Liquid Vortex trial starts

Vara said:
Old Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree - it was not an indictment of the law, but a confirmation that there was no law to prohibit a captain to set sail in strong winds.

Reckless? Poor seamanship?

A question of degree. While most of us here would not put sail in conditions which were already that rough and were likely to become worse, at which point do you draw the line? I think that is instrinsically a personal question.

I am glad of he was not found guilt. Because if he was found him guilty of setting sail in strong winds because it could be dangerous, we might all end up getting grounded whenever there is any conditions which could be considered dangerous - which might well get defined as being a F6, or may be a F5 if you boat is less than 35ft. Or less than F1 because in the event of an engine failure you might need to be towed.

Or may be sailing is just too damm dangerous and needs to be banned altogether.

We do not know exactly the whole story and probably never will. There have been conflicting reports and we don't have a transcript of the trial.

The crew were on paper adequately qualified. There were plenty of bolt holes along the planned voyage. The weather conditions as filmed from the lifeboat did not look particularly severe - although certainly rough enough to cease to be considered fun by a good many people. It seems that the skipper warned the crew that tough conditions were expected. It seems that they signed up for that thinking it would be good experience and that at least some of them regretted it half way through.

The boat did not sink and after the tow was abandoned by the lifeboat, it made its own way to port. The majority of the damage seems to have been caused by the attempts to tow it.

Some of the crew were airlifted off - which seems to have been unnecessary apart from the poor guy who was injured when he fell against the wheel.
(an accident which could have happened in much calmer conditions as well).
Click to expand...
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
[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.
Click to expand...

It is totally transparent. Both sides made their arguments in open court in front of a judge and jury to whom society has delegated responsibility to assess whether the law has been broken.

It is completely irrelevant whether you have access to everything that was said as you (thank goodness - and it applies to all of us) have no part in that decision.

The only parties that can question what was said or need a transcript are the two sides if they wish to mount an appeal.
 
michaelchapman said:
I disagree - it was not an indictment of the law, but a confirmation that there was no law to prohibit a captain to set sail in strong winds.

Reckless? Poor seamanship?

A question of degree. While most of us here would not put sail in conditions which were already that rough and were likely to become worse, at which point do you draw the line? I think that is instrinsically a personal question.

I am glad of he was not found guilt. Because if he was found him guilty of setting sail in strong winds because it could be dangerous, we might all end up getting grounded whenever there is any conditions which could be considered dangerous - which might well get defined as being a F6, or may be a F5 if you boat is less than 35ft. Or less than F1 because in the event of an engine failure you might need to be towed.

Or may be sailing is just too damm dangerous and needs to be banned altogether.

We do not know exactly the whole story and probably never will. There have been conflicting reports and we don't have a transcript of the trial.

The crew were on paper adequately qualified. There were plenty of bolt holes along the planned voyage. The weather conditions as filmed from the lifeboat did not look particularly severe - although certainly rough enough to cease to be considered fun by a good many people. It seems that the skipper warned the crew that tough conditions were expected. It seems that they signed up for that thinking it would be good experience and that at least some of them regretted it half way through.

The boat did not sink and after the tow was abandoned by the lifeboat, it made its own way to port. The majority of the damage seems to have been caused by the attempts to tow it.

Some of the crew were airlifted off - which seems to have been unnecessary apart from the poor guy who was injured when he fell against the wheel.
(an accident which could have happened in much calmer conditions as well).
Click to expand...

+1

Unlike the Jury, we won't ever have the detail of how the various decisions were made and what information informed those decisions. So for every scenario anyone can make up that paints these guys to be in the wrong, we can equally all make up one up that shows them to be behaving perfectly reasonably.

The facts are:

- A jury who have heard both sides of the story didn't conclude that CS or JM had done anything likely to damage the boat or harm anyone on it.

- Everyone decided to leave with LV, clearly the point of departure all the people on the boat also felt they were not likely to be harmed.

- CS's daughter was on board also, a) She has a Dad who has sailed all his life so probably does a bit herself, b) It's hard to see why CS would have taken any chances with her.

- CS has sailed since he was 8 without, AFAIK ever being rescued.

IMV all the above supports the idea that the LV's had a reasonable plan which ultimately went wrong, that's not conclusive, of course.
 
Plenty of bolt holes ... hmmm? That is the crux of the issue to me.

Here's a challenge for you Toady. Name the bolt holes which are safe to enter in a F10 between the Solent and Ramsgate. I can think of one probability and it ain't this side of the channel!
 
jimi said:
Name the bolt holes which are safe to enter in a F10 between the Solent and Ramsgate. I can think of one probability and it ain't this side of the channel!
Click to expand...

We don't know that they planned to use a bolt hole in a F10:

The plan might have been to go into shelter before the F10 hit.
The plan might have been to give themselves plenty of sea room and ride it out because they wanted the challenge of sailing in a F10.

We don't know what decisions were made and why. The jury does know.
 
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall said:
We don't know that they planned to use a bolt hole in a F10:

The plan might have been to go into shelter before the F10 hit.
The plan might have been to give themselves plenty of sea room and ride it out because they wanted the challenge of sailing in a F10.

We don't know what decisions were made and why. The jury does know.
Click to expand...

Himmm slippery Toad, why don't you just answer the question rather than dodge and obfuscate the issue? Name the boltholes that would be safe to enter in a F10 between the Solent and Ramsgate.

They did as you know, leave the Solent with a F10 forecast and it is 120 Nm from Portsmouth to Ramsgate.

and a supplementantary question .. does your definition of searoom include being in the narrowest bit of the English Channel or around, say, the Goodwin Sands?
 
Last edited:
First Comment

michaelchapman said:
Vara said:
I disagree - it was not an indictment of the law, but a confirmation that there was no law to prohibit a captain to set sail in strong winds.

Reckless? Poor seamanship?

A question of degree. While most of us here would not put sail in conditions which were already that rough and were likely to become worse, at which point do you draw the line? I think that is instrinsically a personal question.

I am glad of he was not found guilt. Because if he was found him guilty of setting sail in strong winds because it could be dangerous, we might all end up getting grounded whenever there is any conditions which could be considered dangerous - which might well get defined as being a F6, or may be a F5 if you boat is less than 35ft. Or less than F1 because in the event of an engine failure you might need to be towed.

Or may be sailing is just too damm dangerous and needs to be banned altogether.

We do not know exactly the whole story and probably never will. There have been conflicting reports and we don't have a transcript of the trial.

The crew were on paper adequately qualified. There were plenty of bolt holes along the planned voyage. The weather conditions as filmed from the lifeboat did not look particularly severe - although certainly rough enough to cease to be considered fun by a good many people. It seems that the skipper warned the crew that tough conditions were expected. It seems that they signed up for that thinking it would be good experience and that at least some of them regretted it half way through.

The boat did not sink and after the tow was abandoned by the lifeboat, it made its own way to port. The majority of the damage seems to have been caused by the attempts to tow it.

Some of the crew were airlifted off - which seems to have been unnecessary apart from the poor guy who was injured when he fell against the wheel.
(an accident which could have happened in much calmer conditions as well).
Click to expand...

As a retired professional, I have followed this long debate with interest but to date not contributed - I wasn't there nor in court.

For me the above post is a well argued definitive statement.

Thank you Michael:)
Click to expand...
 
bitbaltic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not confusing at all. The law is written in general terms and the prosecution identifies the bits of the law that they think will cover the actions taken or not taken. It is up to them to show that the actions constitute a breach of the law, and the same actions could relate to a number of charges.

In this case most of the charges relate to what the principal of the firm and his skipper should have done in advance to ensure a safe passage - the way the passage was planned, the boat prepared, the crew capability assessed, the use of the weather information, their plans for what to do if things went wrong, and the actions they took as the passage progressed.

It only seems "confusing" in the sense that many of these issues are interlinked and/or the evidence of what the actions were is unclear from the evidence presented. That is the role of the court, to try and unravel what happened and test it against the expectations of the particular section of the law - the prosecution to show a breach and the defence to show that what they did was within the law. The judge then sums up the arguments related to the charges and the jury decides. While the summing up will usually give an indication of which way it will go, the fact that the jury took over 10 hours deliberation and was still unable to agree on one of the charges suggests it was not clear cut, but we will never know what specific arguments convinced the jury - except that they were more convinced by the evidence and argument for the defence.

As some have suggested the case might lead to a revision of the law to make it more explicit and prescriptive about what an owner and skipper is required to do in planning and executing a successful passage. However, many will argue that there is enough already in recognised guidelines, operating procedures, qualification requirements, evidence of good practice etc for owners and skippers to know what is expected.
 
There seem to be far fewer comments post the court hearing than there were forum judgements on the matter before the hearing. Where are all the censorious posters now?
 
I made my position on this quite clear at the time. Many posters on this subject were unable-or chose not to-differentiate between a private yacht and its crew and a coded boat with a crew who had paid to go sailing. There are responsibilities that come with the latter. I dont believe HL and CS made the right calls. That is an opinion, and one it would be difficult to move me from. The jury decided not to convict-they had more information than most of us who post here-so that is the end of it. I am also of the opinion that had a prosecution been bought under H&S legislation the outcome may have been different. Again, an opinion......................
 
rotrax said:
I made my position on this quite clear at the time. Many posters on this subject were unable-or chose not to-differentiate between a private yacht and its crew and a coded boat with a crew who had paid to go sailing. There are responsibilities that come with the latter. I dont believe HL and CS made the right calls. That is an opinion, and one it would be difficult to move me from. The jury decided not to convict-they had more information than most of us who post here-so that is the end of it. I am also of the opinion that had a prosecution been bought under H&S legislation the outcome may have been different. Again, an opinion......................
Click to expand...

I think that is the view of many on here including myself. I also think that many on here will have a better idea about the pressures/conditions etc that were on board than a Jury and would have seen through all the legal twaddle.
 
wotayottie said:
There seem to be far fewer comments post the court hearing than there were forum judgements on the matter before the hearing. Where are all the censorious posters now?
Click to expand...

Presumably not dredging up threads that have been dormant for the best part of a month.
 
wotayottie said:
There seem to be far fewer comments post the court hearing than there were forum judgements on the matter before the hearing. Where are all the censorious posters now?
Click to expand...
The legal process has completed and the jury has come to a decision based on the evidence they heard. If we agree or disagree with their decision it is academic.

The company is no longer trading so any management weaknesses cannot be repeated. I understand that the Skipper has his ticket back so has satisfied an examiner about his skills; I hope the RYA examiner was fully briefed on the candidates history given the press coverage.
 
Last edited:
As with many unfortunate events often the best outcome is that so many learn from them and hopefully any mistakes will not be repeated.

Thats why discussion on here and even speculation is IMHO good as it make us think of many senarios that possible we had never considered them nor what is the best action.

Its always better to learn from others mistakes/errors of judgement!
 
Sailfree said:
As with many unfortunate events often the best outcome is that so many learn from them and hopefully any mistakes will not be repeated.

Thats why discussion on here and even speculation is IMHO good as it make us think of many senarios that possible we had never considered them nor what is the best action.

Its always better to learn from others mistakes/errors of judgement!
Click to expand...

+1 Nicely put.
 
Talulah said:
I think that is the view of many on here including myself. I also think that many on here will have a better idea about the pressures/conditions etc that were on board than a Jury and would have seen through all the legal twaddle.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion the corner stone of British justice the jury is useless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top