describes the factors which should be taken into account in determining safe speed. Several of these refer specifically to vessels equipped with radar.The importance of using “all available means” is further stressed in Rule 7 covering risk of collision, which warns that “assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information”
    Bethune fail #2

    Rule 8 covers action to be taken to avoid collision.
    (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and [Intl] shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

    (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.

    (c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

    (d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.

    (e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to asses the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.

    (f)

    1. A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
    2. A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this part.
    3. A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.
    Bethune fail #3

    Rule 17 deals with the action of the stand-on vessel, including the provision that the stand-on vessel may “take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action.
    Bethune epic fail #4

    Ask yourself why the Japanese would intend to ram a SS vessel? it would only benefit SS. Also you can see the SM2 turn to port (away from the Ady Gill) in the video taken from the Bob Barker, an act of avoidance.

    At the end of the day, the collision occurred because Bethune did not skipper his vessel in a seaman like manner. He had ample opportunity to avoid the collision and he did nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mokotahi (2 comments) says:

    It is clear to see all the ‘right’ handed comments here.
    Has any one of you asked the question- What do the Japanese do in the Antarctic that would make an organsiation [SSCS] do what they do. If we carry on the theme of ‘illegality” lets not just mention SSCS and Pete. Why not the Japanese?
    Actually to comment on Roughan on Bethune ” As far as i know the Japanenese whalers have never ever collided with another boat – except Sea Shepherd ones.” Not surprised you don’t know a lot – actually Japanese whalers have also rammed, in the past, Greenpeace ships.
    David@Tokyo – the main apologist for the Japanese[ apart from Glenn ‘I can’t see straight’ Inwood- comments “Bethune was the captain of the Ady Gil which had been harassing the SM2 vessel, which consists an obstruction of duty/business charge under Japanese law”. Is that so David – and pray tell what ‘business” is that – maybe commercial whaling -which was banned in 1986. Would you like to see if hindering research is covered by that law?
    But what SSCS & the Ady Gil did was nothing compared to Japan:
    Japan’s continued and expanded program of scientific whaling is inconsistent with its obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Convention, the Convention on the
    Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), and the Convention on Biological Diversity to protect and preserve the marine environment, to protect rare and fragile ecosystems and endangered species, to prepare environmental impact assessments when changes to the marine environment are likely to be caused by its activities, and to refrain from claiming resources under the guise of marine scientific research. This program is not legitimately “scientific” because it has not been peer-reviewed and does not have precise quantifiable goals. It is inconsistent with Japan’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity because reduces the sustainability of whale species and has
    “adverse impacts on biological diversity.” It is unquestionably an abuse of right because it invokes Article VIII of the Whaling Convention in a manner that certainly was unanticipated by the framers of the Convention and has
    been repeatedly condemned by the majority of the other contracting parties to the Convention. And the list goes on.
    But I guess thats OK for the Japanese not to stick to any of the agreements they have made.
    I watched all 3 videos of the Ady Gil ramming- how anyone can say it was primarily the fault of the Japanese captain
    makes me wonder how many people don’t wear glasses who should.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete718 (1 comment) says:

    Poster ‘Leonidas’ is quite correct on the rules neglected by Bethune just prior to the crash. One can also argue that some of the rules were also violated by the Japanese whalers as well. I think it is all rather beside the point. These rules were implemented for ships engaged in lawful commerce at sea that wish to avoid one another. They are not designed to be rules of engagement for ships intentionally seeking to harass one another. To Sea Shepherd supporters who wish to find refuge in rules now that you are the victims; where in the rules is prop fouling permitted? What are the safe distances to approach in order to foul a prop? How close and at what angle is one allowed to approach to launch an acid bottle attack? What is the proper angle to safely ram another vessel and which rule covers this? Sea Shepherd threw out the rule book when they adopted the tactics of ramming, prop fouling and acid tossing many years ago.

    Bethune and his crew had spent the entire morning circling the whalers, attempting prop fouls, shooting acid bottles, and pointing blinding distracting lasers at the wheel house of whaling ships. They decide they are done for the moment and they let their guard down. They did not clear the area after the fight started by them. They forgot that they are in a self proclaimed war. They got what they had been seeking to do to others. They will get little sympathy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Lee00 (1 comment) says:

    pffffft wouldn’t want to be a kiwi at war… look at you all stabbing a fellow countryman in the back… he was fighting a for a good cause, things got ugly… he had every right to do what he did… god knows the government is too spineless to speak out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    I would hope that Kiwis at war would act more sensibly that in the first place – and I would hope Kiwis wouldn’t try and provoke a war. I’d prefer the whales were left alone, but I think this approach by SSCS is selective stupidity. Japan does not make them do anything, they choose an aggressive destructive approach which is as bad as the Japanese whaling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    Leonidas, all those breaches apply to the SM2, the SM2 is also at fault in that her actions in causing the collision were deliberate.

    Pete George, it may well be that the Ady Gil broke maritime regulations in prior incidents, and for that her skipper should be punished, if we’re looking at this incident though, the SM2 deliberately rammed the AG, in this incident the culpability must lie with the SM2.

    Pete718(1): “To Sea Shepherd supporters who wish to find refuge in rules now that you are the victims” If you’re referring to me, I’m not a Sea Shepard supporter.

    If it had been Bob Barker deliberately ramming a lightly built 24m whaling boat I’d be condemning Sea Shepard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    Not so, I would argue based on 20yrs experience in boats of all sizes,that the Japanese skipper was positioning his vessel for maximum effect of his water cannons, because, if I was trying to ram them, I’d have lined ‘em good and driven straight over them, rather than a glancing blow, which is much more likely to inflict dammage on my vessel.

    So, as a boat underway, I can go anywhere I want. A boat that is stationary and right of way must either stay stationary, or manoeuvre in such a manner, that I as give way vessel, have room and oppertunity to keep clear.

    In othe words, chugging along at idle is no excuse (poor seamanship), every skipper must expect the other boat will hit him , and manouever accordingly.

    You’re right to a point that the SM2 skipper must assume some responsiblility, but the rules clearly show that Bethune neglected his.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    sorry, room and opportunity to keep clear

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    “the Japanese skipper was positioning his vessel for maximum effect of his water cannons,”

    I doubt that, the water cannons were hitting the AG when the two vessels were abeam, the SM2 then turned to ram the AG.

    “if I was trying to ram them, I’d have lined ‘em good and driven straight over them, rather than a glancing blow,”

    If the SM2 had lined up the AG well in advance the AG would have had more warning of the ramming, it was the turn to starboard in the last seconds by the SM2 that caused the AG crew to be caught out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    Leonides, if I one day happen to pull abeam of you in my 8 metre launch, you in your 4 metre tinny, and I then turn sharply to starboard, you striking my bow with your port side, I’ll be looking forward to hearing your apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (11,880 comments) says:

    What an incredibly self serving and completely non-applicable analogy. Are you sane??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    Ill see you coming, because I’ll be looking out, as the rules require me to do, and Ill understand that my tinny will always come off second best, so I will move to a position where collision is impossible,as the rules require me to do, because I understand the capabilities of both vessels.

    If I am anchored, you must keep clear.
    If you’re a container ship, I should not be anchored in the channel. (trust me, you won’t even find me tied up to a channel marker)
    In short, prudent skippers anticipate this sort of thing.

    In essence, being right of way (as the Ady Gill was) does not absolve you of the obligation to avoid a collision.

    7. Risk of Collision
    Vessels must use all available means to determine the risk of a collision, including the use of radar (if available) to get early warning of the risk of collision by radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects. (e.g. ARPA, AIS).
    If the distance of any vessel is reduced and her compass bearing does not change much or a large vessel or towing vessel at close distance or if in doubt, risk of collision shall be deemed to exist.

    this rule eliminates the “they didn’t expect the Japs to ram them” defense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    If the SM2 had lined up the AG well in advance the AG would have had more warning of the ramming, it was the turn to starboard in the last seconds by the SM2 that caused the AG crew to be caught out.

    Do you KNOW anything about boats? turning to ram at the last second is a waste of potential energy and an inefficient use of the bow. Do you use the side of your Knife to do the cutting?

    And why dose the SM2’s helmsmen sharply turn to port just prior to the collision (Bob Barker video)? if he intended to ram, would he not have simply maintained his course once impact was imminent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    [Redbaiter]: What an incredibly self serving and completely non-applicable analogy. Are you sane??[/quote]

    Hush, people who appear to know a bit about boats and sailing are talking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. fatwatson (2 comments) says:

    The SSCS, Watson and Bethune are all going down. Bethune is well on his way, it is only a mater of time before they get Watson and the SSCS will follow. Hallelujah! Praise Jesus!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    “Ill see you coming, because I’ll be looking out, as the rules require me to do,”

    Any skipper could be caught out as Bethune was, though certainly Bethune was foolish given that he’d spent the morning antagonizing the SM2. If you antagonize an animal you can expect the animal to bite, the skipper of the SM2 was not a wild animal, so should have known better, at least in moral terms, but as he disposed of an irritant and thus far faced no penalty for the ramming, I guess he made a smart decision.

    “turning to ram at the last second is a waste of potential energy and an inefficient use of the bow.”

    True in itself but a silly statement given that the SM2 did turn and did hit the AG hard enough to wreak it.

    “And why dose the SM2’s helmsmen sharply turn to port just prior to the collision (Bob Barker video)? if he intended to ram, would he not have simply maintained his course once impact was imminent?”

    I don’t know what discussion was going on on the bridge of the SM2, were they intending a near miss? Were they expecting the AG to react in time and were surprised when she didn’t? Maybe it was intended like a warning shot or an act of intimidation and things went wrong, but if so, people who fire warning shots that actually hit, are still usually treated as if they fired to hit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    I think you’ll find they were very much surprised to see the Ady Gill accelerate onto their heading.

    Any skipper could be caught out as Bethune was

    I’ll say this once more , hopefully it might make it into your head this time.
    AS A SKIPPER OF A VESSEL, YOU MUST EXPECT OTHER VESSELS TO HIT YOU this is the underpinning principal of all sea rules.

    The fact that they videoed the SM2’s approach means they were aware and chose to do nothing.
    The collision occurred because of the amateur antics of the Ady Gill crew. The rules clearly show they had responsibility to avoid contact, instead they chose to throttle up onto the SM2’s heading, guaranteeing it.

    Oh, I also forgot the bit where as right of way vessel, when you alter course/ speed you must give the give way vessel room and opportunity too keep clear, Bethune EPIC FAIL #5

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion you’re a FW, in the normal coarse of events nobody expects other vessel to attempt to ram them, if you’re claiming that somehow mariners should expect such things you’re living in a fantasy world.

    They were obviously aware the SM2 was there, they weren’t expecting a deliberate ramming, certainly they were foolish not to have been more cautious, but to shift the primary blame for the actual collision from the SM2, to the AG on the basis you argue is insane.

    “The rules clearly show they had responsibility to avoid contact,” BOTH vessels had a legal responsibly to avoid the collision, the SM2 failed FOREMOST to meet that obligation, she was the vessel travelling at greater speed, and she was the vessel obliged to give way.

    “Oh, I also forgot the bit where as right of way vessel, when you alter course/ speed you must give the give way vessel room and opportunity too keep clear, Bethune EPIC FAIL #5″

    And AGAIN, that rule applied foremost to the SM2.

    It’s pretty obvious that you hate Sea Shepard, probably you hate greenies in general, I’ll put your insane and irrational twisting of the facts so that, in your own mind, you can place the blame on the party that suits you, down to your ideological bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Leonidas (1,448 comments) says:

    in the normal coarse of events nobody expects other vessel to attempt to ram them
    But we’re not talking about “normal course of events”, are we?

    if you’re claiming that somehow mariners should expect such things you’re living in a fantasy world.
    Ever been to sea?

    to shift the primary blame for the actual collision from the SM2, to the AG on the basis you argue is insane.
    This is because I am pretty sure that if the AG had NOT ALTERED SPEED, she would have got a dousing and nothing more, and therefor the SM2 was fulfilling her obligations to keep clear. You won’t even entertain that possibility so we’ll agree to disagree.

    BOTH vessels had a legal responsibly to avoid the collision
    Undisputed
    the SM2 failed FOREMOST to meet that obligation
    Depends entirely on the motive one assigns.
    And AGAIN, that rule applied foremost to the SM2.
    Well, this is where it can get shady. A give way vessel can pretty much do as she pleases, as long as she keeps clear. a Right of way vessel has to behave in a predictable, constant manner. The Ady Gill did not do this and this is what I believe caused the collision.

    out of interest, how many experienced sailors/ seamen have you talked to that believe it’s all the Japanese fault?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mokotahi (2 comments) says:

    Every rule that Leonidas has posted clearly points to the Japanese Captain being the primary cause of the collision [or ramming more to the point]. Ady Gil was at fault only to the point of making sure it did not leave itself a sitting duck -which it did. But in any case the loss of the Ady Gil was compensated for by the international media attention that in the main was negative towards Japan. Ruthless thugs who go on killing whales in violation of so many things it makes the activities of the SSCS appealing to so many people around the world-most of which are not represented on this blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Andrew W (882 comments) says:

    The opinion of people that are knowledgeable in maritime law and practice that I’ve talked to is pretty much the same as that of Shane Kearns:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9zuJUC-hvg

    Really simple when you don’t have some sort of ideological ax to grind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. fatwatson (2 comments) says:

    What is not shown is the shenanigans the AG was pulling for several hours before the collision. The Japanese have the footage, you can bet on it, they just have not released it yet, unlike the SSCS, who couldn’t hang onto a peice of info if their lives depended on it. It will all come out eventually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote