After reading about the 5 pirates that drowned while trying to flee with their share of the ransom, I saw a CNN poll that asked the question:

Do you think paying a ransom will encourage further acts of piracy?

At the time I did the screen cap, 5% of voters (over 3,700 people) voted No !

Do those people actually think that piracy will be reduced if people just keep paying out millions in ransom ? (I know, it's not a scientific poll, and people can vote more than once, just as they could for the "Yes" side though).

It still shows that there are a large group of people out there that apparently don't have a clue.

Hard to read that pic, but over 78,700 voted Yes (that paying ransoms will encourage more acts of piracy). Good to see that the vast majority understand that rewarding criminal acts won't reduce crime.

I must admit, i laughed my arse off this morning when i heard on the news that they had drowned. I bet their former captives did too.

And what percentage of those people who voted had a $100 million worth of oil being held hostage in an expensive tanker?

It's a bit like the kidnapping crime wave in places like the Philippines and South America. I'm quite happy to agree that paying ransoms encourages the kidnappers, but then my child's ear didn't arrive in the mail this morning.

Good point scead!

As long as ransoms are paid, this will be one of the few growth industries around. I think I'll stay away from any cruises in that area.

So what does it say about the 5%? Does it say that 1 in every 20 people is either a sociopath or a blithering idiot? 5% is a surprising (and disturbing) percentage.

So what does it say about the 5%? Does it say that 1 in every 20 people is either a sociopath or a blithering idiot? 5% is a surprising (and disturbing) percentage.

I'd say it's a fifty-fifty chance that 50% of the 5% are either one or the other !

Those that seem to think paying ransoms will deter further attacks, are probably hoping to get a piece of the action somehow and don't want to see the good times disappear before they get a chance to rent a dinghy and try it themselves.

From an article today:

Graeme Gibbon Brooks, managing director of the British company Dryad Maritime Intelligence Service Ltd, said the incident was unlikely to deter attacks.

"The loss or potential loss of the ransom means the pirates will be all the more keen to get the next ransom in," he said. "There are people lining up to be pirates."

I can understand that in an impoverished country with little or no hope of getting a job of any kind. Sounds like pretty easy money. Zip around in your little leaky boat with your rusty old rifle, board a passing ship, demand a ransom and *wham*, instant fortune ! Hardly any risk for huge rewards.

But I highly doubt too many of those people were voting on the CNN poll. Maybe the "No" voters are the (now) wealthy relatives of the successful pirates, who've used their "new money" to immigrate to the US, UK, Canada and Australia ?

I've ceased to be amazed, or even raise an eyebrow, at any examples of the stupidity of the human race any more. With the ever increasing size of the gene pool available the theories would predict a situation of improvement in intelligence.

There was a simple yes/no answer poll a while back in one of the UK newsrags. Question was: Do you think we are paying too much tax?

Next day they ran a piece covering the results with the headline "An astonishing 96% of you think we are paying too much tax". But the worrying bit is the 4% who don't think we pay too much tax.

But this was the Daily Telegraph. In a poll of their readers asking "Do you have a brain?" 4% answered NO and the other 96% asked "What's a brain?".

But actually they have a point about crime prevention (e.g. piracy). If we all gave away all our possessions and money to the criminals there'd be a tremendous reduction in burglary and theft. But we do that already, it's called paying taxes and 4% are happy doing that.

But the worrying bit is the 4% who don't think we pay too much tax.

Those 4% are probably not paying tax at all (legally or otherwise), so what do they care ? They'd be the same group that would giggle and answer "Yes" to a question like "Should the tax rate be doubled ?", because it wouldn't matter to them (but they'd love to see other people getting it in the @ss).

Too bad they couldn't screen for the "idiot" gene before birth. Might make the world a better place to live in.

I think you have to allow for the "mickey mouse" or "donkey" vote with any poll. People purposely voting against a sensible norm or not actually knowing how to vote and just clicking the first thing they see. And that might well exceed 5%.

But the worrying bit is the 4% who don't think we pay too much tax.

Those 4% are probably not paying tax at all (legally or otherwise), so what do they care ? They'd be the same group that would giggle and answer "Yes" to a question like "Should the tax rate be doubled ?", because it wouldn't matter to them (but they'd love to see other people getting it in the @ss).

Too bad they couldn't screen for the "idiot" gene before birth. Might make the world a better place to live in.

The question in the poll is posed in the negative.

Believing that paying ransoms will not encourage further acts of piracy (what the poll asks about) is not the same thing as believing that paying ransoms will deter further acts of piracy (your interpretation).

Simpler: 'not encourage' and 'deter' are not synonyms.

CNN has another poll today on their site. Same idea but slightly different question.

Quickvote

Do you think ransoms should be paid to pirates?

Yes -- if it saves hostages 17% 1250

No -- it encourages them 83% 6238

...............................Total Votes: 7488

I almost wonder at the purpose of the poll. Are they trying to word questions slightly differently, to see which one gets the best response ? Then they (someone) can take the results and say "Hey, 20% of the population supports paying ransoms to pirates, maybe we should start doing that".

Of course I would assume that many of the people voting don't have a clue about the "big picture", about how paying ransoms (even to saves lives) would lead to even more kidnappings and acts of piracy and an even greater potential for loss of life.

They should have asked "Would you give all of your money, and borrow more, to pay the ransom of some stranger kidnapped in a place you've probably rarely heard of and can't find on a map ?"

Somehow I think the results would be dramatically different.

What would happen to these ships' crews if the ransoms were not paid? Has it been tested (have there been refusals to pay)? Clearly, in order for kidnappings to be effective, they have to involve a (perceived) genuine threat to the wellbeing of the captives.

Therefore, I suppose one inference from the outcome of some of these surveys is that some of those voting to pay may consider it is better to spare lives and try to find some other form of solution to the problem (as per the current process). Unfortunately, these surveys do not contain sufficient information to determine whether this type of reasoning may be a significant factor. It would be useful if a survey were to ask the question ('Should we pay?') and then ask 'Why' (or use the less resource intensive process of providing a selection list of likely reasons along with the usual 'other' reason option.)

If some people consider that there could be an effective solution to the problem that does not cost lives, I can understand why they would vote to pay. However, to suggest that payment does not or may not encourage ransom kidnaps defies logic, since the payment being sought is often the primary motivation (even when dressed in the clothes of religious or political causes).

In any event, this more recent survey is extremely poorly worded because it assumes a single, unqualified reason for each option. It is worse than the first survey, which assumed nothing. It would seem to have been designed either by someone with a limited education (a newsroom cadet), or with the intention to be contentious (a newsroom troll).

E:T

> I've ceased to be amazed, or even raise an eyebrow, at any examples

> of the stupidity of the human race any more.

When reading of the Nigerians burnt to death while stealing gasoline from a leaking pipeline or ship (I can't recall which), my first reaction was of why are some people so stupid. On reflection while reading the full details I considered that even to dopey %$#@$ smoking a cigerette must have been very desperate to consider the 50:50 odds (it will catch on fire or not) was worth it.

Some honey pot traps would thin out the numbers of pirates - but the media would then turn on those making the seas safer. A few mystrious accidents are called for.

>.....with the intention to be contentious (a newsroom troll).

The press seldom lead with the headline "Glove Found!"

(Unless it is a rubber one and found in a famous rectum.)

Your idea of stings ('honeypot traps') seems like a sound suggestion - has it been tried?

Do pirates really make alot of money?

I think they work for organized syndicates, and the bosses make all the money.

Like in capitalism, rather than socialism?

Your idea of stings ('honeypot traps') seems like a sound suggestion - has it been tried?

No idea. Doubt it ever could, as these attacks take place in international waters any such set up would/could in itself be seen as an act of agression against an 'innocent' party.

I think this is a case for black-ops (can one use such an expression these PC-days?), although from the emails copied to me in the past that have carried images of such 'positive action' against un-tried criminals during the crime, although I share the feel-good factor of good prevailing over bad, I worry that as a race we haven't got law and order right yet in any country - so conclude we never will.

As over population begins to show with the fight for resources on all scales, personally I would like for such piracy crime not to exist.

Do pirates really make alot of money?

I think they work for organized syndicates, and the bosses make all the money.

Like any 'crime' where there is zero risk of being caught or paying tax on the income, yes compared to the limited profits they could make doing legal work in their country of origin, holding crew, ships and cargo to ransom does appear to be profitable. Even for the lowly pirate that makes the tea - otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Pirate Quote: ...Isse Mohammed, says that his gang would continue hunting ships. Meanwhile, the warships of thirteen countries, including the United States, have joined the antipiracy campaign.

I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't tracking these people. Ultimately, I think that we will hear of a large raid of some sort (mass arrests and/or casualties). If they could knock over some of these gangs, it may serve to deter others - because at the moment, there are bound to be more and more people wanting to jump onto this profitable bandwagon.

I'm thinking of buying a boat myself.

Seeing as the nearest navigable bodies of water are the Mae Kok and the Mekong, oil tankers could be few and far between so I'll have to restrict myself to pillaging backpackers on the river boats.

I could have a sale on secondhand iPods coming up soon!

I have visions of two teenage Thai ne'er-do-wells on a small longtail on the Mekong - bumping other longtails in the night and stealing their valuables.

Most don't have the ability to recognize who the real pirates and terrorists might be. So all this is quite moot.