THE BRITISH THREAD II

Peacocks have just announced they're going into receivership. I wonder what David Cameron thinks of that.

The point I was making George was that a gentleman doesn't **** on a fellow man unless he can't avoid doing. There is no meaningful benefit in doing so comparable to the risk involved. Being highly thought of by some for engaging in such shitting is not a meaningful benefit and it risks being considered by some as contemptible.

Expressions such as "Though the information available is incomplete and unclear in several areas", "fairly clear", "it appears", "strongly suggest", "if it is actually true", and "suggests" are all indicative that there is a felt need to **** on the guy without due reason.

It is all very well to say "in circumstances that offered no meaningful benefit comparable to the risks involved" with hindsight. Obviously there are no benefits comparable to the risk once the event has occurred. Before the event it was routine to pass close to shore as is shown by the captain being in the dining room. Had risk, over and above the normal risk, been a factor there would have been an alert and he would have gone to the bridge. The risk was not unlike that taken in formation flying and displays of fast low passes at airshows. Such "bravado" has killed and injured people on the ground. Even ordinary air travel has killed and injured many people on the ground. In such cases nobody ever asks what the benefits to the air passengers were to justify the deaths of people on the ground some of whom had never flown in their lives.

I have seen pictures of the bridge of this ship. There were a number of presumably highly qualified people operating the systems as there has to be because the captain needs to be absent in order to sleep, and flatter the more important passengers with invitations to his table in the dining areas.

The ship's passengers knew they were taking a risk in going on a cruise. The insurance is proof of that. There are no such personal insurances for people mowing their lawns and watching TV in case an airplane falls on to them. And no safety drills to be practiced. No lifeboats, no life belts, no warning signs or instructions about what to do if a jet plane lands on their house. What meaningful benefit are the ship's passengers getting from taking the risks they are being reminded they are taking all the time.

I have also seen pictures of a large cruise ship passing through that gap uneventfully. It is a bit of a tradition it seems in Italy possibly stemming, as I suggested, from the scene in Amarcord. A traditional fireworks display, a few months ago, adjacent to a motorway is thought to be the cause of a large pile-up resulting in many horrific deaths and injuries.

We are foolish George. It was foolish to build and operate such ships as these in the first place. Many experts had warned of the dangers. People are foolish. We have to live with it. Accidents will occur. As you said.

When one does occur a gentleman doesn't go running around shitting on a fellow man on the basis of what has been suggested in media reports. A gentleman gives a fellow man the benefit of the doubt until he can no longer do so. He doesn't see himself as a one man judicial system in order to posture and preen his credentials even if those credentials are admirable. He keeps a stiff upper lip for as long as possible.

On the other hand, if a sea-captain puts his vessel and its passengers to unnecessary hazard, fails to communicate the gravity of the immediate and evolving situation in a timely fashion with his crew, perhaps even failing to grasp the gravity of the situation he has landed them in, fails to initiate contact with the rescue services, leaves his post and hides in a lifeboat when all around people are drowning, and then leaves the scene, then that man is going to be of interest to various branches of authority and well as the news media.

This from a report on the BBC website:

That was not the point I was making Mac. Why use "if"? Why not say the captain did those things?

I think the evidence of what he did and did not do is clear.

My "if" was to justify the authorities and the press taking an interest in him, and drawing some speedy conclusions ahead of the official enquiries, which you seem unhappy about.

I am not particularly happy about the way media treat these things.

There's a large enquiry going on concerning media being out of control.

Sky News paper's review cant even work the new silly hand-held technology to get the right front page onto the screen.

I know what "if"s mean Mac. Excuses to fly any old kite.

Thank you for the instruction in gentlemanly behavior and the accompanying snide (and odd) counter example you provided immediately afterwards, -

No they are needed qualifiers and conditional elements of judgments that, in the case at hand, are very clearly indicated by available facts. Moreover they are also precisely the key elements in the prima face case the Italian judicial authorities have presented in ordering the captain's house arrest.
'
You have several important details wrong here. As to the key point, I expressed a qualified professionsl judgment as to what was an unnecessary and undue risk. One doesn't have to know the outcome to know that risking a grounding by passing a large ship with 4,000 souls aboard within feet of a rocky shore not long before sunset, for purposes of greeting a recently retired steward, is a risk without a proportional benefit. Wisely making such choices is a heart-of-the-matter issue for a ship's captain. Perhaps you just don't understand.

I've spent years flying combat aircraft in formation and in doing more than a few airshows as well. The risk probabilities in such cases are demonstrably (based on statistics) less than those involved in such foolish ship maneuvers as were tried in this case, and the consequences of failure - in view of the scale and number of people involved - are far less. You are wrong on this point too,

I'm glad to learn that you "have seen pictures of the bridge of the ship" and believe that provides you with a sound basis for judgment about the need (or lack thereof) for the captain's presence on the bridge during a critical, dangerous (and entirely unnecessary) maneuver. I too have seen such photos, and have done a good deal more as well. You are simply wrong. I was on the bridge for all port entries, exists, passages through narrow straits, or underway refuellings & replenishments - whenever they occurred. Moreover that (or the equivalent) is the universal standard for all large ships, everywhere. Indeed some elements of it are enforcable elements of maritime law.


This appears to be your central theme and motivation. You are entitled to your perceptions of my motives, but you are, again, wrong.

I think you should compare foolish ship manoeuvres with foolish airshow manoeuvres.

I don't dispute that whatever happened was foolish.

I'm losing patience with these divers and their bosses.
They stop the search operation every time the vessel moves a tiny bit.
Too much caution in the circumstances.

The divers are from COMSUBIN (Comando Raggruppamento Subacquei e Incursori Teseo Tesei), the Italian elite combat frogman force. I'm sure that they know what to do. And when to do it. (They members of the Gruppo Operativo Subacquei are specialised in saving people from sunken boats and ships.)

Would you feel the same way if someone you cared about was diving?

I agree. Indeed the Italians were among the first to specialize in this field decades ago.

It is very hard for any of us to guess about the stability of the wrecked ship, now resting on its side on an offshore rocky ledge. The salvage and environmental problems could become much worse if the wreckage shifts or sinks. The numbers of still missing people and their likely status isn't clear to any of us. By now the divers have a pretty good understanding of the ships remaining bouyancy, the stresses on the hull and the stability of the perch. However, even given this superior (to ours) knowledge, there is a lot of uncertainty remaining. Hard choices all around..

I disagree. I think they should get some hairy-arsed Dutch divers in, or British ones.

I can't imagine searching this ship would be an easy task. The boat could slip off the shelf at any moment. The amount of flotsam floating about in the dark hull could only make matter more perilous to the divers. I think it would be pretty easy to get caught up on this stuff. I hope none of the divers die as a result. At this point, it's only conceivable, it's not a rescue mission any more. From what I've heard, if the boat can be saved and salvaged, that is when they will find the remaining bodies. And only if those bodies haven't already been washed out to sea.

Could you please verify on what and why you disagree? (Which would be totally opposite to what other naval and maritime specialists say)

To what Dutch and/or British divers are you referring? (What George said: those divers working there are thought to be the best ... at least, they are one of the few who are specialised in such jobs)

I'm not.

I think, horses for courses. The Dutch specialise in marine salvage and heavy lifting. The British have got great experience in diving in the North Sea, particularly because of the offshore oil installations there.

Well, might be that you're correct.
(The tug and recovering team IS Dutch by the way. And I do think that diving along offshore installations is very different to diving inside a huge passenger ship.)

That's a very perceptive analysis of the situation Mac albeit in such a stylishly satisfying synopsis. Did it come to you in the armchair or at the bottom of our stairs.

I got wondering late last night whether the captain of such a cruise ship is chosen more for his maritime skills than for his presentational aplomb.

That he is something of an impresario rather than the standard sea captain. One might need to understand what it is that the average cruise passenger is seeking in taking to the high seas. And how to ensure that they come back for more.

A romantic, glad-handing cavalier type can't be expected to know what to do in the event of a catastrophe. And holding forth righteously after the catastrophe has occurred does rather miss the point.

I think that a certain decadent atmosphere is necessary to make a cruise go with the appropriate amount of zing.