Tuesday, October 30, 2018

'National Interest' as convenient cover for abuses

On the 22nd of October, we sent a message to the leader of the Opposition, Mr Jeremy Corbyn, to which, so far, we haven't got any reply:

"Dear Sir/Madam

[*******] is a naval architect who used to work for the UK Department of Transport during the time of the last Labour governments (Blair and Brown). In his professional capacity he was involved in the technical aspects related to the public inquiries held into three major maritime tragedies and had access to relevant government documents. These public investigations manipulated the evidence and hid the truth from the public in order to prevent the families of the victims from getting full compensation.
[*******] blew the whistle about the criminal actions perpetrated during these formal proceedings.
In the set up and conduct of these inquiries, in the cover-up that followed, as well as in the harassment and persecution of our family were involved ministers and officials in Tony Blair’s government (such as John Prescott et al), public servants and other Labour affiliates. The scandal caused by their actions and our revelations are an open secret amongst politicians and civil servants.
I can understand that the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour party is deemed to be a matter of national interest which rests on the level of support and unity in his party. What we don’t understand, though, is how such a principled politician as Mr Corby purports to be can deem acceptable procuring the backing of other Labour politicians with assurances of protection from exposure and criminal prosecution. Mr Corbyn condones not only fraudulent past actions by former Labour ministers, but also turns a blind eye to (if he does not actually enables) their current criminal actions taken in retaliation against whistleblowers like us.
If Mr Corbyn and the Labour Party cannot address these matters, we shall be obliged to resort to legal action.
Yours sincerely,


If Mr Corbyn is not who he has portrayed himself to be, people should know about it.

Update (9 November 2018) _ Still no reply from Mr Corbyn's office, the retaliatory criminal actions though (including theft and burglary) have intensified since the publication of this post. Mr Corbyn and his gang act like the Mafia. 

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

What is this all about (a brief recap)

This blog was started in 2006 as a critical response to the outcomes of the 2004 Fishing Vessel Gaul’s Re-opened Formal Investigation (RFI) and of the public inquiries held into two other major maritime tragedies:
FV Trident - lost in 1974 with 7 crew on board – first inquiry held in 1975 – re-opened inquiry held in 2010 and
MV Derbyshire – lost in 1980 with all 44 crew – first inquiry held in 1989 – second inquiry held in 2000

Since 2006, we have tried to shine a light on the corrupt means by which the British State distorted the facts, withheld the truth from the public and has dealt with our subsequent disclosures.

The Hull trawler Gaul sank in 1974 with the loss of all 36 crew.  The initial inquiry into its loss was held in 1974 and concluded that the ship had been overwhelmed by a succession of high waves in heavy seas and capsized. The wreck was located in 1997, surveyed in 1998 and 2002; and, in 2004, a formal investigation was re-opened under the auspices of the then deputy prime minister John Prescott and conducted on behalf of the then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.
At the end of a year-long examination into the causes of the Gaul’s loss, the presiding judge, justice David Steel concluded that the trawler had capsized due to internal flooding through the vessel’s duff and offal chutes (side openings in the hull) which, he decided, had been negligently left open by the crew.

The panel tasked with conducting the 2004 formal investigation were prepared to consider a multitude of possible causes for the loss of the vessel, including the most spectacular: “… seizure, scuttling, fire, collision, explosion, missile attack, torpedo attack, striking a mine, icing, cargo shift, structural failure, grounding, snagging a seabed cable or a submarine…

…but not the obvious design faults and errors in the construction and arrangement of the Gaul’s waste disposal chutes (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)(which had been known to the government since before the Marine Accident Investigation Branch’s 2002 underwater survey) and the stability shortfalls of the vessel (9, 10, 11, 12, 13) (recognized since 1974) the combined effects of which had rendered the vessel unsafe and led to her loss (14).

Although all these matters were known to the government beforehand, the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation took active steps to avoid attributing the loss of the Gaul to any of these technical deficiencies. Hence, the public was denied the truth and the families of the lost crew of the Gaul were denied justice and the possibility to claim their right to lawful compensation

The Gaul RFI was not, however, the only flawed inquiry into a maritime tragedy: the inquiries into the loss of MV Derbyshire - the 91,655 gross tons bulk-carrier built in 1976 and lost in 1980, and, the most blatantly unsound inquiry of all, the re-opened formal investigation into the loss of FV Trident - a Peterhead-registered trawler that sank in 1974 - showed the same disregard for the facts and arrived at conclusions that were solely intended to block the possibility of subsequent litigation for the victims’ families.
One of us was employed as naval architect by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at that time and was involved in the Gaul’s 2004 RFI and prior goings-on, and also carried out follow-up work for the Derbyshire RFI. We therefore had access to relevant and undisclosed government documents and carried out subsequent research.

Since blowing the whistle in 2006, we have published a significant amount of factual evidence and technical detail with a view to persuading the government and its relevant bodies to re-open the investigation and reveal the truth about the loss of the Gaul. The authorities, however, rather than putting things right, decided to continue withholding the truth and shoot the messenger [15, 16].  As time has passed, the crimes committed in hounding us and maintaining these cover-ups have accumulated and grown much worse than the original fraud.

Until 2010, the Labour governments under PM Blair and Brown, in solidarity with their own corrupt ministers and officials, had a direct, existential interest in hiding the truth about their rigged inquiries.
Yet, even after the 2010 general election, and with a Conservative Party in power, the cover-up has continued to this day – the current government exercising undue pressure and using us as bargaining chips in their inter-party politics and to fend accusations against their own members and acolytes (17, 18).
Legal cases imitated by us since 2010, which should have exposed the past wrongdoing, have been crudely sabotaged by the State, and as for the press that should have been alert to such abuses, everybody seems to have been silenced.
After a long break, we shall now catch up with you and start providing further details about all these matters.

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Actual Conspiracies

It can take decades for what was once branded a “conspiracy theory” to graduate to the rank of actual fact, and for the State to awaken official knowledge and restore the truth from its concealed state to the manifest.

The term “Conspiracy theory” has started loosing its derogatory sense frequently used in the past by opinion formers – nowadays, quite often, it is just the preliminary stage to the emergence of truth ... as were the facts about the Hillsborough disaster, which have recently made it to the level of officially sanctioned history.

The verdict in the Hillsborough inquest has now exposed many of the callous machinations employed by the State in its daily course of business – the spin, the slurs and the lies that were designed to baffle the public, and protect the Establishment’s interests and the officials’ backs.

As the Hillsborough inquest revealed, the police were instrumental (as they were – and still are - in the Gaul case) and blameworthy for the cover-up. Yet, they were not the only culprits. Conspiring against the victims were all the tentacles of the State: first and foremost the civil service, then policemen, politicians, our justice system and the press (as has also been the case in the Gaul, Derbyshire and Trident cover-ups)
So wide was the Hillsborough conspiracy that, had Gordon Brown’s Labour government not been so intent on scoring political points, we might have never heard the truth about the disaster proclaimed in a court of law. Such exposure of behind-the-scenes ‘reality’ is a very unusual occurrence in the UK – the Establishment having centuries of accreted knowledge on how to hush up inconvenient facts – that only the most vicious internecine strife within the political class can lead to their dirty laundry being washed in public.

A few days ago, Labour MP Andy Burnham said that the police force “put protecting itself above protecting those hurt by the horror of Hillsborough” and demanded that people be held accountable for their actions.
Yet, we have first-hand knowledge that the Gaul, Derbyshire and Trident tragedies – dealt with by Labour in much more unseemly ways – are conspiracies which Mr Burnham, the Labour Party and their Establishment appointees would prefer to remain just theory.

Hillsborough has been called “the biggest cover-up in British history". Maybe it was, but it was certainly not the ugliest.

LINK to a previous post on this subject

Thursday, March 31, 2016

The right answer

Nowadays, each time we complain about political and state corruption and the terror the state employs against whistleblowers, we hear more and more voices arguing that cover-ups have justifications: it's either the national interest, some patriotic action, real-world pragmatism, the need for political unity (esp in the Labour Party) during these dangerous times or the majestically vague notion of 'the greater good'. 

All these justifications are, of course, BS. We have found a fragment (below), from an American political action thriller, that we think provides the only right answer to such pretentions. 

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Pernicious Establishment

The British Establishment have been trying to exterminate us for a while. Now they are getting better at it.

Monday, December 07, 2015

Friday, December 04, 2015

The various things hidden in the cupboard

In one of our posts of last year about the hoax played on the Gaul families with the continued help of the police authorities and of their informants, we expressed doubt that the matter of the human remains found in Russia was genuine and relevant to the Gaul tragedy. We understood that that was a pretext for keeping a tab on the families at a time when damning proof about the cover up was about to emerge. By keeping in touch with the families the police in Hull probably wanted to make sure that none of them got access to that proof.
A year after that Russian story - as we anticipated - nothing happened.

At the time we felt sorry for those whom the evidence incriminates; today, this is no longer the case.

Friday, November 13, 2015

EU comedy and humour

The text published at this link offers all the ingredients of a good comic piece of writing: 

As a famous novelist once claimed, humour is the justice that the law never is. 

Further details will be posted soon.

Monday, September 14, 2015


Some people seem to believe that any honest resolution to the serious breaches of the law revealed by us, would somehow have catastrophic repercussions, would even trigger international conflict and war.
Of such nature are the spin and the disinformation and so pervasive the arguments that those who've heard them could be easily taken in.
The reality, however, is very different. Our disclosures do not hold such sway, and to claim otherwise is fantasy. (The Tory party and members of the Royal Family have known our problems for over eight years, and during this time, the political circumstances have not stayed the same.)
The main reasons why the British state continues to cover up the truth and deny those involved their basic rights have more to do with ordinary, yet very effective, blackmail targeting the very top of the Establishment. As blackmail doesn't look so pretty, those who have surrendered to it have decided to dress up their abject failure as honourable deeds and sacrifice required by the complex circumstances of the moment.

The perfidy of our rulers knows no bounds.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Good society

We cannot do that, do you want them to start asking for compensation”, argued a public servant - by “them” meaning the public who paid their salaries, in general, and the victims of marine accidents, in particular. Behind that line lies a sincere astonishment that the entitlements of ordinary members of the public could seriously be considered.
When it came to expenses, however, – some quite inexcusable – public servants would say, “We’ll charge it to the Vote.”, the “Vote” meaning the same unsuspecting public, destined to be sponged by the State as a matter of course, rather than as an exception. The politicians’ disregard for the voters’ interests may have rubbed off on the public servants who worked so close to government politics

We must emphasise that the authors of the above statements were not elected representatives, but bureaucrats appointed to public positions by virtue of a job contract. It is possible that when making those comments – and let’s not be too affronted by them, as more shocking admissions will soon need to be copied and shared – the unelected bureaucrats in question, just like our elected officials, may have felt that their elevated status and allegiance did not rest with the taxpayer.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Magna Carta celebrations in a lawless land

With straight faces, royalty, government and officials have taken part in a string of celebrations marking the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

No freeman shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land”.

The old barons forced the rule of law upon King John – their protection against the arbitrariness of the monarch. Eight centuries on, Prime Minister Cameron vowed with patriotic energy to “restore the reputation” of the charter’s values with a new British Bill of Rights.
I’m not sure I would say that the reputation of the Carta’s values has been tainted (although the Home Office has been trying very hard to discredit its ideals), but it is certainly the case that the reputation of those duty-bound to uphold the ‘justice for all’ principle lies in tatters. Today’s barons don’t like the hassle of due process when it is a lot easier to get what you want by might.

Cameron’s British Bill of Rights – aimed at supplanting the Human Rights Act – may do away with our right to be free from torture and thus give the State the power to chastise us with iron rods and scorpions, but it will proudly assert the supremacy of the UK courts over Strasbourg. Nothing has yet transpired as to what that Bill will contain, but I can see that many are sceptical about it – after all, who can trust the protections of a Bill of Rights drafted by this generation of lawmakers?

We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right
Yet, as we know only to well, the Magna Carta celebrants are in the business of doing exactly the opposite.

Monday, March 09, 2015

Cadre Rotation

In October 2011 we reported on the transfer of Mrs Theresa Crossley from Head of Shipping Policy in the Department for Transport to the position of Head of Department for Safety and Standards in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). 
After four years at the helm of the aforementioned department, Mrs Crossley - whose progress we’ve been interested to follow, there being between us a bond of shared confidentialities - came home to be appointed as UKPMG executive director. Apart from having worked for the European Commission and being therefore remarkable, and apart from her very promotable qualities, Theresa Crossley will bring her wealth of experience and valuable contacts to the new job. UKPMG mention on their site, “Many of the issues that confront UK ports are raised, debated and promulgated in Europe via the European Commission.” Hence, their new executive director will prove useful in raising the stakes of such debate. (We do not suggest any impropriety on the part of UKPMG, of course.) 

It may also be noted in passing that John Prescott, the Department for Transport former chieftain, has also been recently elevated from his dormant status within the House of Lords to the avant-scène of party politics, and is now providing his party leader with his exact knowledge on matters of climate change. 

                                          (drawing by Dan Perjovski)

As somebody famous said, the reward for work well done is the opportunity to do more.

Sunday, January 04, 2015

Reasons and Pretexts

Another year begins with more of the same: chaos, corruption, opportunism, cowardice and indifference on the part of the State. 

The issues raised in this blog are still unresolved, and the prospects are looking a little more uncertain – if we take into account the fact that 2015 is an election year. 
In this case as in many others, there is a web of reasons and pretexts behind the official recklessness. 

Many times we’ve been informally told that the reason for burying alive the matter of the formal inquiries into three maritime disasters, was pressure from the US administration, pressure which was unbearable to the British authorities. This almost reasonable sounding justification, meant to give official wrongdoing the immunity of an act of God, has, however, two major faults: first, it is partly a cop-out and, secondly, it has got nothing to do with us – that is we shouldn’t care a toss about who is pressuring whom. 

Let me explain: the terms of our relationship with the British state that we are subjects of - in the context of the disclosures that we have made about the Gaul RFI and the other official cover-ups - do not include any deference to the whims of a foreign government. 
We have the duty to be loyal, pay taxes and obey the law of our land in exchange for various rights and legal protections that are conferred on any British citizen. This is a bond based on mutual obligations. Even the medieval vassalage was a reciprocal relationship. What is more, equality before the law has been the basic principle of citizenship since Ancient Greece. Since ancient times, a citizen has been understood as a person free to act by law, free to ask and expect the law’s protection. In today’s Britain, however, this no longer seems to be the case. 

The claim that a foreign country can impose the suspension of the rule of law here – and do so for no reason other than to assist corrupt political allies – be it a pretext (1) or a reason (2) - has and should have nothing to do with the victims of sea tragedies or with us. 

And, anyway, what would happen if Britain withstood such pressures? Would we be invaded or our foreign trade sabotaged? We don’t think so. It might have some tit-for-tat repercussions, such as unpleasant things being revealed in the press about our government, prominent politicians (‘revelations’ similar to those in the child abuse scandal etc. pursued with similar frenzy) and even members of the royal family, but these are not legitimate reasons to suspend the law. 

It is therefore far more likely, we suspect, that our government, with the 2015 general election in mind, wants to please powerful lobbies and donors and to avoid any skeletons being dragged out of the cupboards by well-connected political enemies (LINK). I don't think there is one person in public life who cannot be blackmailed. To these ends, the British authorities are prepared to ignore crime and – so as to give the culprits added satisfaction - aid and abet in the continued victimisation of whistleblowers and witnesses. 


(1) It is already known that former Labour government figures have been in the habit of asking the US government to oppose disclosures about their crimes (see the official interventions prior to the publication of the Torture Report)

(2) The US government may try to solve their foreign policy problems by dispensing sweeteners, for the sake of unity, at others' expense.

Monday, October 13, 2014


Since December last year, the UK authorities have been taking the Gaul families for a ride: Hull Daily Mail - po.st/fFtm5P
(In December, last year, evidence about the fact that the chairs of the families' associations had been in fact shilling for the government and the other opposing parties to the detriment of the rest of the victims' families was about to emerge.)

There has never been any plausible reason to suspect that the bones found in Russia belonged to the crew of the Gaul. The story concocted on this subject was part of the continued and expanding cover-up.

More to come..

UPDATE 31 October 2014: The government is under renewed pressure to stop the facts (regarding the collusion between the parties) from being acknowledged.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Aye, Scotland

In politics, the sure sign that you are doing something right is the mainstream media, in unison, berating it. 

This is the case now with the Scottish independence referendum, which global vested interests and regional profiteers would like to result in a re-affirmation of the status quo. We are inseparable – we are tied together - we’ve had the same recent history. Yet, under the pressures and derangements of a corrupt political system, we have lived very different lives. 

The UK media, usually so vexed by allogens, are now opposing ethnic divisions, spreading the most absurd scares, while the Prime Minister looks disconsolate at the prospect of splitting up the UK. The Labour party have several dogs in this fight, which, in the event of a Yes result, might have to stop feeding themselves from the Westminster bowls. 

We hope that the Scots will vote for independence, that they will have the courage to break away from the dysfunctionality and corruption of the Westminster nucleus. How can having your vital interests filtered through this thick layer of slime be in any way profitable? 

So, we would urge the Scots to put their kilts on this Thursday and vote YES. There is nothing to fear – only blatant lies and Gordon Brown – hair unshorn, hands raised in quivering frustration – delivering his apocalyptic soliloquies.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

More corruption

Finally, we'll be able to release evidence of two UK judges perverting the course of justice and of one barrister (acting for the Department for Transport) lying in court and on oath.

Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have been made aware of this situation.

It must come as a reflex to our government departments to deal with lawyers who commit legal malpractice to the detriment of "their clients". (They did the same in the the Gaul and the other formal inquiries.)

Friday, July 25, 2014

Jewish problem - part 1

Our rulers don't keep their promises afraid* of the criminals who prosper under their rule.

There have been arguments about the Jewish legal professionals who 'represented' the Gaul victims' families at the 2004 RFI or were otherwise involved with the inquiry, the threats and the trouble they have caused us. (Apparently, or so we have been told, restoring justice in the Gaul case, telling the truth and criticising a few individuals would reflect unfavorably upon the whole Jewish community in Britain. This is nonsense.)

* There have been suggestions - and we wrote about this before - that securing unity across political parties with some noble purpose in view such as opposing military action etc. was the reason why the government needed to accommodate crime. This, however, is not true, it doesn't and it shouldn't have anything to do with us; it is just putting a gloss on what has been in fact nothing more than a sordid quid pro quo.

UPDATE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-philips-former-aide-on-sexual-assault-charges-9639215.html 

Wednesday, July 23, 2014


A specific form of ubiquity is the misreality that swarms around us. It consists of the great body of information that we ingest daily that is slanted, false or so subtly transformed that we don’t think to question it.” Jason B. Ohler 

The British press would not miss any occasion to peddle myths, even those that have been repeatedly and authoritatively debunked during the Gaul public inquiries. 

Publishing an obituary in its 23rd of June edition, The Scotsman thought it appropriate to use that somber occasion in order to breathe new life into the Gaul spy ship tale: 

It was at this time, February 1974 at the height of the Cold War that the FV Gaul, a fishing factory ship, mysteriously vanished with 36 crew on board on the night of 8-9 February in the Barents Sea. This was the very area the Explorer operated in. Ian believed the Soviets knew spying was going on but mistook the Gaul for the spy ship and sunk it. The full report into the sinking is still secret.” 

Examination of wreck has produced no evidence whatsoever to show that the Gaul had been deliberately sunk. The full report into the sinking is and has been public since 2004, of course.

Friday, July 04, 2014

Black and white

Those involved in the conduct and the cover-up of the Gaul, Derbyshire and Trident miscarriages of justice can blackmail the current government and the Crown (with their constant demands for inquiries), can intimidate, rouse the rabble and issue threats via all the state institutions that Labour infiltrated while in power, interfere with the already corrupt justice system, but they cannot efface black and white evidence of their wrongdoing. The evidence (of which both the government and the Crown are well aware, and which they seem to be using as counterbalance to the threats of exposure leveled at them*), unluckily for some, exists - annoying, unequivocal and uneffaceable and soon to be made public.

No amount of cunning and political horse trading or privileges afforded to certain ethnic minorities in Britain can compensate for bad luck.

* The child abuse inquiry being just one of the latest examples of which they are clearly terrified. We cannot understand why the Royal family would be so frightened about historic cases of child abuse, especially, it seems, about that involving Kincora boys' home.

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Muscles and Magna Carta

"We need to be far more muscular in promoting British values and the institutions that uphold them" Prime Minister David Cameron recently advised, urging that Magna Carta should become part of the school curriculum. LINK

Does he know that this clause is contained in the Charter:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014


As suggested earlier, there is a lot more to say about the Gaul - information that the government expects to be released as well as information that they don't expect to surface.

If the British Police were truly accountable, they would have a lot to answer for and explain their role in the harassment of witnesses and various other related criminal actions. As far as we are concerned, we shall do our best to make sure that they will.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Stability expertise

The video clip below contains some relevant facts and straight talking from ship stability expert, Capt Paul Roden on the recent Korean ferry disaster.
Had UK's public inquiry experts been involved in the initial investigation of this tragedy, I doubt that their 'expertise' would have been accepted so placidly by the Korean victims' families.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014


How UK government has to 'bribe' Labour to make them more peace-loving.

The dancing around with the evidence of wrongdoing by the former Labour government is Cameron government's handiwork.

The myth peddled at the moment is that unity between political factions is necessary in order to make common front against the threat of military aggression abroad. As if probity and justice were now the only obstacles against peace. This maybe the case in the US.

The reality in the UK, however, is more trivial than that, and the main reason for discarding probity and justice (and when things don't go the desired way, Mr Blair's cage gets a bit of rattling) here seems to be the current government's fear - fear shared at the highest levels of the State - of the outcome of criminal investigations against Mr Cameron's allies and friends and their impact on the public, as well as losing the promise of an easy ride from Labour at the forthcoming elections.


Thursday, December 12, 2013

Channels of Disinformation

Yesterday, most interestingly, the story of the FV Gaul hit the press again. The contents of the 'news', their suspicious timing and the opportunity it gave the police and the John Prescott/Alan Johnson duo to keep tabs on and manipulate the victims' families we shall not comment on at this moment.

Yesterday, some elements in our society decided that it was the day when they wanted to alter the FV Gaul Wikipedia entry so that much of its content was removed and the link to our site deleted. See in the image below the muddy footprints of the vandal's boots on the Wikipedia Revision History page. The boots came from Yorkshire.

The crudity of the attempts to re-write history gives further clues as to who might be behind them.

(More to come...)

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Great suggestion

"Police corruption is now so rife that radical reform is the only answer" - Henry Porter

http://gu.com/p/3jyve/tw via @guardian

Indeed, corruption is so rife that the Police have been instrumental in the Gaul cover-up and in the cover-up of the cover-up.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Happy Tidings

We hear from the Daily Mail that

"Lord Prescott is at the centre of a £75million legal case over allegations that he tried to undermine coal miners’ compensation claims – because he feared Labour could lose union donations. Court papers seen by The Mail on Sunday allege the former deputy prime minister colluded with a major law firm to put pressure on an insurance company to refuse to underwrite the miners’ legal bills – forcing them to drop their action." 


I think we need to get in touch with the claimants.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Trident and the White Fish Authority

In the 1975 and 2009 official investigations into the loss of the Trident, officers of the White Fish Authority (later Seafish) gave testimony to the effect that they had employed a ‘hands off’ approach to the way they administered the conditions associated with the award of Government grants for the purchase of new fishing vessels. 

Original formal investigation, Day 4 Page 50, Mr Sutherland Chief Surveyor for White Fish: 

In both investigations the court spent considerable time in trying to lay down the idea that the lax policies that White fish had in place at the time that Trident was lost were quite normal and that no blame could be attached to the organisation for not insisting that the terms of their grant be met. 

The Government was very eager to avoid the obvious conclusion that, had the White Fish Authority done their job correctly in matters pertaining to Trident’s stability, she would not have been allowed to put to sea until her stability shortfalls had been addressed – and she would not have capsized.
Surprisingly, at the time of the original inquiry, there was a White Fish publication in existence that precisely specified the White Fish stability requirements associated with the award of a government grant. Although this publication would have been highly significant in both official investigations, White Fish (and later Seafish) did not reveal its existence to the court. 

The existence of the publication in question was a serious inconvenience for White Fish, as it proved that their very own ‘Rules for the construction of wooden fishing vessels’ did not countenance a ‘hands off’ approach - White Fish surveyors were, in fact, obliged to attend inclining tests and to approve the stability information for all grant-aided fishing vessels. 

A copy of the section in these Rules that deals with stability, with key provisions ringed in red, is reproduced below:

Friday, August 23, 2013

Weighty Matters

During the past 40 years, the Department for Transport (DfT) has gained a wealth of experience in the art of data manipulation and disinformation when conducting official investigations into fishing vessel casualties, especially those in which dubious stability was thought to be a factor in their loss. This expertise is currently being used quite blatantly by the DfT (via MAIB) to both cover their own backs and safeguard the interests of their many business ‘clients’.

Generally, the DfT only feels threatened when it has made a mistake - when there is something it did not do, that it should have done or it did something that it should not have done - and lives were subsequently lost at sea.

In the case of the FV Gaul, the DfT approved her stability (see copy of the stability certificate below), for unlimited operation at sea, just 14 month’s before the trawler capsized and sank (in February 1974), with the loss of 36 lives.

Following the loss of the Gaul, the official investigation, led by the DfT, was quick to put on record that the Gaul had met the IMCO minimum stability standards for deep-sea trawlers “with a substantial margin”. 

In our posts of 1 January 2010 [LINK] and 8 February 2010 [LINK] we were able to point out that this official statement was, in fact, incorrect and we gave details of the Gaul’s ‘arrival in Port’ and preceding sailing conditions where the IMCO minimum stability standards were not and could not be met. 

In our post of 4 August 2010 [LINK] we also described how the stability records for the calculated lightship and sailing conditions of the Trident, which capsized and sank in 1974, with the loss of 7 lives, were callously modified by the Trident RFI experts (hired and paid for by the DfT) to give credence to the “official” view that, at the time of her loss, the Trident substantially met the IMCO stability standards of the day – an official requirement for grant-aided fishing vessel purchases in the early 1970s. 

We also noted in our posts of 28th February [LINK] and 27th April 2011 [LINK] that considerable sums of money had been squandered on worthless model tests, which were deliberately fed with doctored data, to give the results that our officials desired [1]

This blatant deception was only attempted because, contrary to official policies, the Trident’s lightship particulars (and stability reserves) had not been accurately established and verified [2] at the time that she was built. 


The Gaul’s lightship particulars (and stability reserves) were also left unverified when she was built [3], the data used being merely a copy of those derived from the inclining experiment, held in February 1972, on the Ranger Calliope (subsequently re-named Arab).

Testimony by Mr M. Scott (DfT surveyor) - 1974 Formal investigation into the loss of the Gaul - Day 12 page 27 : 

Surprisingly, if you check out the lightweight figures in the footnote below [4] you can see that an additional 11 tons of solid ballast has somehow managed to make its way into the calculations of the DfT, the shipyard and the Owner’s Consultants. When their investigations into Gaul’s stability were put in hand for the 1974 inquiry, it became an integral, unspecified part of the Gaul’s lightship weight. 

This 11 tons of notional ballast was useful in subsequent calculations in that it lowered the Gaul’s vertical centre of gravity (by 180 mm) - and would therefore be readily adopted by those who did not wish the tag of ‘deficient stability’ to be linked to the Gaul’s loss. Nonetheless, at the original FI hearings, the Builders, Brooke Marine, the Owner’s consultants, Y-ard and the DfT all managed to imply that solid ballast was not necessary on the Gaul to meet the IMCO minimum stability requirements (see below):

Mr M. Scott (DfT) - transcripts day 12 page 45 

Mr G. Donaldson (Brooke Marine) transcripts day 9 page 67
Mr A. Gilfillan (Y-ard) transcripts day 11 page 43 – in proposing improvements for Gaul’s 3 remaining sister vessels: 

This notional ballast was also an integral but invisible part of the Gaul’s lightship weight during the subsequent lengthy and expensive testing carried out by Morral in the late 1970s at the National Maritime Institute. This was another instance in which taxpayer’s money was spent on extensive model testing, but in which the basic data was skewed, to give the results that our officials desired. 

If we exclude this 11 tons of phantom ballast (it was not present on the Gaul) from the Gaul’s lightship and then check out her reserves of stability, we can see that this was degraded to the point where she did not meet the IMCO minimum stability criteria on arrival at distant fishing grounds. Furthermore, if she then did not proceed to promptly fill her fish hold with a significant catch of fish, she would be unable to meet the IMCO minimum stability standard throughout the rest of her voyage!


[1] In 2005 the DfT also deliberately destroyed a number of folders of evidence and video that was unfavourable to their desired outcome.

[2] Neither an inclining experiment nor lightship check was carried out on the Trident. 

[3] The Gaul’s lightship data (displacement & vertical and longitudinal centres of gravity) were not obtained from a unique inclining experiment; they were copied instead from an inclining experiment held on the Ranger Calliope (a sister to the Gaul) on 1 February 1972; however, a simple lightweight check, to verify the integrity of the copied data, was not carried out on the Gaul. 

[4] Lightship data obtained from the inclining test on the Ranger Calliope
Displacement = 1099.63 tons, 
Vertical centre of gravity = 20.2 ft above base 
Longitudinal centre of gravity = 9.46 ft aft Midships 
Gaul Lightship data - used for all official stability investigations: 
Displacement = 1110.6 tons, 
Vertical centre of gravity = 20.02 ft above base 
Longitudinal centre of gravity = 9.99 ft aft Midships

Thursday, August 15, 2013

The age of the shills

I know very well that this blog is no longer the right place to make disclosures, however, it ought to be recorded, here as well, that the Counsel for the Department for Transport (Jeremy Burns) made a seriously false statement both verbally and in his affidavit for the court.

We are not quite sure what the motive was - but it has recently dawned upon us that these falsehoods could have given us an unfair advantage against his client.

(We would like to know why and who put him up to it - so expect a big scandal as well as a formal complaint. Hopefully, you will thus realise that having threatened us to keep quiet was a bad idea.) 

It may be tempting for the State to block access to this information, but there are many other ways in which it can be made public. Just like the info regarding a few other members of the legal profession. 

And another thing: any more threats will only make matters worse.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Where they are now

Recent thoughts of the formal investigations that we have referred to on this blog prompted our curiosity to find out more as to the whereabouts of the judges who acted as chairmen in those unfortunate inquiries.

Sir David Steel, for instance, is no longer judge at the Commercial and Admiralty Courts in London. David Steel was involved twice with the FV Gaul: first in a partisan position as lawyer for the Insurance Company, then in a neutral position as chairman of the 2004 RFI.

Although not yet arrived at the age when, as a poet said, passions relax their hold, or when expired judges are customarily wheeled out of HM’s Courts, in October 2011, Sir David Steel quietly left his judicial position and returned to the bar in a less demanding, though no less cushy role of Arbitrator at 10 Fleet Street. Simultaneously, he was also appointed Appeal Arbitrator for the London insurance market. Quite surprising!!! The commercial literature advertising the nobleman’s services now refers to Sir David Steel in terms of “the retired judge”.

The other honourable judge, Sir David Young – the former Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highland and Islands – who presided over the more recent public inquiry into the sinking of FV Trident has also left his judicial position early, that is immediately after the conclusion of the Trident inquiry.

Justice Anthony Coleman, who chaired the MV Derbyshire investigation, in his turn, left the High Court in 2001, immediately after the MV Derbyshire inquiry had ended, and set out to the Czech Republic to advise the Ministry of Justice there on procedure with a view to the Czech Republic’s accession to the EU. Sir Anthony Colman then went on to become an International Arbitrator for that temple of austerity which is the Dubai International Financial Centre.

So, all these three former inquiry chairmen are no longer judges. The Brotherhood, it seems, has its own, discreet code of honour. Still, we are left with the feeling that these three judges fared far better than the victims of their judgments. This is Britain today – long live the Queen!

More to come

Sunday, August 04, 2013

Penchant for injustice

It now transpires - http://fw.to/sMbtyZb - that Tony Blair, using his contacts in the US (cemented by taking this country to war) - helped Colonel Gaddafi avoid paying $1.5billion in damages to the relatives of the seven Americans killed when a bomb exploded on a Paris-bound passenger jet in west Africa.

This puts the FV Gaul and the MV Derbyshire RFIs into a clearer perspective.

Friday, August 02, 2013


Selections from our recent complaint to the European Court of Human Rights:

48. Following suggestions received from different quarters, including from the most creditable sources (i.e. most kindly, from within the Royal Family*) – suggestions validated to some extent by the Applicant’s personal experience – the Applicant was given to understand that the UK government has been placed under pressure by the US administration to obstruct any legal process that could make the abuses complained of by the Applicant and details of his disclosures public and proven in a court of law. What is more painfully apparent is that the Applicant and his family have been placed, in their turn, under tremendous pressure (duress) with the aim of preventing the Applicant from pursuing his claims further. The Applicant became aware that there were fears that details of his complaints of harassment suffered outwith the workplace (especially the events which took place during his secondment in Brussels and in which foreign nationals/agencies were implicated ) might be aired in public, and names and affiliations publicly disclosed. As it is understood that some of the Applicant’s former work colleagues had links to the intelligence services, there were also fears that identities, methods and embarrassing details about the conduct of those services could emerge. What was more, the Applicant’s disclosures, if dealt with, would have also tainted/incriminated a number of senior political figures and high-ranking officials from within the British Establishment.

49. It has been also implied that the UK, for the sake of some unspecified political interests, could not contemplate defying the US’s calls for secrecy. When faced with the difficult quandary of deciding how to reconcile the US administration’s demands with the obligation of having regard to due process and the rule of law, the UK, it seems, has chosen to comply with the former, while giving only the appearance of following the latter – to the effect that the Applicant was deprived of a fair hearing of his claim.

We have also complained about the UK government monitoring and interfering with our mail, telephone and electronic communications while we were preparing our case for the UK courts and the ECHR. These actions placed us at a disadvantage in relation to our opponents (i.e. the UK government) by allowing the latter foreknowledge of matters concerning evidence, legal strategy, search for witnesses etc. and the possibility to interfere with these matters. This was another serious breach of the principle of equality of arms and hence of the right to a fair trial.

The complaint also provided evidence of the UK courts' used of blatant falsehoods, legalistic quibbling and disregard for the law in order to avoid hearing our complaints related to the fraudulent public inquiries referred to on this blog.

More details will follow...


* That was when the Tory PM did not appear as vulnerable politically

Wednesday, June 19, 2013


Life is real! Life is earnestWilliam Wadsworth Longfellow

Knowledge is an indispensable asset of the free individual, and, as any self-respecting despot knows, free individuals are a danger to government absolutism. Our governments expend therefore a lot of effort in preventing the masses from learning the true facts of the world they live in, while acquiring more and more information about what the rest of us do and think. 

The official narratives offered to the public about the State’s aims and conduct, are ever more deceptive. Yet, because so extensively promoted by the mainstream media, they gain credibility, rendering all alternatives as serious errors, the result of some deviations from the norms of morality, which deserve punishment by the law.

Creating an illusory world in place of the real one is a patently devilish occupation. Devilish also are the State’s grand-scale intrusions into our privacy, which conjure up the image of those flying demons in The Master and Margarita, jetting over the city, lifting the roofs of all the houses below and exposing the lives of the people therein.

Once in a while, the official narratives can contain actual truth, delivered, however, with considerable delay and timed to suit political interests. Take for instance the phone hacking scandal, the Bloody Sunday investigation, the Hillsborough inquiry, and several other abominations perpetrated by ministers and officials under the pretext of national security etc. etc., left to fester - wrapped up in layers of secrecy - for years, then disinterred at a time when they could be used as political paybacks or when some other benefit could be extracted and consensus had been built across political factions for a controlled release of the facts. As they all live in glasshouses, the throwing of stones is not something governments do without careful forethought.

There is also what often goes by the name of ‘open secret’ – that is truth acknowledged by many but never publicly confessed, never disseminated through the media, truth kept in a state of limbo, either because the time is not right to disquiet the masses or because public acknowledgement would entail some penal consequences that the Establishment doesn’t like to incur.

Official infamies are never spilled out in their crude, unadulterated format, but are filtered and with their asperities blunted by the press. There is no truth outside the mainstream channels - only the mainstream media, the umpire of our perceptions, is capable of giving events the stamp of authenticity.

The official narratives, nowadays, can also be the expression of non-reality, of theatrically staged events or things that never happened  – a far more dangerous phenomenon than the traditional conspiracies, as it involves not only serious, state-sanctioned villainy, but also an elevated degree of madness.

Like the veil of maya that can only be pierced through transcendental knowledge, the official narratives and deception will only be demystified by individuals’ understanding of what is in their nature and what is cunningly intended to condition it. 

Monday, April 15, 2013

Peaceful countryside

Great excitement on the road from Stockbridge, yesterday afternoon!  Following a few verbal warnings received previously, yesterday, we may have received a physical reprimand. That is our car did, when, on a less circulated road, another vehicle (purposely, it appeared) rammed itself into ours, then accelerated away, leaving us with some useful fragments of its body (which we have collected). Three minutes later, the driver returned in the same aggressive rush, going back whence he had initially come. Busy maneuvering out of the way and into a more convenient ditch by the roadside, we were unable to physically stop the driver and formally introduce ourselves - our gestured attempts to stop him being rudely ignored.
Shortly afterwards, we were given the impression that a local police crew may have had some involvement in the matter, or, maybe, it was just another strange coincidence. 

Could it be that our recent complaint sent to the ECHR (see the blog post below) sent some shivers through the backs of the British Establishment? We already know that car smashing is their preferred modus operandi. We shall have to look into this further – by ourselves – as our government and State have already proved to be too timorous to tackle criminal behaviour and corruption within the higher ranks, being too concerned about their own interests and safety.

P.S. Our complaint also made reference to the involvement of the US administration in aiding the corrupt within the higher levels of our ruling elite (the former US-subservient Labour government and institutions).

Friday, April 12, 2013

Offshore justice

The legal case that we started against the UK government a few years ago has now reached Europe. We are very curious about the outcome.

More fascinating, however, is that some of those affected are already brimming over with confidence that Mr Cameron, as regional distributor of US government policy and seasoned negotiator, will have the muscle to interfere and save those concerned from embarrassment and responsibility.

We cannot but wait and see.

Monday, March 25, 2013

The champions of censorship

Having shown an ambivalent attitude to much of the clamour and orchestrated tumult, the public finally got what it deserved - state regulation of the media, including of what is published on the Internet. 

It was sad to note that society did not vigorously oppose this totalitarian assault on the freedom of expression, confirming, once again, the old claim that the masses love tyranny. In this, the newspapers themselves deserve much of the blame, having cultivated the public such that it would have no inclination to rush to their defence. It might have been a good idea, perhaps, pointing out more clearly the link between the individual’s means of subsistence and the freedom of the press to stir up scandal on his behalf. 

Tethered both directly, through decisions of Parliament, and indirectly, through the appointment of overseers, the media will now become even more subsumed within the ghetto of politics. That is not to say, of course, that subordinance to the so-called apolitical arms of the State would have been a more salubrious option. 

The demand for press regulation was not an act of revenge by some celebrity figures outraged by their treatment at the hands of the press, as some seem to think, nor was it promoted by the aggressive banality of the arguments of the ‘pro-regulation’ campaign; it all looked rather like a well planned action, melding into the wider-ranging political strategy of the Left. (Pity that the press lacked the temerity to fully investigate this aspect even when its own fate was at stake.) 

It is no surprise that the British Labour were the first to embrace the idea of state-control for the press; apart from the fact that Labour stands to lose the most from serious investigative journalism, the left-wing ideology has never been tolerant of alternatives, nor would it consider leaving it up to the man in the street to discern between right and wrong. Freedom of expression is, in their view, something dished out by the State, rather than a necessity of our nature. 

To be true, the media in Britain has never been really free from the start – if it had been, we wouldn’t have needed amateur news sites to expose the corruption of the elite, neither would we see press articles used as political assault weapons, hinted menaces, disinformation and other diversionary tricks. If the British press needed anything nowadays, it was to be allowed more freedom and more curiosity.
Hence, it would have been more useful to explore the field of forces - extending way beyond the media corporations’ management boards - that restrict reporting on matters of serious public concern and the crimes committed by those who are making the rules.

Friday, February 08, 2013


We commemorate today 39 years since the loss of the Gaul. The blame for the tragedy still rests with those who lost their lives on the trawler.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013


SHILL - (Definition from Wikipedia) - A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization.

(More to come about the UK government's use of shills)

Gangland Britain

After posting this message and trying to contact the Gaul families for further disclosures - we have received threats.

Pressure has been placed on us to prevent us from naming the shills in the GAUL RFI etc. Our cowardly UK authorities are protecting, in fact, not the shills, but their lawyers ( a special caste that is). 


Does anyone know who the owner of the following IP address is: - Kingston Upon Hull?


We are trying to organise a meeting in Hull with the Gaul families, in order to deliver to them, personally, a number of documents revealing the rapports between the families representatives, government (and the opposing parties). This message is one way of bringing this event to the attention of those who may be interested.

Saturday, December 29, 2012


It seems that the US administration have been unhappy about it - another proof that they had their fingers in the events described therein. 

More details to come

(linked post: http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/socialist-international.html)

Sunday, December 02, 2012

The Friends of Ethical Writing

“The Communist Party will be the only master of the minds and thoughts, the spokesman, leader and organiser of people in their entire struggle for communism.” Pravda, 7 July 1956 

How clever John Adams was to say that all democracies end up in suicide. The British democracy has been trying to top itself off for while, but as the recent Leveson report has concluded with a demand for a new regulator for the press, the signs are that its end is very near now. 

An independent body, ultimately validated by the State, to regulate the ethics of the press has been recommended – paradoxically - in order to ensure that the press is really free. Free not to embarrass public figures with revelations of their misconduct, while, at the same time, the onerous libel laws in Britain make us the destination of international crooks and London the capital of reputation laundering? But no judge would speak out against this state of affairs, for this is what keeps them in clover. 

Furthermore, who, on earth, would be independent enough to oversee such an important wielder of power as the media, and who is independent enough to appoint the independents? Essentially, what you will get is the politicians in charge of those supposed to bring them to task. 

This impetus for tougher regulation betrays, in fact, a very pessimistic view on the capacity of the British public to meditate on what they read and to control the media themselves through their own free choice and demand. A free press - no matter its derelictions - trains the people’s power of reason. Why should we fear intrusion by the media? This is what keeps a more frightful kind of intrusion – that carried out by the State itself - in check. 

We already have a plethora of statutes and powers that can be used to deal with abuses by the media; the fact that these were not used by the past Labour administration in the historical cases heard by Leveson is a far more serious matter. 

Do not be fooled by the vociferous ‘public’ outrage and the cant of those now putting pressure on the government to conceive new laws for the press - those virtuous citizens and victims of press indiscretions are simply actors in a play scripted by politically motivated higher powers, powers who simply wish to grab more control over us. 
Ill-advised creatures, signing petitions, may not realise that they could usher in a regime similar to that described in Orwell’s 1984 or in Mercier’s utopian novel, The Year 2440, where most books are destroyed and where ‘dangerous sceptics’, authors of literary works deemed bad for the people’s minds, are rounded up and interrogated until they are willing to admit to their errors. 

Intrusion by press does not destroy lives – it may temporarily upset them – but, in the end, freedom provides the necessary self-redressing mechanisms that an authoritarian State does not possess. What can destroy lives, however, are the gags imposed on the media, journalistic cowardice and the lack of ability to make your mind and your own choice. 

We hope that the Prime Minister will think carefully, as he said he would, and will not be swept away by this flurry of pre-meditated madness.