New inquiry ?

[Jim Currie]

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.[/QUOTE]

Hello Rob.

Recommendations are simply that...the opinion of experts after examining the evidence. They were made to the Board of Trade which had commissioned the Inquiry. Thereafter, it was up to the B.o.T to take action regarding these recommendations.
There were 24 recommendations made.
1 to 5 was about WT subdivisions and integrity.
5 to 17 was about ship's lifeboats.
17 to 24 were of a general nature.

Of all these recommendations, only one, if followed by Captain Smith and the White Star Company, would have lessened the chance of the Titanic disaster.
I quote:

"21. That instruction should begin in all Steamship Companies' Regulations that when ice is reported in or near the track the ship should proceed in the dark hours at a moderate speed or alter her course so as to go well clear of the danger zone."

In fact, there was absolutely nothing in the recommendations which, if followed by Captain Smith, would have prevented the accident from happening or from a similar accident occurring again, not even to a WSL ship.
The recommendations were limited to "foreign-going passenger and emigrant steamships." That description in itself was, to say the least,..elastic.
Most of the recommendations were directed at limiting the effect after a passenger ship like Titanic had hit an iceberg. In fact most of the recommendations were condensed into the last one, No.24. Again I quote:

"24. That (unless already done) steps should be taken to call an International Conference to consider and as far as possible to agree upon a common line of conduct in respect of (a) the subdivision of ships; (b) the provision and working of life-saving appliances; (c) the installation of wireless telegraphy and the method of working the same; (d) the reduction of speed or the alteration of course in the vicinity of ice; and (e) the use of searchlights."

 

[Julian Atkins]

To my mind an Inquiry in the UK consists of 2 functions in it's terms of reference

1. To establish what happened.. why when and where

2. To make recommendations to prevent a re-occurance

In the case of the Board of Trade investigations into railway accidents most if not all these are now online. The marine side of things in the Board of Trade does not appear to be so accessible.

I don't want to dwell too much on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, but today Michael Dowden completed his witness testimony after a gruelling 3 days, none of which involved cross examination.

One might paraphrase much of his evidence as 'I was out of my depth, did not assess the situation I saw correctly, and did not communicate properly with others'.

It is clear from the examination in chief that Michael Dowden's evidence in certain material respects is not corroborated by other fire officers, and is contradicted.

One might perhaps draw certain parallels with the evidence of Second Officer Herbert Stone on The Californian? It is much harder to apply the same to Boxhall on Titanic, but I think one can make a similar argument, and also in respect of Captain Lord of The Californian.

I just find it all fascinating and absorbing, having a legal background.

Cheers,

Julian

 

[David G. Brown]

Never assume that a government inquiry has an honest intent.

-- David G. Brown

 

[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.
Seeing you are the legal profession I have a question? The more I looked into the inquires and compare todays inquires my essay just keeps grows in sizes,what may be acceptable in the past just show how lacking there were as today standards! The question I asked myself, how much experience did the two in charge have? Senator William Smith and Lord Mersey dealing with lost ship inquires? As I see it for Senator Smith had NONE! As for Mersey I see much the same story to. Or is there a way of finding out? As can see both are making basic mistakes by not gathering all evident in before coming to the final decision of the outcome.

The only parallels I can see with the Grenfell Tower and Titanic inquiry is, both have a retired judge in charge. The evident for the Grenfell Tower is coming in by the bucket load, makes the Titanic inquires look like a bunch of amateurs in charge!
Regards,
Mike.

 

[Rob Lawes]

In the mid 19th century, retailer William Henry Smith of book sellers WH Smith fame, went into politics and swiftly rose to be First Lord of the Admiralty. Lack of knowledge of ships and the sea was never a block on advancement in high society.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

A quick and useful snapshot of John Charles Bigham, Lord Mersey:

John Bigham, 1st Viscount Mersey - Wikipedia

 

[Michael H. Standart]

And William Alden Smith - Wikipedia

 

[Kas01]

I have no doubt that Senator Smith would have been in his element with regards to an ICC investigation of, say, the Great Train Wreck of 1918, but the method of questioning Smith used in the inquiry certainly didn't do much with regards to public confidence in his knowledge (or lack thereof) in shipping.

Mike, stupidity in government is nothing new. We had a Congressman express concerns about a military buildup on Guam causing the island to capsize.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

but the method of questioning Smith used in the inquiry certainly didn't do much with regards to public confidence in his knowledge (or lack thereof) in shipping.

Actually, it was pretty clever. Senator Smith was....first and foremost...a lawyer who thought and acted in that fashion. His method of asking what looked like dumb questions as well as repeatedly asking the same question even if superficially reworded was and still is an old trial lawyers trick to see if they can get the same answers or catch somebody contradicting himself.

Don't forget, Senator Smith was the guy who caught Lightoller in a whopper. When Lights tried to play the "We didn't know" card, Senator Smith produced the process verbal of the wireless communications which proved that they DID know.

 

[Kas01]

Yeah, I know, leading questions and all that. Which, incidentally, if you try on direct questioning, will be thrown out by any semi-competent judge.

 

[Jim Currie]

As far as I can see, Lord Mersey didn't even obtain an LL.B from a British University, let alone have any marine knowledge whatsoever.
The Attorney General, Sir Rufus Isaacs went to sea as a deck boy!
Of the total number of legal representatives active or watching, 5 were sitting Members of Parliament, none, as far as I know, had any formal training in marine matters. However, to assist these legal eagles, there were 5 professional Assessors.
I have to say that since they concurred with Lord Mersey's report, they must have been asleep for most of the proceedings.

 

[David G. Brown]

Repeating -- Never assume that a government inquiry has an honest intent.

Adding -- Men who run government probes always have hidden, political agendas.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Mike Spooner]

Yes I have seen the Wikipedia write up for Lord Mersey and Senator William Smith and cannot see they have any experience in inquiry investigation. Leaving the impression the inquires are to become a stab in the dark for the real real truth. Senator Smith as a Lawyer had become an enemy with JP MORGAN over railroads issues. Ismay had no choice to support Morgan. What a personal clash before the inquiry even started!
The safety improvements were well on the way before the inquires had finished. After all it was the BoT who had failed to move with times as the ships were ever increasing in size.
Book on the investigation in to the inquires is a great idea. Then us members can have a great time tearing that one to pieces like the inquires who said what and didn't!
Mike.