Ismay's escape


Jan 4, 2007
47
0
86
High probability? I don't think so . . . based on what? He testified there were no more passengers about, the boat was being lowered, there was space, he got in . . . he admitted that there was space for more . . . however, there seems to have been a lot of space in almost all the lifeboats lowered that night . . . the "D" boat was lowered only partially filled, and that was after "C" left . . . why certain people keep dwelling on Ismay is bewildering . . . he stated what occurred at "C", and unless there is persuasive and compelling evidence to the contrary (there is not), simply accept it . . . almost 100 hundred years have now passed and Ismay, for some, is still the scapegoat . . .
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,194
7
233
Michael:

Indeed you're probably right about Andrews. It's hard to gauge just what the reaction would have been. Andrews seemingly had no intention to jump ship of his own accord at any stage, however, whilst Ismay took his opportunity - it's easy to perceive an element of cowardice in that, and that's exactly what much of the public did.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing a century later, but we must remember how it was all perceived in 1912 - 1,500 people die, there needs to be a scapegoat, and Ismay just happened to be one of the ones to bear the brunt of it. There was probably times after the sinking that he wished he hadn't jumped in the boat!

Thomas:

More than 2,000 people on board and he couldn't find a single passenger anywhere on deck as the boats were being lowered? Please don't tell us you actually think that's likely?

He might have made a hurried glance around and saw nobody else IMMEDIATELY near the lifeboat - it's not like he shoved through a crowd of women and children to jump into the boat - but it wouldn't have taken much effort to see them elsewhere.

Cheers,
Adam.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,631
446
453
Easley South Carolina
>>Hindsight is a wonderful thing a century later, but we must remember how it was all perceived in 1912 - 1,500 people die, there needs to be a scapegoat, and Ismay just happened to be one of the ones to bear the brunt of it.<<

I agree. For whatever it's worth, if the man had been forced into the boat at gunpoint or if he had fallen over the side only to be fished out of the water, I still think that Hearst would have found an excuse to nail Ismay's hide to the barn. The hostility between the two was very real, passionate on Hearst's part, and he was the guy with the printing press who bought ink by the tankerload. Ismay wouldn't have stood a chance.

>>High probability? I don't think so . . . based on what? He testified there were no more passengers about...<<

And as Jim pointed out, was contradicted. At the very least, Ismay's claim is highly questionable, and given the chaos near the end, the notion that there was nobody even in sight who wanted to get into the boat simply beggers rational belief.
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,194
7
233
I can't help but wonder if there was any point during the time Ismay sat in the lifeboat where he thought: "Hearst will have me real good for this..."

Again, there should be boundaries to journalism and journalistic integrity (too often there wasn't and still isn't) and much of the hounding of Ismay post-sinking was probably unwarranted and nasty, but as we've said, the fact of the matter is that he put himself in a position where he could easily be attacked, and all of it possibly on one spur of the moment decision.

Cheers,
Adam.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,631
446
453
Easley South Carolina
>>I can't help but wonder if there was any point during the time Ismay sat in the lifeboat where he thought: "Hearst will have me real good for this..." <<

In the absence of anything written by Ismay himself to the effect, I'm afraid all we can do is speculate. In my opinion he had other things on his mind at that moment.

>>Again, there should be boundaries to journalism and journalistic integrity (too often there wasn't and still isn't)<<

Yeah, well the problem with that is who decides where the line is drawn? Freedom of the press may be over rated, but the opposite is nothing to crow about either.
 
>> Jeremy:
>>
>> "I'm not sure if you're agreement with my bit about Americans was a agreement or a dig."
>>
>> Indeed it was a dig at your very much OTT reaction to my first post.

I suggest that you keep your digs to yourself. My reply was matter-of-fact, not over the top. It was a discussion point.

And that type of behavior isn't really warranted. I said nothing to provoke it. I replied to your post with facts and research. And the response was completely out of line.

>> It was the same in 1912 as it is now, Jeremy - "juicy gossip" news sells.

Yes, Adam. I *do* live and function in today's world. Today's journalism vs. 1912 isn't really the difference of opinion between us.

>> Again, there should be boundaries to journalism and journalistic integrity (too often there wasn't and still isn't)
>> and much of the hounding of Ismay post-sinking was probably unwarranted and nasty

Probably about 90%. That 90% fueled by rivalry and a reported grudge. The rest that weren't published in a Hearst paper just jumped on the bandwagon.

>> More than 2,000 people on board and he couldn't find a single passenger anywhere on deck as the boats
>> were being lowered? Please don't tell us you actually think that's likely?

Putting that statement into the actual situation, let's remember that the decks were not flooded with light as shown in documentaries and films. These were low-wattage Victorian bulbs. Not industrial sodium bulbs. It was very dim on deck.

>> He might have made a hurried glance around and saw nobody else IMMEDIATELY near the lifeboat

Several people that were also in Collapsible C said that Wilde offered Ismay and WH Carter places in the boat provided they row. He didn't take a hurried glance and jump in the boat.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,631
446
453
Easley South Carolina
>>Putting that statement into the actual situation, let's remember that the decks were not flooded with light as shown in documentaries and films. These were low-wattage Victorian bulbs. Not industrial sodium bulbs. It was very dim on deck.<<

Not so dim that anybody failed to notice hoards of people on deck who have to be held back at gunpoint whilst others were being forced out of the boats the same way.

Jeremey, being a sailor myself, I'm well aware of how dim it can be on deck. I also know how brilliantly lit a passenger vessel is as I've seen them. While the Titanic may have switched some off, by the time the ship was stopped and sinking, there would have been no point in doing so, and the safety of the people loading and despatching the boats would have called for the opposite.

In any event, precious few of the survivors reported having any problems whatever observing what was happening on the boat deck. In fact, I don't know of any who did. Seen in context, Ismay's claim to the opposite just doesn't ring true.
 
Jan 4, 2007
47
0
86
Adam--

Indeed, there is testimony from crew members who claimed the decks were empty, they couldn't see anymore passengers, or nobody was coming forward to enter the boats, and this was on the starboard side--and men were getting into lifeboats on that side . . . in fact it's embarrassing how unfilled these boats were . . . Ismay, now all of a sudden there are guns, and shots, bodies falling, him pushing his way in through angry crowds---all nonsense, and no real evidence to support any of that---read his testimony over, it's the truth ( read Rowe's testimony), if either inquiry felt there was something more they would've investigated, as the British did with Duff Gordon (another one who could do no right) . . . with Ismay all sorts of unsavory things attached themselves, no matter how improbable . . . he's the unwilling villain in the piece, twirling with delight his mustache in a darkened corner, forcing the hapless master of the vessel to ever greater speed---all nonsense . . .

Lord Mersey's opinion on this matter stands . . .

And yes, I do believe Ismay's testimony, I do believe it is the truth as he knew it . . .I do not believe he lied . . .
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,194
7
233
Michael:

Exactly right, who draws the line? Boundaries will always be pushed, and truths stretched in order to sell news. Much of the "journalistic integrity" comes down to the morals of the particular reporter covering a particular story.

Jeremy:

"I suggest that you keep your digs to yourself. My reply was matter-of-fact, not over the top. It was a discussion point.

And that type of behavior isn't really warranted. I said nothing to provoke it. I replied to your post with facts and research. And the response was completely out of line."

Rubbish. You took my response completely out of context and were absolutely over the top and arrogant in your response, as you are again in this latest post. And so, thank you for the advice, but the "dig" stands, until you can respond in a reasonable manner.

"Putting that statement into the actual situation, let's remember that the decks were not flooded with light as shown in documentaries and films. These were low-wattage Victorian bulbs. Not industrial sodium bulbs. It was very dim on deck."

Well this certainly flies in the face of the many passenger testimonies describing how brilliantly lit the ship was. As far as i'm aware, the Victorian era ended in 1901 with the death of Queen Victoria - much of her reign saw gas lamps being used. The Titanic was certainly a major step forward from that.

Besides all of that, if we choose to believe that Ismay couldn't see a single soul into the horizon - he couldn't call out? He couldn't walk a few metres into an indoor or enclosed area and tell other passengers to get into the boat before jumping in himself? Was he completely incapacitated?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not criticising Ismay for getting into the boat under the circumstances, but I do believe that there is more that he could have done.

Thomas:

As I said to Jeremy, if he really wanted to, there was nothing to stop him from going to look for passengers to fill the boats. He would have known just as well as anybody, if not more so, that as it was there wasn't enough lifeboat seats for everybody on board.

Cheers,
Adam.
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,194
7
233
Jeremy:

I made it very clear in my first post that what I was saying about Ismay was the general public and press perception of him in 1912 - not my personal opinion of him or his actions sitting back with the benefit of hindsight in 2011 - but those of the public and press in 1912. You responded to it and took to it as if it was my own personal opinion all along - which it wasn't and isn't.

Michael Standart answered what you said better than I could have. We are actually in agreement on most of what you said, so like Michael, i'm not entirely sure what the problem is.

So i'm afraid you'll be getting no apology. Instead I would simply suggest that you think about what you're saying before you post a response again in such a fashion.

Cheers,
Adam.
 

Similar threads