[ QUOTE ]
. I was just deeply saddened to see the underdogs lambasted so publicly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Show me one thing that UKSA has issued which could be described as "lambasting" the skipper.
When they issued the statement about the dismissal it was carefully done to ensure that there was no criticism of the individuals concerned. It was the very minimum they could say in the circumstances. Delaying it, as you suggest, would merely have prolonged the agony for all concerned and probably wasn't possible with the press interest.
They didn't actually need to say anything before an appeal was lodged in my opinion. As I said, even if they do appeal and are successful it will be hardly be acknowledged weeks down the line.
With the amount of interest which has been shown in this I really don't think they could have just kept quiet about it. People/press would have been demanding information. It is generally accepted these days that if you have bad news to give it is best to release it early rather than let the wound fester.
You still haven't been able to illustrate your "lambasting" accusation.
Think the point is that being *fired publicly* is pretty much a lambasting by any standard
I have misgivings about the due process which seemed to be quick inquiry under pressure inviting a mouth-watering ex RN YachtMaster instructor examiner hard boy to pass opinion on crew actions, followed by dismissals
In itself, of course not but it IS after all a charity venture and my point is that the publicity could have been managed really effectively to create far broader and more enduring interest and if possible to encourage further investment and sponsorship.
I must admit that I thought they had done pretty well with their PR to raise all the money to get GM back in the water. They have also had to raise more support to get the repairs done.
.......perhaps you could remove the mumbo jumbo from your reply and say exactly what you would have done. If it's any good I'll send it on to UKSA for you.