Warning about Ireland

[El Pinguino]

Enquiring minds want to know - having been kicked out where did they go? Where are they now??

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Without wanting to pile on any negative attack I have to say after seven pages I am still confused about exactly what happened to your friends and why.

I can only go on what has been posted by yourself and others so perhaps you could explain the discrepancies.

The details were all posted, but I understand how one could become confused when they were drowned out in all these assumptions and jumped conclusions and hysteria.

Originally Posted by Wotname

The crew knew the arrival requirements and they aren't scofflaws. Apparently they didn't comply with the arrival requirements. There was no suggestion of any onboard emergency.

As was posted, they had become accustomed to being allowed to take the test upon arrival, based on the fact that it is impossible to have the test made within the allotted window, when the passage is longer than that window. The whole purpose of my starting this thread was to warn that one should not count on this approach, in Ireland or perhaps anywhere.


It's a common issue for long-distance cruisers; I faced it myself during the summer, so I hope my warning helps someone.



Incidentally, I once arrived in Finland without having taken a test in advance as was required at that time. It was last year when the rules were changing every week and I simply screwed up. The border guard said "Don't worry about it; it's no big deal. Just go straight here [handing piece of paper], keep your mask on, get your test, then self-isolate until you get the results. If it's positive, call us. Remember to get your test beforehand, next time. Welcome to Finland!"


That's an example of how all this can be done in an entirely different, humane, and reasonable way. Just don't rely on it in other countries!

Originally Posted by Wotname

Others have posted that it was possible to comply with the requirements if they had made apparently minor changes their route.

Not a minor change in route at all -- it would have cost a couple of days at least. I'm sure if they had had any idea what kind of response they would get, they would have made the stop anyway and despite the lost days, but they had become accustomed to a different approach and perhaps even assumed that this approach was formalized all over Europe.

Originally Posted by Wotname

So what was the rationale behind entering Ireland knowingly in breach of the entry requirements?

Originally Posted by Wotname

Was there some expectation that Ireland would be easygoing if their entry requirements weren't adhered to?

Yes, exactly. Country after other country had been "easygoing" with the same situation (were the rule is not "ignored"; it simply can't be complied with under those circumstances) and they expected it to be the same in Ireland.

Originally Posted by Wotname

Lastly, there also seems to be confusion about the veracity of the "armed response" when checking in, what are the facts around this issue?

I don't know. This was mentioned in passing and was not an important detail; I don't know why people get so aroused about it.


If I had to guess, I would say that what might have possibly happened was when they called the marina to request being met by border force officials, the person at the marina got the wrong idea and called the police instead of border force. If as GoBoatingNow says the border force is unarmed (I'll take his word for it as I have no knowledge myself, although it would be the first unarmed border force I've ever heard of -- certainly the Finnish, Swedish and UK border guards are armed to the teeth -- the UK Border Force vessels have cannons even!). Could be the marina person and the skipper didn't understand each other (the skipper doesn't have much English), the marina person freaked out (maybe he's a member of the "Covid Compliance Brigade" ) and stimulated an inappropriate response by the authorities. But like I said -- that's just a guess. And it's not important. The main point is be careful!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Enquiring minds want to know - having been kicked out where did they go? Where are they now??

They are back at sea and on passage to Spain.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

They are back at sea and on passage to Spain.

Whae happened to the urgent medical appointment?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And also - exactly how far 'off shore' can you stay on that passage?
The North Channel is about about 20 miles wide so 'offshore' is 10 miles?

Ok whatever

We'll.. They could have gone the Atlantic route and back up, depends on weather conditions..
The shortest route is not always the best..

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by boatman61

We'll.. They could have gone the Atlantic route and back up, depends on weather conditions..
The shortest route is not always the best..

But it does tend to draw attention to oneself ...
Probably suspected of smugling in Cod's Tongue or other nordic delights

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... (1) As was posted, they had become accustomed to being allowed to take the test upon arrival, based on the fact that it is impossible to have the test made within the allotted window, when the passage is longer than that window. The whole purpose of my starting this thread was to warn that one should not count on this approach, in Ireland or perhaps anywhere.

It's a common issue for long-distance cruisers; I faced it myself during the summer, so I hope my warning helps someone ...
(2) (regarding "armed response") ... I don't know. This was mentioned in passing and was not an important detail; I don't know why people get so aroused about it ...
(3) ... The main point is be careful!

1. So, a better thread title might have been “Yachties not as entitled as assumed”.
2. Perhaps, because it seems an obvious lie.
3. Not, I guess it would be well to avoid Ireland.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Whae happened to the urgent medical appointment?

It was not a medical emergency, but rather a regular treatment long delayed since they had been in the Arctic away from civilization. A hard to find specialist, hard to schedule an appointment and hard to reschedule it. It was actually my friend, crew on this voyage, who needed it, and was upset that it worked out this way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. So, a better thread title might have been “Yachties not as entitled as assumed”.
2. Perhaps, because it seems an obvious lie.
3. Not, I guess it would be well to avoid Ireland.

Et tu, Gord? Jeez, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?


1. What is "entitled" about expecting authorities to accomodate a situation where the rule is impossible to fulfill on a long passage? An accomodation cheerfully rendered many times before this?


2. What?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

But it does tend to draw attention to oneself ...
Probably suspected of smugling in Cod's Tongue or other nordic delights

By the way, there might really have been something like that to this story. The route was very unusual and perhaps they were being observed. That would explain a lot.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Yet there will always be 'Chancers' as previous threads have already shown..

Sure, there will plenty of people who push the regulations and take some extra chance. Nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't leave a dirty wake for the next cruiser.
The self entitled attitude that the authorities should bend over backward so the new arrivals wouldn't be inconvenienced by following the rules before departure is what stands out in this thread.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Sure, there will plenty of people who push the regulations and take some extra chance. Nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't leave a dirty wake for the next cruiser.
The self entitled attitude that the authorities should bend over backward so the new arrivals wouldn't be inconvenienced by following the rules before departure is what stands out in this thread.

Once again, what is "self entitled" about hoping that the authorities will find a work-around when the rule is impossible to comply with for long passages? What kind of "bending over backwards" is involved? Especially when such work-arounds were cheerfully provided in the previous x number of countries?


Why do people insist on reading "self entitlement" into whatever situation?


Ireland is a common landfall for all kinds of ocean crossings or long passages; these were surely not the first people to arrive after a passage longer than the covid test window. My original passage plan for my Greenland trip, in fact, had me sailing from Tassillaq directly to Northern Ireland, a week and a half or something of sailing. Many people crossing from the U.S. or Labrador on the Northern route make landfall in Ireland. This cannot be a unique situation.


I violated the very same rule myself in Sweden this summer, after a week-long ocean race. Was it "self-entitled" to do so? The only way to comply would have been to administer the test on board, something of questionable validity. In the event I took a gamble that the Swedes just wouldn't care, and that turned out to be a good bet.


Latvia doesn't accept U.S. vaccination certificates, and don't accept antigen tests. So according to the letter of the law, I have to have a €200 PCR test every time I fly into Riga unlike people with the very same Pfizer vaccine who simply have a different piece of paper.


Does my having managed to avoid this automatically make me a scofflaw, or "self-entitled"? After wasting hundreds of euros and countless hours of time on tests, I noticed that they never checked, so I started arriving without a test and gambling they wouldn't check.


Lo and behold, I DID get checked last week, arriving from London. The border guard asked for my vax cert, glanced at my technically non-acceptable CDC card, cheerfully waved me through, "Welcome to Latvia".



Anyone who makes a lot of long passage or does a lot of international travel will, with the best will in the world, eventually get into a situation where the rules need to be bent a bit, or where they will be hoping for some accomodation from officials. That happens every day in life with all kinds of other rules -- why do people freak out about these ones?

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Once again, what is "self entitled" about hoping that the authorities will find a work-around when the rule is impossible to comply with for long passages? What kind of "bending over backwards" is involved? Especially when such work-arounds were cheerfully provided in the previous x number of countries?


Why do people insist on reading "self entitlement" into whatever situation?


Ireland is a common landfall for all kinds of ocean crossings or long passages; these were surely not the first people to arrive after a passage longer than the covid test window. My original passage plan for my Greenland trip, in fact, had me sailing from Tassillaq directly to Northern Ireland, a week and a half or something of sailing. Many people crossing from the U.S. or Labrador on the Northern route make landfall in Ireland. This cannot be a unique situation.


I violated the very same rule myself in Sweden this summer, after a week-long ocean race. Was it "self-entitled" to do so? The only way to comply would have been to administer the test on board, something of questionable validity. In the event I took a gamble that the Swedes just wouldn't care, and that turned out to be a good bet.


Latvia doesn't accept U.S. vaccination certificates, and don't accept antigen tests. So according to the letter of the law, I have to have a €200 PCR test every time I fly into Riga unlike people with the very same Pfizer vaccine who simply have a different piece of paper.


Does my having managed to avoid this automatically make me a scofflaw, or "self-entitled"? After wasting hundreds of euros and countless hours of time on tests, I noticed that they never checked, so I started arriving without a test and gambling they wouldn't check.


Lo and behold, I DID get checked last week, arriving from London. The border guard asked for my vax cert, glanced at my technically non-acceptable CDC card, cheerfully waved me through, "Welcome to Latvia".



Anyone who makes a lot of long passage or does a lot of international travel will, with the best will in the world, eventually get into a situation where the rules need to be bent a bit, or where they will be hoping for some accomodation from officials. That happens every day in life with all kinds of other rules -- why do people freak out about these ones?

Interesting isn't it that all those people insist on calling your attitude self entitled, when you know that your postings are not. Silly people.

You keep making up long, drawn out scenarios that have a little to do with your first alarmist post. Did your friends clear into Scotland? They were not on some long ocean passage to Ireland, they were crossing from Scotland and chose to leave from a port that according to you they could not comply with the next countries regulations and in addition did not try to contact the new country via email/phone prior to landing.
The fact that they have experienced different rules, and implementations in other countires is simply irrelevant, so I don't see why you keep bringing it up like it is some important, justifying fact,

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The person expected to be allowed to test on arrival since it was impossible to test within the two day window before, since they had been at sea longer than that. As was allowed in a friendly way by every other European country they visited.

Talk about fear mongering.

Sounds like Ireland is It’s own country and your friend assumed incorrectly.

Better way to say it. If you’re going there then respect the strict entry and exit rules.

I skipped out of going to the BVIs because the timing made it impossible to travel there. A 2 day testing window is very tight.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by boatman61

And still they bark...

It's all bark with no bite.

They remind me of those aggressive handbag dogs. They are all combative strident and accusatory, until they are put on the ground with their leash removed.

As for the responses to Dockheads post they only serve to reinforce what I have pointed out in this thread already.

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

Talk about fear mongering.

In what way is this fear mongering?

Originally Posted by Dockehead

The person expected to be allowed to test on arrival since it was impossible to test within the two day window before, since they had been at sea longer than that. As was allowed in a friendly way by every other European country they visited.

I'll wait.