Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 21:22:27 GMT
Also, Magnetman made a comment that he was also protected by corporate law but he's the expert there. That's not an accurate depiction of my earlier comment. I was referring to directors of the companies who owned the boats involved in the accident. I am not a legal expert but I believe there is a degree of protection for people who run limited companies in this regard. I think this must be the case otherwise someone would have done time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 21:29:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 7:39:29 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. I apologised because I thought you'd misunderstood my point. Now you are TELLING me what MY point was. Mmm Rog
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 19, 2020 7:56:40 GMT
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. I apologised because I thought you'd misunderstood my point. Now you are TELLING me what MY point was. Mmm Rog He might be getting eggy , but I think you've got him beaten now rog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 8:32:04 GMT
How dare you introduce such bad yolks into the thread.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 19, 2020 8:36:00 GMT
doesn't matter he's hard boiled
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 19, 2020 8:50:08 GMT
You've got me wound up now, better go for a short Buddhist chant. An Om Lette.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 19, 2020 11:14:44 GMT
"When danger reared it's ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out Swiftly taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat" I can't imagine how posting the above piece of unattributed garbage reporting, or the accompanying doggerel, could be expected to add anything useful to what is being discussed here. It does, however, serve to illustrate the sad truth that some 30 years worth of focusing attention almost exclusively on futile blame apportioning for the BOWBELLE/MARCHIONESS collision has achieved nothing apart from diverting attention away from establishing the true fundamental causes of the accident, and even more importantly, from identifying and applying the practical measures needed to both prevent a repeat of a similar type of accident, and to improve the navigational safety of Thames tideway traffic in general. In mentioning measures to improve the general navigational safety of Thames tideway traffic, I'm thinking back in particular to an incident in August 2018, almost exactly 29 years after the MARCHIONESS sinking, when C&RT staff, with no warnings about what might lay ahead of them, were routinely despatching ill-prepared pleasure boaters, including some with no previous Thames tideway experience, upriver from Limehouse and into a situation in which, by following the standard navigational guidance and rules published by both C&RT and the PLA, they would be forced into sharing the deepwater channel and the main navigation arches of the bridges upriver from and including Blackfriars Bridge with large commercial vessels in the, to the pleasure boaters, very unfamiliar circumstances of being relentlessly pushed along by the incoming tide. One has to wonder, and ask, what has been learned and how has navigational safety on the Thames tideway improved since 20 August 1989 ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 13:20:02 GMT
"When danger reared it's ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out Swiftly taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat" I can't imagine how posting the above piece of unattributed garbage reporting, or the accompanying doggerel, could be expected to add anything useful to what is being discussed here. It does, however, serve to illustrate the sad truth that some 30 years worth of focusing attention almost exclusively on futile blame apportioning for the BOWBELLE/MARCHIONESS collision has achieved nothing apart from diverting attention away from establishing the true fundamental causes of the accident, and even more importantly, from identifying and applying the practical measures needed to both prevent a repeat of a similar type of accident, and to improve the navigational safety of Thames tideway traffic in general. In mentioning measures to improve the general navigational safety of Thames tideway traffic, I'm thinking back in particular to an incident in August 2018, almost exactly 29 years after the MARCHIONESS sinking, when C&RT staff, with no warnings about what might lay ahead of them, were routinely despatching ill-prepared pleasure boaters, including some with no previous Thames tideway experience, upriver from Limehouse and into a situation in which, by following the standard navigational guidance and rules published by both C&RT and the PLA, they would be forced into sharing the deepwater channel and the main navigation arches of the bridges upriver from and including Blackfriars Bridge with large commercial vessels in the, to the pleasure boaters, very unfamiliar circumstances of being relentlessly pushed along by the incoming tide. One has to wonder, and ask, what has been learned and how has navigational safety on the Thames tideway improved since 20 August 1989 ? Reportage provided by that well-known bastion of the gutter press: www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/04/jeevanvasagarDoggerel provided by Monty Python. I found it necessary to highlight the errors made by a captain from whose arse the sun did not in fact shine, despite efforts made to have it appear so. I managed to decode what must be the longest sentence ever constructed on this forum (and with more caveats than a BT contract) to find that the incident referred to does not in fact feature within it. Have you ever tried writing to the PLA? It might have more effect than bitching on a obscure internet forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 13:32:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 13:37:24 GMT
And another bizarre thing is the MAIB was set up in July 1989, one month before the Marchioness accident.
So I guess they were not that well versed in producing reports like that. Talk about a baptism of fire !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 13:56:22 GMT
From that article:
"I am a survivor of the disaster and was the first person to climb out of the Boat after the Bowbelle ran over us and once the Marchioness bobbed back up'. I was in shock at the time and my senses were heightened and I described to many people the open water I came up in. We were definitely on the west of Southwark bridge and I was horrified to learn from the programme that it was assumed otherwise, and that this assumption was the basis of false conclusions which closed the case." It is true that the river may have been running at 2 or 3 knots and people may have been swept up river, but what about the letter from Mr. Simon Hook? Mr. Hook was a survivor. He was in a WC cubicle at the time of the collision. He said :
"there was a window on my left which was square with curved edges. The bottom part of the window was blacked out. The top part of the window slid open to let the air in and it was possible to see out. The Marchioness was on a straight course and had not changed course in any way when there was an initial lurch to the side as if something had hit us. At the time my hand was in the open window and I used this to steady myself. As the Marchioness lurched over on one side I saw through the open window, the underside of a bridge overhead the boat. I now believe this was Southwark Bridge. I could see the bridge because as we tipped up there was some light coming from the Marchioness and then immediately afterwards the lights went out.
Before seeing the television programme I did not know that the official report and the prosecution had been based on the disaster occurring between Cannon Street and Southwark Bridge. I know from my own observation that this is not the case and that the Marchioness was under Southwark Bridge and can confirm what was said on the television programme by the eye witnesses on the Hurlingham." They were the people who did not speak--the Sherlock Holmes dogs who were not allowed to bark. The Hurlingham rescued many survivors from the terrible tragedy. The skipper and many passengers were aboard that boat, some of whom gave evidence on the television programme which was contrary to the conclusions of the official inquiry.
The House cannot judge what evidence was right. We are not an inquiry which can do that. All I am saying is that there is evidence contrary to that included in the official inquiry, and that witnesses were not heard and apparently were not sought.
I asked a question, answered today by the Minister for Transport in London- -the same person who answered previous questions, I make it plain, for the Secretary of State and previous Secretaries of State. I asked the Secretary of State :
"what relevant facts he now has in his possession, or have been drawn to his attention, which in his opinion are additional to those set out in the report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch concerning the "Marchioness" disaster."
The answer was :
"None."
The witnesses may have got it wrong under cross-questioning, but can it really be said that the facts drawn to the Minister's attention are irrelevant ? I do not think so.
So my submission is that the official report on which so much has been based, including the evidence about the turn to port between the bridges rather than possibly being struck under the middle of Southwark bridge, is that the report is inept, inadequate, incomplete, incompetent, inefficient, probably incorrect and was taken in private in Orpington--by a unnamed inspector. It might have been Mr. Marriott or Captain DeCoverley--I do not know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 14:00:04 GMT
It's very interesting reading.
Another pertinent quote
"It is no good the Government saying, "Let us do it like aircraft inquiries," at which the interests of passengers and the financial interests of air companies are in harmony. At inquiries into incidents involving cargo vessels, the interests of the safety of the crew and the financial interests of owners are in conflict. "
---
Sounds like a bit of an old boy network situation to me.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 19, 2020 15:13:24 GMT
From that article: "I am a survivor of the disaster and was the first person to climb out of the Boat after the Bowbelle ran over us and once the Marchioness bobbed back up'. I was in shock at the time and my senses were heightened and I described to many people the open water I came up in. We were definitely on the west of Southwark bridge and I was horrified to learn from the programme that it was assumed otherwise, and that this assumption was the basis of false conclusions which closed the case." It is true that the river may have been running at 2 or 3 knots and people may have been swept up river, but what about the letter from Mr. Simon Hook? Mr. Hook was a survivor. He was in a WC cubicle at the time of the collision. He said : "there was a window on my left which was square with curved edges. The bottom part of the window was blacked out. The top part of the window slid open to let the air in and it was possible to see out. The Marchioness was on a straight course and had not changed course in any way when there was an initial lurch to the side as if something had hit us. At the time my hand was in the open window and I used this to steady myself. As the Marchioness lurched over on one side I saw through the open window, the underside of a bridge overhead the boat. I now believe this was Southwark Bridge. I could see the bridge because as we tipped up there was some light coming from the Marchioness and then immediately afterwards the lights went out. One thing I can state with total confidence and that is, eye witness statements, however truthfully delivered and believed by the witness concerned, can be completely and totally wrong in many important ways. I know this from personal experience I was a witness (and very nearly a victim) of an incident that involved the death of two people and the severe injury of another. What I remember does not coincide with what I know from irrefutable evidence to be the facts. Eye witness reports should never on their own be accepted as proof, the human mind and memory is a very odd system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 18:16:14 GMT
Yeah I know. The phenomena is called 'confirmation bias'. An example would be that I have decided Ross is a massive twat and no amount of contradictory evidence will alter that view (not that I've encountered any).
|
|