Nats: anti-whalers’ lives forfeit on the altar of trade

131 comments on “Nats: anti-whalers’ lives forfeit on the altar of trade ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   8 January 2010 at 9:18 am

   I was interested in the legal aspects of the collision and in my view the situation is crystal clear.

   Firstly there are two pieces of video of the collision, one from the Japanese ship and one from the Seashepherd.

   It seems clear to me that the Japanese boat was turning into the Ady Gil which was stationary until just before the collision where it starts to take evasive action. Video released by Sea Sheperd makes it even clearer.

   Clause 15 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea states:

   “When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way.”

   Ady Gil is on the starboard (right) of the Japanese boat. It should have been given the right of way even if it was moving. That it was not makes the case even clearer and McCully should grow a backbone and complain about the needless threat to kiwi lives.
   • vidiot 1.1

     8 January 2010 at 9:58 am

     So are you saying a Stationary boat has Starboard right of way ?

     Evasive action is to move forward (at speed) and in to the oncoming vessel ?

     The Ady Gil was not (despite claims to this) stationary, it was in gear and idling forward – you can clearly see the wake being washed off the back as it moves.

     It is also claimed that the Ady Gil was put in reverse, now that would really explain the sudden burst of speed & forward motion.

     captcha – bearings : yeah I guess they lost theirs.
     • mickysavage 1.1.1

       8 January 2010 at 10:15 am

       It is wonderful how words can be thrown at a situation in an attempt to create confusion. You should have another look at the videos.

       If you look at the Sea Shepherd video the Ady Gil was stationary pretty well all the way through and the Japanese ship turned into it.

       If it ws not stationary the Ady Gil then had the right of way. The Japanese ship had to be able to take evasive action if the Ady Gil moved on its current line and the Japanese ship did not.

       The wash is a red hearing. The boat throws out a huge amount of wake when under power, about 50 metres worth. The amount of wake was miniscule indicating that at best the boat was inching forward.

       So either it was moving and had the right of way or it was stationary and was run over. In either case the Japanese boat is clearly in the wrong.
       • vidiot 1.1.1.1

         8 January 2010 at 10:25 am

         So MS, was the SS boat that was shooting the footage stationary or was it under power ?

         a) it was under power

         Now depending on what direction the SS boat was moving, it is ‘possible’ that the movement of the filming boat, changes the angle of view of the boats being filmed, hence it could (not saying it did) show as the boat changing course.

         If the Ady Gil was ‘inching forward’ (there is no dispute that it wasn’t) it is not Stationary, so for the anti-whalers to claim vehemently that it was ‘Dead in the Water’, ‘Motionless’, etc is bollocks.

         They push the envelope too far (probably deliberately) and are now reaping the media attention.
         • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1

           8 January 2010 at 10:37 am

           Vidiot (should I subtract the v?)

           So MS, was the SS boat that was shooting the footage stationary or was it under power ?

           a) it was under power

           There is no proof about what it was doing. If anything it was heading towards the AG but the angle remains the same. The Japanese boat clearly steers left.

           If the Ady Gil was ‘inching forward’ (there is no dispute that it wasn’t) it is not Stationary, so for the anti-whalers to claim vehemently that it was ‘Dead in the Water’, ‘Motionless’, etc is bollocks.

           So what? If it was stationary or inching forward it should not have been rammed.

           To clear matters up no doubt the Japanese boat can release its GPS data.

           What is the bet that it does not?
           • Swampy 1.1.1.1.1.1

             8 January 2010 at 10:49 pm

             The Ady Gil sped up just before the collision, they were not able to turn fast enough so they ended up moving into the path of the whaler which had intended to pass very close to them.
         • grumpy 1.1.1.1.2

           8 January 2010 at 11:10 am

           If you read the account by the crew of the Ady Gil, they saw they were about to be rammed and tried to get the boat moving but too late. That is borne out by the videos.
           • Gosman 1.1.1.1.2.1

             8 January 2010 at 11:38 am

             Ummmmm…..

             How come they missed the fact that there was a rather large boat beering down upon them with a collision alarm blaring and water hoses on full until the last minute?

             Are the Anti-Whalers a bit thick? On second thought don’t answer that question.
             • grumpy …

               8 January 2010 at 11:42 am

               Your comment supports the case that the Jap boat altered course to ram them. They probably expected the Japs just to go close to intimidate as they had been doing all day.
               Real Banzai guys eh?
             • mickysavage …

               8 January 2010 at 11:49 am

               Gosman

               How come they missed the fact that there was a rather large boat beering down upon them with a collision alarm blaring and water hoses on full until the last minute?

               Maybe they thought that even the Japanese whalers would not be so stupid as to deliberately ram them?

               Do you always think the victim is the one at fault because they did not do everything possible from being assaulted?
             • Gosman …

               8 January 2010 at 12:05 pm

               The Sea Shepherd people are on record as stating they believe in aggressive actions to achieve their goals. This includes breaking maritime law, which they have been filmed doing. Why should anyone take their whinging seriously when they come off worse after such an encounter?
             • mickysavage …

               8 January 2010 at 12:14 pm

               It always amazes me that Wingnuts who jump up and down about the rule of law refuse to accept that legal protection should apply to left wing dissenters as well as to others including business interests and the ships of a nation clearly acting in breach of international obligations.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               8 January 2010 at 3:49 pm

               No Gosman, you are completely stupid and/or are trying to deliberately muddy the truth.

               The ship wasn’t bearing down on the Adi Gil until it changed direction to hit it.
             • Gosman …

               8 January 2010 at 3:56 pm

               If these protestors wish to protest in a manner which is consistent with maritime law then they deserve protection. However the Sea Shepherd organisation is on record that they do not think such laws apply to them when it comes to trying to push their cause. Hence they don’t deserve the same protection under that law. I certainly don’t support spending my tax money on sending a NZ Naval vessel down there to keep the peace.
             • infused …

               8 January 2010 at 4:11 pm

               “They probably expected the Japs just to go close to intimidate as they had been doing all day.”

               No, the anti whalers had been doing that all day. Many times, moving in front of the boat. This time, they were not so lucky.
             • roger nome …

               11 January 2010 at 2:24 am

               i’m now convinced that all the right-wing trolls on this thread are of below average i.q. how’s that for a surprise?

               next thing you know, a drunk driver does a 180 degree turn, and runs over a bunch of left-leaning people, then the trolls slur “they shouldn’t have been there! they should have moved faster! they deserved to die, they’re left-wing”. so on and on the fascist morons go…
           • Swampy 1.1.1.1.2.2

             8 January 2010 at 10:48 pm

             They should have been in reverse then. Looking at the footage from the whaler, they have gone straight forward and actually moved into the path of the ship whereas it might have missed them if they had stayed where they were. I’m guessing the Japanese have intended to pass very close, but they hadn’t picked that the Ady Gil is not keeping a lookout and ended up actually powering forwards in a panic making the collision inevitable.

             It is clear that just before the collision the Ady Gil had increased power considerably but was still going ahead, not turning, or barely turning, maybe their rudders are not effective at a slow speed as can happen depending on a ship’s design.
         • Swampy 1.1.1.1.3

           8 January 2010 at 10:32 pm

           There is a relatively small change only in the angle of view of the Barker, which is a reasonably large ship, would have been a considerable distance off, and was probably not moving very fast anyway.

           Given this I consider the Japanese ship has turned towards the Ady Gil, for some reason the Ady Gil has turned in front of the whaler and has moved too close, perhaps they thought they would be able to cut in front in time.

           To suggest an 8000 ton ship can suddenly move off at high speed to take out the Ady Gil is nonsense, it takes time for any ship to accelerate. The Ady Gil can easily outrun/out manoevre an 8000 ton ship, which would be slot to get up to the speed they were at.

           It is all a cat and mouse or chicken game and I think the claim of murder is hogwash as most of the post definitely is, there will be fault found both sides as a marine investigator has already suggested.
     • roger nome 1.1.2

       11 January 2010 at 2:16 am

       fuck, i hope vidiot isn’t a rugby video ref.
   • winston smith 1.2

     8 January 2010 at 1:44 pm

     Fool – vessels at sea do not actually have any “right of way”

     they are ‘stand on vessel’ or ‘give way’ vessels.

     This means that at no time should any vessel actually navigate its way into a collision situation, and the rules are clear that no one in command of a vessel should assume a “right of way” and should at all costs avoid a collision.

     Clauses 16 and 17 make these points – in case you missed them they’re immediately after Rule 15

     There are also international conventions governing which is a stand on vessel, such as small vessels giving way to big vessels and you can test this for yourself by parking your runabout in the middle of Rangitoto Channel in front of a container ship. Go ahead, double dare you
     • grumpy 1.2.1

       8 January 2010 at 1:51 pm

       Glenn Inwood 021 498010
       • winston smith 1.2.1.1

         8 January 2010 at 2:03 pm

         fuck off 021 123 456
     • mickysavage 1.2.2

       8 January 2010 at 4:55 pm

       Fool vessels at sea do not actually have any “right of way’

       But clause 15 says “the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way”. Sounds like a right of way to me.

       Clauses 16 and 17 make these points in case you missed them they’re immediately after Rule 15

       You mean clause 16 which says “[t]he give-way vessel must take early and substantial action to keep well clear” and clause 17 which says “[t]he stand-on vessel may take action to avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action.”

       The AG had about 5 seconds warning of the collision. What was it meant to do? Get beamed up to the mother ship?
       • Swampy 1.2.2.1

         8 January 2010 at 10:55 pm

         Stay where they were as they obviously closed the gap in that time
2. prism 2

   8 January 2010 at 10:00 am

   captcha – biology
   I see that the politicians say NZ can’t afford to provide cover for protest boats even though the Japanese are becoming more aggressive and it is admitted that it may lead to deaths. Perhaps the Japanese are becoming more aggressive because they know that NZ government and Mr McCully don’t, at the end of the day, have the integrity and guts to do anything about it.
   Appeasement is the name of the game for NZ. We can talk the talk but we won’t walk the walk. And the national character shows in their spokesman Glen Inwood?

   “the frigid ships of the Southern Ocean” would be the frigid seas I suppose Marty. How long does it take to die in the water? Minutes I think. I read a sad story once about
   a couple living in the far north of Scandinavia. The husband was standing on ice which suddenly fractured taking him away from shore. Neither he nor his wife had a boat handy to save him in time, he couldn’t afford to get wet either. She watched him drift away and he fell to his knees saying his last prayers. It’s hard to comprehend how hard those conditions are.
   But I guess the government is relaxed about it. It is just another depradation of the ocean, there are so many, let it happen, we can’t support protest it’s not National govt’s way, the easy greasy way. We can whine that we haven’t enough money. In truth the Nats would always use that argument no matter how much they had in kitty.
   And what is the Tangaroa going to be doing there? Isn’t NZ research on whales going to be happening through this ship? I want to be sure that there will be support for the ship and crew forthcoming at the smell of aggression from these Japanese pirates.
   • infused 2.1

     8 January 2010 at 4:13 pm

     Sea Shepherd has also said there maybe deaths, coming from them. Sea Shepherd are the ones upping the anti. Reap what you sow.
3. Tigger 3

   8 January 2010 at 10:14 am

   Those pesky protestors! National really do want to squash any dissent…of course, squashing dissent is the thing that creates uprisings…

   Can’t imagine how McCully might have reacted if someone had been killed. ‘Ah well, it was his own fault really so boo sucks family and friends. You probably all voted Green anyway. Losers.’
4. Andrei 4

   8 January 2010 at 10:16 am

   I see that the politicians say NZ can’t afford to provide cover for protest boats even though the Japanese are becoming more aggressive and it is admitted that it may lead to deaths. Perhaps the Japanese are becoming more aggressive because they know that NZ government and Mr McCully don’t, at the end of the day, have the integrity and guts to do anything about it.

   And why should they, if idiots want to go and play chicken with Japanese ships in the Southern Ocean why should the New Zealand taxpayer “protect” them.

   the videos suggest to me the the fool piloting the Ady Gil steered a course deliberately toward the Japanese vessel, got too close and crunch.

   Hopefully the helm settings of the Japanese ship are recorded and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that it was making a turn to port the entire time despite how it appears on the video – bear in mind the video was shot from a moving platform..
   • grumpy 4.1

     8 January 2010 at 11:07 am

     They are doing it because the NZ and particularly Australian Governments won’t.
     The Japanese boat was a “security” vessel. It’s job was to take out the protest boats.
     Nothing has changed in the Japanese mindset since WWII. That point will not be lost in Australia.
     • infused 4.1.1

       8 January 2010 at 4:14 pm

       The anti whalers had been harassing the boat all day. Many times moving in front of it.
     • Swampy 4.1.2

       8 January 2010 at 10:57 pm

       Anyone up against a ship flying a pirates flag is entitled to self defence actions. The pirates flag is incitement to lawlessness.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     8 January 2010 at 11:15 am

     No, the videos suggest that the Japanese boat steered a course directly toward the Ady Gil and hit it. This, at the very least, is attempted murder.

     Personally, I’d call it an act of war.
     • Andrei 4.2.1

       8 January 2010 at 11:34 am

       What would you call this then
       • grumpy 4.2.1.1

         8 January 2010 at 11:39 am

         Getting desperate??? Doesn’t look like the Ady Gil to me.

         This video really shows the trick of “planes of reference”. Did the Japs turn into SS path or did SS turn into the Japs??

         All we know is that the incident was investigated and no charges were laid.
         • Gosman 4.2.1.1.1

           8 January 2010 at 12:00 pm

           Ummmm… The Sea Shepherd Boat shouldn’t have been anywhere near the Japanese boat in that video.

           Why do you continue to defend the actions as if members of the Sea Shepherd crowd has not come out publically and stated that they believe the ends justifies the means.

           This group is not some tree-hugging Gandhi fan group.
           • grumpy 4.2.1.1.1.1

             8 January 2010 at 12:07 pm

             Sea Shepherd are doing a job that the NZ and aussie governments are too gutless to do. Sure they are activists but they know they are putting themselves at great risk to expose what is happening in the Southern Ocean – I admire them for that. compare them to the lily livered gutless Greenpeace protest a few years ago.

             To me it’s the Mururoa protests of my (relative) youth – except then a brave government (Labour by some fluke) led by Norman Kirk actually had the balls to do something.
             • Swampy …

               8 January 2010 at 10:59 pm

               The NZ and Australian goverments have decided quite rightly that a few hundred whales are less important than millions of of their own citizens.
         • ben 4.2.1.1.2

           8 January 2010 at 4:10 pm

           Grumpy, this comment really takes the cake: “Did the Japs turn into SS path or did SS turn into the Japs??”

           You are ridiculous.
     • Gosman 4.2.2

       8 January 2010 at 11:40 am

       An act of war against whom exactly?

       I always thought wars were fought between recognised enitities like nation states. You are now sounding like GWB and his nonsensical ‘War on Terror’ or the equally nonsensical ‘War on Drugs’
       • grumpy 4.2.2.1

         8 January 2010 at 11:48 am

         Probably you are right, it’s not technically “war” but the escalating violence in what is a default “no man’s land” means it may well become a “conflict”.

         The sudden unexpected appearance of the “Bob Barker” raises the spectre of other, more radical organisations like Agenda21 turning up with something pretty effective – like an ex Russian Battleship (now that would be fun).
5. Sanctuary 5

   8 January 2010 at 10:20 am

   Wasn’t that interview a shining beacon of, you know, REAL ACTUAL JOURNALISM on the anaemic NatRad this morning?

   The Japanese will take heart from McCully’s washing of his hands of this issue. He is a lily livered Quisling. The Australians will be dismayed that we’ve signalled we plan to do nothing to stop Japanese environmental aggression in our own backyard. I mean, ask yourself – what the fuck is Japan – a northern hemisphere nation – doing hunting whales in the Antartic? Perhaps because the greedy bastards have slaughtered all their whales and now they want everyones elses?

   We should have dispatched an Orion to very visibly photograph and make low passes by the Japanese whaling fleet and made noises about putting a naval vessel on standby. At the end of the day, if Japan wants to fight a “cod war” over whales in the Southern Ocean then I think we would win it and I say its the perfect issue to build a favourable foreign policy profile with ordinary citizens everywhere.

   Let us take them on, but let’s do it properly. The footage of New Zealand MAF patrol vessels (NOT warships – and paint them like Coast Guard vessels) boldly confronting Japanese whalers and warships in order to protect noble, rare and magnificient whales would be a absolute PR disaster for Japan’s image and bring a swift end to this affront in our Southern Oceans.
   • Gosman 5.1

     8 January 2010 at 12:07 pm

     This is not our backyard. It is thousands of kilometers from Sovereign NZ Territory, (unless you think the Ross dependency is actually ours).
   • Gosman 5.2

     8 January 2010 at 12:10 pm

     “noble, rare and magnificient whales”

     Gawd I feel sick just reading that. However it does explain why the Sea Shepherd crowd don’t go off and confront Cod fishing boats in the North Atlantic. They aren’t as ‘Cuddly’ as those ‘Cutsey wootsey’ Whales.
     • Tigger 5.2.1

       8 January 2010 at 2:21 pm

       Tell you what, you go do some protesting about cod, do as much as you like. Meanwhile the anti-whaling group will protest about whatever they want to protest about. You don’t set their agenda, they do.

       Typical right wing response – “if you’re worried about X why don’t you do Y?” It’s not an argument, it’s just a bully-boy catchcry.
       • Gosman 5.2.1.1

         8 January 2010 at 3:46 pm

         I’m simply pointing out the standard trendy lefty bandwagon jumping behaviour of protest groups such as this.

         These people can protest whatever they like for all I care, however if they engage in the sort of behaviour they do and then expect others to come running to help them when something goes wrong then they are a little thicker than I thought.
         • Pascal's bookie 5.2.1.1.1

           8 January 2010 at 4:07 pm

           Nah. Bashing hippies is the trendiest bandwagon in town.
   • Swampy 5.3

     8 January 2010 at 11:04 pm

     Why are whales more important than people in New Zealand (or elsewhere in the world)? You are advocating that they are. Only the Sea Shepherd nutters have millions of dollars to blow on whales and seals and dolphins except they could spend it all on feeding the starving in Africa if they had a clue about what really matters.

     How about asking our tangata whenua instead of imposing white guilt on the country.
     http://www.worldwhalers.com/publications/news.htm
     June 23, 2005
     Maori Support Whaling by Other Indigenous Peoples
     Maori support the right of other indigenous peoples to carry on their traditional whaling practices provided the hunting is sustainable, Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries director Archie Taiaroa says.
     Mr Tairoa was the spokesman chosen by Maori at a World Council of Whalers conference in Nelson in November, 2000…..

     June 21, 2005
     Conflict looms over Labour Party’s whaling policy (New Zealand)
     Press Release: New Zealand National Party
     Shane Jones told the New Zealand Herald in his capacity as Waitangi Fisheries Commission chairman that the Green movement’s ‘disgust’ over commercial whaling was a Pakeha (non Maori) perspective only…..

     Now I support the right of Maori tribes to say this, and to hunt whales if they wish.
     • marty mars 5.3.1

       8 January 2010 at 11:26 pm

       not all maori are in the whaling camp, as with other peoples there is a wide divergence of views
6. Ag 6

   8 January 2010 at 10:39 am

   NZ should send a frigate down there to protect NZ citizens
7. the sprout 7

   8 January 2010 at 10:46 am

   McCully is being a coward and a traitor to the interests of NZ seafarers.
   I wouldn’t travel by sea any time soon if I were him.
8. John Dalley 8

   8 January 2010 at 10:47 am

   Would you expect anything more from McCully. The man is the village idiot.
   Under maritime law the Japanese are clearly in the wrong and the Japanese footage does nothing to aid their cause.
   It will be interesting to see what international prosecutions might be forthcoming.
9. grumpy 9

   8 January 2010 at 11:03 am

   Both National and Labour before it have been gutless in confronting the Japanese. Under Labour, our maritime capability has been so reduced that we really have no ships that we could sent down.
   Australia has been even worse. This incident happenned inside waters Australia claims, Labor was elected on the promise they would stop Japanese whaling and Garrett is just a carbon copy of McCully.

   Please don’t classify vidiot and Andrei as “right wing wankers” over this. It is an issue that transcends political ideology.

   Any objective viewing of the video shows the ady gil virtually motionless in the water – don’t look at the prop disturbance, look at the lack of wake.
   The jap boat was under full power, it was a deliberate ramming and indeed, attempted murder.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     8 January 2010 at 11:25 am

     Under Labour, our maritime capability has been so reduced that we really have no ships that we could sent down.

     /facepalm

     http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm

     Project Protector fleet requirements were outlined in the 2002 Maritime Forces Review, conducted by Defence in close cooperation with MFAT, the Ministry of Fisheries, Customs, Treasury, the Maritime Safety Authority, and Police among others. In mid-2004 a study was undertaken in conjunction with the Civilian Agencies to decide the number of vessels and fleet mix necessary.

     Our military stagnated and went backwards under the 4th National government. The 5th Labour government took steps to right that under investment and took our defence forces along a more practical direction.
     • grumpy 9.1.1

       8 January 2010 at 11:34 am

       The one MRV (canterbury) is marginal for extended stays in the Southern Ocean. The OPVs, although they look the part are really only coastal ships and would be useless in the Souther Ocean.
       Even the ANZAC frigates would find it tough. The only real thing we have are the ancient Orions.
       Face it, our “blue water” Navy with Southern Ocean/antarctic ability is non existent.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

         8 January 2010 at 3:59 pm

         Yes, it’d probably be nice to have some modern destroyer class ships but we can’t get them all at the same time. Then there was the question of if we actually needed such and the review said that we didn’t.

         But, it still wasn’t Labour that allowed our defence forces to get into such a bad shape in the first place.
   • Swampy 9.2

     8 January 2010 at 11:05 pm

     The Gil started moving shortly before the collision and moved into the path such that collision is guaranteed. They were picking up speed and not turning.
10. tc 10

    8 January 2010 at 11:10 am

    Yes but we might want to have another Bledisloe Rugby Game in Japan so can’t upset the nips now can we.

    McCully’s a twat but sadly a senior twat alongside the likes of blinglish/re-Joyce…..be afraid kids, be very afraid.

    I’m not surprised given the way Nat’s encouraged the bok tour of the 80’s and the behaviour of NZ police towards those who dared to voice a different opinion……leopards and spots.

    Can’t wait for our top newshounds to ask their probing questions like……….how was hawaii John ?
11. Rob 11

    8 January 2010 at 11:39 am

    Until the Japanese are honest about the “scientific research” they do while 900 whales a year…. I dont think they have much credibility.

    If they came out and said “yes, we hunt for meat” at least they may seem more believable on what happened on the boats.

    And I thought squirting a water cannon at a boat they had just rammed, was bad sport.
    • grumpy 11.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:43 am

      So is machime gunning and chopping the heads of prisoners and civilians – you are dealing with a different mindset.
    • travellerev 11.2

      8 January 2010 at 1:02 pm

      Greenpeace Japan proved in an undercover operation that the whale hunt has nothing to do with research and everything with a Mafioso money grabbing crime.

      Clearly the Nats think that Robber baronning is the way to go.
12. travellerev 12

    8 January 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Once again in purgatory.
13. Bill 13

    8 January 2010 at 1:08 pm

    So how cold is the Southern Ocean?

    How long can a person expect to survive in it?

    What is the turning circle of the likes of the Sea Shepherd; ie how long for it to come round on itself?

    After reflecting on that type of question, the ‘serves them right’ brigade and the ‘there was no real peril’ brigade might want to quiet on down a wee bit.
    • Swampy 13.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:08 pm

      The bigger ship, the whaler – slow to manouevre at any speed.

      The Gil – very fast but it appears needs to build up speed to get water over the rudders before it can turn.

      The Gil takes off, they need the speed to turn, but they aren’t going fast enough to turn in time yet fast enough to push themselves right into the whaler’s path.
14. randal 14

    8 January 2010 at 1:11 pm

    what?
    whalemeat again!
    nah its just tory snakeoil.
    cant you tell the diference?
15. ben 15

    8 January 2010 at 1:30 pm

    This is the post that confirms for me, as if it wasn’t obvious, the total delusion that exists on the Left. This is what it takes to be a socialist. A video that shows the protester boat hit the throttles and accelerate into the path of the oncoming boat is evidence of the whalers’ fault. Uh, yeah.

    This is the same protest group that has collided with and sunk 9 ships with their can opener technology. The same group responsible for this. Incidentally, the captain responsible for that collision also blamed the Japanese.

    But sure, maybe this time it’s not their fault. Ignore the history. Ignore the wash behind the protest boat immediately prior to collision. Ignore the collision horn sounding from the Japanese boat. Ignore the lack of any discernable reason for the Japanese to collide with anyone. Consider the apparent turn to starboard by the Japanese but ignore the turn to port. And re-print the ludicrous claims from their leader who has lied and lied again to the press.

    I don’t care what cause you support. The delusion displayed here and in the comments is beyond sanity. Any cause that requires such logical contortions has no value, and anybody willing to stand up and make them has no integrity.
    • grumpy 15.1

      8 January 2010 at 1:43 pm

      They don’t sink ships with the can opener, this is how it’s done.

      http://www.earthfirst.org.uk/actionreports/node/5217
    • Bill 15.2

      8 January 2010 at 1:52 pm

      “The delusion displayed here and in the comments is beyond sanity. Any cause that requires such logical contortions has no value, and anybody willing to stand up and make them has no integrity.”

      And knowing this you voted for the Nats or ACT anyway? And adopt their ‘logic’ and argue their lines up and down the various comment threads?

      Priceless, ben. Priceless.
      • ben 15.2.1

        8 January 2010 at 3:01 pm

        Priceless? Really?
    • mickysavage 15.3

      8 January 2010 at 2:30 pm

      Ben

      A video that shows the protester boat hit the throttles and accelerate into the path of the oncoming boat is evidence of the whalers’ fault. Uh, yeah.

      Now you are making it up.

      I have posted a few photos of what the boat is capable of at my website. You can see for yourself the boat was not throttling, it was barely out of neutral if that. It was rammed into and sunk by the Japanese for the temerity of trying to stop the Japanese from illegally killing whales.

      It sucks.

      So does the rule of law apply to everyone?
      • ben 15.3.1

        8 January 2010 at 3:04 pm

        This is what I mean. You have not just a wake but cavitation where there was none and your best explanation is there was no throttle. You are ridiculous.
        • mickysavage 15.3.1.1

          8 January 2010 at 3:19 pm

          Ok so that you cannot twist my words I will rephrase it for you in simple language.

          The photos suggest that at 5 seconds before collision the boat was pretty well idle and at 3 seconds it was only just starting to get out of idle. If the skipper had floored it you would have seen a tremendous amount of spray coming out of the engine vents and there is virtually none.

          AG may have been doing a couple of knots at the time of collision.

          If it was stationary it should not have been run down.

          If it was moving it had the right of way and should not have been run down.

          It did not “hit the throttle”. Acceleration was minimal at best.

          So explain how the AG did not have the right of way, presuming that it was moving.
          • ben 15.3.1.1.1

            8 January 2010 at 4:18 pm

            And again. Keep digging. No law in the world is going to give a boat in AG’s the right to power up and cause a collision like that, even with right of way.

            And in the previous post you have JUST EXPLAINED the AG was not throttling. The very next one you say it is. You could not be more transparent.
            • Draco T Bastard 15.3.1.1.1.1

              8 January 2010 at 4:27 pm

              The AG didn’t cause the collision – the Japanese did by turning toward the AG. The AG, if it accelerated prior to the collision, was probably trying to get out of the way. Considering conditions and the design of the AG going backwards wasn’t an option.
            • mickysavage 15.3.1.1.1.2

              8 January 2010 at 4:39 pm

              Nah Ben, read again.

              You said

              A video that shows the protester boat hit the throttles and accelerate into the path of the oncoming boat is evidence of the whalers’ fault. Uh, yeah.

              I said:

              1. If it was throttling it was travelling very slowly.

              2. If it was moving it had the right of way and should not have been rammed.

              3. If it was not moving it should not have been rammed.

              Can you address these points individually instead of repeatedly saying that it accelerated into the path of the Japanese ship?

              I would invite you to take your rose tinted glasses off and look again at the videos.

              Check out Deedub’s combination of the videos. Marvel at how the Japanese ship leans to the right as it turns into the AG. And explain how you can say that it was all the AG’s fault.
      • Gosman 15.3.2

        8 January 2010 at 3:52 pm

        Ummmmmm…….

        What law are they supposed breaching that makes their Whaling activities illegal?
        • mickysavage 15.3.2.1

          8 January 2010 at 4:42 pm

          Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm
        • grumpy 15.3.2.2

          8 January 2010 at 8:32 pm

          A ruling of the Australian Federal Court that whaling is illegal in that area.
          • Gosman 15.3.2.2.1

            8 January 2010 at 10:38 pm

            In case you missed the whole Antartic thing, Aussie law doesn’t hold sway down on the ice. It was agreed to suspend all claims . Hence why the Aussies aren’t sending their rather larger Navy down south.
    • Swampy 15.4

      8 January 2010 at 11:16 pm

      Thanks for that perspective.

      The Sea Shepherd are like the abortion clinic bombers, they paint their ships black, carry the pirate flag on them, whatever it takes …
16. randal 16

    8 January 2010 at 1:54 pm

    whatever the tactics ben the cause is right.
    and waffling on about seamanship to a gang of landlubbers is tootoo twee for me.
    this is about building ships and big men on the fishmarket floor in tokyo.
    they are so big that they can play games with the world just for their own immediate status values while limpdick apolgists split hairs and confuse the issue.
    and last but not least ben.
    what are they actually going to do when there are no whales left?
    • ben 16.1

      8 January 2010 at 3:12 pm

      Here’s the thing, Randal. The quality of the cause is in my view decided by the quality of the supporting argument. If the cause cannot be won by convincing others of your point of view then then your cause isn’t persuasive. Resorting to lying and physical hostility simply underlines the fact that anti-whalers don’t have a very good argument. Arguments defended at the point of a gun, or in this case the bow of a ship, cannot generally be good arguments. A bit like religion, really.
      • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1

        8 January 2010 at 4:04 pm

        That doesn’t make much sense actually. It assumes that everyone is open to argument, everyone is working from the same presuppositions and everyone is arguing in good faith.
        This leads you to here:

        ” Resorting to lying and physical hostility simply underlines the fact that anti-whalers don’t have a very good argument.”

        Which is classic ad hom. In spite of your initial claim to be focussed on the arguments, you abandon the argument and judge things by what else the person making an argument is doing.

        The obvious godwinning of the thread would have you rejecting the allies cause because they failed to convince h1tler with their arguments.

        Likewise, you’d be on the ‘wrong’ side of most civil liberties battles in history, and deeply troubled by the way the west ended up with representative democracy instead of retaining our absolute monarchies, and so on and so forth.

        The very common fact is that people actually genuinely believe different things and no amount of argument will change their positions, at this point other types of confrontation become likely. You don’t have to choose a side of course.
        • ben 16.1.1.1

          8 January 2010 at 4:40 pm

          Which is classic ad hom. In spite of your initial claim to be focussed on the arguments, you abandon the argument and judge things by what else the person making an argument is doing.

          Ugh. God that’s a horrible argument. Truly awful.

          would have you rejecting the allies cause because they failed to convince h1tler with their arguments.

          Except that Hitler posed a threat to their existence. Which is not the same as a disagreement on, essentially, personal values.

          Yes – people believe different things. And there is a process for resolving those differences, which is the law, which is being openly flouted by these protesters. Furthermore, it is not usually considered helpful to have the majority vote to force a minority around to their view on matters of personal values. Finally, support for protesters taking such radical action in support of their views is an invitation to anarchy. Consistency is not a feature of many people on this site, the view seems to be in support of radical action when its for something you agree with, and for any other cause certainly not.

          But if its ok to ram and sink boats in support of one cause, why is it not ok to run Steven Joyce off the road for his mobile phone ban or set fire to the ACC building for another failure or torch any billboard I don’t like. In short: justify a world in which people are free to decide their ends justify any means (Hint: try to think of a reason other than the fact that those happen not to be causes you support.)
          • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.1.1

            8 January 2010 at 5:08 pm

            “Ugh. God that’s a horrible argument. Truly awful.”

            Argument by assertion, followed up with some irrelevant arguments from consequences.
          • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.1.2

            8 January 2010 at 5:47 pm

            Even though it’s irrelevant, I’ll just quickly point out that people that engaged in civil disobedience accept the consequences of that disobedience. It’s kind of the point.

            One part of the tactical equation is that your opponent may step beyond the accepted consequences, giving you some propaganda opportunities. Another part is that the public may feel that the agreed consequences themselves are harsh, again leading to propaganda opportunities and the hoped for changes. That’s the background to the issues that you are so misreading.

            Seeing you’ve made the allegation, I’d love to see you quote me or anyone else condemning people for taking civil disobedience style action based on the basis we disagree with their aims. You have a habit of assuming bad faith ben, and another of arguing by assertion. neither of these are generally considered up to the standard you seem to think you operate at.
            • ben 16.1.1.1.2.1

              9 January 2010 at 4:48 pm

              I’m up for a good sharing of opinions any time Pascal but there comes a point when an opponent takes a position so transparently silly that I assume it is disingenuous and designed only to waste the time of anyone taking the time to respond. You say a lot of smart things, actually, but I thought the ad hominem argument above crossed that line and didn’t want to take the time. Plus there was a bit on at work.
17. tc 17

    8 January 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Hey randal,

    I hear they’re going to harvest (for scientific purposes of course) Seals and Dolphins……once they’ve plundered all the local ones.

    A barbaric warlike culture that’s still recovering it’s capabilities from the post WW2 de-knackering…..after which the US taught it how to have the best quality processes on the planet…..nice one.

    I agree with the rights of protesters but knowing the nips…..I wouldn’t give them the chance as we can all see what happens.

    Same reasons I never gave the red squad during the bok tour a chance to smash my head in the name of democracy.
    • Swampy 17.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:21 pm

      Some of what is being put up against the Japanese whalers is borderline racism. Just like Minto and Co attacking that tennis player because she is an Israeli.

      I hope to see the quality of this discussion improve because it is nothing to do with being Japanese. Plenty of other nations have hunted whales in their time.
18. burt 18

    8 January 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Ben

    I couldn’t agree more. mickysavage once again just looks though his one half blind eye and only sees what suites his agenda. Then being a good sock puppet for his half witted masters he makes stuff up and gets angry when challenged with facts.

    And now the Ady Gil has sunk and I bet conveniently the GPS data from the 5 minutes prior to accelerating into the path of the Japanese ship will be lost.

    This has become a joke, if the GPS wasn’t removed from the vessel then there should be an automatic assumption of guilt on the part of the Ady Gil. They had a chance to retain evidence that would have convicted or vindicated them – did they take it?

    If not why not?
    • mickysavage 18.1

      8 January 2010 at 3:03 pm

      Burt

      I bet conveniently the GPS data from the 5 minutes prior to accelerating into the path of the Japanese ship will be lost

      There might be a slight problem. It may now be on the sea bed with the boat.

      They had a chance to retain evidence that would have convicted or vindicated them did they take it?

      Maybe they had more pressing things to do like save their lives.

      Are you being serious?
19. greenfly 19

    8 January 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Your fine print describes your desire to see David Farrar adrift in the frigid waters, in order to see how long he would last – the Penguin is very well insulated and suited to survive in those conditions, so presumably he’d last longer than any of us would wish.
20. burt 20

    8 January 2010 at 3:09 pm

    mickysavage

    Saving their lives was an easy thing to do mickysavage. When the ship was about 200m away and blasting it’s warning sirens and water canons the skipper on the Ady Gil could have just moved away. It takes two to tango mickysavage and it is indeed lucky nobody was killed in the game of chicken we see in the video’s

    Let me guess, not dramatic enough to stay a safe (10m would have been enough) distance from the ship you are harassing?
21. burt 21

    8 January 2010 at 3:15 pm

    mickysavage

    All you have left now is to claim that the Japanese ship out manouvered the Ady Gil – go on tell us how hundreds of tons of ship can hunt down and destroy an agile fast small craft that just couldn’t escape the relentless attack over days and days….

    Go the whole hog micky, you have sold your soul 95% so just jump fully into la-la-land.
22. Brett 22

    8 January 2010 at 3:16 pm

    You poke the bear you get the claws.
23. burt 23

    8 January 2010 at 3:27 pm

    mickysavage

    If when you have right of way in your car you have an accident because you had right of way so you just kept doing what you were doing even when an accident was evident then;

    1. You are in the right
    2. You are a useless driver
    3. You have show blatant disregard for the saftey of your passengers

    So if the skipper of the Ady Gil was in the right then legally OK… but this makes him an idiot unworthy of his skippers ticket.

    You can’t win this – both skippers had an obligation to avoid a colision…. this is the overriding rule in play here… keep up.
24. DeeDub 24

    8 January 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Captcha: close !!?!

    I’ve put both videos together here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkCTyy8DdXk

    Looks like an intentional ramming to me the more I look at it.
    • Swampy 24.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:39 pm

      Looks to me like the Ady Gil accidentally cut in front of the whaling ship, confirmed by 3 News analysis
      http://www.3news.co.nz/Experts-Ady-Gil-tried-to-cross-Japanese-ships-bow/tabid/417/articleID/136461/Default.aspx

      Capt Varney is an experienced maritime accident investigator and has been a captain for more than 50 years. He says both vessels were ignoring international maritime law, and suspects the Ady Gil unintentionally moved into the Japanese boat’s path.

      “It may have been a miscalculation on the part of the Ady Gil. He may have been attempting to cross the bow.”

      Captain Tim Wilson from the New Zealand Maritime School agrees that the Ady Gil was accelerating when it was hit by the Japanese ship.

      “We can see the two vessels coming together,” he says of the footage supplied by Sea Shephard. “Clearly it appears that they are going to pass clear – at this point, we can see the Ady Gil moving very slowly across.”

      But watching the Japanese footage, he adds: “The Adi Gil appears to suddenly start moving – you can see the sudden increase in wake as she moves forward.”

      But the motivation behind the move is murky.

      “They tried to accelerate and get some control and move ahead of the bow,” says Capt Wilson. “The other thing could have been that they moved into the impact zone.”
25. Jum 25

    8 January 2010 at 4:03 pm

    The real losers while the governments of both countries play politics – the whales. Shame and a killer pox on both their houses.

    Solution: stick them in the barns planned for the McKenzie country and feed them their own sxxxt. Result: they stop milking us and solve a whole emissions problem.
26. BLiP 26

    8 January 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Might be about time to start following groups of Japanese tourists around with a loud hailer, signs and information about what their government is doing.
    • ben 26.1

      8 January 2010 at 4:44 pm

      Here’s an idea Blip. Tonight I’m going to stand outside your home with a loudhailer and yell at you for all the things the Labour Party did that I didn’t like. Now you may not have voted for Labour. And you certainly are not individually responsible for all the things they did that I don’t like. And I’ll probably scare the hell out of your family. But you’re a New Zealander, right?

      I will be doing to you what you are talking about doing to Japanese tourists. Any objections?
      • prism 26.1.1

        8 January 2010 at 4:57 pm

        You are talking about different things Blip and ben.
        Blip is responding to a reported lack of information in Japan about the whaling environment and how this could be improved.
        Ben is thinking about individual rights to peace without being harrassed about anything whether for good intentions or not.
    • Swampy 26.2

      8 January 2010 at 11:41 pm

      Why? SHould everyone buy a load hailer and run around abusing everyone about everything all day. Such protest actions are not too subtle racism. It’s ironic Minto and co claimed to be fighting racism when they are targeting sports players based solely on being Israeli.
27. prism 27

    8 January 2010 at 4:53 pm

    If an overview is taken, this whale hunting problem probably just meshes into a number of conflicts over the world as people take what they want and sneer at those who attempt to control them.
    Imagine how it will increase as we lose our natural resources and the growing population heaves and pushes and will not even consider controlling growth and plan and make necessary changes to limit fallout from future problems.
28. Jum 28

    8 January 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Murray McCully’s comment about a person on a small vessel trying to kill a Japanese on a huge ship is a huge clue about how he feels towards living creatures. Might is more important than integrity and humanity. That is the whole of the NAct government’s ideal.

    ‘Money, money, money…it’s a rich man’s world’.

    Human and animal rights have no place in this government’s future. I so hope it’s future is short .
    • Swampy 28.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:42 pm

      People are living creatures and there are 4 million in this country. People are much more important than whales.
29. Jenny 29

    8 January 2010 at 6:37 pm

    Is the Southern Ocean a lawless territory?

    If it is, then it is inevitable that the struggle over whaling will escalate to human blood shed and tragedy.

    For this reason the proper authorities need to act.

    According to its statistics the Shonan Maru has a top speed of 12 knots.

    http://www.researchvessels.org/country/Japan/shonan_maru_2.html

    This gives credence to the claim by the protesters that though in close proximity, both ships were idling at the time, when the Shonan Maru suddenly accelerated and deliberately ran down the Ady Gill.

    With a top speed of 40 knots and a cruising speed: 20 knots, the Ady Gil, if it had been fully underway as the whalers claim; it would have been unlikely for the Shonan Maru to have matched and run over the Ady Gil in the manner described by the whalers.

    There needs to be proper hearing to determine if the ramming of Ady Gil was a deliberate act as described by the protesters, or a reckless miscalculation by the protesting vessel as it was fully underway, as alleged by the whalers. Both sets of allegations are serious and need to be investigated.

    If the allegations of the protesters are proven, then the master of the Shonan Maru would be guilty of showing a callous disregard for human life and should be charged with breaching maritime safety laws.

    Conversely, if the protesters are found to be guilty of the reckless navigation of their vessel while underway, then they too should expect to charged with reckless use of a vessel while making way, under the maritime laws of the respective governments with statutory authority in this matter.

    It can only be by pure luck that no one in the crew of the Ady Gil was killed or seriously injured in this singular act.

    If this incident is not investigated under the international rules of safe navigation at sea. Then the Japanese whalers may well feel emboldened to think that they can get human blood on their hands as well as cetacean, and be able to get away with it.

    If nothing is done because these incidents occurred on the open sea, then the protesters may also conclude that there are no holds barred in this struggle and also claim a mandate to act as they see fit.

    If nothing is done by the proper authorities then the escalation to human tragedy, and loss of life, as well as the loss of more vessels is inevitable.

    It behoves the authorities to prevent this tragedy.

    What sort of penalties should be considered to prevent a repeat?

    The penalties should fit the crime. At the very least the international marine certification tickets of any individuals found guilty of breaching the laws of safe navigation should be revoked.

    Impoundment and confiscation of the offending vessels should also be considered as a remedy that would punish not just the individuals but also the organisations responsible, as a disincentive for them condoning this sort of offending by their members or employees.

    As the Ady Gil is a New Zealand registered vessel and the incident occurred in the Australian international rescue territory, it behoves both governments to act.

    Excuses for inaction by either government or their respective enforcement agencies would be a dereliction of fiduciary duty and responsibility.

    In simple language, such a cowardly cop-out to act to prevent further damage and destruction in the Southern Ocean would mean some of the blame for the inevitable deaths and destruction of property could also be laid at the doorstep of these authorities.

    PS. New Zealand enforcement authorities seem to show remarkable enthusiasm and initiative to “preserve the peace” on land, and will go to great lengths, even if, means must, breaking the law to achieve it.

    To bad they don’t show the same sort of enthusiasm for preserving the peace at sea.
    • Swampy 29.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:47 pm

      The Shonan Maru is an 8000 ton ship with a top speed of only 12 knots. Clearly the Shonan Maru does not have enough engine power to take off “suddenly” as claimed. 12 knots is pretty slow. From standstill it takes a long time to accelerate a ship like that if it only has a top speed of 12 knots.

      I have no doubt if Watson could get away with murder, he would, that is why he flys the pirate’s flag on his ships, he believes his cause is noble enough, they have no qualms about trying to sink the ships regardless, turn it around and it Watson had a chance of ramming the Japanese ship out of the water he would have.

      I don’t think that Sea Shepherd are yet crazy enough to try to kill someone but they are definitely heading in that direction.
30. prism 30

    8 January 2010 at 6:58 pm

    I think I will have to give some money to a recovery fund for this great ship – a sacrifice to the planet earth it raced around.
31. Pete 31

    8 January 2010 at 7:09 pm

    Why is anyone defending the Japanese?

    My problem is that this is our part of the world – hunt whales in your own waters Japan.

    At a government level we look like pussies, as said by others previously we used to make a stand on these things.

    I’m off to buy another Toyota.
32. quenchino 32

    8 January 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Words are fine but not serving overly much; put some money on the table.
33. Pete 33

    8 January 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Done…

    http://www.seashepherd.org/support-us/
    • grumpy 33.1

      8 January 2010 at 8:37 pm

      Ditto. Thanks for the reminder Pete.
34. Swampy 34

    8 January 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Any nutter who is dumb enough to paint a pirate’s flag on their ship deserves everything they get.

    But the Japanese did not try to murder anyone. How much do you want to bet the Maritime investigation will find otherwise. What kind of crap is this.
35. mickysavage 35

    8 January 2010 at 10:34 pm

    To all of the wingnuts who have maintained, after seeing the videos, that the Adi Gil accelerated into the path of the Japanese support boat, can I refer you all to the following press release from Reuters.

    To quote:

    Japan’s Fisheries Agency said the collision took place when Ady Gil suddenly slowed down as it crossed in front of Shonan Maru, which had warned the boat of impending danger.

    So what was it? Did the AG accelerate in front of the Japanese boat or did it slow down in front of the Japanese boat? Maybe it did both.

    A further quote,

    Ady Gil did not send a distress signal and did not appear to be sinking, the Agency said, adding that Shonan Maru did not suffer major damage and its crew were safe.

    I am sure that the boat was fine, it was only a flesh wound, nothing serious, just a scratch …
    • burt 35.1

      8 January 2010 at 10:52 pm

      mickysavage

      So crossing the bow of a massive ship in a much smaller craft close enough to take a hit is appropriate behaviour in the southern oceans now, naughty Japanese it’s all their fault the Ady Gil got the timing slightly wrong isn’t it.

      You don’t get this do you.
    • Swampy 35.2

      8 January 2010 at 11:50 pm

      Can I refer you to maritime experts as quoted on 3 News.
      http://www.3news.co.nz/Experts-Ady-Gil-tried-to-cross-Japanese-ships-bow/tabid/417/articleID/136461/Default.aspx

      They support my contention that the Gil has accidentally moved into the path of the whaling ship. Due to the fact they could not turn until they get under way, they have tried to get under way which has moved them right into the whaler’s path before they could turn out. If they had sat still they may not have been hit, perhaps they should have tried reversing.
36. mickysavage 36

    8 January 2010 at 11:03 pm

    So Burt did the AG accelerate in front of the bow of the massive ship or did it slow down in front of the massive ship. The apologists for the Japanese Government have suggested both possibilities.

    And what about its right of way?

    You seem to be confusing right with might.
    • burt 36.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:11 pm

      Mickysavage

      This will be settled in an inquiry, not this blog here and now. You are convinced by one parties story and have no concept of any possibility that the AG simply got too close. You simply can’t claim that an agile maneuverable vessel like the AG was acting responsibly from such limited evidence. All vessels have an obligation to respect other vessels micky, this is not possibly the fault of only one party.
      • Jenny 36.1.1

        8 January 2010 at 11:22 pm

        Well fudged, burt
        • burt 36.1.1.1

          8 January 2010 at 11:36 pm

          I see the AG accelerate it’s engines just before impact, I think it stuffed up and got to close. But I’m not trying to convince you of that Jenny. Micky has made conclusion, he knows. 16 seconds of video isn’t enough info for me to “know” what went on.
      • mickysavage 36.1.2

        8 January 2010 at 11:23 pm

        Burt Quote 1

        This has become a joke, if the GPS wasn’t removed from the vessel then there should be an automatic assumption of guilt on the part of the Ady Gil. They had a chance to retain evidence that would have convicted or vindicated them did they take it?

        Burt Quote 2

        This will be settled in an inquiry, not this blog here and now. You are convinced by one parties story and have no concept of any possibility that the AG simply got too close. You simply can’t claim that an agile maneuverable vessel like the AG was acting responsibly from such limited evidence. All vessels have an obligation to respect other vessels micky, this is not possibly the fault of only one party.

        Are these quotes reconcilable?
        • burt 36.1.2.1

          8 January 2010 at 11:35 pm

          The AG has remarkable tracking equipment, live GPS feeds to the world remember. If there is a void of tracking data in the information supplied by the AG team at an inquiry then yes – they are hiding something.
    • burt 36.2

      8 January 2010 at 11:40 pm

      So Burt did the AG accelerate in front of the bow of the massive ship

      That would explain the Japanese ship changing it’s tactic from trying to steer behind the AG to trying to steer ahead of it. The tracking and radar logging data will settle this.
    • Swampy 36.3

      8 January 2010 at 11:52 pm

      The Ady Gil tried to get up speed so they could make a sharp turn away but in order to get up speed they have to go straight ahead which has pushed them into the path of the Japanese ship. They should have reversed.
37. Gooner 37

    8 January 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Bullshit Burt. The Standard is the arbiter of right and wrong. Red Alert said so:

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/01/08/pete-bethune-and-the-whale-killers/comment-page-1/#comment-25418
    • burt 37.1

      8 January 2010 at 11:23 pm

      OMFG – 16 seconds of video tracking a ship turning this way and that toward a boat this is either dead in the water, accelerating or decelerating gives the experts at Red Alert enough evidence to judge all that. Man no wonder Trever did such a great job at closing schools, he’s a natural born hack.
38. Pete 38

    9 January 2010 at 12:12 am

    That boat did not accelerate toward the whaler – this has been comprehensively explained earlier in this thread. All boats leave a wake relative to the direction of the surface water movement – look at the bow wave generated by the whaler – more importantly look at the water cannon directed on the cab and explain how this may not have clouded the skippers view.

    Grow up and stick up for this part of the globe
39. Pete 39

    9 January 2010 at 12:40 am

    Swampy… physics does not allow boat propellers to work efficiently in reverse – it would be like doing a wheelspin in reverse up a mud bank in a car.

    Again look at the maritime laws for the powered vessel positions and rules (regardless of what may have happened previously).
40. Pete 40

    9 January 2010 at 12:43 am

    Guys…

    Please don’t have the retarded belief that GPS positioning will prove all – you need to read up on its capabilities.
41. Pete 41

    9 January 2010 at 1:32 am

    …”On January 1st, 2010 two men, Glen Inwood and Chris Johnston from Omeka Communications located in Wellington, New Zealand chartered a Chieftain aircraft out of Melbourne. They identified themselves as acting on behalf of the government of New Zealand to track down and locate a New Zealand catamaran and the Steve Irwin on the pretext that if they (the Sea Shepherd ships) were to get in trouble it would cost the New Zealand government a great deal of money to rescue. They wanted the ships located and an estimate given of their track and speed”…

    OK not unbiased but this prick pisses me off…

    We need to grow some balls… we are being made to look like dicks.
    • prism 41.1

      9 January 2010 at 11:56 am

      Did Inwood and Johnston have NZ government agreement or request when they stated their reasons for hiring plane I wonder? Since when have we employed this Glen Inwood who is a lobbyist for the Japanese? And if they lied they should be arrested as frauds and probably terrorists.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS