# The Panama Papers



## callpor

I was struck by what Andrew Craig-Bennett stated in the seventh paragraph in the first instalment of his subject trilogy published by Splash24/7 yesterday.

Quote:- "I have just spent six paragraphs explaining why we, the merchant shipping industry, find ourselves where we are today, as the people who invented ‘offshore’ (note the word!) tax havens, and profited from them mightily, to the point where most governments in the developed world have given up trying to collect taxes on the profits of shipowners, and (this is the important bit!) we have lost any sense that this might be, in some sense, ‘wrong’."

The first two instalments are totally marine related and not only very entertaining, but spot on the mark! They can be accessed at http://splash247.com/the-panama-papers-part-one/ and http://splash247.com/the-panama-papers-part-two/ . Check Splash24/7 tomorrow for the final instalment of Andrew Craig-Bennett’s Panama Papers trilogy. 

I am sure that some SN members may have something to add?


----------



## tiachapman

remember a lot of years ago when ship owners started to use the flag of that counrty ws this the start of it all?


----------



## jmcg

I heard on BBC early this morning that the so called "royal family" has substantial interests in this debacle.

BW

J(Gleam)(Gleam)


----------



## tiachapman

not supprised about that dont get rich working for a living money makes money.


----------



## Erimus

Do we not have a thread already well running on this subject?

Geoff


----------



## Cisco

No , we don't. This is an entirely different thread... 

I think it deserves to be given life of its own... possibly under a new name..


----------



## Barrie Youde

"The curse of history"?

"O'Effenel"?

"What next"?

"What have we done"?

"Another fine mess you've got me in, Stanley!"?

Any more?


----------



## Erimus

Cisco said:


> No , we don't. This is an entirely different thread...
> 
> I think it deserves to be given life of its own... possibly under a new name..


I did mention eArly on in 'the other thread' that many shipowners and shipping operators were offshore involved when I came into the business ib the 50's....I know I worked for a couple of them abd wasn't illegal then as it isn't now...yet.

Geoff


----------



## Barrie Youde

THE PANAMA PAPERS – THE ANSWER

Give your savings a suntan. Send every penny offshore.
It’s all transparently legal. It’s wholly allowed by the law.
That’s why our leaders all do it. To set an example, d’you see?
Avoidance of tax? Let’s poo-poo it. It all appears legal to me.

It’s why we haven’t a ship now. It’s why they’re all built overseas.
It’s why every ship-operator may largely do as he might please:
While here in Great Britain we need ‘em. We haven’t a clue who they are.
Our families, we have to feed ‘em. And we should relax at the bar.

It’s your round, old chap – yes, by all means. Let’s have a repeat of the Bolly.
Do common folk know what it all means? That we have just squandered the lolly?
That nothing is in the Exchequer? That all of it’s gone down the grid?
Old Lady Threadneedle? D’you check her? D’you think we should print a few quid?

This island we live on, as Britons – just how does our food now all get here?
Sixty million of humanoid fit-ons. Survival? Is all now to let, here?
Land-prices are rising, they tell me. It follows that so is the rent.
I wonder which airline will sell me a seat to where savings are sent?

Upon a tropical island, I’m told that most things could be worse,
Except that the fly-by-night whyland will lack any doctor or nurse.
Should we open a bottle of Bolly? Or figure out where we are at?
Which option is right? Which is folly? There’s only one answer to that!

BY
08.04.16


----------



## King Ratt

Thank you Barrie. That sums it up.

Regards

KR


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

Barrie Youde said:


> THE PANAMA PAPERS – THE ANSWER
> 
> Give your savings a suntan. Send every penny offshore.
> It’s all transparently legal. It’s wholly allowed by the law.
> That’s why our leaders all do it. To set an example, d’you see?
> Avoidance of tax? Let’s poo-poo it. It all appears legal to me.
> 
> It’s why we haven’t a ship now. It’s why they’re all built overseas.
> It’s why every ship-operator may largely do as he might please:
> While here in Great Britain we need ‘em. We haven’t a clue who they are.
> Our families, we have to feed ‘em. And we should relax at the bar.
> 
> It’s your round, old chap – yes, by all means. Let’s have a repeat of the Bolly.
> Do common folk know what it all means? That we have just squandered the lolly?
> That nothing is in the Exchequer? That all of it’s gone down the grid?
> Old Lady Threadneedle? D’you check her? D’you think we should print a few quid?
> 
> This island we live on, as Britons – just how does our food now all get here?
> Sixty million of humanoid fit-ons. Survival? Is all now to let, here?
> Land-prices are rising, they tell me. It follows that so is the rent.
> I wonder which airline will sell me a seat to where savings are sent?
> 
> Upon a tropical island, I’m told that most things could be worse,
> Except that the fly-by-night whyland will lack any doctor or nurse.
> Should we open a bottle of Bolly? Or figure out where we are at?
> Which option is right? Which is folly? There’s only one answer to that!
> 
> BY
> 08.04.16


Congratulations, Barrie!

Kipling's "Mary Gloster" for the modern day...


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

callpor said:


> I was struck by what Andrew Craig-Bennett stated in the seventh paragraph in the first instalment of his subject trilogy published by Splash24/7 yesterday.
> 
> Quote:- "I have just spent six paragraphs explaining why we, the merchant shipping industry, find ourselves where we are today, as the people who invented ‘offshore’ (note the word!) tax havens, and profited from them mightily, to the point where most governments in the developed world have given up trying to collect taxes on the profits of shipowners, and (this is the important bit!) we have lost any sense that this might be, in some sense, ‘wrong’."
> 
> The first two instalments are totally marine related and not only very entertaining, but spot on the mark! They can be accessed at http://splash247.com/the-panama-papers-part-one/ and http://splash247.com/the-panama-papers-part-two/ . Check Splash24/7 tomorrow for the final instalment of Andrew Craig-Bennett’s Panama Papers trilogy.
> 
> I am sure that some SN members may have something to add?


Thanks!


----------



## Split

This is a can of worms. Nothing will ever get done with this until there is world wide tax legislation. Don't hold your breath.

Panama is just one country but we all know how the Starbuck company and Google are registering in Luxemburg and Eire, just to be friendly and pay tax in the EU! Tax avoidence is an industry all by iitself.

An American pharma company, this week, has broken off a merger with an Irish company because the US tax authorities have done something--I don't know what, but this was a multi million dollar merger, which shows that tax avoidence is a business all by itself.


----------



## Barrie Youde

Congratulations to you, Andrew!

I had not previously seen a more accurate, authoritative or comprehensive summary of our present national cir***stances until reading your parts One and Two last night. Thank you!

Those who were condemned were copied. Whither leadership?

V best,

BY


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

Tax legislation is starting to take interesting turns. There is a real push for tax collecting bodies in different countries to work together; I am not an expert but I know a man who is, and will ask he is willing to comment.


----------



## Dartskipper

Whether it is right or wrong, from a moral perspective, it ain't illegal to invest in offshore financial schemes. Perhaps our Government should look at the situation from a different angle and impose stiffer taxes on the profits and dividends.

Roy.


----------



## sam2182sw

They are all at it, make rules for us to pay our and rules for them to dodge paying these. Did you see his face on T.V this week tell everyone that he had nothing. His lips where tight and he was sweating like a bull at the end of it they had to drag it out of him. These are the people we put in power to look after us what a joke sam2182sw


----------



## Barrie Youde

The greatest surprise in Andrew’s three-part analysis of the Panama Papers and the consequences which have recently been exposed is that it should have taken until today for any knowledgeable person to conduct a credible analysis and to identify the consequences.

For my own part I can speak only with knowledge of the laws of pilotage and how they apply to merchant shipping. I have no qualification as a broker or a shipowner or a charterer; and I’m indebted to Andrew for the reminder that there was a time when a flag of convenience was not considered to be quite the proper thing. It is safe to say that the laws of pilotage precede the development of the flag of convenience. It is much safer to say that the laws of pilotage precede the introduction of examinations for masters and mates: from which it may also be safely deduced that those who have developed the laws of pilotage have done so with a knowledge both of the perils of the sea and the need to protect the maritime economy by all proper means. In an island nation, and particularly in one where the population might reasonably be described as crowded or over-crowded, the maritime economy is arguably the most important sector of the economy. (In brief, it is a matter of weight, or avoirdupois.)

In order to protect that vital economy the laws of pilotage until recently made particular provision for compulsory pilotage to be imposed upon ships trading from foreign ports, which by definition means from ports whose flags might be more “convenient” than the home flag. The particularity of the origin of the trading port no longer applies. In consequence we now know, as Andrew points out, that the MV Saucy Sue, carrying a significant part of our national economy, is in all probability owned by the mother-in-law and cousin of a nominated owner in any convenient part of the world. In short, we neither know nor care properly about (if at all) the identity of the shipowner or operator in whose hands our own economy is placed. 

We might well trust Tesco to deliver our home groceries. We would be less than impressed, however, if Tesco might be inclined to entrust our home deliveries to anybody who might be handy with a bike. But such is the equivalent status to which our entire maritime economy has sunk. Our folly lies in our own misplaced trust, which now stands wholly exposed. The supplier/carrier might well act lawfully (and probably does) in paring his own costs to the bone. The paring, however, is done at our own expense. For how long we can afford (or will tolerate) that expense remains to be seen.


----------



## Barrie Youde

The folly of entrusting the physical carriage of our maritime economy very largely to persons unknown has arisen, as Andrew points out, through the loss of any sense that the creation of tax-havens might be wrong. Whereas the loss of anything is unfortunate, as Oscar Wilde might have put, any wilful perpetuation of the loss may be equated at least to carelessness, from which any further misfortune is nothing less than self-inflicted and therefore undeserving of sympathy. Where, as here, the self-inflicted loss is only too recognisable, the matter of chickens coming home to roost is equally as recognisable and it is right that it is identified publicly and as clearly as possible. It might be said that we are fortunate that the Panama Papers have been disclosed now, rather than at some later date.

David Cameron cannot be blamed for the fact that he has benefitted from the personal providence of his father’s wholly legal tax arrangements; but he most certainly can and will be blamed if his government might fail to take adequate remedial steps without delay.

Andrew has identified with clarity the events which have given rise to the concerns which are now recognised by everybody else. The public loss of sense and fiscal thrift cannot continue indefinitely. It cannot be allowed to continue at all.


----------



## Long gone

Barrie Youde said:


> but he most certainly *could* and *should* be blamed if his government might fail to take adequate remedial steps without delay.


Corrected for you, Barrie!

I always thought that money stashed in these sort of places was useless to anyone. Surely its only use is as means of exchange in goods and services.

It may legal; but is it the morally right thing to do when your country is falling apart before your eyes.


----------



## Barrie Youde

#20

Thank you, Long Gone.

It is self-evident that the loss to the national exchequer increases on a daily basis; and that there are a great many people, myself included, who can and will hold David Cameron to blame if adequate corrective measures are not taken by the government to stem the loss before it might become worse; as inevitably it will unless action is taken.

We have all witnessed the loss of our merchant navy - an organ vital to our survival as an island nation. Our economic survival today is dependent in that regard on the goodwill of unknown persons who are effectively organ donors and whose goodwill could be withdrawn at any moment and without notice.

To do anything other than to take the greatest possible care of the national economy in those cir***stances is madness beyond credibility.


----------



## Long gone

Barrie Youde said:


> #20
> 
> Thank you, Long Gone.
> 
> It is self-evident that the loss to the national exchequer increases on a daily basis; and that there are a great many people, myself included, who can and will hold David Cameron to blame if adequate corrective measures are not taken by the government to stem the loss before it might become worse; as inevitably it will unless action is taken.
> 
> We have all witnessed the loss of our merchant navy - an organ vital to our survival as an island nation. Our economic survival today is dependent in that regard on the goodwill of unknown persons who are effectively organ donors and whose goodwill could be withdrawn at any moment and without notice.
> 
> To do anything other than to take the greatest possible care of the national economy in those cir***stances is madness beyond credibility.


Ignoring Basil's post for a moment; there is of course no guarantee that if this money was brought back into use that it would be used to fund our public services, given the present HMG's idealogical leanings.

Basil's comment about anti-semitism is a typical distraction technique, and has rock-all to do with the topic under discussion.

I'll take it away from UK politics for a minute. We are all aware that some African countries' infrastructure is falling apart through lack of finance. The finance is there: the trouble is it's in some hidden account, most likely in a UK-administered offshore territory, that those countries' leaders have set up, to hide their loot. The offshoring by British politicians and business leaders is exactly the same.


----------



## Varley

Indeed Basil. By Googling:

argumentum ad nauseam (also known as: argument from nagging, proof by assertion)

(Although to be fair all sides are, on occasion, guilty of this poor rhetorical tool)


----------



## Split

sam2182sw said:


> They are all at it, make rules for us to pay our and rules for them to dodge paying these. Did you see his face on T.V this week tell everyone that he had nothing. His lips where tight and he was sweating like a bull at the end of it they had to drag it out of him. These are the people we put in power to look after us what a joke sam2182sw


Cameron is a politicion. If we don't like his policies, that is one thing, but to make him stand up and produce six years of tax statements is disgraceful, when no official charges have been made.

The UK has changed a lot since I lived there and not all for the better.

IMO, this been stirred up by the pro-Brexit media. God help anyone, even the PM, if that s*** smells any kind of a story.

Did anyone hear of the Brink robbery? A big part of that money ended up there. That was stolen money, a crime was committed and, yet, it is not news. Cameron is news and that is the difference. My beliefs, for and against Brexit, are being influenced by this, as it is by all the twerps who are not being objective.


----------



## Pompeyfan

All

This forum is for News and Views from the Shipping World meaning all ship and shipping topics. Please do not turn it into a political thread. If members need to discuss politics, please refer to a thread of the same name in Stormy Weather. 

This thread was started as a shipping topic, please keep it that way.


----------



## Barrie Youde

Quite so.

A further eye-opening reminder was Andrew's observation that "We, the merchant shipping industry, invented offshore tax havens and profited from them mightily."

My own recollection is that I had heard of Swiss Banks before I had heard of off-shore tax-havens. The similarities between the two are obvious - namely the provision of facilities to profit mightily.

I am no economist, but even I can see that profit is essential for the survival of any commercial enterprise. It is when the state permits profits to be made at the expense of the economic interests of the state that (by definition) the state economy suffers. David Cameron's present personal embarrassment, having done nothing legally wrong, is largely of his own making, having previously chosen to point a moral finger at others. The truth of the matter, it seems to me, is that it is a problem into which morals do not enter.

It is purely a matter of national house-keeping; and the stench in the stables (and the derelict shipyards) is presently sky-high. We all know what needs to be done.


----------



## Split

Barrie Youde said:


> Quite so.
> 
> A further eye-opening reminder was Andrew's observation that "We, the merchant shipping industry, invented offshore tax havens and profited from them mightily."
> 
> My own recollection is that I had heard of Swiss Banks before I had heard of off-shore tax-havens. The similarities between the two are obvious - namely the provision of facilities to profit mightily.
> 
> I am no economist, but even I can see that profit is essential for the survival of any commercial enterprise. It is when the state permits profits to be made at the expense of the economic interests of the state that (by definition) the state economy suffers. David Cameron's present personal embarrassment, having done nothing legally wrong, is largely of his own making, having previously chosen to point a moral finger at others. The truth of the matter, it seems to me, is that it is a problem into which morals do not enter.
> 
> It is purely a matter of national house-keeping; and the stench in the stables (and the derelict shipyards) is presently sky-high. We all know what needs to be done.


I've taken David's post on board and this will be my last on this topic but I must answer to say that what we are asking of Cameron is, equally morally wrong. Two blacks don't make a white.

Now, about Panamanian ships and all who sail in them.......


----------



## Dartskipper

Indeed, Barrie.

I don't recall such a heated outcry when Governments in the past allowed the British Shipping Companies to start registering ships in foreign ports for "tax efficiency."

It was getting beyond ridiculous when you could see a ferry, clearly emblazoned in letters 12 ft high "British Ferries", registered in Nassau!

Roy.


----------



## Barrie Youde

#29

Nobody has asked Cameron to reveal his own tax returns, as far as I know. More accurately,he has offered to do so as the only means available to him to show that he has nothing to hide; after his hypocrisy in pointing the moral finger at others. In that regard, he made a serious mistake; although perhaps not an irrecoverable one.

What is now irrecoverable is the public realisation of the scale of the folly in neglecting the maintenance of our own merchant fleet. In that regard, the public realisation is perhaps yet to be awakened, but Andrew has done his best to do so. The public clearly has bitten on the scale of the economic folly in general terms; the consequences of which -including our dependence on a merchant fleet for our survival- are yet to be realised.


----------



## ianian

Every person in UK would avoid paying tax's if he could, anyone who say's he wouldn't ,would be telling porkies, as for Cameron he has broken NO law's and as for receiving monies from his father and mother is nothing to do with anybody else, I think it is disgraceful that he has been subjected to this kind of witchhunt by the s***bag newspapers , as Jesus said all those without sin cast the first stone


----------



## Barrie Youde

My mother was a grocer's daughter. She grew up living over the shop. (Might we have heard this before somewhere?) One of her more stinging (and therefore more memorable) rebukes to me was, "For Heaven's sake, be more businesslike."

To my simple mind it seems most unbusinesslike when running an island nation (crowded or otherwise) not only to burn one's boats but also to send a large proportion of exchangeable assets offshore (possibly at a quarter of the globe's distance away), to be controlled by other people and other laws.

How this present state of affairs came to pass is of little or no consequence; but any failure to address it seems bound to end in tears.


----------



## Varley

I think that is a matter for the current account. For the capital, as long as the title remains the asset remain property of the title holder. Emotionally I also support the MN however if we look at the USA. Panama and Liberia were their invention for outsourcing their international freighting requirements and freight earnings opportunities in their entireties (and with respect to their vessels trading abroad no Jones act restrictions - perhaps there is a USA SN Jones Act evasion thread - Oops, sorry).

Whilst the motivations might not have been quite so pure the establishing of crewing centres offshore allowed the 'mass' employment of Brits for a little longer. Many of us had been making good money (I am told) under so-called FOCs. (The best run steamship I ever sailed on was Liberian with Spanish staff but that does compare to most of that experience being of TT Stonehaven before then!).

The almost universal use of foreign crews has nothing more to do with flag than it ever has done but is an unfortunate result of there being some rather good seafarers still living in a country where the cost of living has overtaken the wage market. If we were a poor society there would still be plenty of berths for Brits.

What does get my goat is that offshoring of the capital has allowed our governors to abrogate all responsibility on the protection of our trade, getting away with it because those who are/were being pirated are foreigners. True prejudice.

Some of those nations have stepped up to the challenge but the approach of 'enabling' managers to defend themselves is patently absurd. Taxes and duties on the goods remain the same and continue to fund a military that no longer protects the 'bottoms' involved. The cost of freight goes up and so we are taxed again - perhaps an onboard tax burden instead of offshore tax haven (Oops again. Sorry again).


----------



## Barrie Youde

#34

I agree with your first sentence, David, but questions remain. 

In simple terms it is a matter of how many beans make five; but that does not address either the quality of the beans or what percentage "five" might be of the requisite true whole, the latter point being probably the more important.

How, ultimately, is an ever-increasing population to be fed upon an island of fixed size without adequate control of the vessels in which its food imports are carried? Is the ever-increasing population to be fed as cattle, simply waiting for the slaughter? Or as something else, with some intelligent control over its affairs?


----------



## Varley

I broadly agree but it isn't 'our' fault.

I think the balance of payments was a true blind spot of Mrs T. For one who correctly ran the economy as she would her home it is strange that she would pay the next door neighbours child to mow the lawn instead of employing her own children. About what it boils down to.

But how would 'we' have influenced this? Refused to carry freight unless it was outbound? The MN might have been a nice little earner but it was a little earner (or was by then) the direction of other trade would have been little influenced by us (perhaps as relatively high earners we might be more guilty than most in the import of foreign luxuries). 

If we look at the economy as a black box then a simple model of wealth out balanced against wealth in support Mr. Micawber's admiral equation. Not perhaps as woefully immediate but eventually if more goes than comes we will become bankrupt.


----------



## Barrie Youde

The lawn-mowing point is absolutely right. (Mrs T also made the point that we cannot make a living by taking in each other's washing.)

Remedy is of far greater value than the finding of fault.

We are witnesses to the fault. But what of the remedy?


----------



## Duncan112

Barrie Youde said:


> Remedy is of far greater value than the finding of fault.


An essential direction Barrie.

If we look at the decline of the MN it largely coincides with the demise of the family owned shipping concerns. Historically Shipping produced a steady 6 or 7 % return, in good times and most bad times. Money was put away for the bad times and families prospered. Then the interests were bought out and became hostages to shareholders who demanded dividends in excess of 6% in good times but were not prepared to tolerate the bad. Jeffery Stirling (Or Lord Stirring of Plaster as Fairplay christened him) required 17% RoI. If we could find a group of self funded adventurers that were willing to tolerate a steady return on their own capital then, maybe, we could rise again as a seafaring nation.


----------



## Barrie Youde

Hi, Duncan,

I'm sure that you are right and, to put it bluntly, greed was at least part of the fault. In 2012 I wrote the verse below, on being invited to attend a Blue Funnel Dinner. I offered to recite it at the Dinner and was advised that it might not be well received; and so I refrained but still attended on the occasion.

Everything to date seems to confirm the truth of Andrew's observations a few days ago - and your observation above. Some say that if Blue Flue had had the will to carry on, then the firm could today have been a serious competitor to Maersk. Which is, of course, as may be.

THE RIME OF THE ANCIENT SHIPOWNER 

It is an Ancient Shipowner.
He hath a tale to tell
Of how much prospect turned to dross
Which started off so well.

And all forgot the start of it:
E’en all the men who knew
And saw the fortunes rise and rise
By credit-balance true.

And still they held a dinner-feast
When all was at its end.
And of the Ancient Shipowner
His ghost was there. A friend.

He was not dressed in sack-cloth.
Much decorum did prevail.
His suit was made of canvas
From a fore-t’gallant sail.

“My boys,” quoth he, “’Twas at a time
When England could expand:
And trade was in the market
In each continent and land.

And trade was driven then by sail
Dependent on the wind.
A power more dependable
I knew that I could find.

And did. The future was in steam.
I would forsake all sail
When possible. This was no dream.
My methods would not fail.




I was ahead of all in trade
In that mad, glorious world.
And lived to see my ships at sea
Without a sail unfurled.

At heart I was an engineer.
I knew that I could make it;
And did. And built the very best.
The fortune, I would take it.

‘Steam gives way to sail’, men cried
And some men were not pleased
To see the competition raised
As wind-dependence eased.

By halves I did not do things.
I’d compete on longest routes.
And traders to the China seas 
Were shaken to their boots. 

And envy then was in their eyes.
‘Who is this driven man?
Who’d take the cargo from our ships?
We’ll catch him if we can.

He sets his standards highest,
It appears to us, in greed,
That he would sweep us from the seas
By steam-power and its speed’.

I was not greedy then, my boys,”
The Ancient Owner spake.
“No more than any other,
For we all were on the make.

My engines were efficient
So I had the bunker-space
To get my vessels there and back
And still to win the race.

My ships were named as heroes
From the great Olympiad,
Moral courage was the watchword.
Honour good. Eschew the bad.

And others then would follow
When they saw what steam could do.
And so, to make a further mark,
I painted funnels blue.

At this, the envy rose the more
And I had many a rival.
On good Welsh coal I staked my soul
And gambled my survival.

The gamble worked, I prospered well,
And so did all my crew;
And so did all who trusted me,
And funnels painted blue.”

“Are you the Holt who started it?”,
The dinner-guest enquired.
“Tonight we all salute you.
We are all of us retired.

But, tell us please, what happened,
As still trade is done by sea.
You were the boss. What caused the loss?
What was the destiny?”

And spake the Ancient Shipowner,
“I’m puzzled. I don’t know.
Most trade is carried still by sea
And likely will be so.

My vessels were the best of all
As also were my crew.
In two World-Wars they showed their worth,
And in the peace-time, too.

And I am somewhat baffled, therefore,
Why there was a loss.
Though I sent many a ship to sea,
I shot no albatross.

Or did I? All those years ago,
When I eschewed all sail?
And placed my faith in coal and steam?
Was I then doomed to fail?

Did I then blight the world,
Although most people said ‘twas good.
A century has seen me gone.
Am I yet understood?

Or did the Devil catch me out
As wily as a fox,
The day he placed upon this Earth
The foul container-box?

I built my ships for strength and service.
Profit, yes, and speed.
Until the box-boat came along
I stayed well in the lead.

But then the heart went out of it,
The soul and spirit, too.
There was very little purpose
In a funnel painted blue.”

The dinner-guest was horrified
As also was the Holt.
Here was not mutiny by crew,
But owner in revolt.


‘ “To serve, to strive and not to yield”,
You taught us all to do it.
Did you then simply chuck it in?
Good Sir! How could you do it?’

“The best laid plans of mice and men
Alas, gang aft agley.”
Thus spake the Holt in wisdom.
No, he did not turn away.

“Nothing lasts for ever,” said he,
“This I’ve taught you, too.
And I thank you for your loyalty
To funnels painted blue.

There’s more to life than shunting cans
Along the ocean tracks:
Though, pleasant it might be for some,
With sunlight on their backs.”

“Certum pete finem”, said the scholar 
As he thought,
What next to do, when browsing through
The classics, as he ought.

“Thank you,” said the Holt
“I’m glad you’ve learned a little more.
Please may I join your table?
It is draughty at this door.

I weep to see what’s happened:
That the fleet has long been sold;
Though all of us have values gained
Which far exceed all gold.

Are you here in my memory?
Or does that ask too much?
Or simply camaraderie?
To rubbish me, as such?

You are here for your own reasons, sure,
And I am here for mine.
And the evening’s far from over.
Could we share a glass of wine?

There is more that I could tell you,
If you really want me to,
Of ships and string and sealing wax
And of the Chinese crew.

I chose them for intelligence,
For industry and clout.
That they could turn the tables
There was never any doubt.

And that is why I warned you all
To take the utmost care
In dealings with your fellow men
On Earth. We all must share.

The day is gone when funnels blue
Would dominate the seas:
But lessons have been learned by all.
Mark well and follow these.

Do unto others only
What you’d have them do to you
On oceans or on battlefields
Or peaceful pastures new.

Fear nothing save the truth
Which you must follow to the end.
I thank you for your loyalty.
Now I must go, my friend.”

BY
16.06.2012


----------



## King Ratt

Brilliant, Barrie, as are so many of your poems.

Regards

KR


----------



## Barrie Youde

Many thanks, KR.

If asked to enlarge upon it, I doubt that I could.

V best,

BY


----------



## Basil

Pompeyfan said:


> All
> 
> This forum is for News and Views from the Shipping World meaning all ship and shipping topics. Please do not turn it into a political thread. If members need to discuss politics, please refer to a thread of the same name in Stormy Weather.
> 
> This thread was started as a shipping topic, please keep it that way.


Good point. I'll remove my, if I may say so, amazingly insightful comments


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

A propos Duncan's observations and Barrie's remarks on Blue Flue. In 1974 I applied to them as a graduate trainee; I was not selected, and in due course I joined Swires. The difference between the two was simply that John Swire and Sons were then and are now a family business, whereas by 1974 the Holt family had sold their interests and "gone public" - everyone who interviewed me was terrified of a hostile take over and that governed their every move.


----------



## Basil

Q for US readers: Other than the Jones Act which I understand restricted cabotage, carriage between US ports, to US flag ships, is there any other US restriction between US and foreign ports?


----------



## Pompeyfan

Basil said:


> Good point. I'll remove my, if I may say so, amazingly insightful comments



Many thanks Basil (Thumb)


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

Basil said:


> Q for US readers: Other than the Jones Act which I understand restricted cabotage, carriage between US ports, to US flag ships, is there any other US restriction between US and foreign ports?


I am not a US reader, but I recollect that the carriage of US Government cargo between US ports and foreign ports is in principle restricted to US flag ships.


----------



## Varley

I think it is the reserving by US law of trade between US ports that is kept to US flag vessels.

Trade between one US port and foreign ports is free of restrictions but in regard to some trade bloody awkward when a multi port US call is required.

The GTVs were designed with two more powerful vessels, Asiafreighter and Asialiner, for the Pacific trade and Euroliner and Eurofreighter for the Atlantic. With Hawaii being a US state that made the concept unworkable so all four operated in the Atlantic with the lower power gas generators (saving for running the more powerful version as a trial gathering test bed for the US military on Asiafreighter - the Asia boats had higher capacity gearing but could take GG of either power). As US owned it could be said that we were the flag of convenience.


----------



## stein

Yes, protectionism is an absolutely brilliant idea - if nobody retaliates. If you set off an avalanche of world-wide t1ts for tats though, it might be the stupidest way to try to preserve your prosperity available.


----------



## Barrie Youde

#46

It seems to be an equally high-risk proposition for any island-nation to dispose of its shipping fleet.

When the possibility is also raised that UK might divorce itself from the European Union, the risk to UK seems to be even higher.


----------



## DURANGO

There is plenty of tonnage for sale on the world markets I reckon but more importantly where are the crews going to come from you don't build a seaman as easily as you could purchase a second hand ship there just might be a place for our youngsters to go to sea school to be trained whilst we still have those who could train them


----------



## stein

Barrie Youde said:


> #46
> 
> It seems to be an equally high-risk proposition for any island-nation to dispose of its shipping fleet.
> 
> When the possibility is also raised that UK might divorce itself from the European Union, the risk to UK seems to be even higher.


I suppose you are considering the threat of another nation-expansion attempted through war. I find that hard to imagine, my proposed future is a smooth functioning worldwide market resulting in the abolition of nations, somewhat hampered by religious wars. But, if we are to imagine Germany (who else?) somewhere in the near future attacking Britain alone, without waking up NATO, then whoever can be said to be the most serious loser, surely that must be a pretty short war?

Both preparing for war and for increased prosperity through trade is extremely difficult it seems to me, I wonder if you do not at an early point have to chose between the two? ...I have never considered this idea before, but I am tempted now, after a few minutes of chewing on it, to ask whether I might be onto something there as explanation of Britain's relative industrial decline. (Jester)


----------



## Barrie Youde

Many thanks, Stein,

The world is volatile and all possibilities remain open; some more likely than others. Your predictions are quite possibly right and that is naturally what most of us hope for. Far be it from me to contradict them.

Ingrained into most of us, however, is the idea of hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. Far be it from me to contradict that philosophy, either.

Where the proper balance might lie, I do not know; but the folly of burning one's boats remains a byword in the English language.

(PS. It might be a Viking tradition, but it has little appeal here!)


----------



## Varley

Barrie Youde said:


> #46
> 
> It seems to be an equally high-risk proposition for any island-nation to dispose of its shipping fleet.
> 
> When the possibility is also raised that UK might divorce itself from the European Union, the risk to UK seems to be even higher.


I'd have to point out that that is rather difficult to turn into a cost. In a cir***stance where we are friendless then I suggest the cause would already be lost (whether noble or not). If we remained allied then there would still be shipping to serve us. In reality it would be muddier than that. many British companies continued carrying German cargoes (not to Germany, of course, but to connecting ports) in the Great War as they feared they would otherwise 'lose their routes'. It was not appreciated 'at home' and the ministry of shipping compiled a list of offenders. It never saw the light of day.


----------



## Barrie Youde

Hi, David,

The risk of British companies carrying enemy cargoes would appear, at present, to be non-existent - for fairly obvious reasons!! (Or at least on anything like the scale which you report as having occurred in WWI. Dickie Roper, of course, might have other ideas.)

I hasten to add that at present I cannot and do not identify any enemy in particular - but the volatility of the world and the fragility of peace is only too self-evident. So also is our population, so numerous (and increasing) upon this relatively small rock that we cannot produce enough food to feed ourselves without the means to import by sea.

Vulnerability is a word which springs to mind.


----------



## Varley

I agree Barrie but vulnerability is as difficult to cost as risk. But with a parliament that has even deprived my Sovereign of her own bottom I think it will be difficult to re-establish the MN just as a contingency measure.


----------



## Barrie Youde

D'accords!

So, should we all go to hell in a handcart?

Or make some effort to address the difficulty?

Wise men ne'er sit and wail their loss
But cheerly seek how to redress their harms.
What though the mast be now blown overboard?
The holding cable broke? The anchor lost?
And half our sailors swallowed in the flood?
Yet lives our pilot still?

(Shakespeare)


----------



## Barrie Youde

It is unrealistic to imagine that we can prevent a substantial increase in the population.

It follows, for all of the reasons shown at length, that if nothing is done then the national vulnerability will increase itself automatically, which cannot be right.

When the lifeboat is full, more lifeboats are a necessary thing, as a matter of survival.


----------



## Varley

Oh, my Captain, my Captain art thou rhyming there below? To coin a phrase.

I think first we have to discover if the hand cart is a good feeder and if it is on a liner run (surely Capt Charon has leave?).

We have to stop the population increase. This has been clear to me for many years and was to Pa, too. If we do not Mother nature will simply knock it down in some disgusting and inhumane fashion. If it were simply a matter of escape by sea then we could club together and get something well built and reliable from Hyundai.


----------



## Barrie Youde

This Sceptred Isle, this jewel set in a silver sea (or something like that).

It was Ultima Thule to our forebears (every one of them), at some point, - and it plainly remains Ultima Thule to the present day to many people across the Channel at various points to the South and East. Difficult to stop 'em by force, even if it might at some point be right to stop 'em by force. Well intentioned immigrants never have been stopped yet, as far as I know;and there is no diminution in the numbers who want to come in peace.

How to stop the population increase, if at all?


----------



## Varley

You set a hard task Barrie. I had to Google your quote instead of going to what I thought was the title ("This Precious Stone", by the way). As for Ultima Thule - I translated that as the last flight out of Greenland for the night.

To consider only the immigrant birth rate is is not only selfish but I guess statistically ineffective. It is the world population that is increasing and this has a much greater overall effect (perhaps not immediately but eventually).

Something in the water (other than sewage). Or, as our treasurer suggested with respect to HQ Pensions liabilities which remain crippling. Plague.


----------



## Barrie Youde

Good morning, David!

It certainly is a difficult task which faces us all! As far as I might have had any part in creating it, I am plainly not alone - and can at least claim to have been born here!

When our ancestors migrated originally from mainland Europe, these islands must surely have been unknown to the first to arrive? It is a matter of fact that it became their ultimate destination or Ultima Thule of the day. Other places further to the north and west were surely unknown to our migrating ancestors at that time? (Which is not to say that they did not exist, but merely that our own ancestors did not know about them.) I've even heard of St Kilda being referred to as Ultima Thule.

Good old Google! It helps greatly with the quotes! Wise men ne'er sit and wail their loss is from Henry VI and the sceptred isle/silver sea is from Richard II (or so Google tells me!). I am no Shakespeare scholar.

None of which addresses the problem of an increasingly large number of people (whose origins are largely irrelevant) who wish (for reasons best known to themselves) to occupy an island of static size and thus diminishing capacity to support them all as their numbers increase. The provision by the islanders of their own adequate shipping fleet would appear to be at least a sensible idea!

V best,

Barrie


----------



## Varley

Now there's an idea for those only worried about our Sceptred Isles (plural please), Barrie. Only a stopping off point on their way North.

I am not sure how well we could sell the idea, Uncle Bruv expeditioned up there in 1929 with James Wordie. Plenty of space but despite some skinny dipping (why do explorers do this?) a little chilly and that was Summer.


----------



## Barrie Youde

#60

There's a Nobel prize in this, somewhere!

Plenty of space in Greenland. Do you think that Tesco might be persuaded to open a chain of stores there? Every little helps!


----------



## WilliamH

Barrie Youde said:


> #29
> 
> Nobody has asked Cameron to reveal his own tax returns, as far as I know. More accurately,he has offered to do so as the only means available to him to show that he has nothing to hide; after his hypocrisy in pointing the moral finger at others. In that regard, he made a serious mistake; although perhaps not an irrecoverable one.
> 
> What is now irrecoverable is the public realisation of the scale of the folly in neglecting the maintenance of our own merchant fleet. In that regard, the public realisation is perhaps yet to be awakened, but Andrew has done his best to do so. The public clearly has bitten on the scale of the economic folly in general terms; the consequences of which -including our dependence on a merchant fleet for our survival- are yet to be realised.


Revealing his tax return is a red herring, if he has done anything illegal he is not going to show it on his tax return.


----------



## Varley

WilliamH, wrong Panama Papers thread (but, of course, so?).

Barrie, I suppose in addition to carrying the necessary freight to store the outlets a passenger service would result in quite a boost to the sea trade in the far North. I still don't see how that would ensure it would employ British (Isles) tonnage.

Worse still, I fear the passengers would spend less time up there than Uncle, Sir James et al and be back at Wick before you could say knife.


----------



## Barrie Youde

Fat chance of a Nobel prize, then!


----------



## Barrie Youde

The reason why any island nation should have a shipping fleet is for the benefit of the entire national population; and not merely for the benefit of its heroic matelots who enjoy messing about in boats. The greater the size of the population in proportion to the size of the island-group, the greater is the public benefit which arises from the possession of a shipping fleet. It would appear to be inevitable that a point is reached where "public benefit" becomes "public need"; and, the greater is the size of the population, particularly when considered in light of the rapidity of its increase within the fixed space of the islands, then so much the greater is the public need. By the same logic, the urgency of the public need increases with every increase in the number of mouths to feed. 

The people of a remote and sparsely populated group of islands might survive without boats. The people of St Kilda survived, largely without boats, for hundreds of years. The hostile nature of the coastline, as much as anything else, made boatwork - and the catching of the harvest of the sea - difficult for most of the time. At least partly in consequence, the islanders eventually lost their beloved home.

As to a larger island group (e.g. the remainder of UK) which proliferates its population whilst burning its boats (or scraps them without replacement), it seems inevitable that dire consequences remain in prospect - either by over-population or else by under-provision. To embark upon a policy of both over-population and under-provision at one and the same time, as we are presently witnessing, invites dire consequences.


----------



## Varley

Barrie Youde said:


> Fat chance of a Nobel prize, then!


Not only that but although they sailed from Aberdeen it was in a Norwegian Sealer. Karl Jacobsen's Heimland (I wonder if the Noggies on SN have any record of Heimland, Wordie used her twice). So no necessity of British bottoms even then.


----------

