tcm
...
i agree it does seem distasteful. However, i also know you are a bit of a pot-stirrer so i won't comment, er.... dang!
the Gypsy Moth debacle
- Thread starter Sea Devil
- Start date
jamesjermain
Well-Known Member
I'd like to post a word or two on behalf of Yachting Monthly on this subject, partly to clear the air and partly to explain why neither we nor the UKSA has much to say on the subject just now.
First: Personally I take slight exception to the constant description of the circumnavigation as a publicity stunt, publicity cruise, promotional event etc. This denigrates a great adventure which has given considerable pleasure and rewarding experience to a number of people, many of them young and disadvantaged. It also belittles the huge amount of effort a number of people have put into the voyage and the restoration of Gypsy Moth for the simple joy of seeing this famous yacht sailing again.
Of course, both Yachting Monthly and the UKSA have benefited from the public awareness of the project and I do not deny that both organisations have gained from their association with it. But without them it would not have happened at all. YM and UKSA should both be given more credit than doing it just for the publicity.
I won't go into details of what happened and who was to blame here. There will be a full and exclusive report of what happened, including an interview with the skipper and members of the crew in the next issue of Yachting Monthly (published around 9 June). There is also likely to be an RYA investigation and report in due course and, later, it is possible MAIB will be investigating the accident. MAIB reports tend to be issued, however, in cases where new lessons need to learned and the feeling at the moment is that if there were failures, they were ones already well known and understood.
On the question of the skipper and mate's dismissal. I would just ask what else you would have expected? If the UKSA and YM had not sent staff down there to find out what happened, interview the crew and produce a report most of you would have been rightly shocked. Those who went down there were also involved in the rescue operation and were taking on the spot decisions as to how she was to be saved and repaired.
If the investigations revealed incompetence or malpractice by the skipper and crew (and I am not saying that this is the case - I don't know the facts), the UKSA is quite within its rights to take disciplinary action - indeed, with 16-year-olds involved, they would be rightly castigated if they did not. The skipper and crew have the right to appeal and have been advised accordingly.
In view of the publicity the grounding had already received, if the UKSA had simply eased the two out and said nothing about it the press would have had a field day with accusations of cover-up etc. A release was issued so that the press got the correct information rather than speculating, as they are prone to do in an information vacuum.
Were the skipper and mate treated fairly? Well, they were given every opportunity to put forward their case, call witnesses and present an argument in their defence. They were offered the opportunity to issue a statement of their own - indeed they were encouraged to do so. They were also given every opportunity to raise issues they may have had about their relationship with the UKSA and the way Gypsy Moth was operated. At this stage I can say no more.
Should Gypsy Moth have been in the Tuamotus? This is a mute point and the dangers of the area are not to be discounted. As you know, Gypsy Moth is circumnavigating under the wing of the Blue Water Rally the Tuamotus are not an official stop for the rally but guidance notes are given for yachts that want to visit the islands. Other yachts are there and there were opportunities to share information, pilotage notes and link up via SSB. The islands visited by GM were well marked and charted.
As part of the rally there was obviously a timetable of sorts but there is so necessity to in any particular place at any particular time and stop-overs are arranged so that there is no time pressure on any of the crew unless weather conditions are extreme, in which case yachts turn up when it is safe and prudent so to do. I guess GM was under slightly more pressure because of crew changes and booked flights. But I know from my experience of crossing the Atlantic that if there was a chance of missing flights then that was accepted. Anyway, in the situation under review, time was not an issue as far as I am aware.
Whatever your views about the voyage as a whole, this was a terrible accident and I feel deeply for all those aboard who had a thoroughly harrowing experience. Whatever else emerges, one thing is clear, the skipper and mate got their charges off the boat and safely ashore in exemplary fashion with no risk to life or limb.
First: Personally I take slight exception to the constant description of the circumnavigation as a publicity stunt, publicity cruise, promotional event etc. This denigrates a great adventure which has given considerable pleasure and rewarding experience to a number of people, many of them young and disadvantaged. It also belittles the huge amount of effort a number of people have put into the voyage and the restoration of Gypsy Moth for the simple joy of seeing this famous yacht sailing again.
Of course, both Yachting Monthly and the UKSA have benefited from the public awareness of the project and I do not deny that both organisations have gained from their association with it. But without them it would not have happened at all. YM and UKSA should both be given more credit than doing it just for the publicity.
I won't go into details of what happened and who was to blame here. There will be a full and exclusive report of what happened, including an interview with the skipper and members of the crew in the next issue of Yachting Monthly (published around 9 June). There is also likely to be an RYA investigation and report in due course and, later, it is possible MAIB will be investigating the accident. MAIB reports tend to be issued, however, in cases where new lessons need to learned and the feeling at the moment is that if there were failures, they were ones already well known and understood.
On the question of the skipper and mate's dismissal. I would just ask what else you would have expected? If the UKSA and YM had not sent staff down there to find out what happened, interview the crew and produce a report most of you would have been rightly shocked. Those who went down there were also involved in the rescue operation and were taking on the spot decisions as to how she was to be saved and repaired.
If the investigations revealed incompetence or malpractice by the skipper and crew (and I am not saying that this is the case - I don't know the facts), the UKSA is quite within its rights to take disciplinary action - indeed, with 16-year-olds involved, they would be rightly castigated if they did not. The skipper and crew have the right to appeal and have been advised accordingly.
In view of the publicity the grounding had already received, if the UKSA had simply eased the two out and said nothing about it the press would have had a field day with accusations of cover-up etc. A release was issued so that the press got the correct information rather than speculating, as they are prone to do in an information vacuum.
Were the skipper and mate treated fairly? Well, they were given every opportunity to put forward their case, call witnesses and present an argument in their defence. They were offered the opportunity to issue a statement of their own - indeed they were encouraged to do so. They were also given every opportunity to raise issues they may have had about their relationship with the UKSA and the way Gypsy Moth was operated. At this stage I can say no more.
Should Gypsy Moth have been in the Tuamotus? This is a mute point and the dangers of the area are not to be discounted. As you know, Gypsy Moth is circumnavigating under the wing of the Blue Water Rally the Tuamotus are not an official stop for the rally but guidance notes are given for yachts that want to visit the islands. Other yachts are there and there were opportunities to share information, pilotage notes and link up via SSB. The islands visited by GM were well marked and charted.
As part of the rally there was obviously a timetable of sorts but there is so necessity to in any particular place at any particular time and stop-overs are arranged so that there is no time pressure on any of the crew unless weather conditions are extreme, in which case yachts turn up when it is safe and prudent so to do. I guess GM was under slightly more pressure because of crew changes and booked flights. But I know from my experience of crossing the Atlantic that if there was a chance of missing flights then that was accepted. Anyway, in the situation under review, time was not an issue as far as I am aware.
Whatever your views about the voyage as a whole, this was a terrible accident and I feel deeply for all those aboard who had a thoroughly harrowing experience. Whatever else emerges, one thing is clear, the skipper and mate got their charges off the boat and safely ashore in exemplary fashion with no risk to life or limb.
kds
Well-Known Member
Thank you, James. I am happy to let it rest there until seeing the full report.
Ken
Ken
Tisme
Well-Known Member
Well said!
Bejasus
Well-Known Member
Thanks James. At least as you say, everyone got off in a safe manner, which is of course of paramount importance.
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
There is also likely to be an RYA investigation and report in due course and, later, it is possible MAIB will be investigating the accident. MAIB reports tend to be issued, however, in cases where new lessons need to learned and the feeling at the moment is that if there were failures, they were ones already well known and understood.
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I know of the press and I have worked in Media for 50 years such a statement would have satisfied most responsible journalists. As it was a statement was highly publicised stating that the skipper and mate 100% to blame and the organiserer had zero blame and were publicly sacking the young skipper and mate.
This attitude is disingenuous to say the least.. If as you appear to be implying these two people were so awful then who hired them? Who checked their references? In the end the buck stops at the top not the bottom.
[ QUOTE ]
On the question of the skipper and mate's dismissal. I would just ask what else you would have expected?
[/ QUOTE ] I assume they were on short term contract - not permanent members of the organisations staff? So actually they had their short term contract terminated - in a fanfare of publicity.. Did they have professional representation provided by the employers or were they two people surrounded by flown in 'experts'? Always easy to bully and then say we gave them every chance to talk to the press.... You need an expert to talk to the press as you well know...
[ QUOTE ]
If the investigations revealed incompetence or malpractice by the skipper and crew (and I am not saying that this is the case - I don't know the facts), the UKSA is quite within its rights to take disciplinary action
[/ QUOTE ]
.. I am happy to conceded that they may have behaved appallingly with 16 year olds which is what you are implying... Not very happy about the innuendo ... I have no problem with their contract being cancelled or fired but to do so in a blaze of publicity without providing or allowing some form of 'expert' defence/advice/representation is unfair.. . to say the least.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, they were given every opportunity to put forward their case, call witnesses and present an argument in their defence.
[/ QUOTE ]
They may well be guilty of all the things you are implying but how would you like to be a young person surrounded by many middle aged 'suits' in Tahiti which is a french island - mainly french or Polynesian speaking, being told you your fired and we are telling the world!.. Again they should have proper legal or professional representation. Guilty or innocent. Not a nice way to behave if the story you tell is correct.
[ QUOTE ]
Should Gypsy Moth have been in the Tuamotu? This is a mute point and the dangers of the area are not to be discounted. As you know, Gypsy Moth is circumnavigating under the wing of the Blue Water Rally the Tuamotu are not an official stop for the rally but guidance notes are given
[/ QUOTE ]
So who agreed they should go there? The organisers? Did the organisers consider this skipper and mate had sufficient experience to undertake visiting the 'dangerous islands'? Did the Skipper and Crew made the passage without permission or was it cleared at a higher level? If so who? Was that a wise decision? Appears not? I spent several weeks there and let me assure you it is pretty challenging pilotage. To allow 16 year olds to take the risk is really questionable unless you are 100% confident in the pilotage abilities of the Skipper and Crew. So where does that buck stop?
[ QUOTE ]
. I guess GM was under slightly more pressure because of crew changes and booked flights.
[/ QUOTE ] So there were time pressures. I spent 10 days waiting for weather to go to Tahiti from my last island in the Tuamotu 'dangerous islands' group. I had no time pressures but we all know that charter skippers are under pressure to get the boat to its destination as near time as possible... So who created these pressures. Were the skipper and crew reassured that there it would not matter if they were delayed? Were they?
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever else emerges, one thing is clear, the skipper and mate got their charges off the boat and safely ashore in exemplary fashion with no risk to life or limb.
[/ QUOTE ] So where was that in the sacking publicity - As I said before Captain Cook put his ship on a coral reef and became famous and celebrated. Why did I read no comment about the exemplary work of the skipper and crew..
Again I have no problem with the 'sacking' or cancellation of the skipper and mate. after such an incident and the attendant publicity I should think their confidence is shattered for some time to come... Of course the Skipper is finally responsible for all that happens on board but we are not talking about a RN frigate hitting a properly charted reef in Australia as happened a couple of years ago. We are talking about a 50 boat with a comparatively inexperienced Skipper and Mate with a quantity of 16 year olds on board doing what is frankly a publicity cruise to justify the vast sums invested in restoring an old boat. Actually not unreasonable but I would like some of the 'suits' where the buck actually stops, either taking some responsibility or even some blame for this potentially dangerous debacle - if there is any blame to be allocated towards the management of this cruise. I would like to hear the outcome of a proper independent inquiry where the skipper and crew have proper and equal representation. If they are guilty as hell the crucify them but if the guilt to some degree lay also with management decisions then let the management learn a few lessons and admit their guilt..
Michael
There is also likely to be an RYA investigation and report in due course and, later, it is possible MAIB will be investigating the accident. MAIB reports tend to be issued, however, in cases where new lessons need to learned and the feeling at the moment is that if there were failures, they were ones already well known and understood.
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I know of the press and I have worked in Media for 50 years such a statement would have satisfied most responsible journalists. As it was a statement was highly publicised stating that the skipper and mate 100% to blame and the organiserer had zero blame and were publicly sacking the young skipper and mate.
This attitude is disingenuous to say the least.. If as you appear to be implying these two people were so awful then who hired them? Who checked their references? In the end the buck stops at the top not the bottom.
[ QUOTE ]
On the question of the skipper and mate's dismissal. I would just ask what else you would have expected?
[/ QUOTE ] I assume they were on short term contract - not permanent members of the organisations staff? So actually they had their short term contract terminated - in a fanfare of publicity.. Did they have professional representation provided by the employers or were they two people surrounded by flown in 'experts'? Always easy to bully and then say we gave them every chance to talk to the press.... You need an expert to talk to the press as you well know...
[ QUOTE ]
If the investigations revealed incompetence or malpractice by the skipper and crew (and I am not saying that this is the case - I don't know the facts), the UKSA is quite within its rights to take disciplinary action
[/ QUOTE ]
.. I am happy to conceded that they may have behaved appallingly with 16 year olds which is what you are implying... Not very happy about the innuendo ... I have no problem with their contract being cancelled or fired but to do so in a blaze of publicity without providing or allowing some form of 'expert' defence/advice/representation is unfair.. . to say the least.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, they were given every opportunity to put forward their case, call witnesses and present an argument in their defence.
[/ QUOTE ]
They may well be guilty of all the things you are implying but how would you like to be a young person surrounded by many middle aged 'suits' in Tahiti which is a french island - mainly french or Polynesian speaking, being told you your fired and we are telling the world!.. Again they should have proper legal or professional representation. Guilty or innocent. Not a nice way to behave if the story you tell is correct.
[ QUOTE ]
Should Gypsy Moth have been in the Tuamotu? This is a mute point and the dangers of the area are not to be discounted. As you know, Gypsy Moth is circumnavigating under the wing of the Blue Water Rally the Tuamotu are not an official stop for the rally but guidance notes are given
[/ QUOTE ]
So who agreed they should go there? The organisers? Did the organisers consider this skipper and mate had sufficient experience to undertake visiting the 'dangerous islands'? Did the Skipper and Crew made the passage without permission or was it cleared at a higher level? If so who? Was that a wise decision? Appears not? I spent several weeks there and let me assure you it is pretty challenging pilotage. To allow 16 year olds to take the risk is really questionable unless you are 100% confident in the pilotage abilities of the Skipper and Crew. So where does that buck stop?
[ QUOTE ]
. I guess GM was under slightly more pressure because of crew changes and booked flights.
[/ QUOTE ] So there were time pressures. I spent 10 days waiting for weather to go to Tahiti from my last island in the Tuamotu 'dangerous islands' group. I had no time pressures but we all know that charter skippers are under pressure to get the boat to its destination as near time as possible... So who created these pressures. Were the skipper and crew reassured that there it would not matter if they were delayed? Were they?
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever else emerges, one thing is clear, the skipper and mate got their charges off the boat and safely ashore in exemplary fashion with no risk to life or limb.
[/ QUOTE ] So where was that in the sacking publicity - As I said before Captain Cook put his ship on a coral reef and became famous and celebrated. Why did I read no comment about the exemplary work of the skipper and crew..
Again I have no problem with the 'sacking' or cancellation of the skipper and mate. after such an incident and the attendant publicity I should think their confidence is shattered for some time to come... Of course the Skipper is finally responsible for all that happens on board but we are not talking about a RN frigate hitting a properly charted reef in Australia as happened a couple of years ago. We are talking about a 50 boat with a comparatively inexperienced Skipper and Mate with a quantity of 16 year olds on board doing what is frankly a publicity cruise to justify the vast sums invested in restoring an old boat. Actually not unreasonable but I would like some of the 'suits' where the buck actually stops, either taking some responsibility or even some blame for this potentially dangerous debacle - if there is any blame to be allocated towards the management of this cruise. I would like to hear the outcome of a proper independent inquiry where the skipper and crew have proper and equal representation. If they are guilty as hell the crucify them but if the guilt to some degree lay also with management decisions then let the management learn a few lessons and admit their guilt..
Michael
Tisme
Well-Known Member
Oh do shut up! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Oh do shut up! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
nobody made you read it - what are you so worried about?
It is always easier to side with the powerful. It is always easier to cross the street and walk on the other side. It is always easier to not say anything that may offend but...
be happy - have a very nice day.
Michael
Oh do shut up! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
nobody made you read it - what are you so worried about?
It is always easier to side with the powerful. It is always easier to cross the street and walk on the other side. It is always easier to not say anything that may offend but...
be happy - have a very nice day.
Michael
Tisme
Well-Known Member
I didn't read it! After three lines I gave up. You are talking rubbish!
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't read it! After three lines I gave up. You are talking rubbish!
[/ QUOTE ]
He might be explaining his case verbosely but it is not rubbish. It is right to question whether more senior figures at UKSA are responsible as well.
I think the forthright action to dismiss the skipper and mate is to be commended. The event has a quaint and traditional feel that is a welcome counterpoint the usual nauseating spectacle of some miscreant who sheds crocodile tears on TV and expects to be forgiven.
I didn't read it! After three lines I gave up. You are talking rubbish!
[/ QUOTE ]
He might be explaining his case verbosely but it is not rubbish. It is right to question whether more senior figures at UKSA are responsible as well.
I think the forthright action to dismiss the skipper and mate is to be commended. The event has a quaint and traditional feel that is a welcome counterpoint the usual nauseating spectacle of some miscreant who sheds crocodile tears on TV and expects to be forgiven.
Tisme
Well-Known Member
We'll have to disagree too.
James Jermain posted a detailed and considered reply which answered many of the hypothetical points which our friend has repeatedly raised and still he goes on, and on, and on.
Rather than speculating about what may or may not have happened why not wait for the reports which James has said will come out?
In my view most of the comments are rubbish because they based on unsubstantiated wild guesswork.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention crocodile tears. What have they got to do with it?
James Jermain posted a detailed and considered reply which answered many of the hypothetical points which our friend has repeatedly raised and still he goes on, and on, and on.
Rather than speculating about what may or may not have happened why not wait for the reports which James has said will come out?
In my view most of the comments are rubbish because they based on unsubstantiated wild guesswork.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention crocodile tears. What have they got to do with it?
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
James Jermain posted a detailed and considered reply which answered many of the hypothetical points which our friend has repeatedly raised
Rather than speculating about what may or may not have happened why not wait for the reports which James has said will come out?
In my view most of the comments are rubbish because they based on unsubstantiated wild guesswork.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry you find me verbose and ill considered and that JJ is succinct - try a word count.
As a matter of fact he did not promise an investigation what he wrote was [ QUOTE ]
There is also likely to be an RYA investigation and report in due course and, later, it is possible MAIB will be investigating the accident. MAIB reports tend to be issued, however, in cases where new lessons need to learned and the feeling at the moment is that if there were failures, they were ones already well known and understood.
[/ QUOTE ]
That means to me that possibly there will be an investigation or possibly not but anything that went wrong on the management side has already been decided and is not worth looking at again... It is called prevarication and promises nothing!
or have I misread it?
Michael
James Jermain posted a detailed and considered reply which answered many of the hypothetical points which our friend has repeatedly raised
Rather than speculating about what may or may not have happened why not wait for the reports which James has said will come out?
In my view most of the comments are rubbish because they based on unsubstantiated wild guesswork.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry you find me verbose and ill considered and that JJ is succinct - try a word count.
As a matter of fact he did not promise an investigation what he wrote was [ QUOTE ]
There is also likely to be an RYA investigation and report in due course and, later, it is possible MAIB will be investigating the accident. MAIB reports tend to be issued, however, in cases where new lessons need to learned and the feeling at the moment is that if there were failures, they were ones already well known and understood.
[/ QUOTE ]
That means to me that possibly there will be an investigation or possibly not but anything that went wrong on the management side has already been decided and is not worth looking at again... It is called prevarication and promises nothing!
or have I misread it?
Michael
poter
Well-Known Member
No you have not misread it...I looked at the reply & thought that there was a degree of journalistic licence about it as well!
I have been concerned that YM/UKSA sent a team of investigators.
Who were they & I wonder if there were any corporate types & news publicist?
poter.
I have been concerned that YM/UKSA sent a team of investigators.
Who were they & I wonder if there were any corporate types & news publicist?
poter.
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I have been concerned that YM/UKSA sent a team of investigators.
Who were they & I wonder if there were any corporate types & news publicist?
[/ QUOTE ]
Cynic /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I have been concerned that YM/UKSA sent a team of investigators.
Who were they & I wonder if there were any corporate types & news publicist?
[/ QUOTE ]
Cynic /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
poter
Well-Known Member
Who Meee??? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
tcm
...
publicity stunt
Um more than anything else, it was indeed a publicity stunt. I know that sounds pejorative,but its is indeed what it was, really.
For the money, far more people could have gone to sea, circunavigated, whatever.
Some boundaries could might have been pushed back,although it wd probably mainly have set a record for er largest number of tearful YM readers aged over 55, when it returned. It might still do this, presumably hence the refix.
Your remark pre-supposes that "publicity stunts" are easy, meaningless, vapid, forgettable. They are not: The search for Livingstone in Africa by Grant, the early americas cup, racing the blue train and lots more - all press-backed publicity stunts. And much better ones, too: theirs didn't lazily lean on past glories of others but did actually push back boundaries as you want us to think GMIV was doing, but simply doesn't, not really. In fact, hardly at all. Sorry.
Um more than anything else, it was indeed a publicity stunt. I know that sounds pejorative,but its is indeed what it was, really.
For the money, far more people could have gone to sea, circunavigated, whatever.
Some boundaries could might have been pushed back,although it wd probably mainly have set a record for er largest number of tearful YM readers aged over 55, when it returned. It might still do this, presumably hence the refix.
Your remark pre-supposes that "publicity stunts" are easy, meaningless, vapid, forgettable. They are not: The search for Livingstone in Africa by Grant, the early americas cup, racing the blue train and lots more - all press-backed publicity stunts. And much better ones, too: theirs didn't lazily lean on past glories of others but did actually push back boundaries as you want us to think GMIV was doing, but simply doesn't, not really. In fact, hardly at all. Sorry.
Tisme
Well-Known Member
All the info you need is on their website.
Vigilante
New Member
I am intrigued to know how much sailing Tisme has done and if employed by either YM or the UKSA?
Tisme
Well-Known Member
Ten years on and off, but I don't know what that has to do with it. How much sailing time have you had? Never worked for YM or UKSA.
FWIW I'm not sure about the fast track training that I understand UKSA offers and I have reservations about the real value in sending youngsters to sea on these trips (only because it seems a bit of an indulgence for one youngster when there are many others who need help/support)
My comments are simply because I don't like the totally unsupported allegations/insinuations being made about the organisation. To imply that the management at UKSA <u>must</u> be penalised when there is nothing to support this view is ridiculous. They are an easy target for the accusations because they can't really respond.
Some of the postings which have been made are no more based on factual information than any of the Harry Potter books.
UKSA set about restoring GM because they felt it was a worthwhile cause. Many agreed with them and were prepared to dig deep into their pockets to support the effort. They then wanted to use the boat and, being a training organisation, they wanted to provide some form of training for youngsters. We can disagree with what they were trying to do but I am sure that their motives have been perfectly decent (for want of a better word) all along. All this meant they needed publicity to keep the money coming in. Nothing wrong with that. (It's no different from B&Q sponsoring EM on her trips, and nobody is calling those publicity stunts)
If you have read the press releases about this whole incident you would realise that they have gone out of their way to handle it properly, and I include the dismissal of the skipper and mate in that.
OK?
FWIW I'm not sure about the fast track training that I understand UKSA offers and I have reservations about the real value in sending youngsters to sea on these trips (only because it seems a bit of an indulgence for one youngster when there are many others who need help/support)
My comments are simply because I don't like the totally unsupported allegations/insinuations being made about the organisation. To imply that the management at UKSA <u>must</u> be penalised when there is nothing to support this view is ridiculous. They are an easy target for the accusations because they can't really respond.
Some of the postings which have been made are no more based on factual information than any of the Harry Potter books.
UKSA set about restoring GM because they felt it was a worthwhile cause. Many agreed with them and were prepared to dig deep into their pockets to support the effort. They then wanted to use the boat and, being a training organisation, they wanted to provide some form of training for youngsters. We can disagree with what they were trying to do but I am sure that their motives have been perfectly decent (for want of a better word) all along. All this meant they needed publicity to keep the money coming in. Nothing wrong with that. (It's no different from B&Q sponsoring EM on her trips, and nobody is calling those publicity stunts)
If you have read the press releases about this whole incident you would realise that they have gone out of their way to handle it properly, and I include the dismissal of the skipper and mate in that.
OK?
Vigilante
New Member
No. Not OK.
If you had read the logs BEFORE they were deleted from the website ( strange you might think!) you would realise that both the skipper and her husband have been actively involved in 7 of 11 legs of this voyage. Between them they have clearly contributed actively to the success of the voyage and the delivery of the ultimate goal for the children involved!
If you read the RSYC website you will see that it seems to be the only place where anyone has published the fact that the children had a great time and will all sail again. Preferably with the skipper and mate!
You talk about exonerating the UKSA, imagine if you had dedicated your career to sailing and could now neither work OR even get income support. Who do you really feel are the losers in all of this? The UKSA has already publicly denounced these two people before they even had a chance to appeal. Do you seriously believe they earned enough for their 24/7 vigil of a reputedly difficult boat requiring constant repairs and upkeep, a commercially pressured venture and the on and off-board supervision and entertainment of the crew to afford the sort of legal and PR representation they would have needed to overcome this public humiliation in time?
If you had read the logs BEFORE they were deleted from the website ( strange you might think!) you would realise that both the skipper and her husband have been actively involved in 7 of 11 legs of this voyage. Between them they have clearly contributed actively to the success of the voyage and the delivery of the ultimate goal for the children involved!
If you read the RSYC website you will see that it seems to be the only place where anyone has published the fact that the children had a great time and will all sail again. Preferably with the skipper and mate!
You talk about exonerating the UKSA, imagine if you had dedicated your career to sailing and could now neither work OR even get income support. Who do you really feel are the losers in all of this? The UKSA has already publicly denounced these two people before they even had a chance to appeal. Do you seriously believe they earned enough for their 24/7 vigil of a reputedly difficult boat requiring constant repairs and upkeep, a commercially pressured venture and the on and off-board supervision and entertainment of the crew to afford the sort of legal and PR representation they would have needed to overcome this public humiliation in time?
Other threads that may be of interest
