very interesting what you both say and i agree with your conclusions, Bruce Ismay himself brings a lot of what you say up in his statement to the press on april 21 1912 mainly in the last paragraph[ page 205 'the Ismay line ' by john oldham] it is the same statement that shows the standing instructions to commanders. i am interested in the aligations leveled at Ismay at the time and after in relation to the speed of the titanic, back seat driving etc.
From Ismay;s point of view what he said and others said at the two inquiries was enough to exonerate him[not enough evidence] he was not guilty, whilst that is clearly enough for the white star line , for Ismay himself he really required a could not be quilty. As the following letter explains the position more clearly i will copy it in full i believe it is printed in the Ismay line , but for those who have not seen a copy here it is . The letter is from F.M. Radcliffe i think the signature is hard to read
letter head reads D Queen Insurance Buildings
10 Dale street
10 august 1912
Dear Mr Ismay,
The official print of Lord Mersey's judgement has not yet arrived, but i have read it carefully as printed in various newspapers.
It seems to me to afford you complete exoneration from the charge or suggestion that you were responsible for the speed of the Titanic at the time of the disaster. Moreover Lord Mersey expressly refers to the suggestion that your presence on board might have induced the captain to neglect precautions which he would otherwise have taken, and expressly finds to the contrary' The evidence shows that the captain was not trying to make any record passage, or indeed any exceptionally quick passage. He was not trying to please anybody,but was exercising his own discretion in the way he thought best'.It seems to me that nothing can usefully be added to this.
You may say that the phrase ' was not trying to please anybody' leaves it to be supposed that the captain might have thought that going at full speed would please you; and you and you would like it to be stated that he had no reason for such an opinion,but the contrary. In my judgement this is a point which you would be ill advised to labour, for many reasons
 The judgement is entirly in your favour on this point as it stands and i do not think it is open to the interpretation suggested.
 This is shown by the tone of the whole press, none of whom differ from this part of the judgement.
 To begin to supplement the judgement or dot its i's, or cross its t's, would only be to invite a correspondence in the papers, or in other words, put your head to be hit.
 moreover,while the question of the speed of the olympic, and the general policy of your line as to speed might usefully have been referred to in evidence, i am strongly of the opinion that the incident of the Olympic has a double edge. If you seek to use it as showing that you personally do not press for high speed, you must not be suprised if other people use it as showing that you are prepared to acquiesce in a higher speed than you yourself think necessary when others press for it for business reasons, and since the determining voice is yours, as chairman, the responsibility is yours. Captain Smith was captain of the olympic as well as the Titanic. There is no evidence that he knew the differences in office on this question or of your indivigual views; but if he did , he knew equally that you waived those views. I know all that is to be said on the other side; but i think, if you start a correspondence, you will be giving any ill disposed person pellets to fire at you, on such a doubtful basis; and i think you may well be content with the very clear finding on the matter.
 You have taken the whole affair calmly and with dignity. Do nothing to lead people to suppose that you are not satisfied with the vindication which is recognised to be complete.
The only dissentient note is the ill natured phrase in the leading article of the 'daily mail', obviously directed only to the incident of the boats. As i told you at the beginning,different people till the end of time will take different views and ethical questions. That you should have one dissentient voice only in all the respectable newspapers of England, is extraordinary evidence of the fact that public opinion is on your side on the question of your leaving the vessel, and i have only heard the daily mail article mentioned to be disapproved.
I suppose that when a good man is charged with an offence in a criminal court the verdict 'not guilty' always sound a little cold to friends. They would like something very much warmer, something which would embody their knowledge that he not only was not guilty, but could not have been guilty. That is not the way of the world. One has to think what it would have meant had the fallibility of human minds committed the monsterous injustice of bringing in an opposite verdict[as has happened before now] and be grateful.
I can heartily congratulate you on the termination of a long period of suspense, and on the judgement and on the attitude of the press. In my opinion the proper course is to regard the judgement, with its complete exoneration of yourself from blame, as pronouncing the last word on the matter.
that is the end of the letter
It is clear i believe that Ismay wished to clear his name more completely from any doubt that he in some way interfeared with the speed of the Titanic in the letter printed in the ismay line where he writes to mr Sanderson
' I am afraid we look at the position from entirly different points of view: you have not been attacked, whereas i have , so you can easily afford to sit still and do nothing.'
i think that clearly there is a difference of opinion between the other members of the White Star Line and Ismay. the choice Ismay faced on the completion of the british inquiry was whether or not to fight to clear his name or to leave the result to stand, quite clearly he is under a certain amount of pressure to remain silent.
in section 4 of the Radcliffe letter the question of the speed of the olympic is refered to . there is a draft of a letter that i dont think was ever released addressed to the editor of the times where ismays preference for regular arrival of the Olympic in New York on wednesday morning as opposed to tuesday afternoon whilst on the short track, this preference was opposed by some colleagues, the Olympic made three voyages before the restriction was withdrawn. The draft also includes teh sentence ' The instructions to the Titanic before leaving Queenstown was that she was not to arrive at the Ambrose lightship[ 23 miles from New York] before 5 am wednesday morning.
I think this clearly shows that Mr Ismay is not an advocate for speed; on the contrary, his preference is for regularity of arrival at the expense of speed, and captain smith well knowing his views in regard to this question could not have been influenced by his presence on board.'
It must have been very difficult for Ismay to defend the fact that he did not interfear with the running of the Titanic, but the fact that he tried leaves me to believe that there is no foundation to any of the aligations, there is little or no proof that he did. The myth of Ismay's acts leading up to the accident still seems as strong as they were at the time,so much has been researched into what happened with the sinking, it seems amazing to me that so little has been done with reference to Ismay's role in the lead up . It certainly seems to me that for someone whose reputation was dragged through the mud, was exonerated , and yet still is blamed for the disaster by many, there seems to be so much more evidence that he was telling the truth than to the contrary. i am very mindful of what micheal said when i first joined this site about hidden agendas and making up your own mind after reading the evidence, i will be honest and say that i have an agenda, and i do believe Ismay is innocent on the point of speed, but i do have an open mind and would be interested in any evidence to the contrary