Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 18:23:44 GMT
Two juries heard the FULL evidence and could not reach a verdict. Are you suggesting the two juries were wrong based on the odd 'quote' you posted ... that the legal system is wrong which allowed that outcome ... or that some 'conspiracy' for whatever reason, sought and succeeded to ensure there was no conviction ? Rog The two trials you refer to were roughly about the time of the accident. For one thing Henderson was not breathalysed until six hours after the collision, at which point it was decided he was not incapacitated by drink and that statement remained unchallenged through both trials. As reported, Henderson later admitted that he had made several misleading statements. The article I posted was a report of a hearing held several years later through pressure from the victim's families and was probably concerned with compensation claims, although I recall that the demands for a judicial review were finally granted under Blair's government by John Prescott (having been denied at the time by Mrs Thatcher herself). I would make the guess that by this time Henderson was covered under 'double jeopardy' or some such, and was appearing simply as a witness to the proceedings, and not a defendant. Er, what conspiracy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 18:25:15 GMT
He was referring to the fact that you clearly thought the Chinese did it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 18:33:19 GMT
He was referring to the fact that you clearly thought the Chinese did it I thought I was clear it was the goddamn Mongolians...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 18:36:39 GMT
Personally I love the part about how the helmsman had bottle-top glasses and a hearing aid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 18:41:37 GMT
Helmsman's ability to see and hear made no difference.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 18, 2020 18:48:47 GMT
I have (somewhere) a helmsmans ticket ......... I did my hours on a 69,000 ton tanker but it had nothing to do with directing a ship
""what's your head" "110 degrees Sir" "steer 155 degrees" "Aye Aye Sir"
( reminds me of a joke from those days) "Hows your head"......... "Bloody terrible this morning"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:12:20 GMT
Helmsman's ability to see and hear made no difference. Because they couldn't see where they were bloody going anyway. Its just a tad ironic, don't you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:14:56 GMT
I have (somewhere) a helmsmans ticket ......... I did my hours on a 69,000 ton tanker but it had nothing to do with directing a ship ""what's your head" "110 degrees Sir" "steer 155 degrees" "Aye Aye Sir" ( reminds me of a joke from those days) "Hows your head"......... "Bloody terrible this morning" For sure. I expect the guy helming the Titanic would have rammed the iceberg head-on if no-one had told him to alter course.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 18, 2020 19:17:18 GMT
I have (somewhere) a helmsmans ticket ......... I did my hours on a 69,000 ton tanker but it had nothing to do with directing a ship ""what's your head" "110 degrees Sir" "steer 155 degrees" "Aye Aye Sir" ( reminds me of a joke from those days) "Hows your head"......... "Bloody terrible this morning" For sure. I expect the guy helming the Titanic would have rammed the iceberg head-on if no-one had told him to alter course. oddly, if he had, they would quite likely all have survived
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:21:30 GMT
I thought @nemesis that all your posts were suggesting a clear guilty verdict had 'somehow' been avoided.
I was enquiring on what basis such a suggestion was made ... conspiracy theory being one obvious possibility.
I said earlier, I have neither the experience or knowledge of rivers, let alone commercial traffic to draw any conclusion, so have to accept that insufficient evidence was available to carry a conviction ... twice.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:40:39 GMT
For sure. I expect the guy helming the Titanic would have rammed the iceberg head-on if no-one had told him to alter course. oddly, if he had, they would quite likely all have survived Yes indeed, and just think what a PR coup that would have been for White Star (who, incidentally, never claimed that Titanic was unsinkable, but was instead a result of a frothy article in the news following Olympic's collision with HMS Hawke).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:56:51 GMT
I thought @nemesis that all your posts were suggesting a clear guilty verdict had 'somehow' been avoided. I was enquiring on what basis such a suggestion was made ... conspiracy theory being one obvious possibility. I said earlier, I have neither the experience or knowledge of rivers, let alone commercial traffic to draw any conclusion, so have to accept that insufficient evidence was available to carry a conviction ... twice. Rog You thought wrong. However you are right about insufficient evidence, one key witness (the skipper of the Marchioness) was dead and other witness statements conflicted and (I think) were largely disregarded as a result. Henderson was acquitted twice. Such is the nature of the jury system. Also, Magnetman made a comment that he was also protected by corporate law but he's the expert there. Whatever the case, I was arguing the point that, irrespective of the issue of culpability for the collision, the Bowbelle failed to render assistance after failing to maintain an adequate lookout (after in fact colliding with and sinking Marchioness) and, as was later accepted, lied to the court on this point. Had that been known, the outcome might have been rather different. Do keep up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 20:08:35 GMT
No need to get eggy ... you asked "what conspiracy?" I merely tried to explain my comment. I have found reading the thread fascinating ... and have to say TonyDunkley and @magnetman have more than adequately explained why a large commercial vessel may not be wise to either stop, or seek to rescue persons in the water. Equally the explanation of large commercial vessels, restricted to specific channels, having to contend with pleasure craft makes much more sense (or rather does not) than books I have read on the subject. I was asking a genuine question, not seeking confrontation. Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 20:22:19 GMT
No need to get eggy ... you asked "what conspiracy?" I merely tried to explain my comment. I have found reading the thread fascinating ... and have to say TonyDunkley and @magnetman have more than adequately explained why a large commercial vessel may not be wise to either stop, or seek to rescue persons in the water. Equally the explanation of large commercial vessels, restricted to specific channels, having to contend with pleasure craft makes much more sense (or rather does not) than books I have read on the subject. I was asking a genuine question, not seeking confrontation. Rog No Rog, be honest for a moment - you were, in your own inimitable way, throwing scorn on my post having failed to understand what I was actually saying. But thats ok, its a free country (and forum). I am happy to accept that any attempt on the Bowbelle's part to stop immedietly in the vicinity may well have placed those swimming for their lives in further and unnecessary danger. But I'm unclear that Gallion's Reach constituted a minimum safe distance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 21:13:37 GMT
It's definitely a long way down the River. There are quite a few other options for stopping before that, on a flood tide.
I suppose there was a "see lonce" radio silence ordered after the accident so the master of BOWBELLE may have been unable to request permission for the barrier outward bound, despite this being standard practice.
Not sure if they got all the detail of the VHF communications that night.
Gallions reach is about 10 miles from the site of the accident, and outside of the Thames Barrier.
|
|