Damn the Rules, Rocna Inventor doing the NW Passage

[Priscilla II 246]

 Pete is caught between a Rocna and a hard place.

[Black Panther 654]

https://news.oceancruisingclub.org/home/index/1386

 

Who thinks these guys should ignore the bureaucrats and sail to NZ.

[grantmc 59]

24 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

https://news.oceancruisingclub.org/home/index/1386
Who thinks these guys should ignore the bureaucrats and sail to NZ.

Suggest you start another thread. 
BUT ...
In answer to your question, I think that ignoring the law and just sailing to NZ or Oz would have significant negative consequences. 
In Oz they'd just be regarded as wealthy 'boat people', their yachts confiscated and lengthy periods in one of the many Immigration camps until they could be repatriated.
Here in NZ consequences wouldn't be much better. 

 

[Black Panther 654]

I like it in this thread. Check the title of this thread.

 

[Fish 594]

1 hour ago, Black Panther said:

https://news.oceancruisingclub.org/home/index/1386

 

Who thinks these guys should ignore the bureaucrats and sail to NZ.

Different circumstances, one example someone wants to transit a waterway near a country, the other, people want to enter that country and stay for an extended period. In the second example, how they get there is largely irrelevant in the eyes of immigration, and for all practical purposes, the issue is entry to the country, not that they sailed to that country. In the other example, you could put an arguement it is a freedom of navigation exercise. The only similarity is that both examples are on boats.

[Black Panther 654]

Disagree.  In both examples sailors are disregarding the wishes of another country. 

And i still contend that doing so will have negative fallout for those who follow. 

[Sabre 336]

26 minutes ago, Fish said:

Different circumstances, one example someone wants to transit a waterway near a country, the other, people want to enter that country and stay for an extended period. In the second example, how they get there is largely irrelevant in the eyes of immigration, and for all practical purposes, the issue is entry to the country, not that they sailed to that country. In the other example, you could put an arguement it is a freedom of navigation exercise. The only similarity is that both examples are on boats.

+1

The only similarity is that both stories involve bureaucrats that have lost the ability to apply common sense to situation.

[Kevin McCready 27]

Bureaucrats don't make laws. They interpret them and are subject to the courts. At least learn to vent your spleen appropriately.

[chariot 131]

17 minutes ago, Kevin McCready said:

Bureaucrats don't make laws. They interpret them and are subject to the courts. At least learn to vent your spleen appropriately.

They may not make laws but as with all laws, it is down to interpretation. You will find different bureaucrats have different interpretations which leeds to total confusion.

[Sabre 336]

13 minutes ago, Kevin McCready said:

Bureaucrats don't make laws. They interpret them and are subject to the courts. At least learn to vent your spleen appropriately.

I think that depends on your interpretation of the word Kev.

Bureaucracy (/bjʊəˈrɒkrəsi/) refers to both a body of non-elected government officials and an administrative policy-making group.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

That aside interpretation seems to be the crux of the problem here atleast in the Peter Smith situation.

As far as the pacific cruisers are concerned I am sure the policy that effects them could easily be ammended or at the very least influenced by dare I say it, bureaucrats....