Liquid Vortex trial starts

rhinorhino said:
The charges are a matter of public record and the Court will tell you if you ask.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I'll get in touch. (Ought to be online IMHO).

rhinorhino said:
As to a transcript these have to be ordered from the transcribers and they are not cheap (c. £100/hr last time I paid) you may be asked why you need one and may require permission from the trial judge.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's a shame - I assumed that this kind of thing would be totally open and available free/nominal charge as a PDF or somesuch once you knew who to ask. Unless the witnesses spoke very fast I won't be investing!
 
newman123 said:
Sadly as there's still the possibility of a re trial I can't comment fully, but I was on the boat and the Jury were clearly at a different trial!
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how many of the crew appeared as witnesses for the prosecution and how many appeared as witnesses for the defence?
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
Surely you can tell us exactly what the charges were?

Can you tell us how we can get hold of a transcript of the witness evidence?
Click to expand...

Newman 123 posted on the original thread back in January. Clearly he has the most complete knowledge of the incident of any poster here (noting your regular appeals to the forum's incomplete understanding of events) so I think we should take his opinion seriously. Sandbagging him to get hold of witness statements or 'telling us how to do so'seems highly distasteful IMHO.

The trial is clear with the exception of the one charge which might be pending appeal- the acts of the skipper and principal were not illegal. What Newman123 as the most informed poster on the thread is saying, though, is that there is a difference between culpability in law and the feelings of those on board. They clearly felt the voyage unseamanlike and unsafe.

All we can do as sailors is discuss the seamanship of CS and JM and in my opinion it fell below the levels expected of professionals. Clearly however it is not illegal to fall short of seamanship. This is the conclusion to be drawn from the trial for the keen amateur onboard or in his windswept armchair. On balance, I see nothing to celebrate in that.
 
I for one am glad there were no conviction's. What would have been gained by incarcerating or fining the two individuals.

Nothing of value has been learned by the two individuals, the RNLI, the RYA, the sailing comunity, those who may choose to learn sailing or the public.

Instead of a criminal trial an investigation by the MAIB could have come up with a report on what actualy happened insead of speculation. Produced to factual findings or reasonable conlusions about what went wrong. Made recomendations to prevent or reduce the lilkyhood of a reoccurance.

Been published so we can all learn from thier mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Uricanejack said:
Instead of a criminal trial an investigation by the MAIB could have come up with a report on what actualy happened insead of speculation. Produced to factual findings or reasonable conlusions about what went wrong. Made recomendations to prevent or reduce the lilkyhood of a reoccurance.

Been published so we can all learn from thier mistakes.
Click to expand...

They tried that.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/2011/liquid_vortex.cfm

I presume somebody somewhere was of the opinion that there hadn't been sufficient improvement as a result of that report.



I reckon the result of the court case is OK.

The school no longer exists so can't re-offend. I'm sure other schools have also considered the lessons.

The skipper lost his ticket for a while, has had to go through the trial, and still has one charge hanging over him, so he should be suitably chastened.

And there's no ammunition for some jobsworth to stop someone going out in a F6.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
Cheers, I'll get in touch. (Ought to be online IMHO).



Thanks, that's a shame - I assumed that this kind of thing would be totally open and available free/nominal charge as a PDF or somesuch once you knew who to ask. Unless the witnesses spoke very fast I won't be investing!
Click to expand...

What happens in Court is that the proceedings are taped by an automated system. The Judge and counsel keep their own written notes and the tape is only transcribed if there is an appeal and an exact record is required. So in the normal run of things there is never a transcript.
 
Last edited:
What a good discussion!
The posts that (apart from the content) that will stick with me are Old dogs post ....
' I think a lot if not most of what is said is ill informed speculation by people who do not have a clue (By the way that is not meant as any kind of pesonal comment).'

and a classic by the old ( and I mean that in a friendly way) searush himself by reminding a lawyer that he is indeed commenting without payment.

Two classics!!

Bob
 
robertj said:
What a good discussion!
The posts that (apart from the content) that will stick with me are Old dogs post ....
' I think a lot if not most of what is said is ill informed speculation by people who do not have a clue (By the way that is not meant as any kind of pesonal comment).'
Click to expand...

Unfortunately having started with this high minded sentiment, Old Dog goes on to repeat unverified 3rd hand information:

"OK as one or two may know or have sussed out I know some people that know Skipper and have met him. People should be aware that a number of very highly qualified and respected people have supported him as this was totaly out of character. I have heard a number of things about this and while we all agree that as a min going beyond Eastbourne was not a good idea some other speculation has been complete *******s, so here goes

I think it has now been said in court so I will start about the crew 2 x DS and 4 x CC. But qualification, ability and experiance re not always one and same.

Think you may find one DS owned own 49' in Brighton and had sailed it back from Med several years before, done channel Crossings with it and had been sailing for 20/30 years with several times the miles required for YM! Second DS had more than just the min 10 days and 200NM (not sure how much), apparently had done lots in Solent with friends before doing DS and was discribed as very strong sailor."

which strongly conflicts with the statements of the person apparently referred to:

"I imagine that I would have been considered to be the second most experienced person as I own a yacht and have day skipper but I made it perfectly clear before we left that I'd sailed very little in the last three years and didn't feel that I was experienced."
(Newman123, post no 65 in thread http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3308276#post3308276)

Old Dog does not seem to me to be impartial.
 
Last edited:
Troubadour said:
Unfortunately having started with this high minded sentiment, Old Dog goes on to repeat unverified 3rd hand information:

"OK as one or two may know or have sussed out I know some people that know Skipper and have met him. People should be aware that a number of very highly qualified and respected people have supported him as this was totaly out of character. I have heard a number of things about this and while we all agree that as a min going beyond Eastbourne was not a good idea some other speculation has been complete *******s, so here goes

I think it has now been said in court so I will start about the crew 2 x DS and 4 x CC. But qualification, ability and experiance re not always one and same.

Think you may find one DS owned own 49' in Brighton and had sailed it back from Med several years before, done channel Crossings with it and had been sailing for 20/30 years with several times the miles required for YM! Second DS had more than just the min 10 days and 200NM (not sure how much), apparently had done lots in Solent with friends before doing DS and was discribed as very strong sailor."

which strongly conflicts with the statements of the person apparently referred to:

"I imagine that I would have been considered to be the second most experienced person as I own a yacht and have day skipper but I made it perfectly clear before we left that I'd sailed very little in the last three years and didn't feel that I was experienced."
(Newman123, post no 65 in thread http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3308276#post3308276)

Old Dog does not seem to me to be impartial.
Click to expand...

A poster not being impartial on Scuttlebutt-whatever next!
 
bitbaltic said:
Newman 123 posted on the original thread back in January. Clearly he has the most complete knowledge of the incident of any poster here (noting your regular appeals to the forum's incomplete understanding of events) so I think we should take his opinion seriously. Sandbagging him to get hold of witness statements or 'telling us how to do so'seems highly distasteful IMHO.

The trial is clear with the exception of the one charge which might be pending appeal- the acts of the skipper and principal were not illegal. What Newman123 as the most informed poster on the thread is saying, though, is that there is a difference between culpability in law and the feelings of those on board. They clearly felt the voyage unseamanlike and unsafe.

All we can do as sailors is discuss the seamanship of CS and JM and in my opinion it fell below the levels expected of professionals. Clearly however it is not illegal to fall short of seamanship. This is the conclusion to be drawn from the trial for the keen amateur onboard or in his windswept armchair. On balance, I see nothing to celebrate in that.
Click to expand...

"All we can do as sailors is discuss the seamanship of CS and JM and in my opinion it fell below the levels expected of professionals."

You are entiled to your opinion, that their actions may be below the levels 'you' expect of professionals, but to be perhaps pedantic, can you critcise the "seamanship" of CS & JM?
 
alant said:
but to be perhaps pedantic, can you critcise the "seamanship" of CS & JM?
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know about JM - but IMHO, CS stayed out for longer than he should've done - easy to see in hindsight and even before the event, with the given forecast most of us would've run for shelter or not even set out ...
 
Pye_End said:
Thank you for posting your comments thus far.

Can you shed any light on the oddity of the liferaft reported to being inflated when the first lifeboat arrived?

What interests me most is what weather information CS had received which convinced him that firstly Dover would be open and secondly the timing of the deterioration of the weather. If he did have more concise information than the midnight shipping forecast, what was going through his mind as he passed Eastbourne in terms of timings, and of what he would do if the timings were wrong, or found Dover closed?
Click to expand...

Right as the incident was discribed to me the life raft was torn out of its stowage by the one wave that hit the boat and injured the guy on the helm. I assume a hydostatic release worked as designed. I think the sequence as reported in the RNLI press release is just normal confusion of a high stress incident. Any policeman will tell you no two witnesses ever totaly agree!

Ref weather I think it had to do with info from the Met Office Synoptics giving the impression that the weather was towards the later end of he "later" if you know what I mean. That may also have been supported by a couple of the GFS sites. I understand the MCA were trying to rubbish WindGuru during the trial that may have some relevance? Sorry can not offer more at moment.
 
Old Troll said:
Common Sense prevails at last. How could the Skipper be held guilty on such ridiculous charges. A guilty verdict would have meant the end of adventure or sea school sailing as we know it. The RYA been made to look foolish in making hasty charges against, no surprise of course, anything to keep the media happy and keep bums on seats. They always make the skipper "walk the plank".
MCA of course should also have known better,than bring charges without substance. Give the man his ticket back.
Click to expand...

Think you will find he has had it back since May and has been working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top