Jump to content

Damn the Rules, Rocna Inventor doing the NW Passage


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Island Time said:

And in this case I've been in two minds as what to do about it. I agree with Priscilla's post, but it is a personal attack I guess, and KM's response is also a breach of the rules. I'll go back and remove them both I guess.

This should be elsewhere but as it isn't.

Tweak away but when you do note you have so people know they are not reading the post made by the poster, they are reading one that's been fiddled with, that is dangerous stuff and to do it secretly is even more so. Just a simple 'I've tweaked with this post which may inadvertently distort the posters views or the intent of it, Love to all, IT'.

Also if someone breaks the rules TELL them what which one it was, do not do so is to only invite the exact same thing to happen again. 

Clarity brings understanding, a lack of it only breeds conspiracy theories, mistrust and the same thing happening again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've reported this post. Adopting the language of the extreme right to describe people who support the rule of law sets a dangerous precedent for this forum. 

I'm getting offended by the amount of offense being taken around here. No one is calling anyone a w^&#$@r, a c**t or a fuckwit, which would be highly offensive. The OP is ju

Posted Images

1 hour ago, 2flit said:

Yes, but  I think he is technically making a 'Landfall' if he is anchoring on Canadian soil.

 

Quote

I might tend to view this differently if he was making a non-stop passage, but because I have read that he is anchoring and if true, the guy is violating Canadian Law.

The right of innocent passage [...] must be continuous and expeditious, but includes stopping and anchoring in the course of ordinary navigation, or [...] 

^^^^

That's taken from an NZ Government document in reference to foreign ships anchoring at the Kermadec Islands while exercising their right to innocent passage.

Surely dropping anchor, while waiting for the the wind to change direction to move a gazillion ton ice berg, would be considered 'ordinary navigation'? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

 

The right of innocent passage [...] must be continuous and expeditious, but includes stopping and anchoring in the course of ordinary navigation, or [...] 

^^^^

That's taken from an NZ Government document in reference to foreign ships anchoring at the Kermadec Islands while exercising their right to innocent passage.

I would suspect, that dropping anchor, while waiting for the the wind to change direction to move a gazillion ton ice berg, would be considered normal navigation. 

nice, great work... do you have a  link to the entire document and a page citation if needed?  Thank-you for the post

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

 

The right of innocent passage [...] must be continuous and expeditious, but includes stopping and anchoring in the course of ordinary navigation, or [...] 

^^^^

That's taken from an NZ Government document in reference to foreign ships anchoring at the Kermadec Islands while exercising their right to innocent passage.

Surely dropping anchor, while waiting for the the wind to change direction to move a gazillion ton ice berg, would be considered 'ordinary navigation'? 

Yes absolutely agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2flit said:

Yes, but  I think he is technically making a 'Landfall' if he is anchoring on Canadian soil. 

In NZ waters the moment you drop your anchor is the moment you are regarded by the powers that be as 'making landfall'.

I'd think that is probably universal thing and the same would apply in Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2flit said:

nice, great work... do you have a  link to the entire document and a page citation if needed?  Thank-you for the post

Well I now cannot find the link - lol - it was on the DOC website 😕 - it's not even showing up in Google.

Here are some other references - unfortunately not by NZ government:

Article 18: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm 

http://heardisland.antarctica.gov.au/protection-and-management/legislation-and-other-requirements/international-agreements

^^ The bottom three paragraphs of this are the exact same text that was in the PDF on the DOC website.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...