Hats Off to the Royal Navy

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by rognvald

I have never had personal contact with the Royal Navy, but several times with the USCG. Most Coasties are fairly young men who have been taught to do a job but perhaps not to differentiate generally among situations and types of people. Of the two times I have had contact with them (once a boarding and inspection at sea), they were curt, unfriendly, and made no attempt to lighten the situation with any courtesies or small talk. I understand that this is not their mission, however, some common manners and mutual respect would not compromise their job and would certainly make most who were boarded feel more comfortable--especially recreational sailors. Much has to do with the "American Personality" to which Boatman previosusly alluded and to which I would, in general, agree. The other, I believe, is the "Police State Mentality" that most Americans on the other end of the whip(The Sheeple) usually readily accept which promotes and engenders this practice when dealing with Federal or local authorities. If people do not speak out by writing truthful, fair-minded and formal complaints to the USCG, the practice will continue and probably get worse. American citizens and those from other countries should not be treated as criminals but given the benefit of courtesy and professionalism unless actions and mannerisms dictate otherwise. As a final remark, I would like to object to Boatman's remark that America has been solving its problems with a bullet for the last 200 years( a fact I will not dispute)but is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black . . . how do you think England maintained her great empire and colonies from the 15th Century to its historic end in the aftermath of WWII? Roses and sweet perfume? Few nations could historically compare to the extent of "British Discipline" imposed upon its colonies. We Americans know first hand. In the real world, however, this is the trademark of all successful civilizations.

Actually old chap.. apart from the native American debacle.. my main target was the 'High Noon' culture of the Wild West and onwards.. right upto the present day as vividly demonstrated over the last few months by Law and Order.
As for the Empire.. we do have the annoying habit of leaving our conquests fully populated by the indiginous population complete with road, rail, education and functioning Democracies..
What the 'Freed Populace's' elected Heads of State do after they've been elected is none of our concern.. and all the bad apples have been in Africa.. a Continent generally lacking in civilising influences apart from Egypt and the Northern coast who were colonised and civilised by various races from the Greeks, Romans, Persians and Arabia,, the last being the Mother of Maths and the written word.
Being a decendant of a family that was founded in India around 1782 I'm very aware of the sins of the Empire.. but compared to many others we could be considered fairly benevolent in the main.

[Leo Ticheli]

I've had only one encounter with the USCG when they boarded and inspected our sailboat. To a man, they were professional and super polite; it was a genuine pleasure to have them aboard and I would welcome them at any time.

Fair winds,

Leo

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Leo Ticheli

I've had only one encounter with the USCG when they boarded and inspected our sailboat. To a man, they were professional and super polite; it was a genuine pleasure to have them aboard and I would welcome them at any time.

Fair winds,

Leo

+A1.... ^^^^^^^Wot He Sed^^^^^^^


Gotta collect a boat come May...

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Actually old chap.. apart from the native American debacle.. my main target was the 'High Noon' culture of the Wild West and onwards.. right upto the present day as vividly demonstrated over the last few months by Law and Order.
As for the Empire.. we do have the annoying habit of leaving our conquests fully populated by the indiginous population complete with road, rail, education and functioning Democracies..
What the 'Freed Populace's' elected Heads of State do after they've been elected is none of our concern.. and all the bad apples have been in Africa.. a Continent generally lacking in civilising influences apart from Egypt and the Northern coast who were colonised and civilised by various races from the Greeks, Romans, Persians and Arabia,, the last being the Mother of Maths and the written word.
Being a decendant of a family that was founded in India around 1782 I'm very aware of the sins of the Empire.. but compared to many others we could be considered fairly benevolent in the main.

Not sure what this has to do with cruising, but the brits kind of dropped the ball educating, and generally taking care of a couple of indigenous people's that come to my mind. Let's start with Canada and finish with Australia.

I don't know when the last time you were on a reserve in Northern Canada- but I can't think of any third world country I've been to that was worse, and I've been to a few. Granted, Australia and Canada have had a long time to fix this stuff, however, their is still a picture of the queen on all of our coinage, on the wall at every school, at my office, and I had to swear allegiance to her when I worked for the government. Our head of state is the GG, who is defined as the queens representative in Canada- so I'm not sure Britain can wash their hands of that mess just yet.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Not sure what this has to do with cruising, but the brits kind of dropped the ball educating, and generally taking care of a couple of indigenous people's that come to my mind. Let's start with Canada and finish with Australia.

I don't know when the last time you were on a reserve in Northern Canada- but I can't think of any third world country I've been to that was worse, and I've been to a few. Granted, Australia and Canada have had a long time to fix this stuff, however, their is still a picture of the queen on all of our coinage, on the wall at every school, at my office, and I had to swear allegiance to her when I worked for the government. Our head of state is the GG, who is defined as the queens representative in Canada- so I'm not sure Britain can wash their hands of that mess just yet.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

My family only moved there in the 1990's.. give em a chance mate..
And I think you'll find Canada is a Democratically Independant country re Government.. the G-G's (Ambassador) a figurehead.. much like the Queen in the UK.. most likely once you guys learn to walk you'll join Australia and become a Republic..
Though you'll likely still end up with Kiss Ass's like Abbott Knighting Prince Phillip...
As to what it has to do with cruising.. it started off about how cruisers are treated by the Services.. and how/why they differ

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My family only moved there in the 1990's.. give em a chance mate..
And I think you'll find Canada is a Democratically Independant country re Government.. the G-G's (Ambassador) a figurehead.. much like the Queen in the UK.. most likely once you guys learn to walk you'll join Australia and become a Republic..
Though you'll likely still end up with Kiss Ass's like Abbott Knighting Prince Phillip...
As to what it has to do with cruising.. it started off about how cruisers are treated by the Services.. and how/why they differ

I'm just goofing any way. I do no blame the brits, for the Canadian government (and there for at least 51% of Canadians) being racists.

I have better things to be passionate about. Like curry, wine and slow sailboats.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My family only moved there in the 1990's.. give em a chance mate..
And I think you'll find Canada is a Democratically Independant country re Government.. the G-G's (Ambassador) a figurehead.. much like the Queen in the UK.. most likely once you guys learn to walk you'll join Australia and become a Republic..
Though you'll likely still end up with Kiss Ass's like Abbott Knighting Prince Phillip...
As to what it has to do with cruising.. it started off about how cruisers are treated by the Services.. and how/why they differ

The GG is not just a figure head in Australia. In fact in the 70's one of our 'figure heads' took it upon themselves to dismiss the PM. And appointments are still to this day approved by the GG and others even by the Queen.

And Australia is not a Republic. Not yet.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

The GG is not just a figure head in Australia. In fact in the 70's one of our 'figure heads' took it upon themselves to dismiss the PM. And appointments are still to this day approved by the GG and others even by the Queen.

And Australia is not a Republic. Not yet.

ROFLMAO.... bet thats the 1st ever Knighting by a Subject in History then...

Family... so am I.. but some still take me seriously.. after all these years

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Actually old chap.. apart from the native American debacle.. my main target was the 'High Noon' culture of the Wild West and onwards.. right upto the present day as vividly demonstrated over the last few months by Law and Order.
As for the Empire.. we do have the annoying habit of leaving our conquests fully populated by the indiginous population complete with road, rail, education and functioning Democracies..
What the 'Freed Populace's' elected Heads of State do after they've been elected is none of our concern.. and all the bad apples have been in Africa.. a Continent generally lacking in civilising influences apart from Egypt and the Northern coast who were colonised and civilised by various races from the Greeks, Romans, Persians and Arabia,, the last being the Mother of Maths and the written word.
Being a decendant of a family that was founded in India around 1782 I'm very aware of the sins of the Empire.. but compared to many others we could be considered fairly benevolent in the main.

Boatman,
Without turning this into an extended discussion of world empires, I think you must admit that although we did brutally conquer the American Indian and left him with very little, we operated under the same principles as Mother England when she colonized most of the known world. To enumerate these English possessions individually would take a full page. However, when we conquered, we never left. To be polite, the Brits who left the now shambling infrastructure of their former empire were resoundingly thrown out of all their former possessions by the indigenes and have yet to be invited back. Of course, India was the most glaring example under the leadership of Mr. Ghandi. Most Indians, even today, have many bad memories of their temporary occupation/possession by the Brits. In your case, the Brits began disintegrating from without leaving but a kernel of the glory of Mother England's past. We, however, are rotting from within and are on a fast track to failure. Yours was a result of your colonial aspirations. Ours is a product of incompetent leadership, inane wars and a dumbing of our Sheeplike population. Follows is a list of former possessions. Good luck, good sailing. Rognvald
estc.ucr.edu/britem.html

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

ROFLMAO.... bet thats the 1st ever Knighting by a Subject in History then...

Family... so am I.. but some still take me seriously.. after all these years

I wish he'd make a 'captains pick' and knight himself and slip with the damn sword.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Boatman,
Without turning this into an extended discussion of world empires, I think you must admit that although we did brutally conquer the American Indian and left him with very little, we operated under the same principles as Mother England when she colonized most of the known world. To enumerate these English possessions individually would take a full page. However, when we conquered, we never left. To be polite, the Brits who left the now shambling infrastructure of their former empire were resoundingly thrown out of all their former possessions by the indigenes and have yet to be invited back. Of course, India was the most glaring example under the leadership of Mr. Ghandi. Most Indians, even today, have many bad memories of their temporary occupation/possession by the Brits. In your case, the Brits began disintegrating from without leaving but a kernel of the glory of Mother England's past. We, however, are rotting from within and are on a fast track to failure. Yours was a result of your colonial aspirations. Ours is a product of incompetent leadership, inane wars and a dumbing of our Sheeplike population. Follows is a list of former possessions. Good luck, good sailing. Rognvald
estc.ucr.edu/britem.html

Actually the older man in the street might inform you differently.. for anyone born around my time they would not realise the difference.. and its funny how they all CHOOSE to stay in the Commonwealth..
Indian Independence was the deal struck so their soldiers would fight for us in the 2nd WW.. else the Rising Sun may not have set.. remember.. you guys were a coupla 3 years late to the party.. both in Europe and the Far East.. and but for a stratigic error by a cocky Army who'd marched through China and into Burma and Singapore you'd have stayed out.
But.. thats by the bye.. your history taught differs much the same as our Atlas's used to back then.. when the UK was illustrated as larger than France.. coould not have the natives realising they were conquered and ruled by a country not much bigger than Goa..
So.. next time you go sailing.. view those Admiralty charts with caution.. you never know whats true for sure...

[libramax]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Most Coasties are fairly young men who have been taught to do a job but perhaps not to differentiate generally among situations and types of people. Of the two times I have had contact with them (once a boarding and inspection at sea), they were curt, unfriendly, and made no attempt to lighten the situation with any courtesies or small talk. I understand that this is not their mission, however, some common manners and mutual respect would not compromise their job and would certainly make most who were boarded feel more comfortable--especially recreational sailors.

I would point out that in an egalitarian state, nobody should get special treatment. Should the CG act different when they board a speed boat with hispanic-looking people aboard than when they board a sailboat with caucasians? I agree that they should be polite and courteous up to point, and it seems like some are--you just got unlucky. But I would also say that they should definitely not be soft on people who just happen to be in a sailboat and look harmless. Of course, they also need to follow the law and not overstep anyone's rights.

Originally Posted by rognvald

"Police State Mentality" that most Americans on the other end of the whip(The Sheeple) usually readily accept which promotes and engenders this practice when dealing with Federal or local authorities. If people do not speak out by writing truthful, fair-minded and formal complaints to the USCG, the practice will continue and probably get worse.

I'll be the first to condemn law enforcement that oversteps its lawful bounds (and it often does in the USA), but you also need to recognize that the US aspires to law and order. I would say this translates to a set of laws that are publicly known, that define your rights, your responsibilities, and what people have deemed to be the powers of the government. But we have a government for a reason, and we expect it to do its job (defending the country, promoting good things, regulating dangerous things, etc). For example, for many reasons historical and practical, the CG can board any boat in any water at any time without warrant (essentially no 4th amendment protection on the water). The CG cannot abdicate this duty (looking the other way, going soft on sailboaters) without neglecting a piece of the "homeland security" that people thought it was covering.

Originally Posted by rognvald

American citizens and those from other countries should not be treated as criminals but given the benefit of courtesy and professionalism unless actions and mannerisms dictate otherwise.

To that I would say that you just haven't thought through the problem of how a country, large and powerful and rich such as the US, should protect its maritime borders. Yes they should act professionally, but I don't see how they can just let people go by who look OK (and presumably you mean yourself and your friends, because you know they're nice people).

Take this example: when you walk on the streets of your town, you don't expect cops to stop you and ask for your identity papers (that's one thing we are free of in the US, many in Europe are not). But when you fly to a foreign country and back into the US, you expect the immigration officer to stop every person to inspect their passport, check the photo, scan the database for sketchy people, etc. Will you raise your voice and claim police state if you get inspected and not waived through at airport immigration, or if the lady behind the glass neglected to smile?

Well, every coast of the US is a sort of border, and the CG is there to monitor it. You can't have it both ways: a powerful country that protects your rights internally and from outsiders, and a border guard that just lets you pass through.

As for the decolonization argument, a quick look at history and geography will show you that overall, formerly colonial territories were fairly well off when granted independence by the British, somewhat less well off if they were French, so-so for Spanish, and terrible for a lot of others (Belgian, German, Italian, Portuguese). There aren't many former American colonies to compare (the American empire is just about peaking), though the Philippines might be considered one--but not a favorable one.

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by libramax

I would point out that in an egalitarian state, nobody should get special treatment. Should the CG act different when they board a speed boat with hispanic-looking people aboard than when they board a sailboat with caucasians? I agree that they should be polite and courteous up to point, and it seems like some are--you just got unlucky. But I would also say that they should definitely not be soft on people who just happen to be in a sailboat and look harmless. Of course, they also need to follow the law and not overstep anyone's rights.



I'll be the first to condemn law enforcement that oversteps its lawful bounds (and it often does in the USA), but you also need to recognize that the US aspires to law and order. I would say this translates to a set of laws that are publicly known, that define your rights, your responsibilities, and what people have deemed to be the powers of the government. But we have a government for a reason, and we expect it to do its job (defending the country, promoting good things, regulating dangerous things, etc). For example, for many reasons historical and practical, the CG can board any boat in any water at any time without warrant (essentially no 4th amendment protection on the water). The CG cannot abdicate this duty (looking the other way, going soft on sailboaters) without neglecting a piece of the "homeland security" that people thought it was covering.



To that I would say that you just haven't thought through the problem of how a country, large and powerful and rich such as the US, should protect its maritime borders. Yes they should act professionally, but I don't see how they can just let people go by who look OK (and presumably you mean yourself and your friends, because you know they're nice people).

Take this example: when you walk on the streets of your town, you don't expect cops to stop you and ask for your identity papers (that's one thing we are free of in the US, many in Europe are not). But when you fly to a foreign country and back into the US, you expect the immigration officer to stop every person to inspect their passport, check the photo, scan the database for sketchy people, etc. Will you raise your voice and claim police state if you get inspected and not waived through at airport immigration, or if the lady behind the glass neglected to smile?

Well, every coast of the US is a sort of border, and the CG is there to monitor it. You can't have it both ways: a powerful country that protects your rights internally and from outsiders, and a border guard that just lets you pass through.

As for the decolonization argument, a quick look at history and geography will show you that overall, formerly colonial territories were fairly well off when granted independence by the British, somewhat less well off if they were French, so-so for Spanish, and terrible for a lot of others (Belgian, German, Italian, Portuguese). There aren't many former American colonies to compare (the American empire is just about peaking), though the Philippines might be considered one--but not a favorable one.

Man, what a terrible obstacle between me and the Bahamas.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Hmm. I like the idea, but gun ownership is extremely common in Canada. No farm house would be without a rifle. I myself have 5- 3 12 gauges, .22 and a .50, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police aren't exactly known internationally for being a bunch of trigger happy bullies.

I believe fire arms are fairly popular in Australia too. My understanding of Switzerland is nearly every house hold has an assault weapon. Switzerland has been respected for neutrality and aversion to resolving conflict through direct violence, Norwegians love their guns, but I sincerely doubt their law enforcement point them at whomever.

I don't think it can be the proliferation of firearms that are the problem. I think it's a culture of violence there that makes their LOE s so jumpy (ironically they are active participants in the culture of violence that makes their jobs dangerous).

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I get quite tired when people refer to Switzerland in relation to guns. Guns that are supplied to citizenry for use in times of war are currently supplied with no ammunition. It is also highly incorrect to use such weaponry for any domestic purposes.

Simply because the Gov " stores" it's military small arms in the homes of its " soldiers " does not make Switzerland an example of high gun ownership

Germany on the other hand has quite relaxed firearms legislation for a European country



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[libramax]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Man, what a terrible obstacle between me and the Bahamas.

Yeah, sorry for the long rant, I was just taking issue with the lack of logic in "I'm a nice person, nice people shouldn't be inspected."