Friday, February 11, 2011

Enough is enough

It is now nearly ten years since the wreck of Trident was discovered on the seabed off the north-east coast of Scotland (12 June 2001).

It is also nearly nine years since the official investigation into her loss was re-opened by Stephen Byers (RFI – 28 March 2002)

It is 16 months since the court hearings re-opened in Aberdeen (17 October 2009) and 7 months since the hearings closed (14 July 2010).

We understand that mindless of the pledge made that the official report would be published before the end of 2010, the RFI’s officials are still dithering and passing the report back and forth amongst themselves, dotting 'i' s and crossing 't' s getting the message 'right', picking their noses, and covering backsides and other official sensitivities.



Jeannie Ritchie said...

Dear Gadfly

I could not agree with you more.

The draggings of heels shows no consideration for the families of the men who died on Trident.

To write the TRUTH about the loss of Trident should flow from the pen
BUT to write the governments verion of the truth they I,m sure have and are still using reams and reams of paper.

To CONCOCT the verion of the truth to suit the Department for Transport they will have felled acres of forest.

We have now been advised Mid -February 2011 for the report into the Loss of Trident

We stand by!!

gadfly said...

Dear Mrs Ritchie,

Many thanks for this update; so it will not be long now before we are all able to view the fruits of their labours:

Will it be...

"The Trident RFI" – A new work of fiction from the Department for Transport – which establishes their reputation as popular novelists.

Or will they surprise us by allowing a serious, just and fair outcome to this epic undertaking?

We also stand by!

Best regards and God bless you.

Jeannie Ritchie said...

Dear Gadfly,

With regards to the: which was available to the public who funded this RFI into loss of Trident for more than 6 Million Pounds
This site has now been DOWN since the 26th of Feb 2010 due to communication problems on day 23 of the RFI(as advised by the Department for Transport)
The RFI continued for 32 days more.

The families and the general public have not been able to read what has been said during these missing 32 days.

On questioning the Department for Transport again and again when communications are to be reinstated
We have a NEW STORY

Quote as of the 4th February 2011 from the DEPT.

"Following the 2010 election,the Cabinet Office announced its intention to reduce the costs of running Government funded websites by 50%.
The Trident website has been granted permission to remain open for a short period after the publication of the Report into loss of Trident"

Do we the families have any hope that when it it "OPENED" again we shall be able to read all what was said in Court for the missing 32 days or shall these days BE GONE FOREVER from the families and the general public??
We await what is the NEXT MOVE by the Department for Transport for a Public RFI should be made public
WORD for WORD for the duration of the whole RFI.

gadfly said...

Dear Mrs Ritchie,

We agree that a public inquiry should in fact be 'public'

They are obviously worried about what they have done and will want to keep it well hidden from the public's view. Even the initial transcripts, that are supposedly available now on cannot be accessed at present.

Maybe if they give us the data (we paid for it after all) - we could set up a public/private initiative to maintain it online.

Best regards

AJT said...

Enough is enough.
It would have indeed been enough for the families of Trident on 22nd of October 1976, had the National Maritime Institute report sh p/23.41 been made available. By the above date the Silver Linning had been modified (sorry, virtualy rebuilt)and this would have layed weight to the fact that Trident was grossly unstable. The long long wait for the families is almost over. I also stand by !
Best regards,

gadfly said...


Spot on! Fully agree with that.

Best of luck!

Raj said...


Yes it has been an extraordinary long time in the making and I too stand by, after some of the performances of the main players I am intrigued just as to how the desired outcome will be reached.
How is Sherriff Young going to avoid the following,
1. The build contract stated IMCO compliance and an inclining test. One was not achieved and one was never carried out however satisfactory completion was granted by an official.
2. Is he going to condone the fact that the Department for Trade knew the vessel was not compliant and let it sail.
3. Is he going to condone the fact that the Department of Trade were actively trying to improve the Stability of its sister Ship several months before the loss and did nothing.
4. The results of the 1976 NMI tests which pointed to insufficient stability.
5. The Marin modelling which suggested a much enhanced probability of survival with an decrease of KG achieved with only 7.5 tons of ballast .
6. How exactly is he going to satisfy the whims of Council for the inquiry and suggest whatever it was it had nothing to do with IMCO compliance in spite of evidence to the contrary
7. How exactly is he going to brush aside the fact that the Department were actively destroying potential evidence after the investigation process had begun.
I too stand by.

gadfly said...


…and then of course there is the compelling evidence from the Trident wreck-site itself, evidence which confirms that she was intact when she capsized in weather conditions that were relatively benign for the North Sea.

More than forty years of feedback from the world’s fishing fleets have confirmed that similar sized fishing vessels (those which meet the IMCO minimum stability criteria anyway) just do not capsize except when faced with the severest of weather conditions (Beaufort 10++) coupled with… bad luck!

The Trident capsized on her last voyage and in such circumstances it will be very difficult to conclude anything other than the fact that she had insufficient intact stability at the time of her loss and that her stability was deficient when compared to the IMCO minimum stability standard.

And, of course, there a few other things…

Best regards,