Registro Italiano Navale - Breaking News

[Morven]

Seriously,

Here in the UK for instance, would you expect to be able to access court papers for an upcoming trial online or at all unless you were a member of the Crown Prosecution Service or Council for the Defence..............no is the answer.
It looks like case dismissed at first proof hearing so I would expect the submissions have never been submitted formaly as evidence and would be very surprised if anyone had access to them at all. Unless the NZ court system differs substantialy from that of England / Scotland / Wales / Ireland. Apologies if I missed anyone there.

 

[FishyInverness]

+1,

I have a friend who was charged and taken to court in the UK, and rather than go through the process of the full case, his Lawyer negotiated that he accept a caution so essentially the case was heard in the preliminary stages, his lawyer called an ajournment to negotiate the caution with the body bringing the charge, and then he received the official caution.

Out of interest, I tried to look up the details of the case a number of times since, no trace whatsoever.

It just doesn't become public domain.

 

[smackdaddy]

Seriously,

Here in the UK for instance, would you expect to be able to access court papers for an upcoming trial online or at all unless you were a member of the Crown Prosecution Service or Council for the Defence..............no is the answer.
It looks like case dismissed at first proof hearing so I would expect the submissions have never been submitted formaly as evidence and would be very surprised if anyone had access to them at all. Unless the NZ court system differs substantialy from that of England / Scotland / Wales / Ireland. Apologies if I missed anyone there.

I guess it is different then. Here in the US, many pre-trial documents are typically available. For example, if a case is brought before a court, unless specifically sealed for some reason, the complaint itself is typically available publicly via a request of the court. This document lays out the facts of the complaint, along with the claims for relief.

Then subsequent motions, counter-motions, and rulings are made available as well. Sure, you typically have to pay a fee - but the documents are definitely available.

A great example of this has been the somewhat notorious libel case involving another sailing forum. Virtually all the court documents on that case, which has not yet gone to trial by the way, have been posted in that forum via public request by various individuals.

So, yes, maybe NZ is different. Or maybe the case was dismissed by the investigating entity and did not actually ever "go to court". Maybe it's just a misstatement, or semantics. I really don't know. I simply made the inquiry - and have been told that no records have been found on the case thus far (though the Ministry of Justice rep said she would continue to look into it). I see no reason the rep would lie about that, even if it was an issue of access.

I understand that there can be all kinds of restrictions and exceptions to this general rule in different countries and jurisdictions. So we'll see.

 

[Morven]

Yes, you had to have that 1776 thing and went your own way with your legal system, see where that got you!

Sreiously though, I think this thing went to no case to answer.

I spent a lot of time today wading through a lot of the old threa which I had never bothered to read before, wow, some of the statements there, especialy now in light of the information we now have!

 

[smackdaddy]

Yes, you had to have that 1776 thing and went your own way with your legal system, see where that got you!

Sreiously though, I think this thing went to no case to answer.

I spent a lot of time today wading through a lot of the old threa which I had never bothered to read before, wow, some of the statements there, especialy now in light of the information we now have!

Heh-heh. Touché. We Yanks did get a bit cavalier with the whole global financial meltdown thing. Sorry about that.

Maybe you're right and Grant just misspoke about the court's involvement.

 

[GrantKing]

Heh-heh. Touché. We Yanks did get a bit cavalier with the whole global financial meltdown thing. Sorry about that.

Maybe you're right and Grant just misspoke about the court's involvement.

No misspoke about it all.

I was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, bailed , appeared in court 4 times and then it was chucked out because Bambury's statement was full of lies.

Is that clear enough?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

No misspoke about it all.

I was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, bailed , appeared in court 4 times and then it was chucked out because Bambury's statement was full of lies.

Is that clear enough?

Totally clear, and everyone is sincerely grateful to you for being so open and frank.

I'd like to read about those court appearences and I'm sure others would too. I'd love to see something in a local paper or some online record. It may not exist, but if it did I'd still like to see it.

Also you said that when the trial was over you'd reveal Bambury's bribary related e-mails (and other evidence?) I'd really like to see them. I appreciate you want to release stuff bit by bit to maintain the pressure on Rocna but my curiosity is getting the better of me! Personally I'd like to see the lot!

Also now the 'old' thread is back I notice that there was a huge amount of discussion about Rina and the validity of the certification. So I'd say the Rocna/Rina bribery issue is of great interest.

Thanks again.

 

[smackdaddy]

No misspoke about it all.

I was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, bailed , appeared in court 4 times and then it was chucked out because Bambury's statement was full of lies.

Is that clear enough?

Yes. Thanks Grant.

As for the issue at hand, I came across this letter from RINA Shanghai which seems to have the correct timing (April 2010) for the bribery you mentioned. Was this "Massimo Sanquerin" the, or one of the recipients of that bribe?

Who else?

Ok Guys let me say this once and as clearly as possible:

This is not supposed to be an indictment of Rina as an organisation.
The so called "oiling of the wheels" is and has always been a critical part of doing business in China.

The hospitality extended to foreigners is wonderful and enticing wherever you go and it would be easy to become entranced by your "new friends" and their wealth.

During the certification process there were many hurdles, endless meetings and discussions, rewriting of the papers and specs and resubmission of materials etc for testing.

This had already been going on for over a year before I first went to Shanghai with no progress and Bambury champing at the bit to release notification of full certification.

He also had no idea what he had applied for or the ramifications of the full testing program and certification process. When questioned about it all I received from him was the customary stunned mullet stare and the reply " I dont know, you sort it out".

After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.

The answer in early 2010 was that $$$$$$$$$$ needed to be paid to individuals , not the organisation and those individuals would then stamp their part of the process and nobody would be the wiser.

This is what was done in March 2010 under very specific orders from Bambury.

My view is that there should not, nor need to be, a witch hunt against Rina as an organisation, as they were not in control or had any knowledge of the actions of a few of their employees.

It has already been reported back to me that those employees have already been removed and punished for their actions, just what that entails I would not like to think about.

So, some of you can dissect my words or terminology further and try to find another meaning if you like but facts are facts and I have revealed them, thus exposing myself to retaliation and consequenses as a result.

I cant be much clearer than that.

 

[smackdaddy]

Also, Djbangi are you still around? It sounds like you have some inside knowledge on this. Please pm me or post here if you know what's going on with this.

Thanks.

Rocna use 2 factories, one the Shanghai factory which is where, virtually, all the anchors have been made in the past since moving to China. Hopefully you and I are not buying, at all, from this factory - if you are buying, gullibility knows no bounds. The Shanghai factory is not approved by RINA - for Type Approval the manufacturing facility does not need to be inspected. The TA is simply a certificate saying ' based on our limited tests and assuming the product is made to the specifications in the design drawings then this anchor should work'. In addition to it not being necessary to approve the factory there is no check on what anchors are actually made - it is assumed by RINA that the anchor maker has integrity. If the concept of integrity is found to be lacking then RINA, and any other Classification Society member if it were to happen to them, will make moves to resolve whatever issues have developed. This is in progress, between RINA and Rocna.

RINA have factories in China they have approved, these factilities would need approval to supply anchors for large commercial vessels, or vessels in survey. All Rocna is saying is that if you need an anchor individually certified they would use one of these, and I think one specific, approved facility. It would be interesting to know the cost differential between the Shanghai factory and the RINA approved factory. There is no evidence that Rocna actually make anchors at the RINA approved facility - they might have done and if so one might expect it to be trumpeted from the rooftops.

There is nothing special about the procedures. Lewmar sell Type Approved anchors, and one assumes they are made to the spec in the TA. They need not be made in approved facilities, though they might be. If you want an individually certified anchor then Lewmar would make the necessary arrangments. Manson's factory is approved and all the anchors they produce in that facility should be made with the same care as anchors that are individually certified. Mention has been made in the past of the RNLI use of Deltas - one reason might be they were then one of the few anchors that could be supplied individually certified.

Individually certified anchors must be made by approved welders, they, the welders, must meet certain standards, all the producion process must meet standards, for example if there is any heat treatment or special cutting. The anchors are individually proof tested etc. I believe Manson, to meet Lloyds approval of the factory, must keep apecific documentation of where they buy their steel with the certification for each steel purchase, where that steel is used etc. It is quite possible some welders at Manson's factory have not yet been approved by Lloyds, apprentices have to be trained and put to work productively (we need to have an air of realism) but the fact their factory enjoys scrutiny, and I think Fortress falls into this camp, is considerably better than the Rocna example.

It would be wrong to condemn Rocna for choosing RINA, a Classification Society like Lloyds or ABS, simply because RINA was cheaper. All the CS are meant to have similar standards (and you will not, ever, find one CS member suggesting another member has lower standards). So to choose one that is cheaper looks sensible, after all - guess who pays for the cost of CS approval? The idea that RINA was easier, that might need a bit of elaboration - but Rocna are coming under a lot of scrutiny now. No CS is going to allow decades, centuries in many cases, of reputation to be tarnished by a client. RINA might not have, nor want, a public forum like YBW or Anything Sailing to vent their frustrations but they do have other powers - equally persuasive.

All interesting stuff.

 

[GrantKing]

Yes. Thanks Grant.

As for the issue at hand, I came across this letter from RINA Shanghai which seems to have the correct timing (April 2010) for the bribery you mentioned. Was this "Massimo Sanquerin" the, or one of the recipients of that bribe?

Who else?

No he definitely was not.

 

[smackdaddy]

No he definitely was not.

Okay, so someone in his department then (since he was head of the office there in Shanghai). I notice he's posted in Turkey now.

Was he the recipient of that email you posted confessing the lying? And did his reposting to Turkey have anything to do with the "punishment" for the bribery you mentioned?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Finally, a workable e-mail address for Rina!

 

[smackdaddy]

Finally, a workable e-mail address for Rina!

Actually, I already have several others - including Mr. Sanquerin's.

 

[GrantKing]

Okay, so someone in his department then (since he was head of the office there in Shanghai). I notice he's posted in Turkey now.

Was he the recipient of that email you posted confessing the lying? And did his reposting to Turkey have anything to do with the "punishment" for the bribery you mentioned?

No he was not the recipient of that email and I do not know the resaons for his reposting to Turkey.

And before your next question about who received what or when or how, I am not going to name names within Rina on this forum.

 

[smackdaddy]

No he was not the recipient of that email and I do not know the resaons for his reposting to Turkey.

And before your next question about who received what or when or how, I am not going to name names within Rina on this forum.

Heh-heh. What are you, a mind reader???

No worries, you can pm me.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

And before your next question about who received what or when or how, I am not going to name names within Rina on this forum.

There really is no substitute for specifics and verifiable facts & it's been a month now since you broke this story.

 

[Storyline]

There really is no substitute for specifics and verifiable facts & it's been a month now since you broke this story.

Oh, get off his, (Grant's) back. If he distributed money do you really think he is going to go into specifics ?
As others have said, $5,000 in China means diddly squat (and I live in China so I have some knowledge). If anyone here thinks that $5,000 is considered as bribery then they are wrong.
Different cultures means different cultures.
If it was $50,000 then there is a story.
$5,000 is just hong bao.

There is only one story here .....

People were tricked into buying an anchor that might bend and be not be fit for purpose.

 

[BrianH]

Oh, get off his, (Grant's) back. If he distributed money do you really think he is going to go into specifics ?
As others have said, $5,000 in China means diddly squat (and I live in China so I have some knowledge). If anyone here thinks that $5,000 is considered as bribery then they are wrong.
Different cultures means different cultures.
If it was $50,000 then there is a story.
$5,000 is just hong bao.
There is only one story here .....
People were tricked into buying an anchor that might bend and be not be fit for purpose.

Absolutely. This is a non-event and only diverts attention from the main theme, Holdfast anchor trickery.

I too have done business all over the far east, $5k is good for one or two evenings to host a few corporate dignitaries, nothing more. If it was a true bribe - even one to oil wheels, it must have been to a very low-ranking employee, which it would appear, has been dealt with.

Storm in a teacup.

 

[smackdaddy]

Oh, get off his, (Grant's) back. If he distributed money do you really think he is going to go into specifics ?
As others have said, $5,000 in China means diddly squat (and I live in China so I have some knowledge). If anyone here thinks that $5,000 is considered as bribery then they are wrong.
Different cultures means different cultures.
If it was $50,000 then there is a story.
$5,000 is just hong bao.

There is only one story here .....

People were tricked into buying an anchor that might bend and be not be fit for purpose.

It's fascinating to me why you guys feel so threatened by this story...to the point that you're willing to spin Grant's statements into something different than what he actually wrote.

This is a non-event and only diverts attention from the main theme, Holdfast anchor trickery.

Is sole attention on the "Holdfast trickery" really so important to you? Why?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Oh, get off his, (Grant's) back.

I'm 100pc on Grants side on this. He's not an idiot. He'd hardly have told us if he didn't think it was worthwhile, and he'd hardly have told us if he wasn't going to produce some way of verifying it.

If he distributed money do you really think he is going to go into specifics ?

Well, he said he would as soon as the trial's over and he normally sticks to his word.

As others have said, $5,000 in China means diddly squat (and I live in China so I have some knowledge). If anyone here thinks that $5,000 is considered as bribery then they are wrong.

In which case there's no need to conceal anything.