![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Members List | Donate | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
APS wrote in part:
Quote:
I would expect that they would/should have just to make certain and your second phone call would have just given added information about the incident. Like the local police responding to 9-1-1 calls even though someone calls back and says the kids were playing with the phone. This brings to mind an incident a few years back in which the Coast Guard made a determination that a MayDay call was a hoax and did not launch a SAR, turns out the call was real and foks died. Now the Coast Guard launchs SARS on every distress call and seeks help from other boaters. This is also why the Coast Guard take hoax calls very seriously and they are prosecuted. They have already started an investigation of a hoax call this boating season in Maine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 6,028
Thanks: 2,285
Thanked 789 Times in 564 Posts
|
(Apologies to Peter Sellers).
![]() I checked back with the NHMP today. There was a long interrogation of me (!)—that ended with their asking, "Who wants to know?" My explanation was a little involved—and ended with my saying, I didn't actually know who "wanted to know". However, their ears perked up when I mentioned this forum! ![]() They checked the logbook for my name, date, time, and descriptions. The MPs had stopped the boater, and immediately-summarily-forthwith got the explanation :Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|