El Capitain

Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
Hi Guys!

I agree he was poorly served and poorly informed.
There's nothing anyone can do about the latter but why does he continue to be poorly served?

I'm neither for or against Lord. I have been slowly trawling through the available evidence and now conclude that there are many people out there who can at least properly and honestly serve him in retrospect.

If Lord was poorly served and poorly informed then the man had little or no possibility of changing the course of events.
If everyone now agrees this to be so - why not draw a line under it by publicly stating so? That would at least remove the unfair stigma that in some way he was responsible for needles deaths.
Notwithstanding this - Lord, although bearing the blame as commander - never actually saw a single rocket. That's the bottom line.

Cheers!

Jim
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
>>If Lord was poorly served and poorly informed then the man had little or no possibility of changing the course of events.<<

I agree with that.

For me the issue is not Lord, it is trying to understand what really happened and why. What was really seen, and why did people act or not act based on what they saw or were told about. It is more of an academic interest for me as I said elsewhere.

Anyway, I think its time for others to state their opinions on all of this.
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
I have to say the same Sam. I've cobbled-up a drawing on this infernal CAD thing. I'll try and post it on the mystery ship thread but don't hold your breath.

Cheers,

Jim
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>If Lord was poorly served and poorly informed then the man had little or no possibility of changing the course of events.
If everyone now agrees this to be so - why not draw a line under it by publicly stating so?<<

I don't know that there are a lot of really objective historians who have any issues with that. The issue is that he was at least informed, if very badly, and that he should have investigated himself, and the attempt at a cover up in Boston is what gets him in hot water.

That and the fact that in the end, he was the Commander with all the baggage that goes with the deal.
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
Michael,

I was going to leave this but have to disagree with you on one point - 'the issue was that he was at least informed'.

Bad information is worse than no information at all. I'm sure you know there are very many military commanders who would agree with that. Indeed, there are many military commanders who lost their lives and the lives of their men because of it. Is not General Custer a prime example?

All the powers that were involved with examining Lord and his men had -with the exception of the true location of the wreck site - all the information we have today. It follows they could have come to exactly the same conclusions objective researchers have done.

They chose to ignore pertinent facts such as the direction in which Stone and Gibson saw their rockets. The previous reports and messages between Californian and other vessels which were made and recorded before the collision which were at odds with Californian's position as suggested in the final damning report.

Nowadays, public and 'front-of-the house' officials are trained how to give initial response to journalists. Journalists are trained to ask questions which will produce a desired effect; resulting in answers which will sell papers.
If the press interview you refer to was Lord's first as a commander then he was a lamb among wolves. These guys must have loved him!

Cheers!

Jim.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
If you are going to discuss Lord's in actions, you must also discuss what action he could have taken in the conditions he found himself. I am not only talking about the presence or lack of presence around his ship, but the ability of his ship to perform a safe rescue of those on a foundering ship without endangering his own.

You must also take into account in the same debate that by today's practice of maritime law and the current set of laws that govern seamanship; Captain Rostron, would be without a license, and most probably in jail.

I do not argue Lord did not act, because....well history shows he didn't. But before one condemns the man you must take into account the mans actual responsibility and contrary to academic belief it had nothing to do with Titanic. His one and only duty lay with Californian.

Having said that, had the conditions around his ship been clear, and he had no obvious hazard to his vessel he was duty bound to assist Titanic if he deemed her to be in distress.

At the least Lord had a very good argument to have sat and done nothing, instead he chose to take an alternate method of explaining his actions (or in actions) which to be honest I don't understand.

I would also agree that Lord's officers did not do a very good job of relaying information. In other threads I have posted comments to the effect that, if one of Lord's officers did not believe that he (Lord) got the picture the officer was duty bound to make sure his captain understood.

I am not taking Lord's side, but rather I am begging that some professional discretion take place in this debate.
 
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Good to see you back here Capt. Erik. Hope all is well with you and the family.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>I was going to leave this but have to disagree with you on one point - 'the issue was that he was at least informed'.<<

I'm not disagreeing that he was badly informed or that bad information is worse then none at all. However, the sticking point remains that he was informed and even asked for orders of what to do. That he was badly served by his officers is really not in dispute either.

It was everything which followed which puts the man behind the Eight Ball.

>>Good to see you back here Capt. Erik.<<

Indeed it is. Hope to see some more of you. All the best to your family.
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
Hello Erik!

I agree entirely what you say about the captain of the Carpathia. 'There but for the grace of God!'

The question of professionalism also should be examined.
Professionals were part of the advisory team at both Enquiries - more so the BOT one.
Either these guys were total incompetents (which I refuse to believe) or they were chosen for their fondness of the word 'yes'. Hence the remarks I made to Michael in the third paragraph of my last posting.

As for discretion - isn't that 'the better part of valour'?

Cheers!

Jim.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>Either these guys were total incompetents (which I refuse to believe) or they were chosen for their fondness of the word 'yes'.<<

They may well have been there more because they would toe whatever the investigator's line was. If they had facts to offer which tended to be a bit inconvenient, then it wasn't really much of a stretch to cherry pick information out of context in order to contrive a pretext.

I think the Senate Inquiry as a lot more objective in some respects then the Mersey Wreck Commission was, but I'm mindful of the fact that Senator Smith had an anti-Morgan/IMM agenda in mind. His "indictment" of Captain Lord was made based on pretty slim evidence. He didn't even bother examining Stone or Gibson. An oversight which is nothing short of incredible in our eyes since it's just about taken for granted that if something happens on a ship, everybody on the watch is investigated.

The Mersey Court was more thorough on technical details but didn't mind evading sensetive issues such as the breakup of the ship. Captain Lord's gaffs must have been seen as a Heaven sent gift since it gave them a scapegoat to blame whether he was blameworthy or not.

This doesn't really add to or take away from any of Captain Lord's accountability, but my point here is that in some very crucial respects, both inquiries missed the boat on this one. Here at least was an opportunity to investigate what went wrong...the whole dogs breakfast of misunderstanding and miscommunication...which are at the very core of the so-called Californian Incident.
 
E

Erik Wood

Member
I think that a strong argument could be made that although Lord was informed, the information he was given, wasn't enough for him to make a informed decision.

If Lord trusted his officers I can see why he did what he did (took no action) however if he didn't trust them....then one must wonder.

Having particapted in formal investigation (not with my license being in jepordy) I can say rather uniformly that most investigations seek to place blame, not find facts.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
>>I can say rather uniformly that most investigations seek to place blame, not find facts.<<

Just goes to show that nothing has changed in the past century.
 
Top