American Warship threatens to open fire on unarmed civilian ship....in SCOTLAND!

Originally Posted by stevebaby

Unless the harbour has restricted space and the ferry has strayed into that space,then the warship is under an obligation to avoid a collision if its master believes one to be imminent.The obligation rests on the warship to change course.If the warship fails to change course,then the ferry master was correct to change his course.
If the warship's commander was not informed of the presence of a civilian ferry making regular scheduled crossings then something has gone wrong.
Given the relative speed capabilities of the two vessels it would appear that the ferry was unlikely to be in an overtaking situation.If the warship was overtaking the ferry then it is obliged to give way to it.
Transmitting on VHF16 is clearly not intended for a naval vessel."Enemy" vessels would definitely not be using VHF16,which would be available to be overheard by every civilian vessel within range.They would be using restricted naval channels available to the "friendlies".
If there was no risk of collision and the ferry was not in restricted waters then the warship has no right to tell the ferry to do anything and in British waters,no right to threaten to fire live ammunition at it.
Actually,on the face of it the warship commander may be technically liable for criminal charges.

Originally Posted by MountainPro

absolutely, no arguement here...

however, common sense should have told you that when moored in a busy shipping lane you may come across the occasional....err, ship.

Originally Posted by Scotty_Dog

According to the article you posted, the warship was not moored when it made the request for identity of the ferry.

Originally Posted by stevebaby

If there was no risk of collision and the ferry was not in restricted waters then the warship has no right to tell the ferry to do anything and in British waters,no right to threaten to fire live ammunition at it.
Actually,on the face of it the warship commander may be technically liable for criminal charges.

Originally Posted by Eldrack

Probably just a very lame practical joke..............

Originally Posted by Scotty_Dog

I deleted it because I decided to use some restraint, much like the warship.

And now here's a thought for you: if you're so morally high and mighty, why not pay for the stolen bike fork?

Originally Posted by wolfix

Presbyterians came from Scotland???? OMG!!!! I have a little Scottish blood myself , but after being married to a Presby I can easily say that it is a very bad black mark upon the Scottish soul .....

I better google up some info on the origins of Presbyterianism........ We need to be vigilant against importing of terrorism.....

Originally Posted by stevebaby

Unless the harbour has restricted space and the ferry has strayed into that space,then the warship is under an obligation to avoid a collision if its master believes one to be imminent.The obligation rests on the warship to change course.If the warship fails to change course,then the ferry master was correct to change his course.
If the warship's commander was not informed of the presence of a civilian ferry making regular scheduled crossings then something has gone wrong.
Given the relative speed capabilities of the two vessels it would appear that the ferry was unlikely to be in an overtaking situation.If the warship was overtaking the ferry then it is obliged to give way to it.
Transmitting on VHF16 is clearly not intended for a naval vessel."Enemy" vessels would definitely not be using VHF16,which would be available to be overheard by every civilian vessel within range.They would be using restricted naval channels available to the "friendlies".
If there was no risk of collision and the ferry was not in restricted waters then the warship has no right to tell the ferry to do anything and in British waters,no right to threaten to fire live ammunition at it.
Actually,on the face of it the warship commander may be technically liable for criminal charges.

Originally Posted by Wurm

It doesn't take overweening morality to not illegally invade a sovereign nation and then murder innocent people. It only takes the good sense to follow the common law of the world.

I see 2FAST4U has been hard at work spreading his lies and slander around behind the scenes again. That's OK, because he may not be aware (yet) that I've begun steps to prosecute him for his actions here on YBSB and elsewhere. Now you can PM that back to your loser friend.

Try this on for morality, Scotty_Dog: If you're saying in a public forum that I stole something that didn't belong to me, I suggest you have hard evidence supporting the accusation you're throwing - not just hearsay and gossip. You should learn to stay out of things that don't concern you. Otherwise, you may find yourself in court for slander/libel.

Originally Posted by BillM

The smaller vessel is responsible to change course.

Originally Posted by MountainPro

there is absolutely no risk of collision...

the ferry travels across the river from the north shore to the south and back again...two ferries simultaneously serve the route.

the warship wanted to pass through the ferries path and told it to stop or it will fire a rocket (or whatever they fire on civilain craft these days) at them...

if the warship wanted past, its just a case of travelling at medium speed across the path, the ferries will adjust thier course to aviod any chance off collision.

now, hundreds of ship pass in the path these ferries...none have ever hit one. These ship include an entire naval fleet including nuclear subs, other ferry companies and ships coming to and from the ship yards dotted along the Clyde which build and refit ships from small vessels to the QE2 (twice the size of the warship in question)...

there was simply no excuse...they were being overly aggressive. The captain of the warship has apologised publically...which means he has accepted responsibility.

Originally Posted by Scotty_Dog

That's quite a few "If" qualifiers factored into your statements.