OUZO.

Rabbie

Rabbie

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 Jun 2001
Messages
3,895
Location
East Sussex
Visit site
My wife just told me that a P&O man has been charged over the loss of the yacht OUZO last year. Anyone got any more info?.
 
November 2006 edition of Nautilus Telegraph carried this story...
[ QUOTE ]
Officer arrested: an agency-supplied officer working onboard
the P&O ferry Pride of Bilbao has been arrested and
questioned by police investigating the deaths of three men
whose yacht sank in the Channel in August. Detectives said
the officer had been arrested on suspicion of causing
manslaughter by gross negligence, and he was interviewed
and released without charge on police bail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this one is it?
 
Since the current corporate negligence legislation is joke, and there's no hope of new laws coming in this side of a Liberal Democrat joining the cabinet, I bet his defence will be that he was following standing orders. Then P&O will be fined £10k for having failed to send him for an eye test or something.

How wretched for the families to have to go through all the details.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Since the current corporate negligence legislation is joke, and there's no hope of new laws coming in this side of a Liberal Democrat joining the cabinet, I bet his defence will be that he was following standing orders. Then P&O will be fined £10k for having failed to send him for an eye test or something.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that's not right. Companies are liable for negligence in exactly the same way individuals are, there's no difference. Whoever wasn't negligent and caused the accident is liable whether it's a company or an individual.

You'll be thinking about criminal sanctions (eg. being sent to prison) rather than liability negligence.
 
I doubt that corporate negligence is even an issue here. The fact that an individual has been charged indicates that the authorities are working on the basis that an individual officer failed to keep a good enough lookout. He is innocent until proved guilty, and we will only see from the evidence presented in court whether there is an issue over manning levels or equipment failure which could be an issue of corporate responsibility.
 
Quite right. The sinking of a yacht (Wakhuna?) by a container ship in fog a couple of years ago was a case of a big ship not seeing a yacht (Though in that case they had seen it on radar) and running it down without stopping. The fact is that even in good visibility a small yacht will disappear from view if it gets too close in front of a big ship and if it has not shown up well enough on radar for it to be automatically tracked, and the look out fails to see it then a tragedy will always be on the cards. Cheap AIS receivers now allow yachtsmen to see and identify AIS equipped ships. If however those ships are relying on AIS to identify collision risks then we can only hope that AIS transmitters will become cheap enough to fit.
 
From what I have read about AIS transmitters for us yachties you will have problems down in the channel getting a time slot to transmit your data as it has no priority and if the area is busy you might not get a look in.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well that's a fourth life ruined then.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolutely true Sea rush. It amazes me that it doesnt happen more often.

I understand the man is in his 60s .Probably safely spotted and avoided thousands of small craft during his career. One mistake now could blight his whole career/life if he is found guilty.
 
I'll second that - the whole situation is tragic and until the report on how and why it happened then there has to be sympathy all round. There will be many perspectives on what happened - unfortunately there's no-one from the Ouzo to give their story. Very sad.
 
The problem with any trial involving corporate manslaughter is identifying the controlling mind in the organisation. In asian cultures the CEO's take responsibility for their subordinates but not here.

I can honestly say that when things go wrong in organisations I have worked for its relatively easy to identify the depoartment at fault but hard to put a person against the mistake.

WRT this tragic incident there was much speculation on here as to possible causes and many suggested it had been run down. As I posted elswhere about another incident the speculation is helpful to many as this incident raised my awareness regarding a stern lookout.

Its not disrespectful to those saddly lost to discuss possible causes - it indicate our concern. Concern that others may benefit as much as possible from the sad incident.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The sinking of a yacht (Wakhuna?) by a container ship in fog a couple of years ago

[/ QUOTE ] If i remeber correctly in that case although the ships crew were criticised the situation was compounded by the Wakhuna's crew not interpreting their radar correctly and turning in the wrong direction ie back towards the ship.

The full report should still be on the MAIB website but the last I remeber was that the skipper of the Wakhuna, being a member of the legal profession, was challenging the MAIB report. I've no idea what the final outcome was.
 
If I remember correctly the Wakhuna slowed down to allow the ship to pass ahead of them.This was an error as it left them in the ships path.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I understand the man is in his 60s .Probably safely spotted and avoided thousands of small craft during his career. One mistake now could blight his whole career/life if he is found guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not just a mistake - he is accused of "gross negligence". If he is guilty then he deserves everything he gets. I will have much more sympathy for him if he is found not guilty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
Amiable demands for money!
Replies
15
Views
811
penberth3
P
A
Finding crew
Replies
2
Views
246
Phil_boat
P
dgadee
Arzal?
Replies
12
Views
351
dunedin
D

Share this page

Top