Tracy Smith
Member
Thanks, George, I appreciate that.
The Californian Incident A Reality Check
- Thread starter John M. Feeney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- californian
Michael H. Standart
Member
Since I'm the only one who hasn't put my head on the chopping block today, I guess it's my turn.
On best case/worst case scenerios, in my own humble experience at sea, the best case scenerio when things go wrong at sea is whatever you can walk away from alive. When things go wrong, it's damned fast and you often have very little warning. Even when you do, it isn't always a given that you have total control over the situation so you just have to make the best of things and hope you're still around to see the next sunrise.
Paul, the hell of it is that you may be right on the time differential if there was any. if anybody can recall offhand something definative on this, I'd apprieciate a clue.
For myself, when I was doing my own research and writing, I assumed (A dangerous passtime) that an approximate 2:00am arrival time would have been just about right. Of course, the Titanic is well into her death throes about now, most of the lifeboats would have been launched and scattered about, and that would have complicated matters. Not only do the Californian's lookouts have to watch out for ice, they have to watch out for any drifting lifeboats, hoping and praying they spot them befor they run them down. This leaves two choices from where I stand, nither one of them very pretty;
1)Slow down some in order to give the lookouts a better chance of spotting any drifting lifeboats...which costs time they don't have much of to play with...or,
2)keep on going until the last possible second and hope they don't run anybody down. Also hope they can slow down and stop befor hitting the Titanic (They have enough trouble as it is. They don't need any more.) or overshooting where they need to be in order to do the most good.
I'm sure Erik can think of a few more boobytraps, but anyway you look at it, what looks easy or obvious in theory is one problem after another in practice. Nasty surprises are the norm!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
On best case/worst case scenerios, in my own humble experience at sea, the best case scenerio when things go wrong at sea is whatever you can walk away from alive. When things go wrong, it's damned fast and you often have very little warning. Even when you do, it isn't always a given that you have total control over the situation so you just have to make the best of things and hope you're still around to see the next sunrise.
Paul, the hell of it is that you may be right on the time differential if there was any. if anybody can recall offhand something definative on this, I'd apprieciate a clue.
For myself, when I was doing my own research and writing, I assumed (A dangerous passtime) that an approximate 2:00am arrival time would have been just about right. Of course, the Titanic is well into her death throes about now, most of the lifeboats would have been launched and scattered about, and that would have complicated matters. Not only do the Californian's lookouts have to watch out for ice, they have to watch out for any drifting lifeboats, hoping and praying they spot them befor they run them down. This leaves two choices from where I stand, nither one of them very pretty;
1)Slow down some in order to give the lookouts a better chance of spotting any drifting lifeboats...which costs time they don't have much of to play with...or,
2)keep on going until the last possible second and hope they don't run anybody down. Also hope they can slow down and stop befor hitting the Titanic (They have enough trouble as it is. They don't need any more.) or overshooting where they need to be in order to do the most good.
I'm sure Erik can think of a few more boobytraps, but anyway you look at it, what looks easy or obvious in theory is one problem after another in practice. Nasty surprises are the norm!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Beverly J. Crowder
Member
What a hard discussion this is!!! Always passing the buck so to speak, whose fault is it? Who to blame.
I believe that Captain Lord did what he thought was correct. He had no idea that Titanic was in trouble. He KNEW what HE was facing with the ice and rather than try to go out into the ice further, to risk his crew and his ship, send a morse message instead. "If you get an answer, let me know". Now as for not acting on the rockets, he wasn't sure if they were "company signals" or not. I think if I had seen rockets, I would have rousted my wireless man, but that is just me, BUT I am not on the black, icy, Atlantic after midnight having worked for 18 hours either.
BBRRRRRRR!!!!
If it were "us" on the Californian, and "we" had the same information Captain Lord had to go on, what would you do?? Would you try to send an overtired crew out to try to get through the ice for nothing?
For a ship passing in the night so to say??? (normal routine) Would you rouse your wireless man and try to make contact? Could Evans make contact because he hadn't rewound his system? (question for Parks) Evans had already been blessed out by Philips the 1st time he tried to wire him of the Californians ordeal.
There are so many "what if's" all the way around and I think that Lord did what he thought was the best thing to do. He made a mistake only because he had no idea that Titanic was in trouble. He had to think of his ship and his crew which was his ultimate responsibility, not the Titanic passing by enroute to NY.
I believe that if Captain Lord knew about Titanic before morning, he would have rousted his crew and done what he could have. I really doubt Lord would have left everyone to die if he KNEW what was truely happening to Titanic. He would do what he could with what accommodations he had.
And of course, the problem of trying to navigate around the boats and the people in the water in the dark, that would be extemely difficult as already mentioned by Michael. He would have to oft his lifeboats to reach them. By that time, Titanic would have been gone and many people would be dead still, no matter what Lord did.
As for "what if's",
What if Captain Smith would have heeded the ice warnings he received and slowed down, posted extra watch???
What if Bride and Philips would have relayed all the ice messages to the bridge instead of spiking them?
What if Philips would have let Evans get his message through instead of blessing him out and continue working Cape Race, that Californian was stopped in ice for the night? Would Philips have known where Titanic was at sea and gotten the message to the bridge immediately? Would Philips have realized, being overtired and overworked himself, that his ears being blasted off by Evans meant how close in proximity they were and that if Californian was stuck in ice, that Titanic will encounter ice also?
Say you are on the Interstate, the traffic is bumper to bumper, it is raining, you can barely see through your dirty windshield and bless yourself out for not doing it when you meant to a week ago. You didn't sleep the night before, so you are cranky and tired, are late for an appointment, have a screaming baby in the car seat in back, (that you need to drop with the sitter before your appointment) have your cell phone handy, (half charged) "just in case", and you pass by a disabled car off the shoulder with a woman with 3 children with the emergency flashers on enroute...
The children appear to be quite young and the woman is alone.
Do you slow down from 65MPH and stop to see if they need assistance possibly endangering yourself and your child?
Do you get out your cell phone at a stop light once off the Interstate and call 911 and see if anyone has called them in for assistance with the knowledge that you may not be able to use the cell again in case you need to for yourself???
Do you just go about your business and forget about them?? Business as usual?
What do you do??
Just my thoughts
Beverly
I believe that Captain Lord did what he thought was correct. He had no idea that Titanic was in trouble. He KNEW what HE was facing with the ice and rather than try to go out into the ice further, to risk his crew and his ship, send a morse message instead. "If you get an answer, let me know". Now as for not acting on the rockets, he wasn't sure if they were "company signals" or not. I think if I had seen rockets, I would have rousted my wireless man, but that is just me, BUT I am not on the black, icy, Atlantic after midnight having worked for 18 hours either.
BBRRRRRRR!!!!
If it were "us" on the Californian, and "we" had the same information Captain Lord had to go on, what would you do?? Would you try to send an overtired crew out to try to get through the ice for nothing?
For a ship passing in the night so to say??? (normal routine) Would you rouse your wireless man and try to make contact? Could Evans make contact because he hadn't rewound his system? (question for Parks) Evans had already been blessed out by Philips the 1st time he tried to wire him of the Californians ordeal.
There are so many "what if's" all the way around and I think that Lord did what he thought was the best thing to do. He made a mistake only because he had no idea that Titanic was in trouble. He had to think of his ship and his crew which was his ultimate responsibility, not the Titanic passing by enroute to NY.
I believe that if Captain Lord knew about Titanic before morning, he would have rousted his crew and done what he could have. I really doubt Lord would have left everyone to die if he KNEW what was truely happening to Titanic. He would do what he could with what accommodations he had.
And of course, the problem of trying to navigate around the boats and the people in the water in the dark, that would be extemely difficult as already mentioned by Michael. He would have to oft his lifeboats to reach them. By that time, Titanic would have been gone and many people would be dead still, no matter what Lord did.
As for "what if's",
What if Captain Smith would have heeded the ice warnings he received and slowed down, posted extra watch???
What if Bride and Philips would have relayed all the ice messages to the bridge instead of spiking them?
What if Philips would have let Evans get his message through instead of blessing him out and continue working Cape Race, that Californian was stopped in ice for the night? Would Philips have known where Titanic was at sea and gotten the message to the bridge immediately? Would Philips have realized, being overtired and overworked himself, that his ears being blasted off by Evans meant how close in proximity they were and that if Californian was stuck in ice, that Titanic will encounter ice also?
Say you are on the Interstate, the traffic is bumper to bumper, it is raining, you can barely see through your dirty windshield and bless yourself out for not doing it when you meant to a week ago. You didn't sleep the night before, so you are cranky and tired, are late for an appointment, have a screaming baby in the car seat in back, (that you need to drop with the sitter before your appointment) have your cell phone handy, (half charged) "just in case", and you pass by a disabled car off the shoulder with a woman with 3 children with the emergency flashers on enroute...
The children appear to be quite young and the woman is alone.
Do you slow down from 65MPH and stop to see if they need assistance possibly endangering yourself and your child?
Do you get out your cell phone at a stop light once off the Interstate and call 911 and see if anyone has called them in for assistance with the knowledge that you may not be able to use the cell again in case you need to for yourself???
Do you just go about your business and forget about them?? Business as usual?
What do you do??
Just my thoughts
Beverly
John M. Feeney
Member
Hi, Tracy (and all):
First off, I want to say that I'm in complete agreement with George on the caliber of the biographical data you compiled on Captain Lord. High praise!
... Californian was rated for 47 Second Class passengers, which hardly puts it in the class of the Carpathia, which carried at least several hundred people on each and every voyage. It was basic transportation, and had few of the amenities that were standard on a typical passenger liner of the day.
Here I only know what I've read, Tracy. While I agree that Californian's capacity was 47 passengers (all in one class), versus Carpathia's approximately 1700 -- albeit with only 200 of that 2nd Class (no First) -- I'm led to believe that the Californian often carried a select clientelle who preferred to travel "far from the madding crowd". As for amenities, it sounds like it had some rather luxurious fittings.
From "The Great Ocean Liners" -- Californian, by Daniel Othfors (http://www.greatoceanliners.net/californian.html):
"The few passengers the Californian carried were given a high standard during their crossing. First, the whole ship was equipped with electric lighting. The smoking room had panelling in the finest oak, upholstered in embossed leather and the floor tiling was made out of rubber. The dining room was done in Hungarian ash and satinwood with teak frames, and upholstered in moquette.
But my point there was simply to counter Erik's assertion that the Californian was strictly a freighter. It wasn't. And Lord was quite used to carrying passengers, so I don't see the implied dichotomy between his experience and Rostron's. Is there some magic number threshold below which a captain is assumed to be incapable of empathy for passenger's lives?
Another point: The Mount Temple had turned and was steaming toward the Titanic's reported position. However, Captain Moore ordered the ship stopped only 14 miles from the Titanic's position, because he felt it was unsafe to proceed any further at that time because of the ice. So, apparently, there was enough ice in the area to pose a possible threat to ships.
You might well want to reconsider the merits of that argument. First, Captain Moore was on the *other* side of that 1-2 mile thick, virtually impenetrable ice field. Second, he obviously didn't stop the *ship* 14 miles off (at 3:25); he just stopped the *engines* briefly. Moore apparently mispoke initially (US 764):
Mr. MOORE. At 3.25 I stopped the engines, and then went slowly to avoid the ice, because it was too dark to proceed full speed on account of the ice.
Senator SMITH. Did you reach the Titanic's position?
Mr. MOORE. I reached the Titanic's position. I reckon I was very close to that position, either that position or very close to it, at 4.30 in the morning, sir.
Note: Making almost 14 miles in a little over an hour is the best Mt. Temple was capable of! And by 5:20 A.M. (sunrise) the ship was another three miles east of Titanic's CQD position, *after* wiggling north and south trying to find a way through that ice field in the dark!
Last but not least, please, could we stop bashing poor Ernest Gill? In an age where "yellow journalism" and paid stories was the rule, not the exception, it's quite unfair to claim that being paid for a story somehow negates an individual's veracity. Harry Bride was offerered quite a handsome sum as well! Was he lying to the New York Times?
Regards,
John
First off, I want to say that I'm in complete agreement with George on the caliber of the biographical data you compiled on Captain Lord. High praise!
... Californian was rated for 47 Second Class passengers, which hardly puts it in the class of the Carpathia, which carried at least several hundred people on each and every voyage. It was basic transportation, and had few of the amenities that were standard on a typical passenger liner of the day.
Here I only know what I've read, Tracy. While I agree that Californian's capacity was 47 passengers (all in one class), versus Carpathia's approximately 1700 -- albeit with only 200 of that 2nd Class (no First) -- I'm led to believe that the Californian often carried a select clientelle who preferred to travel "far from the madding crowd". As for amenities, it sounds like it had some rather luxurious fittings.
From "The Great Ocean Liners" -- Californian, by Daniel Othfors (http://www.greatoceanliners.net/californian.html):
"The few passengers the Californian carried were given a high standard during their crossing. First, the whole ship was equipped with electric lighting. The smoking room had panelling in the finest oak, upholstered in embossed leather and the floor tiling was made out of rubber. The dining room was done in Hungarian ash and satinwood with teak frames, and upholstered in moquette.
But my point there was simply to counter Erik's assertion that the Californian was strictly a freighter. It wasn't. And Lord was quite used to carrying passengers, so I don't see the implied dichotomy between his experience and Rostron's. Is there some magic number threshold below which a captain is assumed to be incapable of empathy for passenger's lives?
Another point: The Mount Temple had turned and was steaming toward the Titanic's reported position. However, Captain Moore ordered the ship stopped only 14 miles from the Titanic's position, because he felt it was unsafe to proceed any further at that time because of the ice. So, apparently, there was enough ice in the area to pose a possible threat to ships.
You might well want to reconsider the merits of that argument. First, Captain Moore was on the *other* side of that 1-2 mile thick, virtually impenetrable ice field. Second, he obviously didn't stop the *ship* 14 miles off (at 3:25); he just stopped the *engines* briefly. Moore apparently mispoke initially (US 764):
Mr. MOORE. At 3.25 I stopped the engines, and then went slowly to avoid the ice, because it was too dark to proceed full speed on account of the ice.
Senator SMITH. Did you reach the Titanic's position?
Mr. MOORE. I reached the Titanic's position. I reckon I was very close to that position, either that position or very close to it, at 4.30 in the morning, sir.
Note: Making almost 14 miles in a little over an hour is the best Mt. Temple was capable of! And by 5:20 A.M. (sunrise) the ship was another three miles east of Titanic's CQD position, *after* wiggling north and south trying to find a way through that ice field in the dark!
Last but not least, please, could we stop bashing poor Ernest Gill? In an age where "yellow journalism" and paid stories was the rule, not the exception, it's quite unfair to claim that being paid for a story somehow negates an individual's veracity. Harry Bride was offerered quite a handsome sum as well! Was he lying to the New York Times?
Regards,
John
David Billnitzer
Member
Hi again:
To Erik, Michael, and Traci: I re-read the article again tonight, and one aspect that I really enjoyed was the discussion of the dangers inherent in attempting a rescue at sea. Your examples from the Andrea Doria and the Republic, compared with Rostron's, are compelling. A ship that sinks in 2.5 hours is a different circumstance from one that takes 11 or 12 hours. (The Andrea Doria's sinking seems almost leisurely in comparison to Titanic's.) At the same time, I don't think that Titanic's rush to destruction excuses Lord's inaction. Lord had no way of knowing how long it would take that "tramp steamer, something like ourselves" to finally go down, anymore than Rostron had of knowing what he might find when he got there.
To Michael and Paul: Leslie Harrison theorized a time difference between CA and T of about 12 minutes. If you look at Bride's and Evans's testimony, I think it works out to about a five minute difference. Bride said the difference between T time and NY was about two hours; Evans was more precise, and said it was about an hour and 55 minutes. I am pretty sure that if you hunt through their testimonies, you will find it. Five minutes seems as good as identical to me, given the inexact nature of time-keeping in those days - how many times is your watch out of synch with your neighbor's by a few minutes?
About the word "decision" to describe Lord's thought process. To be honest, I don't know what word I would have put in its place, so good luck to you. I will be interested to see what you come up with. As I was reading the article again, with "decision" in my mind, I was struck with a mental picture of Lord tossing and turning on the chartroom sofa:
"What if I get there, and someone jumps into one of my boats and damages it? Oh, my. What if I run out of deckhands; do I send the cook to help out? Then who is going to stay here and make breakfast for all these people? What if we get there and we accidentally mow down their lifeboats in the dark? Or what if we get there and they're already all dead?" etc etc.
And I didn't think that was the image you wanted to evoke.
In all seriousness, though - from your seagoing experience - what do you think was going through Lord's mind while he lay there on the sofa? Do you think he even considered the option to go, or not? Or even to get out of bed and see for himself? I will respect your answer if you don't want to speculate; that's fair. I am just curious if you think any of the "dangerous rescue" possibilities that you have spelled out here so vividly occurred to him.
Overall, if I am following you, though, it seems to me that your argument is not really so much about what time Lord might or might not have arrived on the scene, but more about the BR Inquiry's phrase "she might have saved many if not all..." So I have been trying to find a more satisfactory conclusion:
1) "she could have saved another life or two..."
2) "she might not have saved anyone, but she might at least have tried..."
3) "she was justified in not making the attempt, as it was too dangerous for her to proceed..."
Maybe I am getting off track, but what would you have had the BR Inq say in place of what Mersey finally wrote? I hope you don't see these as an attack, I am just trying to understand your points.
- Dave
To Erik, Michael, and Traci: I re-read the article again tonight, and one aspect that I really enjoyed was the discussion of the dangers inherent in attempting a rescue at sea. Your examples from the Andrea Doria and the Republic, compared with Rostron's, are compelling. A ship that sinks in 2.5 hours is a different circumstance from one that takes 11 or 12 hours. (The Andrea Doria's sinking seems almost leisurely in comparison to Titanic's.) At the same time, I don't think that Titanic's rush to destruction excuses Lord's inaction. Lord had no way of knowing how long it would take that "tramp steamer, something like ourselves" to finally go down, anymore than Rostron had of knowing what he might find when he got there.
To Michael and Paul: Leslie Harrison theorized a time difference between CA and T of about 12 minutes. If you look at Bride's and Evans's testimony, I think it works out to about a five minute difference. Bride said the difference between T time and NY was about two hours; Evans was more precise, and said it was about an hour and 55 minutes. I am pretty sure that if you hunt through their testimonies, you will find it. Five minutes seems as good as identical to me, given the inexact nature of time-keeping in those days - how many times is your watch out of synch with your neighbor's by a few minutes?
About the word "decision" to describe Lord's thought process. To be honest, I don't know what word I would have put in its place, so good luck to you. I will be interested to see what you come up with. As I was reading the article again, with "decision" in my mind, I was struck with a mental picture of Lord tossing and turning on the chartroom sofa:
"What if I get there, and someone jumps into one of my boats and damages it? Oh, my. What if I run out of deckhands; do I send the cook to help out? Then who is going to stay here and make breakfast for all these people? What if we get there and we accidentally mow down their lifeboats in the dark? Or what if we get there and they're already all dead?" etc etc.
And I didn't think that was the image you wanted to evoke.
In all seriousness, though - from your seagoing experience - what do you think was going through Lord's mind while he lay there on the sofa? Do you think he even considered the option to go, or not? Or even to get out of bed and see for himself? I will respect your answer if you don't want to speculate; that's fair. I am just curious if you think any of the "dangerous rescue" possibilities that you have spelled out here so vividly occurred to him.
Overall, if I am following you, though, it seems to me that your argument is not really so much about what time Lord might or might not have arrived on the scene, but more about the BR Inquiry's phrase "she might have saved many if not all..." So I have been trying to find a more satisfactory conclusion:
1) "she could have saved another life or two..."
2) "she might not have saved anyone, but she might at least have tried..."
3) "she was justified in not making the attempt, as it was too dangerous for her to proceed..."
Maybe I am getting off track, but what would you have had the BR Inq say in place of what Mersey finally wrote? I hope you don't see these as an attack, I am just trying to understand your points.
- Dave
John M. Feeney
Member
I feel obliged to add this one last piece, because it's so remarkably in contradiction to the assumptions of potential hazards to navigation presented in the article and in some subsequent comments here on the message board. Here are Lord's own words regarding the state of affairs that night (US 728):
Senator FLETCHER. You were asked by Senator Smith a moment ago whether, if the wireless operator on the Californian had been on duty, he would have picked up this message from the Titanic giving the alarm?
Mr. LORD. Yes.
Senator FLETCHER. Could you have gone to the relief of the Titanic at that time?
Mr. LORD. Most certainly.
Senator FLETCHER. You could have gone?
Mr. LORD. We could have gone; yes.
Senator FLETCHER. The engines were not running then.
Mr. LORD. The engines were stopped; perfectly stopped.
Senator FLETCHER. But you could have gone to the Titanic?
Mr. LORD. The engines were ready. I gave instructions to the chief engineer and told him I had decided to stay there all night. I did not think it safe to go ahead.
I said, "We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it."
Lord is quite adamant on these points. He not only assures Fletcher that he *could* have gone to Titanic's assistance, he sums up by saying the engines were kept in readiness just to cover such a contigency: "We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it."
Notice he doesn't mention any circumstance that would have precluded his going. He doesn't hedge about the ice at all. To the contrary, he insists they could have gone and were in fact geared for same!
Senator FLETCHER. You were asked by Senator Smith a moment ago whether, if the wireless operator on the Californian had been on duty, he would have picked up this message from the Titanic giving the alarm?
Mr. LORD. Yes.
Senator FLETCHER. Could you have gone to the relief of the Titanic at that time?
Mr. LORD. Most certainly.
Senator FLETCHER. You could have gone?
Mr. LORD. We could have gone; yes.
Senator FLETCHER. The engines were not running then.
Mr. LORD. The engines were stopped; perfectly stopped.
Senator FLETCHER. But you could have gone to the Titanic?
Mr. LORD. The engines were ready. I gave instructions to the chief engineer and told him I had decided to stay there all night. I did not think it safe to go ahead.
I said, "We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it."
Lord is quite adamant on these points. He not only assures Fletcher that he *could* have gone to Titanic's assistance, he sums up by saying the engines were kept in readiness just to cover such a contigency: "We will keep handy in case some of those big fellows come crunching along and get into it."
Notice he doesn't mention any circumstance that would have precluded his going. He doesn't hedge about the ice at all. To the contrary, he insists they could have gone and were in fact geared for same!
George Behe
Member
Mike wrote:
>2)keep on going until the last possible second >and hope they don't run anybody down. Also hope >they can
> slow down and stop befor >hitting the Titanic
Hi, Mike!
Risks sometimes have to be taken in an emergency situation. Nevertheless, I think you're overstating the case in your last sentence, since Lord did not have to aim the Californian *directly* at the Titanic; instead, he undoubtedly would have closed on the Titanic and then slowly diverted his course so as to bring the Californian to a stop a short distance to one side of the sinking ship.
Despite the difficulties that you've outlined, a diligent captain would have been capable of achieving much more than your article suggests. (E.g. When the Yarmouth Castle burned, the captain of the Bahama Star brought his own vessel so close to the burning ship that the paint on the Star's funnels was scorched.) Lord need not have gone to such extremes himself, but I don't think he'd have had much trouble stopping the Californian *near* the Titanic instead of ramming the already sinking ship. Once she was stopped, a diligent rescue effort by Californian's crewmen could have been undertaken -- and might well have saved a considerable number of swimmers before those unfortunate people perished from the cold. Perkis and Lowe did it, and IMO there's no reason why the Californian's Stone, Groves and Stewart couldn't have at least matched the accomplishments of those two men.
All my best,
George
>2)keep on going until the last possible second >and hope they don't run anybody down. Also hope >they can
> slow down and stop befor >hitting the Titanic
Hi, Mike!
Risks sometimes have to be taken in an emergency situation. Nevertheless, I think you're overstating the case in your last sentence, since Lord did not have to aim the Californian *directly* at the Titanic; instead, he undoubtedly would have closed on the Titanic and then slowly diverted his course so as to bring the Californian to a stop a short distance to one side of the sinking ship.
Despite the difficulties that you've outlined, a diligent captain would have been capable of achieving much more than your article suggests. (E.g. When the Yarmouth Castle burned, the captain of the Bahama Star brought his own vessel so close to the burning ship that the paint on the Star's funnels was scorched.) Lord need not have gone to such extremes himself, but I don't think he'd have had much trouble stopping the Californian *near* the Titanic instead of ramming the already sinking ship. Once she was stopped, a diligent rescue effort by Californian's crewmen could have been undertaken -- and might well have saved a considerable number of swimmers before those unfortunate people perished from the cold. Perkis and Lowe did it, and IMO there's no reason why the Californian's Stone, Groves and Stewart couldn't have at least matched the accomplishments of those two men.
All my best,
George
Michael H. Standart
Member
Hi all,
George, I hope you understand why I hold off on any response to this right now one way or the other, but in light of todays events, I'm not up to playing point-counterpoint. I'm not entirely rational or calm at the moment, and I'm sure you can appriciate my reasons. Erik has been activated by the Military Sealift command, and hopefully, he'll be back soon to participate in this. There's a lot of good input here, but I'll have to discuss it later when my head is on streight.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
George, I hope you understand why I hold off on any response to this right now one way or the other, but in light of todays events, I'm not up to playing point-counterpoint. I'm not entirely rational or calm at the moment, and I'm sure you can appriciate my reasons. Erik has been activated by the Military Sealift command, and hopefully, he'll be back soon to participate in this. There's a lot of good input here, but I'll have to discuss it later when my head is on streight.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
George Behe
Member
Hi, Mike.
I understand completely -- I feel the same way.
This has been a day of unbelievable tragedy and horror.
Sincerely,
George
I understand completely -- I feel the same way.
This has been a day of unbelievable tragedy and horror.
Sincerely,
George
Michael H. Standart
Member
Funny isn't it? We get all worked up over the Californian, and then this outrage happens. Rather a brutal way to put things in perspective.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
John M. Feeney
Member
Hi, Michael:
Kinda puts a whole new slant on things, doesn't it?
(Agreed -- Californian can wait.) Best of luck to Erik.
Best regards,
John
Kinda puts a whole new slant on things, doesn't it?
(Agreed -- Californian can wait.) Best of luck to Erik.
Best regards,
John
Michael H. Standart
Member
Amen to that, John. I just hope that if Erik takes troops and munitions someplace, it's to root out the bloody rats where they nest!
Cordially, but still seething,
Michael H. Standart
Cordially, but still seething,
Michael H. Standart
John M. Feeney
Member
Seething right along with you, Michael, believe me.
This is the *damndest* thing I've ever seen.
Take care!
John
This is the *damndest* thing I've ever seen.
Take care!
John
Gavin Murphy
Guest
Hi T, S and E!
Thanx for sharing this article with us. I thought it was excellent.
One thing I always find interesting when talking about Lord is his fight to clear his name. Most people miss a critical, but subtle, point. The late Leslie Harrison was one of the few who understood it and I had discussions and letters with him on this subject going back at least 15 years.
Lord appeared at the USA and UK hearings as a witness only, so he had no legal right to appeal against (at least) the UK findings. He wrote the UK Bd. of Trade in 1912 and 1913 requesting a re-hearing of that part of the Mersey inquiry that censured him, but to no avail.
The 1894 UK Merchant Shipping Act under which Mersey et al. were operating only provided rights of appeal to PARTIES to the inquiry (which of course would not include a WITNESS), but the 1970 Act provides redress for the first time to an aggrieved witness. This partially explains why the matter could have been reopened in the 1990's.
As we all know, Lord was essentially condemned by Mersey for the death of 1,500 people as you note in your paper, yet no charges were ever brought against him. While being a witness, he never knew the "charge" against him and no witnesses were called to corroborate his testimony or to testify to his seamanship. He also appears to have had virtually no legal representation.
"Natural justice"? HA! I don't think this would be possible today (notwithstanding the 1970 amendments) under the European Convention on Human Rights and UK Human Rights Act 1998.
Unfortunately for Lord, these statutorily enacted fundamental rights in UK came too late and made not difference. I am not here to pass judgment on Lord, only here to say that he deserved a "better deal". Everyone in his position deserves likewise, regardless of who they are or the case against them. This is what civilised society and the rule of law is all about....something to keep in mind in the current plight facing our American friends.
FWIW
G
Thanx for sharing this article with us. I thought it was excellent.
One thing I always find interesting when talking about Lord is his fight to clear his name. Most people miss a critical, but subtle, point. The late Leslie Harrison was one of the few who understood it and I had discussions and letters with him on this subject going back at least 15 years.
Lord appeared at the USA and UK hearings as a witness only, so he had no legal right to appeal against (at least) the UK findings. He wrote the UK Bd. of Trade in 1912 and 1913 requesting a re-hearing of that part of the Mersey inquiry that censured him, but to no avail.
The 1894 UK Merchant Shipping Act under which Mersey et al. were operating only provided rights of appeal to PARTIES to the inquiry (which of course would not include a WITNESS), but the 1970 Act provides redress for the first time to an aggrieved witness. This partially explains why the matter could have been reopened in the 1990's.
As we all know, Lord was essentially condemned by Mersey for the death of 1,500 people as you note in your paper, yet no charges were ever brought against him. While being a witness, he never knew the "charge" against him and no witnesses were called to corroborate his testimony or to testify to his seamanship. He also appears to have had virtually no legal representation.
"Natural justice"? HA! I don't think this would be possible today (notwithstanding the 1970 amendments) under the European Convention on Human Rights and UK Human Rights Act 1998.
Unfortunately for Lord, these statutorily enacted fundamental rights in UK came too late and made not difference. I am not here to pass judgment on Lord, only here to say that he deserved a "better deal". Everyone in his position deserves likewise, regardless of who they are or the case against them. This is what civilised society and the rule of law is all about....something to keep in mind in the current plight facing our American friends.
FWIW
G
Gavin Murphy
Guest
George!
You are right about the Bahama Star's captain and his excellent seamanship. But if I remember correctly, (I actually wrote about this disaster some 20 years ago), one of the first person's to abandon ship was the Yarmouth Castle's captain!
BTW, do you know the song "Ballard of the Yarmouth Castle" by Lightfoot? Cracking good and done years before "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald".
Cheers.
G
You are right about the Bahama Star's captain and his excellent seamanship. But if I remember correctly, (I actually wrote about this disaster some 20 years ago), one of the first person's to abandon ship was the Yarmouth Castle's captain!
BTW, do you know the song "Ballard of the Yarmouth Castle" by Lightfoot? Cracking good and done years before "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald".
Cheers.
G
