Lots of people are sky-diving all the time as well without problems, but that doesn't mean we should let parents strap their young children to parachutes and throw them out of an airplane. Regardless that she has no deadlines and can choose her times to sail, there's no doubt that her parents are placing an extraordinary risk on this young girls life, and I fail to see how anyone can support a parental decision to put their 13 year old childs life at such a risk. For three years I was a camp counselor for kids this age, and it's absurd if anyone thinks a 13 year old can fully understand or appreciate this journey, or for that matter truly desire it for themselves in lieu of parental pressure.

Here's the thing, is she truly going "alone" or is there going to be a flotilla escourt or a one boat escourt, or what?

If there is going to be any escourt, what's the friggn' point? All she would be doing is taking directions from the escourts anyway. Are they just trying to get into the Guinness book of stupid ideas?

Now, if instead she is truly going -alone- as in zero escourt or outside help, well, that's just stupid. Forget about the weather, how is she going to deal with pirates for example? What is she Annie Oakley? And can she physically pull herself back aboard if washed, or just trips and falls overboard? Even if she is wearing a harness and teather it's a tough haul if the boat is moving.

And when (not if) she turns up missing, who will be held accountable?

And Robi, you can appreciate this, in that story about the shortest boat I mentioned above, the reason Hugo had to leave from Nova Scotia on his second crossing was, the US Coast Guard sent him a letter which said his vessel was unseaworthy and if he was found in US Waters, he would be towed in, arrested, and his boat would be confiscated. So he went up north to launch.

I love my job, we keep idiots from voluntarily killing themselves in the ocean.

Here's my take on that, you (the US Coast Guard) send them a warning, such as they did with Hugo, then you say Adios, fair winds, hope you have a nice trip.

If things go to sh!t and she capsizes and her daddy wants the USCG to fly 300 miles out into a storm to help...TFB. I think this is the general feeling with the solo round the world racing too, right?

Still you can never underestimate the stupidity of some people, didn't we just have a couple people killed in TS Danny? And the poor little girl (and her idiot dad) up on the cliff in Acadia Nat. Park in Maine when Hurricane Bill came by.

Gee, why weren't they warned?? Oh, that's right, they were, and they went ahead and did it anyway...brilliant.

I would hope that one would do some planning for contingencies when prepraring for a trip like this, and not just hope for the best....I think it is irresponsible to assume or plan that someone can get around without running into a single storm system. While a significant part of the trip can be completed by harbor-hopping, there are some large chunks of ocean to cross in order to get around...Planning for the weather on one of these larger crossings is impossible, since big weather systems can spin up in a matter of days, and in that boat there is no chance to outrun them!

http://www.lauradekker.nl

English site not up yet but google www.lauradekker and get google to translate it.

Cheshirecatman

That's a tough question. As somebody else said on this thread, everyone is different.

Actually, I'm 100% serious.

It appears I have a different take on the situation. I feel to much focus is placed on the individual aspect of Laura's journey.

First, can Laura do it ? Well, young persons have done more challenging things in times of war or over the past ages. Some even made it to the position of leading massive armies into battle at a very young age like Joan of Arc. Alexander conquered the known world at 16 I believe. But this is simply not the point in my opinion.

I also believe that "She can learn more on the trip then in school" is BS also. I don't share the view that the world is one big playground that is designed for us human beings to have a good time. Or that having kids grow up in well defined structures (school) instead of wandering about freely is a bad thing. School is just as much about learning to live inside a human society (laws, regulations, etc) as it is about gaining knowlegde.

I also think Laura is learning a valuable lesson right now and that is that it is smart not pick a public fight with authorities. This lesson appears to be overdue with respect to the father.

Fact of the matter is that our current societies are simply not designed to allow persons of such a young age to make journeys like that solo. There are little obstacles like "not being regarded as legally capable", "not being allowed to leave school before you are 16" and the fact that they sought publicity too soon and tried to give the finger to the authorities (of multiple nations I might add).

At this point the authorities can simply not let her go anymore as then they will be faced with 1000's of inner city kids with questionable futures that all believe they can make it to the top of the basketball league and want to train 24/7 for it (meaning skip school). Of course when they fail it will be societies responsibility to care of them or they'll smash up bus cabins out of fustration or become criminals. Laura is threatening to create a precedent that will make enforcing the law alot harder in the future. Maybe this is unfair to Laura, but hey life is unfair ! That is lesson number two that she (or they) is learning right now.

Another aspect is what happens when she causes an accident instead of being involved in a accident herself. She is legally not regarded as being capable of handling on her own (even if in reality she may be). Nobody is looking forward to untangling such a legal mess that may indeed fall on anybodies doorstep. What if the other party sues the Dutch government for knowingly letting her go and pay for the costs/fine ? This is also the reason why New Zealand has release the press communique that they are expecting to treat her the same way as the Dutch government is. They too are not looking forward to handling this hot case with ample potential for legal problems and damaged public prestige. New Zealand doesn't want to be on record as being a safe-haven for kids looking to get out of school.

Potential for Record-breaking ? Nations simply do not care when responsibilities and legality of it all aren't well defined. That is one of the more important lessons in your life that you won't we learning by wandering alone over the oceans.

People think they are totally free entities but nobody really is. We are social animals and ever since we existed we have lived in social structures that limit our freedoms. Lets not pretent that this has changes in the last 50 years because it really didn't.

Personally, I believe a trip around the world can be very educational but I don't really see why it needs to happen at 13. The worlds will still be there at 18 and even at that age Laura will be very capable at learning about it. So I don't share the sense of urgency to letting her go now. I feel she shold just finish her secondary education and only then leave on this solo trip. Of course, she won't be in the race for the record then but I really don't understand why a nation should be breakig its own laws for acquiring such a questionable symbol of prestige. The damage of (publically) handling two standards is just too large in relation to the (symbolic) benefit.

I predict that Laura will not leave shore legally and that she won't be moving to New Zealand either. When sailing in UK waters she will be arrested (because of that little incident when she crossed the north sea last time) and I'm sure the pirates of Somalia, Niger, Sumatra or whatever can't wait to capture her and ask the Dutch government for rantsom or sell her off to the harem of same obscure sultan requiring several million bucks to send in the marines. I'm not sure how safe a flotilla is in this respect. Hell we can't even protect large ocean cruisers at this moment.

Wouter

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.

http://www.mtv.com/lyrics/judy_collins/joan_of_arc/316533/lyrics.jhtml

Excellent points, Wouter.

Their mistake was in publicizing the trip and the fact that the parents had approved it.

And having the attitude that they know best and that other people/organisations should just accept their individualistic (selfish) viewpoint.

The laws aren't here to cater to the individual but to advance the greater common good. In that scheme of things posponing the trip to when she is 17 or 18 and after having completed her schooling is sufficient (individual) freedom. Overhauling these laws, and risk greater abuses down the line, to suit one personal extreme case is not.

I also think that the way they handled the English incident was the point where they sealed their fate. Laura was detained in England as the authorities didn't approve her skippering a sail boat singlehandedly at that young age. The father was summoned to pick her up, he refused. Then she was placed in a child care home and her father eventually did come to pick here up and take her home he put her on the boat and allowed her to sail away singlehandedly against the strict orders of the English authorities.

They had their warning and they chose to stick the finger in the eyes of the authorities. If you do that then you shouldn't be surprised that the authorities "make work" of you and even make an example out of you. The Brits then informed the Dutch child care organisations and by that time everything had become official and we all know that then the letter of the law is stricktly applied.

I can't shake the feeling that the father failed to learn an important lesson on his past adventures. This is western Europe and not some banana republic were you can arrange for anything with enough cash and determination.

Maybe Laura can take on the nationality of say Somalia; we all know they are pretty relaxed about applying law and order; especially of the maritime kind !

Wouter

This would happen in an ideal world, where all laws would be created through an evolutionary process that already converged to an equilibrium. New laws voted by legislators frequently fail to pass simple common sense tests, so they aren't always good for the community.

If we accept that the current laws regarding minimum age for civil responsability are adequatedly fine tuned by evolution, it is correct to deny permission for a minor to go around the world alone.

To justify breaking this law, one has to believe that the minimum age should be adjusted to 13 years old as a consequence of new circumstances introduced. Although this might be the case with many laws, it is not true on this one, for the minimum age for civil responsibility has been increasing in the last 5000 years.

Before biblical times, one was deemed responsible for his acts when able to diferentiate the left hand from the right one (4 y.o.). Then we started to use puberty (13 y.o.), which is easily verifiable and makes sense for reproduction.

More recently, since the total volume of knowledge increased due to science and press, the age increased to 16 to 21 years old, more or less coinciding with the age when formal education is completed. This timing is reasonable because one can not obey laws that he can not understand, so learning should precede responsability.

Since the knowledge database, the technologies available and the minimum required level of personal sophistication are in expansion, and since people have more access to education, it is quite obvious that the minimum age tends to increase and not decrease. The existing law is complacent, if anything.

The girl's parents accepted to expose her to risks and responsabilities that were acceptable at her age in the past, but not nowadays. If they fail to understand this situation, the state's intervention is justified.

On the other hand, if my daughter wanted to do the same and I knew she was up to the task (which she isn't), I would move to a country in an earlier development stage, where the law would be older and the minimum age lower. Then all could be done legally. And I would have to accept that my education and sophistication was in its "early development stages" too...

It is state intervention that will undoubtably mean she will never be allowed to do this as a minor, regardless of skill and abiity. By intervening in the first place the authorities will now have two choices. To deny permisssion or to allow her to go. If they now allow her to go they are giving their approval with associated liability for their decision.
The result will be they will not allow her to go just to cover their backsides.

Cheshirecatman

How will they prevent her from going? It's like, how do you prevent a child from running away from home? I guess in this case the authorities could confiscate the boat and eliminate that particular means of escape.

A good can of a$$whooping

Obviously, money is part of the problem here. If her father were not enabling her by providing her with a boat, as well as his consent, she would not be able to even consider doing this venture unless she worked to raise the money herself to buy a boat and fit it out and provision it, or could find a sponsor (doubtful on the latter). The father should just have said, "Go for it, if you can pay for it."

I also agree that the World Records-whatever-it-is should NOT include official records for the youngest person to circumnavigate solo. It's ridiculous. Are we going to end up with an 8-year-old going around the world on an Opti?

P.S. This has nothing at all to do with whether or not Laura would be CAPABLE of doing it.

Despite my inapropriate wording, while there is just the INTENTION to break the law, authorities can not take legal action. All they can do is explain that the parent's plan would breach certain laws and that there would be legal consequences.

Only after she actually sets sail can the relevant authorities fine and/or punish the parents for the illegal acts and, depending on the gravity, send a report to another branch of justice to decide if the situation justifies turning her custody to someone else.

In normal countries it is quite difficult to convince a judge that a child should be taken from normal parent's custody, even when their public statements are in support for illegal acts. I believe there is some bluffing going on, probably linked to politics.

Of course there is the issue of clearing into other countries. Places that she would stop might have an issue with such a young person being un-attended. Then what about the unscrupulus out there (pirates notwithstanding)?

Clayton

Precisely. Being the first to eat more than 100 hot dogs in x minutes and other freak records are isolated problems. However, fostering the competition for such claims poses an evolutionary threat to the species, for the popularization of those conducts would clearly have a negative effect on survival.

If sailing around the world alone at 13 had any potential to become a positive trait for future human survival, we would all support it.