Registro Italiano Navale - Breaking News

[smackdaddy]

...but with maybe just a bit of "man eats dog"?

+1

 

[Bosun Higgs]

...but with maybe just a bit of "man eats dog"?

China not Korea - wrong sort of ...... eyes as HRH would put it.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

is this really news?

Well there's no objective measure of newsworthyness that I'm aware of, so all I can do is tell you why I personally found it of interest.

I think standards are important because they give some kind of objective analysis of fitness for purpose.

Let's assume the story is false, I personally want to know that so I can attribute value to Rina certification.

Let's assume Rina people accepted a bribe to certify goods on sale in the UK. Let's assume Rinas processes failed to prevent this happening. If so I personally want to know as much detail as possible, so I can attribute value to Rina certification & decide if it's just Rina.

Alternatively if bribery in standards assesment is so common as to not even be noteworthy, then I would say that in itself is noteworthy. Certainly it's not common knowledge to me. If I buy an Epirb I want to know it meets MED 96/98/EC, not that $5000 was handed over in a brown envelope.

So that's why it's newsworthy to me.

Now could you explain why you feel it's not newsworthy? Taken at face value your post says that in your view it doesn't matter if stuff on sale in the UK has dodgy certification, as long as a Chinese and Italian Firm have been involved at some stage? Surely that's not what you think? If it's not, what do you think?

 

[smackdaddy]

Well there's no objective measure of newsworthyness that I'm aware of, so all I can do is tell you why I personally found it of interest.

I think standards are important because they give some kind of objective analysis of fitness for purpose.

Let's assume the story is false, I personally want to know that so I can attribute value to Rina certification.

Let's assume Rina people accepted a bribe to certify goods on sale in the UK. Let's assume Rinas processes failed to prevent this happening. If so I personally want to know as much detail as possible, so I can attribute value to Rina certification & decide if it's just Rina.

Alternatively if bribery in standards assesment is so common as to not even be noteworthy, then I would say that in itself is noteworthy. Certainly it's not common knowledge to me. If I buy an Epirb I want to know it meets MED 96/98/EC, not that $5000 was handed over in a brown envelope.

So that's why it's newsworthy to me.

Now could you explain why you feel it's not newsworthy? Taken at face value your post says that in your view it doesn't matter if stuff on sale in the UK has dodgy certification, as long as a Chinese and Italian Firm have been involved at some stage? Surely that's not what you think? If it's not, what do you think?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I have to say that I find it somewhat hypocritical when those continually baying for Rocna's blood because of deceit and corruption, are perfectly willing to give a pass to anyone else involved in the same based on it being "business as usual". This especially when the implications of the latter are far wider reaching than the former. What's up with that?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Duplicated here at Jordan & Rigger's request: (http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3249846&postcount=886) Mind you, I don't think we'll be seeing all the people talking about Rina-Rocna-Gate obediently following me here.

But I might caution a forum persecution of RINA without evidence.

Quite right, but there is no persecution, just a search for the evidence. When we can all read the facts for ourselves, there will be no need to ask questions. I don't think anyone apaert from you and Grant is saying that Rina & Rocna have been inolved in corruption. We just don't know.

Of course the quest for hard facts might clear Rina & Rocna of this.

Yes they had a questionable employee, they dealt with them swiftly.

Grant says two? Is one of you mistaken? How did Rina "deal" with these employees? Were the Police involved?

Is there *any* way of backing this up with verifiable fact to your knowledge? (you say there is nothing in the public domain on RINA).

If it were necessary I am sure I could ask RINA's permission to release information

If it's not to much bother I'd like to see anything you have.

You basically have a summary, or conclusions, of the conversations in the post above and in the YM article in Oct 2011 YM.

YM have already covered Rina-gate? Did you write that article?

RINA acted immediately they became aware of the problem.

How did they become aware? What action did they take?

How did Rina become aware of the problem? Was/were the employee(s) involved in approving products other than anchors? Have Rina changed their processes to make future bribery more difficult?

I think what would help here is some hard facts about the Police investigation into Grant over the 'not stolen' $5000. Surely there must be some public record of that somethere? That would confirm a lot of this.

I'm really interested in gaugeing how widespread this kind of abuse of standards is. If if turns out Rina's processes allow one employee to do it then I don't really see why this wouldn't be widespread in Rina and in all other standards organisations.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I have to say that I find it somewhat hypocritical when those continually baying for Rocna's blood because of deceit and corruption, are perfectly willing to give a pass to anyone else involved in the same based on it being "business as usual". This especially when the implications of the latter are far wider reaching than the former. What's up with that?

People are mad. Rocna lie about one aspect of their design and people go crazy with angst. Rocna effective lie about every aspect of their design and everyone wants to forgive them!

I couldn't find an e-mail for Rina on their site and I hate using the web based contact forms they provide. If you get an e-mail address for them could you let me have it 'cos I think I'll see what Rina have to say as well. (If this story is false they'll be glad to hear about it and stamp on it. If it's true I'd like to hear what they have to say.)

 

[FishyInverness]

YM have already covered Rina-gate? Did you write that article?

Hi Toad,

Jonathan did indeed write that article, and I would suggest having a read of it, especially as it condenses the Rocna Gate thread from 80-odd pages of forum into 2-pages of published text.

While I agree with your intent, and moral stance, and feeling that what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander, I think that you're shooting a little wide of the mark when stating what RINA actually did.

Grant has admitted a bribe was paid, of $5000, to certain officials/employees and I agree, some of the things said have muddied exactly how the concept of bribing certain people was arrived at.

But that bribe was obviously to get things moving, NOT to certify something uncertifiable, which is where I feel you're making the point, that RINA as a certifying organisation, took money to do something against their remit - So please read Jonathan's article before responding to this next part, as the items in quotes are directly from it:

"The only RINA certificate I have been able to find is dated 25 May 2011"(This was also mentioned numerous times by people trying to get an answer from Rocna about that very same issue)

"RINA's Certificate covers anchors made to the original design of High-Tensile steel shanks and plate steel flukes. For Proof (laboratory) testing in Shanghai, the sample submitted had a plate fluke. Rocna did not provide anchors with cast flukes to RINA"

So, it appears that the facts, as taken from posts from a press article and a forum poster who either was present or investigated further: a bribe was paid, things got moving, RINA certified the original type design (the type that was never under question) and that certificate was put in place by ROCNA implying that all of their anchors had the certification. (which is what could be considered deceitful)

Grant also mentioned about Bambury finding out about this at a boat show and then setting about removing him from the company. I am inclined to think, **and this is my personal opinion, based on reading these articles and forums, as well as Grants posts in particular**, that Bambury was expecting the bribe to certify the uncertifiable, but it merely produced a certificate they already knew could be produced.

Please also be aware that the Rocna website also made reference to the product meeting Lloyd's standards (since removed) - this was never the case (again please read Jonathan's article in YM October 2011 for more information on that.) so again this points to more a case of what Rocna implied they had received from RINA, as to what was actually granted by RINA.

 

[jimbaerselman]

But that bribe was obviously to get things moving, NOT to certify something uncertifiable,

Good point. But sadly, this is the way all bribes work. The official sucks his teeth, explains the incredible delays that will occur, that papers may be lost, but maybe all could be solved if . . . and raised eyebrows say the rest.

It's then only a very small step for an already examined application to be produced from the drawer, stamped and handed over. Or it could just as easily be an un-examined application.

As Toad implies, the integrity of an organisation is the key to trusting its output.

 

[FishyInverness]

Good point. But sadly, this is the way all bribes work. The official sucks his teeth, explains the incredible delays that will occur, that papers may be lost, but maybe all could be solved if . . . and raised eyebrows say the rest.

It's then only a very small step for an already examined application to be produced from the drawer, stamped and handed over. Or it could just as easily be an un-examined application.

As Toad implies, the integrity of an organisation is the key to trusting its output.

I don't disagree with that in any element, but what was produced was a certificate that would have been produced eventually without anyone needing a cash injection...so all that in fact happened, given the available facts, is that Grant, under instruction form his employer, handed over some money to get the certification into existence quicker - If you read between the lines, you could reach the conclusion that what was really, really desired by his employer was the cash to produce the un-examined application you refer to, but it wasn't....

I don't think that reflects on RINA's integrity, sure it's a slippery slope if a companies employees are prepared to accept money to do something quicker that they were going to do anyway,Grant mentioned that in his findings the employees responsible were dismissed.

I really am finding it hard to see how that makes RINA's integrity questionable, in light of the facts presented. More facts could well change the perspective though...

 

[macd]

China not Korea - wrong sort of ...... eyes as HRH would put it.

Apologies, all, for Fred Drift, but the Bosun has evidenty never been to a Chinese meat market.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

No I havent. But having been in a Chinese hospital I can imagine the horros of the meat market.

Do they really eat mans best friend?

 

[Bosun Higgs]

deleted

 

[smackdaddy]

I think you're stating things very well Fishy. It's all about the facts behind the implications.

I've emailed RINA asking for those facts and am looking in some other areas as well. We'll see what comes back.

I don't disagree with that in any element, but what was produced was a certificate that would have been produced eventually without anyone needing a cash injection...so all that in fact happened, given the available facts, is that Grant, under instruction form his employer, handed over some money to get the certification into existence quicker - If you read between the lines, you could reach the conclusion that what was really, really desired by his employer was the cash to produce the un-examined application you refer to, but it wasn't....

I don't think that reflects on RINA's integrity, sure it's a slippery slope if a companies employees are prepared to accept money to do something quicker that they were going to do anyway,Grant mentioned that in his findings the employees responsible were dismissed.

I really am finding it hard to see how that makes RINA's integrity questionable, in light of the facts presented. More facts could well change the perspective though...

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I have to say that I find it somewhat hypocritical when those continually baying for Rocna's blood because of deceit and corruption, are perfectly willing to give a pass to anyone else involved in the same based on it being "business as usual". This especially when the implications of the latter are far wider reaching than the former. What's up with that?

I've got to laugh at the absurdity of the accusation of hypocrisy by those who want to stick with the initial story rather than switch to another simply because you feel that it's more important.
Laughable.

 

[smackdaddy]

I've got to laugh at the absurdity of the accusation of hypocrisy by those who want to stick with the initial story rather than switch to another simply because you feel that it's more important.
Laughable.

I guess everyone has their own area of interest. The Rocna thing never interested me that much - this does.

 

[peterb]

The page bout their ethics is interesting: http://www.rina.org/EN/istituzionale/codice_etico.aspx

Berloscuni style, eh?

So is this one

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I really am finding it hard to see how that makes RINA's integrity questionable, in light of the facts presented. More facts could well change the perspective though...

Yup. As things stand Rina (and Rocna) are totally in the clear on the bribery issue. There's only the word of one person (who has at least two reasons to lie) against them both. Impossible to draw any firm conclusion from that.

However, AFAIK, Grant has typically told the truth when it comes to Rocna, so I wouldn't be surprised to find he was telling the truth on this as well.

We'll just have to be patient and see a) What Grant comes up with and b) if Rina have anything to say.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I've got to laugh at the absurdity of the accusation of hypocrisy by those who want to stick with the initial story rather than switch to another simply because you feel that it's more important.
Laughable.

It is a bit weird though, isn't it? Rocna behave in a dubious fashion over one aspect of their design and you go ballistic. Rocna are accused of behaving in a dubious & misleading fashion over their *entire* design and you support them?

In the mean time on the other thread, and everywhere else you go utterly silent over what you claim is the "real issue".

I can't make sense of it.

Have Rocna bribed you to change sides? [1]

[1] Joke.

 

[smackdaddy]

So is this one

Great find. Thanks!

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Toadie,

I'ld be fascinated to see how you have come to the conclusion that I support Rocna over the bribery issue............No, on second thoughts, I don't give a tinkers cuss about how you come to such a bizarre conclusion. All I know is that the majority of peeps will fully understand my position on this whole question.

On the off chance that you can understand plain English. I am interested in the Rocna question. The Rina question is a spin off from the Rocna one. Persue it if you want, but I'm not particularly interested in either the amateur detective work, the moral outrage, or the avalanche of questions which you and one other are posting.

For the record though. Rocna have acted in a dubious fashion over a lot more than "one aspect of their design" and I think that most would agree I have at least been consistent in my approach to the whole discussion.