HMS Victory- update

[VOC]

The Judicial Review appears to be one mans personal vindictive vendetta against OME that will now cost the British Tax payer around £90,000-00

This guy and his mutual, un-elected back slapping committee JNAPC has done more harm to British Underwater Archaeology than any other single person.

Hopefully this like all his other attempts will fail.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[AUVnav]

Who filed the request?

This document is somewhat relevant, and more recent than most.

The UNESCO Convention on theProtection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001An Impact Review for the United Kingdom

 

[VOC]

Who filed the request?

This document is somewhat relevant, and more recent than most.

The UNESCO Convention on theProtection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001An Impact Review for the United Kingdom

The request is from someone by the name of Robert Yorke who in my personal veiw runs a invitation only, unelected group called the JNAPC who try and pressurise the UK government to impose outdated ideology to policy making with regards to underwater archaeology.

 

[AUVnav]

JNAPC JNAPC

[h=2]Membership[/h]Chairman
Robert Yorke
Member Organisations
Association of Local Government Officers (ALGAO)
British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC)
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology (HWTMA)
Institute of Conservation (ICoN)
Institute for Archaeologists, Marine Affairs Group (IfA)
International Council on Monuments and Sites (UK) (ICOMOS)
National Maritime Museum
National Museum and Galleries of Wales
National Trust
Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS)
Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI)
Shipwreck Heritage CentreSociety for Nautical Research (SMR)
Sub-Aqua Association (SAA)
Wessex Archaeology
United Kingdom Maritime Collections Strategy
Wildlife and Countryside Link

Affiliations
Professor Sarah Dromgoole School of Law, University of Nottingham
Michael Williams University of Wolverhampton

Observers
Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites (ACHWS)
Welsh Historic Monuments (CADW)
The Crown Estate
English Heritage
Environment Service (Northern Ireland)
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Historic Scotland
Receiver of Wreck (Maritime and Coastguard Agency)
Ministry of Defence
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS)

 

[NHBandit]

I like to go to the zoo to watch the monkeys fling poo... Just sayin. What a completely ridiculous thread. 4-5 guys with obvious bias on both sides of the issue repeatedly throwing rocks at eachother. You can't make this stuff up... BREAKING NEWS !!! The Spanish government has filed suit claiming that they alone, own everything on the bottom of the ocean regardless of the location..

 

[VOC]

Looks an impresive list until you know the majority don't attend meetings and many denied being members at all.

No structure and no standing for election of chairman etc.

The Judicial reveiw application is in his personal name as the JNAPC would not have sanctioned it.

And as for Kevin Jones the MP, he has been caught out misleading Parliment

JNAPC JNAPC

Membership

Chairman
Robert Yorke
Member Organisations
Association of Local Government Officers (ALGAO)
British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC)
Council for British Archaeology (CBA)
Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology (HWTMA)
Institute of Conservation (ICoN)
Institute for Archaeologists, Marine Affairs Group (IfA)
International Council on Monuments and Sites (UK) (ICOMOS)
National Maritime Museum
National Museum and Galleries of Wales
National Trust
Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS)
Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI)
Shipwreck Heritage CentreSociety for Nautical Research (SMR)
Sub-Aqua Association (SAA)
Wessex Archaeology
United Kingdom Maritime Collections Strategy
Wildlife and Countryside Link

Affiliations
Professor Sarah Dromgoole School of Law, University of Nottingham
Michael Williams University of Wolverhampton

Observers
Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites (ACHWS)
Welsh Historic Monuments (CADW)
The Crown Estate
English Heritage
Environment Service (Northern Ireland)
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Historic Scotland
Receiver of Wreck (Maritime and Coastguard Agency)
Ministry of Defence
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS)

 

[AUVnav]

And as for Kevin Jones the MP, he has been caught out misleading Parliment

What do you mean caught out?

I suppose it doesnt really matter that Yourke filed on his own, does it? It is about the process and outcome, and someone filed.

 

[VOC]

What do you mean caught out?

I suppose it doesnt really matter that Yourke filed on his own, does it? It is about the process and outcome, and someone filed.

Jones deliberately misslead Parliament by saying the government commissioned Wessex report said the site was not under threat, when the Wessex report clearly said that it is. This was said to make departments and people think that the site is safe to leave where it is.

Most of his other claims are also false.

Unfortunately Yorke set him up like a Kipper to say things under parliamentary privilege, as Yorke new if he made the same claims outside himself he would have been sued for deformation and lible.

 

[AUVnav]

I guess the resulting Judicial Review and investigations will show what has really happened, one way or the other.

We are already aware of the finding from the MMO investigation.

In regards to the 'threat' this is what the Wessex report states:

"6.1.7. In its current state of exposure the wreck is subject to the natural degradation of theorganic remains and an undetermined level of mechanical damage from trawling.The extent to which natural processes will alter this impact is not yet clear. The site isalso potentially at threat from diver intrusion and salvage. However, this will onlybecome a ‘real’ threat once the site position becomes more widely known."

And then Odyssey placed a big yellow buoy over the site.....(without permission)

 

[VOC]

I guess the resulting Judicial Review and investigations will show what has really happened, one way or the other.

We are already aware of the finding from the MMO investigation.

In regards to the 'threat' this is what the Wessex report states:

"6.1.7. In its current state of exposure the wreck is subject to the natural degradation of theorganic remains and an undetermined level of mechanical damage from trawling.The extent to which natural processes will alter this impact is not yet clear. The site isalso potentially at threat from diver intrusion and salvage. However, this will onlybecome a ‘real’ threat once the site position becomes more widely known."

And then Odyssey placed a big yellow buoy over the site.....(without permission)

Wessex also stated in the Summary:

The site lies outside the UK 12-mile Territorial limit, but within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. The identification of the site as the​

Victory means that the wreck is subject to Sovereign Immunity. Threats to the site include: reduced sand levels that may be the result of ​

short or long-term natural changes, or trawling; physical damage to the site from trawling; and un-regulated diver intrusion and salvage


Given that Kevan Jones had read the report, seen photographic evidence of cannon that had been trawl dredged out of position and was fully aware that gun(s) had been looted and taken to Holland it was a blatant lie to the House of Commons to say:
Mr Jones: The only independent report into the wreck, the Wessex report, found no evidence it would deteriorate.

Unfortunately this shows what desperate levels Robert Yorke and his warped Ideology followers will do to try and prevent the lawful recovery of at risk items for the public benefit. This is not a debate about protecting UHC, or gaining knowledge, or studying our past by archaeologist this is just a personal vendetta by a few people trying to cling on to a Socialist/Communist theory of state knows best, and state should control all and that all private sector involvement is bad. (We saw the same in the NHS/Private medical services debate).

Yorke and co. would rather a wreck get washed away in the tide like the Sterling Castle and Rosewijk than let a private set up work on a wreck.

PS: NAV the MMO event is a mountain out of a mole hill being used to attack OMEX, the MMO is in total disarray and coming under fire from all sides, and what OMEX did was a minor misunderstanding that had to be closed out with a formal caution that is no more than a Policeman telling you to slow down or else he will nick you. Even the MMO web site does not yet show that they have now extended MMO control out to the 200 mile EEZ. https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/mmo/fox/live/MMO_PUBLIC_REGISTER so lots of people are still falling foul of the new rules.
​

 

[AUVnav]

VOC,

I think you may be missing the point. Odyssey did not have permission for intrusive work on the site. This appears to violate the terms of the Deed of Trust.

"2) The Company shall not have the power, and the Company agrees not to disturb, remove from the seabed, sell, charge, lease, give or otherwise dispose of anything hereby transferred without the express written consent of the Secretary of State."

It was clear from the televised show, that they disturbed the site, even televised the removal of a human skull from the seabed. According to the Sec of State in written response, they did not have permission.

The MMO findings are but part of the issue.
As noted in the written responses to Parliament, the Sec of State replied that they had not yet made a determination if Odyssey had violated the terms set forth in the Deed of Trust. The matter was before the Advisory Committee. I am not aware of the Advisory Committees determination on the issue, one way or the other.

Unfortunately, gifting the wreck to a private entity was a huge mistake, it could have been worked exactly the same was under a contract.

The recent interview of Lord Lingfeld was very interesting indeed.

"Lord Lingfield admits that Odyssey’s interest was of course initially piqued by the bullion, although says he now doubts the existence of any treasure on the wreck site. “What you’re suggesting to me is they or I know the presence of all sorts of stuff in there which they will grab hold of. I can assure you absolutely I know of no such thing and nobody at Odyssey knows of any such thing.”
“The only thing in it for Odyssey is to do a superb bit of pro bono archaeology,” says Lord Lingfield. “It is an irony that the more they have been attacked, in these I think highly improbable and vicious ways, the more they’ve determined to prove they will continue to do good archaeology and (be) the only outfit in the world that can do this.”
(emphasis mine)

[h=1]Tory Lord defends the treasure hunt for HMS Victory[/h]

 

[VOC]

Nav, I need to check dates, I thought the TV show and Navy authorised cannon recovery was before the MHF and the deed of trust.

 

[sandmartin]

What I AM going to do is sit back and watch as Odyssey, discoverer of the most important wreck in the history of UK maritime archaeology, goes about the task of raising these amazing artifacts for the benefit of the British public. [/QUOTE]

Well said old chap and if they miss anything I have my CZ21 and snorkel at the ready!

 

[ARC]

Hope it is a long snorkel... heh.

 

[AUVnav]

What I AM going to do is sit back and watch as Odyssey, discoverer of the most important wreck in the history of UK maritime archaeology, goes about the task of raising these amazing artifacts for the benefit of the British public.

[/QUOTE]

No, you won't.

The Victory of 1744 has very little significance in British history, other than a question of poor seamanship in sinking. It has little other notice in history other than being confused with Nelson's Victory.
Currently, it has significant notice as part of several investigations of impropriety.

Nav, I need to check dates, I thought the TV show and Navy authorized cannon recovery was before the MHF and the deed of trust.

Yes, the raising of the 2 cannon were. that is not what the MMO found them guilty of.

"7 November 2014
Dear Sir or Madam,OFFICIAL WRITTEN WARNING FOR OFFENCES UNDER THE MARINE AND COASTALACCESS ACT 2009
I am writing to you a body corporate registered in the state of Florida, United States. You havebeen under investigation by the Marine Management Organisation for the following offences:

1. That you, between 01st February 2012 and 31st August 2012 did cause or permit anotherperson to carry on a marine licensable activity, namely the deposit on the sea bed of anobject, namely array transponder beacons and datum markers, from a vessel, namely theOdyssey Explorer (IMO number: 7125811), except in accordance with a marine licencecontrary to section 85(1) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, as read with sections 65and 66 of that Act.

2. That you, between 01st February 2012 and 31st August 2012 did cause or permit anotherperson to carry on a marine licensable activity, namely the deposit on the sea bed of anobject, namely burying of offsite sacrificial materials, from a vessel, namely the OdysseyExplorer (IMO number: 7125811), except in accordance with a marine licence contrary tosection 85(1) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, as read with sections 65 and 66 of thatAct.

3. That you, between 01st February 2012 and 31st August 2012 did cause or permit anotherperson to carry on a marine licensable activity, namely the carrying out of dredging activityby blowing or otherwise moving sediment, except in accordance with a marine licencecontrary to section 85(1) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, as read with sections 65and 66 of that Act.

4. That you, between 01st February 2012 and 31st August 2012 did cause or permit anotherperson to carry on a marine licensable activity, namely the use of a vessel named theOdyssey Explorer (IMO number: 7125811) to remove a substance or object from the seabed, namely four seabed surface sediment samples, except in accordance with a marine licence contrary to section 85(1) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, as read withsections 65 and 66 of that Act.

The evidence in support of these offences comes from a number of sources including, but notlimited to the following:
 A report issued by you or on your behalf entitled “HMS Victory (site 25C). PreliminaryResults of the Non-Disturbance Shipwreck Survey, 2012” authored by and
 An application for a marine licence made by you or on your behalf from tothe Marine Management Organisation dated 8th October 2012 (subsequently withdrawn).
 Minutes of various meetings, such as the Maritime Heritage Foundation in whichadmissions as to the above works were made.
 Witness statements of various persons who introduce correspondence sent by youremployees or otherwise on your behalf."

 

[VOC]

Hi Nav

The MMO have issued loads of similar warning letters as people try to get to grips with the regulations that the MMO staff struggle to get to grips with themselves.

They would have not even pursued that with a letter had it not been the anti-OMEX idiots issuing a formal complaint to the MMO.

It is a deep shame that all the vindictive tossers trying to stop OMEX don't get off their fat asses and do their own archaeology as then they would be to busy to carry on their selfish and vindictive tirade against OMEX.

Still I suppose they can't do it for themselves as they don't have the skills, funding, motivation or circle of friends and acquaintances to work with.

 

[AUVnav]

What you still are missing is the violation of the Deed of Trust.

"2) The Company shall not have the power, and the Company agrees not to disturb, remove from the seabed, sell, charge, lease, give or otherwise dispose of anything hereby transferred without the express written consent of the Secretary of State."

Odyssey was televised disturbing the site. As stated in the written questions/answers to Parliament, Odyssey did NOT have permission.
Odyssey was televised removing a skull from the seabed. In reality, Odyssey could have had that edited out, but chose to flagrantly televise what they did. Look at what the MMO found them guilty of, and it was quite a bit from the televised activities, ie Odyssey showboating.

All of the 'research' yet Odyssey was not aware of the Deed of Trust provisions, and that they were not to disturb the site?
"Research' did not show there were special provisions to televise human remains?
The "research" did not show they needed permits from MMO?

In accordance with all of the issues noted above, how is the MMO permit, the Parliamentary inquests, and the Judicial review going?

One would note that the shareprice is at a 10 year low at 64 cents.

 

[old man]

auvnav, we get it. all you care about is driving the stock price down for Odyssey Marine.
you care nothing about archeologists or treasure hunters.

you have a hateful agenda. period.

 

[VOC]

Nav
You do try and make mountains out of mole hills when it comes to OMEX.

OMEX have nothing to hide so that's why it's on TV, it's not showboating as you claim.

If the MMO felt that they had deliberately broke or ignored rules they would have prosecuted.

Warning letters like this is just to say don't do it again, and is no worse than a policemen giving you a caution.

Hundreds of DP vessels deploy the same transducers inside the EEZ without MMO licences and hundreds of ROV thrusters are blasting the seabed with thrusters in the North Sea inside the EEZ without MMO Licences, the only difference is they don't have spiteful and vindictive pratts filing complaints at every turn.

Word on the block is the judicial review may not go ahead as the evidence does not support the malicious claims

 

[VOC]

After three years of supporting the commercial contract between Odyssey Marine Exploration and the Maritime Heritage Foundation, a charity chaired by controversial senior Conservative Peer Lord Lingfield, to work on the wreck site of HMS Victory 1744, the UK Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon MP has rescinded the permission granted to recover “at risk” artifacts from the site which was granted in October 2014.
The news came in a letter from the Treasury Solicitor which undertakes legal work for the UK Government. The letter, which was sent to Mr Robert Yorke, the Chair of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, who acting in a personal capacity, had been threatening to take the Ministry of Defence to Judicial Review, states
“The Secretary of State [for Defence] has written to Lord Lingfield withdrawing the approval he gave earlier to proceed with the current phase of the HMS Victory project design. He will now retake this decision.”
Mr Yorke added.
“The Judicial Review will now be dropped". I have no further details at this stage but it would appear that there will be no work on HMS Victory in the short term until a new decision has been taken.”

Comment from Odyssey Marine Exploration “Odyssey Marine Exploration received notice that the UK Secretary of State for Defence has withdrawn the approval he gave for the HMS Victory 1744 project while the UK Government addresses the issues raised in an application for Judicial Review of that decision. This does not immediately affect Odyssey’s plans for HMS Victory 1744 this year as the Maritime Heritage Foundation has indicated that they believe the issues will be dealt with promptly and permission will be reinstated. While Odyssey is concerned that any further delay could result in additional damage to site, we respect the UK political and legal process. Odyssey remains confident that once the issue is dealt with, the Maritime Heritage Foundation once again will be given approval to proceed with this important project. Odyssey’s commitment to the Maritime Heritage Foundation remains unchanged.”