Very Bad taste!

[bob234]

I do find the overpowering need to find someone to "blame" a very childish reaction to everyday occurrences - we all need to recognise that we're responsible, by our own actions, for our own fortunes

Quite.

 

[Sandy]

Why is it in bad taste?

I thought the posting by Stormforce at the time of the loss of their boat was accurate and honest. It must have been extremely difficult to write and I take my hat off to the company for being so honest.

Stormforce are a diverse business and they continue to trade why should that stop because of the sad loss of one boat? As many have mentioned other businesses continue to trade after fatalities.

 

[NDG]

Let's wait for the MAIB report before making confident statements like that. It may well be true, but we don't know yet.

Presumption of innocence unless you can prove otherwise

 

[JumbleDuck]

Presumption of innocence unless you can prove otherwise

That's not what presumption of innocence means. I'm completely neutral on the matter, for what it's worth. In this case I do think it's a bit tasteless of Stormforce to boast about Cheeky Rafiki's last racing results, but that doesn't affect the facts of the loss, whatever they turn out to be.

 

[Simes]

In fairness the company has entered a number of events and has often done well on the race course. The three races the OP is referring to took place in Barbados in January 2014 at the start of the Caribbean season and those results are being used to promote the same events in Barbados in 2015.
The tragedy happened on a delivery in May 2014 and involved an entirely different crew.
These guys have lost some colleagues and some close friends, does that mean that to carry on trading is "Very Bad Taste"?
And yes I do know some of the people involved.

Simes

 

[dom]

The three races the OP is referring to took place in Barbados in January 2014 at the start of the Caribbean season and those results are being used to promote the same events in Barbados in 2015.
The tragedy happened on a delivery in May 2014 and involved an entirely different crew.

I don't think anybody is arguing that a company suffering a serious accident should be automatically closed down, nor is anybody jumping the gun and preempting the MAIB's findings. The OP simply pointed out that he felt it "bad taste" for Stormforce to highlight the recent race history of Cheeki Rafiki without any mention of its subsequent loss and the death of all on board.

As it happens I think it goes beyond bad taste and believe it represents poor judgement on the part of Stormforce to make no mention of the tragedy to prospective customers, which as you point out occurred just four months after the cited race. As to whether this policy also represents bad business is something that remains to be seen.

 

[charles_reed]

I think perhaps you fail to understand grasp the meaning of the word "invariably"? http://www.airfleets.net/crash/fatalities_airline.htm

Stormforce has not adopted any tactic beyond advertising as normal as far as I can see. One incident, with the cause as yet unknown, is not a reason to go into withdrawal. If a driving school car was involved in a fatal accident would expect that school to stop advertising it's success rate for it's students?

Does anyone fly Air France?

 

[dom]

Does anyone fly Air France?

My point was not that companies inevitably fold following major accidents, although many do. It was simply that most suffer serious damage after the event; e.g. a detailed US academic study into the fate of airlines following air crashes found:

"The crash airline suffers significant financial losses from a crash, which appear to be related to consumer switching."
Here's the paper: http://www.finance.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/vs/pdfs/JLE1998.pdf

Only time will tell how the market (Stormforce's prospective customers) reacts to the total loss of the yacht and its entire crew, and the MAIB's findings will almost certainly have a significant bearing on the outcome.