Usually they don't enter another countries airspace or ignore communication attempts when very close never mind actually inside. The normal procedure for general intelligence gathering is to run a track ~15 miles or so outside of the target country airspace and for testing response times, etc. they'd normally turn away well in advance once challenged.
Ships under attack in the middle east
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
Usually they don't enter another countries airspace or ignore communication attempts when very close never mind actually inside. The normal procedure for general intelligence gathering is to run a track ~15 miles or so outside of the target country airspace and for testing response times, etc. they'd normally turn away well in advance once challenged.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,711
Last edited:
Ooh, that's pretty interesting, I hadn't seen that. Explains why the UK decided to stop the ship for the USA even though Spain refused their request, altering your laws on the fly is very very dirty IMO.
*EDIT*
The times have done an article on it today: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ctions-laws-to-impound-iranian-ship-lc5vm59bh
So basically the UK knew we couldn't lawfully stop the ship under EU law as EU sanctions didn't apply to it so it wasn't breaking EU laws, so we changed the Gibraltarian laws on the fly to allow its seizure, dirty dirty.
No, I don't know why so many people continue with this nonsense but again:
Gibraltar is in the EU, EU regulations do apply there, to all civilian ships and aircraft.
Whether or not Gibraltar needs to update legislation in order to make sure they can enforce these EU rules doesn't mean the EU rules don't apply. Trying to cite this is yet another attempt at grasping at straws and your conclusion above, in bold, is again incorrect.
I think you need to learn to read...
It was already EU law, they made it more robust by adding it to local law.
The times are pretty clear with this comment from your own link
"The legality of the seizure has been challenged. However, Anna Bradshaw, a sanctions lawyer with the London firm Peters & Peters, said it was an offence to “participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities” designed to evade sanctions.
By entering EU waters the ship was allegedly carrying out such activities while under EU jurisdiction."
Are you more legally qualified thana specialist sanctions lawyer?
So what it did was illegal and you have a problem with that being stopped, why?
Usually but not all the time, a few years ago some Russian supersonic bombers entered our airspace and made a mock bombing run on Hull. In fairness thought the RAF didn't manage to detect them until they aborted and turned around seconds from the target, so if they had been picked up earlier they may have been less ballsy.
Because the law was changed 36 hours before hand to make it illegal, in what was blatantly a direct attempt to entrap the ship. That's what I have problem with.
Previously my problem was with the fact the ship had been stopped unlawfully (as the EU sanctions didn't apply to it so it couldn't violate them and in the process break EU law) however I think this may even be worse.
Lol...youre possibly the most delusional poster on here. The sanctions did apply. As made clear by said lawyer in my previous quote. Again do you know more than a qualified lawyer who specialises in sanctions?
Also note you're talking balls about the airspace breach too...
https://www.businessinsider.com/rus...rspace-scolds-britains-intercept-story-2018-1
Russia state they have never entered UK airspace.
That was in 2010, we didn't have Typhoons as our QRA fighters which we do now, we still had Tornados
No it wasn't, this is something myself and others have repeatedly explained however you and Dowie seem to have a fundamental inability to understand it.
Under EU law, member states and their vessels must comply with the EU sanctions on Syria, this does not apply to non-member states and their vessels as the EU does not enforce compliance with its sanctions on non-member states like the USA does. To give an analogy, Russia could load a ship with oil in northern Europe then sail it all the way around to Syria, past Germany, past France, past Spain, past Portugal, etc all the time yelling over the radio that they're taking their oil to Syria for refinement and nobody would do a thing about it as no EU laws are being broken as Russia is not required to comply with the EU's sanctions on Syria.
This is why myself and many others were so perplexed by the seizure as it seemed odd the UK would go so far to help the USA on such shaky legal grounds, but now we know, shortly before the ships arrival the Gibraltarian law was changed so that all vessels in Gibraltarian waters must comply with EU sanctions not just the ones the sanctions apply too. Thus entrapping the ship as it was impossible for them to find out that their arrival in Gibraltarian waters would constitute a legal violation and result in their seizure. It really was brilliantly played by the UK government, even if it has resulted in blow-back were are poorly prepared for.
See the post below yours, don't assume information is false just because you didn't know it.
Based on what exactly? It has literally been quoted in this thread already... The whole basis for the seizure was a result of those EU regulations cited already.
You've completely misunderstood the article you linked to above which also confirms this, you've just thrown in a red herring re: Gibraltar implementing legislation in order to help enforce those EU regulations.
[citation needed]
Go on then please quote the part where the regulations provide for exemptions based on the ownership (or flag) of a ship or aircraft...
No the Gibraltar legislation didn't extend EU sanctions - if you believe it did then please do quote where it did so...
"
for the purposes of implementing in the laws of Gibraltar Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012
"
It just relates to the enforcement of the EU regulations that have been in place since 2012.
This is incorrect too, the EU sanctions on Syira have been in place for several years now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,486
- Location
- ST4
2007. Came in low and then pulled up and turned around about 20 miles from the coast.
So it didn't enter UK airspace then?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,486
- Location
- ST4
No. Whoever it was that said it did was wrong.
Any source/citation for your claims you made above about the Gibraltar incident?
Namely the magic exemption that apparently existed for non-EU ships and the Gibraltar legislation supposedly extending the scope of EU sanctions rather than just enabling their enforcement?