Liquid Vortex trial starts

[Old Dog]

Out of curiosity, how many of the crew appeared as witnesses for the prosecution and how many appeared as witnesses for the defence?

Think you may find newman 123 as a member of the crew can not comment fully. I think "she" is the crewmember behind the "sensationalist" press comments that one of the other members of crew apparently denounced in his evidence.

If what I have been told (yes second hand so may not be totaly accurate) is correct she and one other have a civil action started on this so may have an interest?

Someone asked about the crew for prosecution/defence, understand MCA may have called all 6 as part of prosecution but that they split down the middle for/against.

 

[Old Dog]

A poster not being impartial on Scuttlebutt-whatever next!

Hey I have made it clear I am for Charlie, Because of the case pending he could not comment and he has to go on waiting while MCA make up their minds about waisting more public money.

The press coverage has been one side to the point of "trial by press". The Echo appears to have just reported for the prosecution? So the jury heard the evidence and they have decided (on all but 1). Newman 123(woman) appears to say they have got it wrong? Well the system exists to stop bigots with axes to grind getting their way.

 

[Old Dog]

I'm not sure that's true:

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335802

Post 6 is good IMHO.

Yes you are right, thinking about it if you break IRPCS it would be the Act they get you under and having just looked up Sect 58 that could probably apply to anyone.

As an aside you would be shocked by how many people working in industry are not aware of it even now.

 

[jimi]

So let me get it right, Old Dog. You are asking us to disregard the first hand account related by a poster here and the accounts of the RNLI but trust your relayed communications from CS. Have I got that one right?

 

[Heckler]

The fact there were paying customers on board was relevant because it did indicate the passage was a commercial one leading to the charges. Quite why the jury did not find them guilty we should never know, but the reality that they didn't may well be seen by some as the go ahead for more macho descisions in commercial opperations.

Of course the whole episode has little impact on our activities unless we opt for some training.

As I understand it the judge directed the jury
Stu

 

[Old Dog]

Umm in a way I'm disappointed with the verdict.

It doesn't change my view that CS was a plonker for being there in the first place.

As I have just noticed I mucked up the quote I will have a second go.

I assume from your comment you think you know better and have more information than a jury that sat through 2 weeks of trial?

That kind of comment is one of the reasons I have always just followed "threads" before and never posted.

 

[Plevier]

Hey I have made it clear I am for Charlie, Because of the case pending he could not comment and he has to go on waiting while MCA make up their minds about waisting more public money.

The press coverage has been one side to the point of "trial by press". The Echo appears to have just reported for the prosecution? So the jury heard the evidence and they have decided (on all but 1). Newman 123(woman) appears to say they have got it wrong? Well the system exists to stop bigots with axes to grind getting their way.

Hang on you said you were against uninformed speculation - yet you dismiss someone who was there as a bigot because their account doesn't match what you have heard 2nd/3rd hand from your chums?

I don't know the truth of it either - like you I wasn't there.

 

[fireball]

Think you will find he has had it back since May and has been working.

Just as long as he doesn't now think that his actions last jan where fine and he can do the same again...

Just because he wasn't criminally wrong doesn't make his errors ok.

I've briefly met the man and I have no desire to repeat the experience.

 

[Old Dog]

So let me get it right, Old Dog. You are asking us to disregard the first hand account related by a poster here and the accounts of the RNLI but trust your relayed communications from CS. Have I got that one right?

Hey I have made it clear from the start who's side I am on here. I am just pointing out that someone with a civil claim in the offing may have an interest in this having gone the other way? The jury must have heard something from someone to convince them to come to the verdict they have? That Newman 123 clearly thinks they got it wrong that suggests to me it was not her account that wone the day?

As to the other issue I was asked a question which I answered. As I understand it the court heard evidence from at least two people about the liferaft being torn from its stowage by the wave that injured the guy on the helm. As to why that may differ in a very minor way from an RNLI press release we have already gone over. Its not like it makes any real difference to what happened or why?

I hope I will get to ask Charlie a number of things first hand in the near future, that may shed some more light on things.

 

[Old Dog]

Hang on you said you were against uninformed speculation - yet you dismiss someone who was there as a bigot because their account doesn't match what you have heard 2nd/3rd hand from your chums?

I don't know the truth of it either - like you I wasn't there.

OK here are three things to check out.

The guy that was on the wheel when the wave hit is a CNN Reporter.

He as I understand it gave evidence that was completely at odds to the woman that is Newman 123. To the point that he confirmed he had writen to her and one of the papers/yachting mags that published her account at the time complaining about the reporting. I understand he discribed it in court as "sensationalist and grossly exaggerated".

He may also have given evidence that as she was off watch from 2000 and did not come back on deck untill the hi-line took her off and had an exaggerated view on the conditions

He was the bloke injured, had no conection with Charlie so no reason to side with him other than he was in a witness stand telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

[Plevier]

OK here are three things to check out.

The guy that was on the wheel when the wave hit is a CNN Reporter.

He as I understand it gave evidence that was completely at odds to the woman that is Newman 123. To the point that he confirmed he had writen to her and one of the papers/yachting mags that published her account at the time complaining about the reporting. I understand he discribed it in court as "sensationalist and grossly exaggerated".

He may also have given evidence that as she was off watch from 2000 and did not come back on deck untill the hi-line took her off and had an exaggerated view on the conditions

He was the bloke injured, had no conection with Charlie so no reason to side with him other than he was in a witness stand telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If he is a CNN reporter - is that relevant in any way?

In an earlier post you said this

"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),"

So when it suited you, you were talking up the crew's experience. Now it suits you to denigrate the most experienced one (I am taking that to be Newman123, everything that has been said indicates that).

As I see it your contributions do nothing to increase the real information content of this thread, you are just an apologist for CS.

For the record, as my profile shows I am Brighton based, I'm not at the marina and I have no direct or indirect connection with Newman123 (or anyone else involved in this episode).

 

[A1Sailor]

I hope I will get to ask Charlie a number of things first hand in the near future, that may shed some more light on things.

Thanks. Why did he set off and end up "sailing" in the Force 10 that he knew was likely. Did he have a death wish?

 

[dt4134]

If he is a CNN reporter - is that relevant in any way?

"Reporter complains about sensationalist and grossly exagerrated report"

Now wouldn't that be a good headline

 

[emsworthy]

Question, were the RYA a bit hasty! A month after the storm the RYA stripped JM of his accreditation and he lost his school/ business. This was before the MCA had completed their investigations.

Yet the court/ jury decided he had done nothing wrong!

It was not a even an RYA course was it, but the charter side of his business: a delivery trip/ mile builder.

Some interesting parallels here with the John Terry case. In the criminal case the courts found him not guilty of racism but the FA decided to fine him £220,000 and give him a four match ban anyway.

Both cases demonstrate a different burden of proof between the governing body and a court of law. In both cases the governing body clearly feel justified in disagreeing with a not guilty verdict.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Still can't find the charges.
Those are just "relating to" and don't specify the "You are charged with...."

I asked the court "exactly what the charges were" and this is what they told me. It's not what I was expecting. [1]

CS:
1) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals – not guilty verdict

2) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals – not guilty by Judge’s direction

3) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals – Jury unable to agree

4) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals _ not guilty by Judge’s direction



JM:
1) Failure of owner of ship to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the ship is operated in a safe manner- not guilty verdict

2) Failure of owner of ship to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the ship is operated in a safe manner – not guilty by Judge’s direction

3) Failure of owner of ship to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the ship is operated in a safe manner – not guilty by Judge’s direction


[1] British justice isn't quite as transparent as I hoped it might be. We can't easily find out what the witness said we can't find out exactly which specific actions/inactions lead to the breaches of the law.

 

[Searush]

I asked the court "exactly what the charges were" and this is what they told me. It's not what I was expecting. [1]

CS:
1) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals – not guilty verdict

2) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals – not guilty by Judge’s direction

3) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals – Jury unable to agree

4) Misconduct of master or crew likely to endanger ships, structures or individuals _ not guilty by Judge’s direction



JM:
1) Failure of owner of ship to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the ship is operated in a safe manner- not guilty verdict

2) Failure of owner of ship to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the ship is operated in a safe manner – not guilty by Judge’s direction

3) Failure of owner of ship to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the ship is operated in a safe manner – not guilty by Judge’s direction


[1] British justice isn't quite as transparent as I hoped it might be. We can't easily find out what the witness said we can't find out exactly which specific actions/inactions lead to the breaches of the law.

Well, the trial was held in public & with free access for the press to report, but if you couldn't get in yourself, it has clearly been a waste of time reading published reports & there is no written or recorded transcript available.

 

[bitbaltic]

British justice isn't quite as transparent as I hoped it might be. We can't easily find out what the witness said we can't find out exactly which specific actions/inactions lead to the breaches of the law.

Quite so. They each seem to have been charged with exactly the same thing three or four times over with differing results. Confusing to say the least.

 

[viago]

Hey I have made it clear I am for Charlie, Because of the case pending he could not comment and he has to go on waiting while MCA make up their minds about waisting more public money.

The press coverage has been one side to the point of "trial by press". The Echo appears to have just reported for the prosecution? So the jury heard the evidence and they have decided (on all but 1). Newman 123(woman) appears to say they have got it wrong? Well the system exists to stop bigots with axes to grind getting their way.

i think charlie can rest assured that the mca and the cg wont wish to further embarrass themselves, one kicking is usually enough.

the cg can reflect that henceforth they shall be regarded as an assist and assail service.

the rya's rash action in suspending its accreditation, over a non-training delivery voyage, seems to have led to significant loss for the company which may need to be discussed.

the finely honed axes around here show no signs of being stowed any time soon.

well done for ruffling a few feathers.

 

[maxi77]

[1] British justice isn't quite as transparent as I hoped it might be. We can't easily find out what the witness said we can't find out exactly which specific actions/inactions lead to the breaches of the law.

The traditional transparency is based on the court being open for all those who wish to see and hear the proceedings. Before sound recording took place they used shorthand but the records were never transcribed unless required for legal reasons. I suspect that although it would be relatively inexpensive to provide copies of the recordings it may be some time and perhaps never before the unexpurgated and unedited recordings are made public.

In law the only people who actually need to hear the evidence are the jury who act on your behalf. As for breaches of the law in this case, so far, there have been none so none to find from the trial proceedings.

 

[Vara]

Umm in a way I'm disappointed with the verdict./QUOTE]

So I take it you know more about the incident than the jury heard over two weeks??

Yes, I refer you to the original post I started the day of the incident.
The fact that they were found not guilty was an indictment of the law as framed not of the jury system.

IMO CS was reckless and exhibited very poor seamanship.

But hey, what do I know, I've only been sailing coastal/offshore for 42 years, and qualified as a Yachtmaster (equivalent) at age 24, my Ocean was at 26.