A day after Australia cautioned its nationals against traveling to parts of Mindanao following the abduction of one of its nationals there, the United Kingdom issued a similar warning to its nationals, including those already in the Philippines. The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office reiterated Wednesday night (Manila time) its advice against “all but essential travel” to some parts of Mindanao. “There is a threat from kidnapping in the Philippines, particularly in the Southern Philippines. Kidnapping could occur anywhere, including on coastal and island resorts and dive boats and sites in the Sulu Sea. On 12 July two US citizens and a Philippine national were kidnapped from a resort on the island of Tictabon near the southern port city of Zamboanga. On 5 December 2011, an Australian citizen was kidnapped in Zamboanga Sibugay,” it said. The FCO said over 95,000 British tourists visit the Philippines in 2010, with visits being trouble-free. It also reiterated there is a high threat from terrorism throughout the Philippines. “Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travelers. Such places could include, but are not limited to, airports, shopping malls, places of worship etc,” it said. On the other hand, it also noted a high incidence of piracy and armed robbery against ships in and around Philippine waters. Last Tuesday, Australia reiterated its warning to its nationals against traveling to parts of Mindanao, a day after armed men abducted an Australian national in Ipil town in Zamboanga Sibugay province. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade placed a "Do not travel" warning on Central and Western Mindanao, including Zamboanga Peninsula and Sulu Archipelago. Earlier reports identified the abducted Australian national as Warren Rodwell, who ran a store in Ipil town. Also, Australia said the overall level of advice for the Philippines has not changed. "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the Philippines because of the high threat of terrorist attack and the high level of serious crime. Pay close attention to your personal security at all times and monitor the media for information about possible new safety or security risks," it said. The advisory also reiterated terrorist attacks could occur at anytime, anywhere in the Philippines, including in Manila Source:- http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...l-to-parts-of-mindanao-after-aussie-abduction
Most Embassies have travel warnings or advisories about the southern areas of Mindano in general and specifically the Sulu Archepelligo. This Australian (ex-soldier) actually lived just 80 miles from Basilan Island, the known stronghold of the Abu Sayyaf and associated kidnap-for-ransom gangs. If you really must live in such troubles areas, It's usually wise keeping as low a profile as is possible, and especially not to share too many personal details. By all accounts it seems this guy was not only well known around the area, but it seems he was also a blogger with his own website I don't want to be either negative or an alarmist, but we all need to be aware of our environment no matter where we live. This news item actually divulges plenty of things and makes some interesting reading. Seems the local authorities had made efforts to help his security.
I've always found Glasgow pretty scary, I've come closer to serious violence there than I have anywhere else in the world, never mind the violence involved in just having gone to school up there However it is interesting to note the implicit acknowledgement that Kidnap for Ransom (KFR) is an industry in the Phils, that is really the dead give away that the vast majority of cases are criminal financially motivated kidnaps rather than political statements. Sadly if you or your dependants can't stump up then more often than not you will simply disappear. Having been the threatened target of a potential kidnap in the Phils, it is not something I take lightly, although at the time in 2007 I am pretty sure it was a simpler extortion attempt hoping that we would be gullible rather than a real kidnap threat. Anyway reading that second article is very interesting if somewhat perplexing. How exactly does the above quote acquit the wife I mean from purely a bystanders viewpoint the poor woman has got several motives here, revenge, possible inheritance of the shop, who knows? I mean less than two weeks after she walks out, he gets kidnapped? All round sounds like he has not done himself any favours.
