New inquiry ?

[Jim Currie]

100% spot-on, Michael.

Perhaps going into print with Eureka! ideas might have a great deal to do with there not being a reall thirst for the truth?

 

[Mike Spooner]

Perhaps if the inquiries were as today standard which were miles apart as in the past and take up to 2-4 years not take just 3-4 months with proper experts. We wouldn't be in so many discussion trying to fill in the missing gaps, evidences and ones who could of well contribute to the investigation but never asked to come forward. I may be out spoken of the inquires but I am just appalled on who and how conducted for the truth for those 1500 who died. Yes they are all died now why bother? Those who have died still have living relatives contacted to the dead. I am afraid its in the human race to know about passed history! We as the human race have more interested in disasters than success. If wasn't for the Titanic her sister ship Olympic wouldn't got a lookin. Compared today inquires I could pick holes in those two inquires all day long. They were going wrong before even started! America picked a bunch of Senators who were no expects in the shipping world. British turned into a court hearing and not a investigation enquiry for the truth. Second officer Charles Lightroller who survive by the skin of his teeth couldn't have said a truly word A WHITEWASH!

 

[Rob Lawes]

What truth is missing though?

We can all pick holes in the inquiries but in the case of the British Inquiry for example, do you disagree with any of the recommendations set out?

Would it be more reasonable to say that in a call for a new inquiry, the word truth is being used as a substitute for the word blame?

Personally, I think that's why a number of people have issues with the inquiries. Yes there are problems with the accuracy with which the evidence was heard and scrutinised not finding the hull broke up for example, but it's the lack of culpability that seems to upset most.

Until recently, Crown organisations such as the Board of Trade were almost immune from prosecution so there was never going to be heads rolling.

The recommendations of the inquiries have stood the test of time. As a result of that, they then surely achieved their primary purpose.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Mike Spooner,

I find your approach a bit odd. If you go to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry official website page you can view by youtube all the witnesses giving their evidence. I did not start work today (well, now yesterday) till 4pm, so was able to watch Michael Dowden's evidence - the guy who was in charge of the incident from London Fire Brigade for the first hour of the fire. He had a very difficult time answering the questions put to him, most politely and carefully, and with frequent breaks, till it was decided that he could not continue giving evidence today. Today's evidence did not even get to when he was on the scene of the fire.

We have here lots of parallels with the Titanic and Californian evidence in 1912. Dowden's long pauses (up to 25 seconds before answering) came across very forcefully. His written section 9 statement is nothing like as detailed as the London Fire Brigade Response document.

In the UK we have before us almost daily an Official Inquiry at work into a major disaster, and with the marvels of the internet can follow it intimately.

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Rob Lawes]

I watched a bit on the news last night.

All those long pauses made me think every time he answered a question where he knew the answer would not look good, he needed a good length of time to ensure he could word it in the least damaging way.

I always feel that in reading the testimony from the Titanic inquiries we lose a lot by not being able to see and hear the people involved. How much more context to answers that would have given us.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Mr. Spooner, I'm afraid you're straining on a gnat, assuming that somehow a renewed official inquiry would be some sort of magic trick to reveal some ever mysterious and undefined mystical "Truth"

Those who have died still have living relatives contacted to the dead.

I understand that. I know several of these people. Why is this a point?

There is nothing an inquiry can achieve which some of these relatives themselves haven't already done through research of their own and which they continue to do.

Again: what is so special about an inquiry? What is the assumption being made here?

 

[Jim Currie]

Perhaps if Mike understood the purpose of calling a Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry, he would be less inclined to call for a second one?

 

[Julian Atkins]

I don't want to over stress this, but currently in the UK we have the Grenfell Tower Inquiry taking place, and has many parallels with the British Inquiry in 1912. The first witness at the Inquiry of the event, Micheal Dowden, is still giving his evidence today.

One can also compare with the above the deficiencies of the 1912 Inquiry so far, in so much as that the 1912 British Inquiry was hastily convened with no preliminary ground work or expert evidence obtained beforehand. (The same equally applies to the 1912 USA Inquiry).

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Perhaps if Mike understood the purpose of calling a Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry

The name of the game is to identify what happened, learn the lessons and recommend changes so it doesn't happen again. I'd say both inquiries managed the "Lessons learned" part very well even if some matters of fact remain controversial.

Wouldn't you?

 

[Kas01]

Okay, but let's assume the British government convenes a proper inquiry with all of the requisite groundwork done and the number of witnesses called. I'm not even going to go into the forensic side of this but we have to remember that the inquiry would be operating with modern naval architecture and damage control in mind, not naval architecture that existed when Pirrie and Andrews were doing their blueprints.

 

[Mike Spooner]

I don't want to over stress this, but currently in the UK we have the Grenfell Tower Inquiry taking place, and has many parallels with the British Inquiry in 1912. The first witness at the Inquiry of the event, Micheal Dowden, is still giving his evidence today.

One can also compare with the above the deficiencies of the 1912 Inquiry so far, in so much as that the 1912 British Inquiry was hastily convened with no preliminary ground work or expert evidence obtained beforehand. (The same equally applies to the 1912 USA Inquiry).

Cheers,

Julian

Hi Julian,
Just a quick one I do not recommended a re- inquiry. The real TRUTH yes. The nearest we get to it is to write a book on the investigation of the inquires? Personal I am not author material to write a book but willing to give a hand. I see you trying to compare the Grenfell Tower inquiry with the Titanic inquiry. That's all very well I find already they are miles apart as I will explain later on.
Mike.

 

[Rob Lawes]

in so much as that the 1912 British Inquiry was hastily convened with no preliminary ground work or expert evidence obtained beforehand. (The same equally applies to the 1912 USA Inquiry

Hi Julian.

Do you think the British Inquiry used the American inquiry as the ground work you describe in your post? I think in Senator Smith's haste to be seen to be doing something he unwittingly set the course of the subsequent inquiries. It could well be that the apparent lack of intensive scrutiny of certain areas of the British Inquiry were due to the White Star legal team being content to drive the Wreck Commissioner down the same path as the Senate. Closely reading the final arguments I find it quite surprising how much Sir Robert Finley, representing White Star was able to direct the conversation.

Regards Rob

 

[Jim Currie]

I don't want to over stress this, but currently in the UK we have the Grenfell Tower Inquiry taking place, and has many parallels with the British Inquiry in 1912. The first witness at the Inquiry of the event, Micheal Dowden, is still giving his evidence today.

One can also compare with the above the deficiencies of the 1912 Inquiry so far, in so much as that the 1912 British Inquiry was hastily convened with no preliminary ground work or expert evidence obtained beforehand. (The same equally applies to the 1912 USA Inquiry).

Cheers,

Julian

Hello Julian.

As I watch the proceedings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, a few things stand out as being common throughout the years.

1. The Inquiry is convened to determine, cause and effect and from that to assure as far as possible, the same thing will not happen again or at least the possibilities of it happening are reduced by producing recommendations.
2. The recommendations produced are the result of careful, forensic examination of the evidence by "experts" as it relates to a specific field of knowledge.
3. The method of questioning is exactly the same. The emphasis seemingly to be, on making the witnesses uncomfortable thus causing them to withdraw inwardly in the belief that each was being singled out as some sort of ogre.
4. The National Media are allowed to have a field...day-by-day,... I think the Americans call it a "Three Ring Circus". thus making it a "Trial by Public" which in turn makes the politician sit up and examinee the ways that selective evidence can further their political ambitions by using it against their political adversaries.

Like Senator Smith, Lord Mersey based his conclusions on his own assessment of the evidence but must have relied heavily on the assistance of "Experts". The conclusions of these experts were either based on extremely sloppy work or such conclusions were modified for public consumption. It follows that such conclusions cannot be relied upon.

 

[Rob Lawes]

But as I keep saying, what part of the recommendations were wrong?

That's the key factor here. The making sure it never happens again bit.

Even in the case of Captain Lord and the Californian, regardless of the conclusions (separate issue), how many Captains in the wake of the Titanic disaster would not go and investigate reported flares at sea? Job done.

The purpose of the recommendations were to make sure something similar could never happen again.

The purpose of the conclusions were to state why it occurred and who if anyone was responsible.

We may disagree with the conclusions but the recommendations fully achieved their aim. Conclusions didn't save life, recommendations did.

 

[Kas01]

Hello Julian.
4. The National Media are allowed to have a field...day-by-day,... I think the Americans call it a "Three Ring Circus". thus making it a "Trial by Public" which in turn makes the politician sit up and examinee the ways that selective evidence can further their political ambitions by using it against their political adversaries.

As an American, I can tell you that the national media, regardless of if it is allowed to or not, will Goddamn well have a field day for as long as the inquiry runs. That's the nature of the beast.

Now as far as recommendations go, having enough lifeboats is one thing, letting them remain open rowboats in the middle of the North Atlantic in early spring and lowering them from the top deck is another. But that was the nature of lifeboat building at the time and would remain so for another half a century. Would that have saved another 400-500 people? Probably. But Pirrie, Andrews, et al didn't have that luxury and were thinking in terms of a Republic-type incident anyway.

If COL Astor, Lucien Smith, and Nicholas Nasrallah had the luxury of convincing their wives to get into enclosed, weathertight, motorized lifeboats, maybe others would have followed them in and we wouldn't have had #1 Boat lowered away with a dozen people instead of 40-odd people. Instead, people saw them head back and heard COL Astor say that he'd rather take his chances on the ship than out in that little boat. People followed that, and so the early boats were lowered away damn near empty and no one wanted to try what Lightoller proposed (the Jacob's ladder from the boarding hatchway into the boats).

If you can convince your newlywed wife to get into an open rowboat in the middle of the North Atlantic, dangling 80-90 feet above the waterline and with a gaping chasm between the gunwale and the ship's rail, then my hat's off to you, sir. Maybe the fact that you've convinced her that it's safe convinced other people. I don't know, but all the better to you. Hell, let's take COL Astor's case, and have your five-months-pregnant wife crawl through an open window and across a shifting, hellaciously unstable gap filler made from a deck chair, 20-30 feet above that same freezing water, without you. If you can convince her to do that, all the better to you.

Honestly, I can't blame the people who wanted to stay on the ship and tough it out. Dumb decision, yes. But getting into an open rowboat in the middle of the North Atlantic was only a marginally less-dumb decision and, luckily, one that worked out for the 700+ people who did get in.