JumbleDuck
Well-known member
What law do you think prevents speculation about matters under police investigation before any charges have been made?
Whether we should speculate is a different question, of course, as are matters of taste and language.
Girl, 15, dies in Southampton boat crash
- Thread starter KompetentKrew
- Start date
Whether we should speculate is a different question, of course, as are matters of taste and language.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Why, precisely?
Elessar
Well-known member
No law.
Common sense and decency.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Elessar
Well-known member
Thank you for the recap. I agree.
Elessar
Well-known member
Ah ok you edited your post.
Well maybe I do or maybe I don’t know the precise meaning of the word.
But I’m consistent in my message which I stand by.
And if anyone is unclear about it then c’est la vie. Seems clear enough to me.
cstewart37
Member
Its not a disgrace RIBs/Boats running at 45+kn + 12 should not be allowed to be CODED its nuts.
Elessar
Well-known member
Thank you for your expert opinion.
And the speed of the boat in this case was?
mm42
Active member
You do realise there’s quite a few reasons a commercial operator might need a 45+ knot boat don’t you.
You’re clearly trolling, regardless of your “cabin cruiser”.
cstewart37
Member
MM42 this is a pleasure run out on a RIB that was going @ 40kn + my last RIB had twin 300
cstewart37
Member
cstewart37
Member
cstewart37
Member
mm42 our boats
mm42
Active member
Very nice. I love a Redbay, great boat. That doesn’t detract from you clearly being on the windup here.
Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Not quite sure why Information and Views on any incident can be prejudicial at all, please explain ?
Afer all its now quite common for Police to ask or request any Car Cam information from the Public after Road Accidents, so why not Boating accidents or Incidents ?
Guess that its become the Norm in Certain quarters to deflect any blame from anyone so the least said or understood about any case the better for any accused or under examination ?
What I and am sure others (some) are doing here is to understand the logic behing such Thrill Runs in public on open waters amoungst others who are out boating ?
After all, the bottom line here is surely that the views of other Boaters on these Thrill Rides should be taken into account in any subsequent inquiry where possible rules and regulations need to be adjusted
Elessar
Well-known member
I agree it’s unlikely to be prejudicial.
It is likely to be upsetting for thise involved when people post idiotic, ill informed, speculative nonsense of which there is plenty on here already.
I agree the police should look for all information and use it, including camera evidence. What’s that got to do with the validity of speculative nonsense on here?
I agree that the informed views of all water users should be taken into account when considering legislation. What’s that got to do with the validity of speculative nonsense on here? You really think the legislators are going to consider the views of a load of anonymous old men with an axe to grind? Seriously?
Anyway by saying that “anything here is unlikely to be prejudicial” as you do in your first paragraph does make your last paragraph look rather silly.
Your attempts at justification of this poor behaviour just doesn’t stack in my view.
To repeat myself, have a thought for those involved.
[178529]
...
I think cstewart37 has a definite general point. How can the idea of offering high speed 'thrill' trips in a powerful rib be considered a safe thing to do?
I don't think this is prejudicial or in bad taste. Making allegations over hearsay phone use may be.
However, I do tend to agree that sticking 12 people into a rib and charging for thrills is inherently not a good idea imho. The incentive has to be on providing greater and greater thrills in something where the margin for error is fine
I don't think this is prejudicial or in bad taste. Making allegations over hearsay phone use may be.
However, I do tend to agree that sticking 12 people into a rib and charging for thrills is inherently not a good idea imho. The incentive has to be on providing greater and greater thrills in something where the margin for error is fine
Elessar
Well-known member
it can be considered safe if the facts are fully considered.
How many thrill rides, and how many accidents are key bits of information for a start.
As we are into speculation I’d argue that a dinghy trip from the shore to a moored yacht has more fatalities per trip than thrill rides.
So on the logic of this thread mooring buoys should be banned. .
Kelpie
Well-known member
I'd be surprised if anybody could talk on a VHF or mobile whilst doing 45kt in an open RIB, you can barely talk to someone standing right next to you.
Also, there's a big difference between talking on a handheld device whilst helming a boat in open water, and doing it at top speed in proximity to hazards.
But this is all baseless speculation, we have no reliable named sourced to suggest that this tragic accident was in any way related to the use of a mobile phone.
As to the person calling for high powered craft to be banned... one of the boats I used to work on had twin 350hp engines and took 15 hours to do its scheduled passenger trip. Imagine how long it would have taken with a less powerful boat...!
Also, there's a big difference between talking on a handheld device whilst helming a boat in open water, and doing it at top speed in proximity to hazards.
But this is all baseless speculation, we have no reliable named sourced to suggest that this tragic accident was in any way related to the use of a mobile phone.
As to the person calling for high powered craft to be banned... one of the boats I used to work on had twin 350hp engines and took 15 hours to do its scheduled passenger trip. Imagine how long it would have taken with a less powerful boat...!
sarabande
Well-known member
Look at around 6min 25s, he turns rapidly towards a passing mobo, to jump the wake. The separation is minimal and an error would have huge consequences . I know the video is from the front passenger (at head height ?) but the visibility directly ahead does seem to be compromised.
