Pirate flags

[mayalld]

 

Because that would be silly. It's a museum exhibit.

 

Also, because there is nothing illegal about flying the White Ensign from the SS Great Britain anyway.

 

The present restriction on flying this flag arises from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, section 2(1): The flag which every British ship is entitled to fly is the red ensign (without any defacement or modification) and, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, no other colours.

 

But what is a "British ship"? Well, the definitions section 313 says it has the meaning given in section 1(1), which in turn defines it as a "ship" that meets certain conditions about being British.

 

And what is a "ship" in the first place? Back to the definitions in section 313, we find that “ship” includes every description of vessel used in navigation.

 

But the SS Great Britain is not a vessel used in navigation. She is permanently out of the water with a building built around her. She is not, and never again will be, a vessel used for navigation.

 

So although she is clearly still a ship in the colloquial sense of the word, she is not legally one for the purpose of the Act.

 

And thus is not restricted by the rule in section 2(1) which would prohibit a ship from flying the White Ensign.

 

Nice try on the legal chicanery, but I fear that it is doomed to fail!

 

The question is whether a ship in a dry dock, even in a graving dock remains a ship.

 

As I understand it, when returned to the dock the condition of the hull was at least as bad (if not worse) as it is now, and that the ship made the final part of that journey floating rather than on its pontoon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/chronicle/8628.shtml from 40:00 onwards).

 

She is a ship laid up in dry dock, just as HMS Victory is without doubt legally a ship.

[Murflynn]

...................... and whether it is a ship or not, the white ensign is reserved for certain vessels and navy establishments, and it is exceedingly bad form to fly it if you are not permitted to do so by the Admiralty.

 

as I said, it pisses me off.

 

so there.

oh, and a red ensign looks ridiculous on a narrowboat, but essential on my traditional launch.

[howardang]

...................... and whether it is a ship or not, the white ensign is reserved for certain vessels and navy establishments, and it is exceedingly bad form to fly it if you are not permitted to do so by the Admiralty.

 

as I said, it pisses me off.

 

so there.

oh, and a red ensign looks ridiculous on a narrowboat, but essential on my traditional launch.

 

You wouldn't like a pub near me then. It quite often flies a large White Ensign to welcome customers!

 

Howard

[Giant]

Nice try on the legal chicanery, but I fear that it is doomed to fail!

 

The question is whether a ship in a dry dock, even in a graving dock remains a ship.

 

No, that is not the question, nor the point I was making. I am not disputing that a vessel simply in dry dock is still legally a ship under the MSA 1995 definition.

 

The test is whether a vessel is "used for navigation", not whether it is currently navigating at this moment. To decide how something is "used", the question would be of the pattern of its usage and what intent or probability there is for its future usage. A vessel can be temporarily dry docked and still be "used for navigation", and thus a ship.

 

But the SS Great Britain is not just temporarily dry docked. She has not been afloat for over 40 years, nor are there any plans to refloat her, nor is she in any fit state to be refloated. The dock has been permanently sealed and a roof built over it, such that it is now impossible for her to leave. It would be ridiculous to describe her as "used for navigation", and thus she is not a ship for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act.

 

Edited to add:

 

She is a ship laid up in dry dock, just as HMS Victory is without doubt legally a ship.

Actually I would say that the same argument applies to Victory - for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, she is not a ship as she is not used for navigation.

 

It's irrelevant in the case of Victory's white ensign though, because she is still a commissioned ship in the Royal Navy. As indeed are many shoreside buildings, which are clearly not ships under the MSA 1995 definition! There can be more than one legal meaning of a term.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Giant

[Giant]

...................... and whether it is a ship or not, the white ensign is reserved for certain vessels and navy establishments, and it is exceedingly bad form to fly it if you are not permitted to do so by the Admiralty.

 

Bad form it might be - that's a subjective matter and each to their own opinion. If it pisses you off it pisses you off! But it is not illegal, which is what was being claimed before.

 

Personally I think that if it's just a question of politeness, the museum's page offers quite sufficient explanation as to why it is appropriate to be flown.

[Sir Nibble]

The point about the ensign is not whether Great Britain is or is not a ship. It should be borne in mind by the bye that a naval shore establishment is still a ship (stone frigate) and personnel leave to "go ashore". The point is that the white ensign belongs exclusively to the Royal Navy and it may not be flown from building, ship or Saturn moon rocket without admiralty permission. An example is the Victorian battleship Warrior (afloat in Portsmouth harbour) which regardless of historical accuracy neither flies a white ensign nor uses the prefix H.M.S. both of which would be appropriate.

[Giant]

The point is that the white ensign belongs exclusively to the Royal Navy and it may not be flown from building, ship or Saturn moon rocket without admiralty permission.

Which law says that, then?

[Sir Nibble]

I don't know. I don't have to. There all sorts of flags one may not fly willy nilly, the royal standard, blue ensign etc. It is so, it is the case. The white ensign belongs to the men who fought under it and their service. Apart from Warrior, take a look at Trincomalee in Hartlepool. Another old British warship for which a white ensign would be appropriate but is not flown because it is no longer a ship of the Royal Navy nor has a warrant. The only two ships which are not part of the current navy with permission to fly the white ensign are Belfast and Cavalier, not Warrior (warship) not Trincomalee (warship). They have respect enough to not fly a reputation to which they are not entitled. Certainly not Great Britain.

[Ssscrudddy]

FWIW I feel the Red Ensign is actually more lame on a narrowboat than a pirate flag. At least with a pirate flag it shows you're not taking it seriously. I dont know of many narrowboats that go to sea.

[mayalld]

 

No, that is not the question, nor the point I was making. I am not disputing that a vessel simply in dry dock is still legally a ship under the MSA 1995 definition.

 

The test is whether a vessel is "used for navigation", not whether it is currently navigating at this moment. To decide how something is "used", the question would be of the pattern of its usage and what intent or probability there is for its future usage. A vessel can be temporarily dry docked and still be "used for navigation", and thus a ship.

 

But the SS Great Britain is not just temporarily dry docked. She has not been afloat for over 40 years, nor are there any plans to refloat her, nor is she in any fit state to be refloated. The dock has been permanently sealed and a roof built over it, such that it is now impossible for her to leave. It would be ridiculous to describe her as "used for navigation", and thus she is not a ship for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act.

 

 

The test is not "used for navigation", the test is "used in navigation".

 

I would dispute your assertion that the intent for future use is in any way relevant to the question as to whether the SS Great Britain is or is not a ship.

 

Used FOR Navigation intimates some degree of currency of use. Not immediate, but implying that at some point the vessel would again navigate.

 

Used IN Navigation intimates entirely the opposite concept. It uses the past tense, and says that a collection of metal becomes a ship immediately it first navigates, and retains that character, by virtue of the fact that it has navigated, for so long as it remains a "vessel"

[Phil Ambrose]

I don't think going to sea has anything to do with it, as has been demonstrated back in this thread , a NB is by definition a ship and thus is able to wear the Red Duster, the NB is not pretending to be anything it is not, where as the boat wearing the Jolly Roger clearly is.

Phil

[Neil2]

Ssscrudddy has a point, the reason for flying the ensign is to identify the nationality of the ship which on most inland waters (these days) is a bit meaningless and the reason why it's associated with sea going vessels.

 

Having a Red Ensign on a purely inland boat whether it's a narrowboat, cruiser or a yacht I think is a bit naff - there's no etiquette or restrictions on the canals so if you want to fly a flag why not make it something that actually says something about you or your boat?

 

Personally I think a skull and crossbones is equally naff but it does at least tell you something about the boats owner...

Edited February 17, 2015 by Neil2

[Murflynn]

 

 

Personally I think a skull and crossbones is equally naff but it does at least tell you something about the boats owner...

................. which is ??

[Neil2]

That they support Arrrrrrrrrsenal...!

[Machpoint005]

Ssscrudddy has a point, the reason for flying the ensign is to identify the nationality of the ship which on most inland waters (these days) is a bit meaningless and the reason why it's associated with sea going vessels.

 

Having a Red Ensign on a purely inland boat whether it's a narrowboat, cruiser or a yacht I think is a bit naff - there's no etiquette or restrictions on the canals so if you want to fly a flag why not make it something that actually says something about you or your boat?

 

Personally I think a skull and crossbones is equally naff but it does at least tell you something about the boats owner...

 

I agree. I suppose there may be some point in flying your flag if you're a foreign tourist on the canals. Personally, when I'm abroad I like to try to blend in.

[pquinn]

Here is what wikipedia has to say on the matter.....

Flag-waving is a fallacious argument or propaganda technique used to justify an action based on the undue connection to nationalism or patriotism or benefit for an idea, group or country.^[1][2] It is a variant of argumentum ad populum.^[3] This fallacy appeals to emotion instead to logic of the audience aiming to manipulate them to win an argument. All ad populum fallacies are based on the presumption that the recipients already have certain beliefs, biases, and prejudices about the issue.^[4] If flag-waving is based on connecting to some symbol of patriotism or nationalism it is a form of appeal to stirring symbols which can be based on undue connection not only to nationalism but also to some religious or cultural symbols. I.e. a politician appearing on TV with children, farmer, teacher, together with the “common” man, etc.

The act of flag-waving is trivial display of support or loyalty to the nation or to the political party..

 

just thought i would run that little gem up the proverbial flagpole and see where it might lead.

[Machpoint005]

The act of flag-waving is trivial display of support or loyalty to the nation or to the political party..

 

 

 

That quote I like!

[colmac]

How about if we all fly the Monrovian flag ? Surely a flag of convenience can't offend anyone ? But then, do I care ?Fly what you like I say ! Stab me vitals and all that.

[Sabcat]

We don't have any flags on our boat and short of someone flying a swastika I don't much care if people want to have flags on their boats.

[colmac]

We don't have any flags on our boat and short of someone flying a swastika I don't much care if people want to have flags on their boats.

Here here !

[Athy]

Here here !

Where? Where?

[Machpoint005]

Where? Where?

 

Thear thear!

[Athy]

 

Thear thear!

[Machpoint005]

[blackrose]

Nice, so as far as they are concerned you are this warm fuzzy friendly helpful type, whilst behind their back you have gone on to the internet to slag them off for having a flag you dont approve of.

 

I never said anything about being warm and fuzzy...

 

I just said I'd helped them, and I will continue to help if required. As far as I'm concerned helping someone and my opinions of their taste have nothing to do with each other. Or do you think that because I didn't like their flag I should have therefore eschewed them and not offered any help? Or conversely, because I helped them I shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion on the forum?

 

Anyway, are you telling us that you have never harboured negative opinions of people that you know, but expressed your opinions without telling the people concerned directly? (If the answer is yes you're a liar and if the answer is no you're a hypocrite.)

 

I don't think I've actually named anyone or anyone's boat. I was using their flag as an example. Also, the last time I looked internet forums were a place for free speech and since it's a public forum they have access to my opinions of pirate flags if they want.

Edited February 17, 2015 by blackrose