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. 

EU comedy and humour

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

http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Resolution_Judicial_Ethics_ENG.pdf

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

Further details will be posted soon.

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.

ECHR

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

Running out of patience

We hear that, under pressure from 'abroad', the UK government are preparing another legal sham to cover up the old ones. If that is indeed the case, then they are, definitely, going to get more than they bargained for - no holds barred. And we shall all see who knew the truth about the fraudulent RFIs and when.

We almost rejoice at the thought.

(More details to come)

The changing climate

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr)

Our experience of the Courts and Tribunals service – fragments of which were presented here before - has expanded. And with it, so has our bewilderment.

To our laymen’s eyes, what is going on in these temples of law and wisdom does not look at all like wisdom and law, and it certainly has nothing to do with dispensing justice.

The tribunals are, in fact, creatures of the UK government, so when the government is the party complained against, it may be rather tricky for these establishments to act against themselves. But even allowing for this inherent limitation, what we have seen is far beyond what one could normally expect.

Unfortunately, the matters - as they appear to us - are also kept rather quiet, so that the person in the street can still go about his business, lulled in the conviction that, whenever in need, he will be well served by the law. Eventually, when the majority finds that this is no longer true, the very notion of law will have already taken a different meaning.

In our case against the government, we ventured as far as the first main hearing, with the Department for Transport having splashed out more than £33,000 of taxpayers’ money to defend themselves in grand style.

We, of course, did not have the benefit of any legal assistance. Furthermore, the tribunal, faithful to the principle of armes égales, refused to order the Department to make full disclosure (which, theoretically, they were obliged to do) of the documents in their possession or answer essential queries, despite the fact that the judges have the power to make such orders and that these are fairly customary.

It may be worth mentioning that the information that we tried to extract included certain details relating to the way in which the DfT/MCA had dealt with our disclosures about past maritime accidents investigations and copies of the communications between the DfT/MCA and the Met and other third parties following our complaints. However, it seems that the government did not like such information to get into our hands and, care of the legal system, got what they wished.

And to show their good nature, the Treasury Solicitors, who had been tasked by the judge with the preparation of the hearing bundle, could not help taking this opportunity to mess up our own, carefully prepared, evidence.

Anyway, the government’s most intriguing achievement was the tribunal’s refusal to call any of the witnesses [*] whom we had named and who, as key players, had most relevant evidence to give. This is highly unusual, and not even being given a written refusal or the reasons therefore is more unusual still.

Yet, although we don't have much faith in the system, we shall be persisting, no matter what,  fathom the full extent of official dereliction and then pass the knowledge on.
 --------------------------------------------
[*] Interesting details about this particular aspect will be revealed in due course.

The main word in the political dictionary

As a result of our attempts to resolve by legal process the matters resulting from our disclosures about the Gaul, we have now become all too familiar with the awe and apprehension with which formal undertakings on this subject are met. The shocking failures of impartiality and the blatant violations of the rules have, individually, various and complex circumstances (details of which we reserve for another day), but they can all be reduced to a simple reason, which is to do with one’s unwillingness to risk one’s skin.

Although the terrified silence over the shameful aspects of our recent maritime history – coerced via various threats and legalistic snares - is, to a large extent, inspired from outside the government’s field of forces (that is above and beyond the grubbiness of internal politics), the duty of taking responsibility in this matter and putting things right still rests with the incumbent administration. But there is too much fear amongst the senior figures.

Yes, “fear” is, today, the main word in the political dictionary - a fear almost religious in nature, which inhibits any sense of reason, duty and decency. It is a fear bred by the knowledge that the road to success in a public office is not a competition on merit – but a contest in offering tributes of subservience to extraneous powers, paid higher and higher above of what is necessarily due.

(More to come at the right moment)

Legalistic trumpery

We have recently been told that the Trident families, who never got a fair and impartial outcome from the Trident Re-opened Investigation, applied for legal aid to fund a judicial review, which, if successful, could have opened up avenues for them to overturn the findings of the RFI.

The families’ application for legal aid was refused and, to add insult to injury, the legal body overseeing this matter have produced the most ludicrous and insensitive justifications possible for their negative response.

It was said that the Trident families’ request did not pass the ‘reasonableness’ test.

If we understood the legal logic correctly, it seems that concerns were raised that, having spent ₤6m to organise a whitewash, the Department for Transport may find it wasteful to spend extra money on defending themselves in a legal process that could expose the sham.

Other reasons for refusing legal aid appear to be the applicant’s age, the time that has passed since the loss of the Trident and the question of whether the costs involved in pursuing compensation would be justified by the level of compensation to be obtained, whose value the lawyers seemed unable to ballpark, despite all the statutory guidelines in existence.

Another reason put forward was that old cherry – a favourite with the DfT – i.e.:

“there is nothing to demonstrate that, had the Trident been constructed in a manner compliant with best practice at the time, the accident would not have occurred.”

Well, actually, there is a lot to demonstrate that the vessel’s compliance with the standards applicable at the time would have saved the lives of its men.

The body of evidence is overwhelming (otherwise every time there was a bit of a stiff breeze at sea, large numbers of fishing boats would suddenly capsize). The reason they don’t capsize (then and now) is because they comply with a standard that assures their safety:

- No other seagoing 25m fishing vessel, constructed to the standards that applied in the early seventies (including full compliance with IMCO stability standards), has capsized solely as a result of Beaufort 7/8 waves

- MARIN were unable to replicate this mode of capsize in the series of tests carried out on a model of Trident in Holland

Standards are not aleatory; they are based on the technical expertise and real-life experience of the most informed men in the industry and the accretions of knowledge in the field. The many trials and tests carried out and the validation of time have demonstrated that, invariably, a vessel built in full compliance with the standards that Trident should have met would survive the moderate weather and seas that are thought to have turned her over in 1974.

The whole purpose of standards is – to prevent accidents and loss of life

Strangely, however, considerations as to the public interest and value to society were not part of the reasonableness test.

But of course, this latest injustice was again politically driven, for, of late, the justice system in Britain has become a market place for political favours and compromise.

The whole extensive mess

Having reviewed materials related to the matters published here, I was reminded once again of the bigger and much more detailed picture than the one sketched on this blog. I felt taken aback at the sight of all the sordid details behind the series of maritime investigations and official dealings of the recent past.

The cynicism permeating some of this evidence is breathtaking. Such details may be too crude for this site, or for me personally to delve into. The significant facts are there, unalterable, and, I hope, able to convey the truth while sparing you the most debasing aspects.

And there is still much to tell. The corruption of the legal process and formality has gone on for a while and on what you may call an industrial scale. A consistent committment to deception and fraud has been the only solid thing in the fluid mess of unethical and unprincipled conduct.

Having suffered too many humiliations, justice is now too frail to be of much use to those finally finding out that they have been deprived of their rights; the various forms of legalistic chicanery that are in operation today serve merely as weapons in the warfare between rival sections of the elite. And, furthermore, there is no political will to reinstate the rule of law when those at the top would be likely to fall on the wrong side of it. The public has to take this task upon itself.

Trident re-visited

A few days ago, it was announced in the press that relatives of the Trident tragedy victims received the backing of Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond in their fight to have the findings of Trident RFI overturned.

We wish them success; there are undoubtedly strong grounds for a review of the RFI, which, in terms of blatancy, was an even worse miscarriage of justice than the 2004 Gaul investigation. 

We shall see what we shall see.

HM Courts and Tribunals

Following up from our post of 25 May 2011, we can now advise that the Case Management Discussion (CMD) mentioned there took place on the 27th of May, as scheduled.

The Department for Transport (and the MCA), the Respondents in the case, always liberal with taxpayers’ money, had hired a top-notch lawyer for the event. This barrister (who also sits as a judge) - a slightly fresher version of Justice Eady - has recently been given notoriety by the Daily Mail – as a gagger.

The CMD, unbefittingly called a ‘discussion’, consisted of the Respondents’ Counsel giving directions to the judge and the judge showing little resistance in following them, while the Claimant, accommodated with ostensibly dissimulated impatience, was hardly allowed to speak. The barrister hired by the DfT looked so upset that it was hard to believe that he was simply acting on the government’s behalf. The judiciary may have been closing ranks, we reckoned, bearing in mind that the Claimant’s disclosures have cast doubt on the integrity of a number of prominent figures within the judicial brotherhood.

What felt stranger, however, was the impression we got that the judge presiding over the CMD seemed somehow afraid of the government’s Counsel, and even took the cue from him as to when to take a break and when to adjourn.

Their plan was to remove the DfT from the proceedings, probably, so as to cut short the liability chain and ‘ring-fence’ the wrongdoing at some junior level within the MCA. Warned that trying to push her arguments forward will be sanctioned by the Court, the Claimant’s representative used the few moments when she was directed to give yes or no answers to a couple of questions to try to object to the Tribunal’s steamroller technique. At one such moment, she tried to suggest that not only the DfT, but also the Crown and former DPM John Prescott should be added as Respondents, a suggestion that was met with instant opposition from the judge and an indignant snort from the DfT’s barrister. The matter, however, was left unresolved.

Further on, the DfT’s Counsel demanded that a deposit be paid before the full hearing so as to make the access to justice more difficult – justice, it seems, is not a luxury for the plebs. The opposing party was prepared to do anything to prevent a full hearing where evidence, witness testimonies and the thorny matter of the Gaul could be heard in open court.

The end of the CMD was marked by the DfT’s Counsel delivering a diatribe against his opponent and the judge’s failure to intervene or to allow the Claimant to respond.

A pre-hearing review has been scheduled for the 11th of July and a full hearing for the 17th of October. But we very much doubt that there is much to expect from our justice system. The whole thing is rotten to the core.

Closed Justice

In our previous post we revealed that the Department for Transport is being sued under the Public Disclosures Act. A Case Management Discussion will take place at the Southampton Tribunal this Friday, when the date for a full hearing will be appointed.

Anyway, about three months ago, one of the solicitors we met told us that it was very likely that the hearing will be held in Camera – i.e. in private and not in open court like everybody else. We were not explained the reasons for that. Anyway, this was an extraordinary thing to hear. Why should such secrecy be necessary? What would our government have to hide?

***

Amidst the recent furore about judicial excesses and abuses concerning the ‘right’ to privacy, we could not miss the news about John Prescott’s keen interest in press injunctions proven by his attendance at the Commons debate on the subject as well as by his opposition to any reform of the libel laws, which he expressed so fluently in the House of Lords the other day. (LINK).

(More to come...)

The oncoming Court case

 

Whistleblowing case - concerning miscarriages of justice + cover-up 

Justice Removed

“Justice removed, then what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers” (Augustine, City of God)

In our post of 30 January 2011, we mentioned the fact that we had finally commenced legal action against the Government (the DfT, MCA etc.) and that our complaints revolved around the Government’s refusal to address, openly and honestly, the disclosures about the Gaul and the other miscarriages of justice and cover-ups.

However, in the process of fighting against past miscarriages of justice, we are becoming increasingly suspicious that new abuses and inequities may be taking place in order to obscure the old ones.

To be more precise, we found that, first of all, hiring legal advice was for us a major problem, in that most of the law firms we approached – and we contacted quite a few – were initially very keen to take on our case, then, suddenly and inexplicably, lost heart just before clinching the deal. The name of the Gaul seems to have acted as a powerful deterrent for our prospective lawyers. On many occasions we were surprised to note that, although not yet familiar with the merits of our case or with any of the evidence supporting it, many law firms told us that we were not going to win. Others simply avoided looking at our documents or even attending a previously agreed appointment in person, and, only hours after genuinely showing themselves quite optimistic and well disposed towards accepting our custom, many solicitor’s feet turned cold. Others’ brief advice was so implausible that it almost made us laugh.

We couldn’t understand this curious behaviour displayed by a group usually well known for their lack of inhibitions. It is possible, of course, that they knew something else that they wouldn’t tell and that such knowledge had not been gained through divination.

But it would be amazing, wouldn’t it, if we were to learn that some invisible, political force had offered them guidance?

Some time ago we were given a clearer answer when a solicitor informed us that a court’s ruling in our favour “would be unpopular with the powers that be” and that we would not be allowed to succeed. How extraordinary! Is there a judicial mafia in this country that decides the outcome of legal cases before they come to court? Would the fact that the Gaul saga touches unpleasantly upon the integrity of the judiciary make the legal profession gang up against this case?

Anyway, we have eventually managed to find a less fearful solicitor and a most competent one as well – whom we keep, though, at a safe distance so as to protect him from the noxious fumes of this lawsuit - and we are now toddling along curious to see what further abuses this poor kingdom can accommodate.

FV Trident RFI - The development risks defence [*]

In earlier posts, concerning the Derbyshire and the Gaul disasters [http://mv-derbyshire.blogspot.com/2008/10/dry-run-for-litigation.html], we have highlighted the fact that formal investigations into maritime casualties are mainly driven, not by a desire to seek out the truth of the matter, but by the over-arching principle that any form of litigation ,which could be harmful to Government or the British Establishment, must be avoided at all costs.

We have now seen that, throughout the Trident RFI, this principle has remained the primary driver of events.

An example of this can be seen in Question 5, posed by the AG: 

5. At the commencement of her last voyage was the Trident unseaworthy (as determined by the standards which applied in 1974)…

This question enabled the Sheriff to give a ruling, which would support the ‘development risks defence’ argument, in any future product liability case, where compensation was sought.

His response, in paragraph [49], states:

What happened to the Trident on the day of her loss was not reasonably foreseeable to anyone in light of the knowledge and understanding of the design and construction of seagoing vessels available at the time.

While the clear intention of the Sheriff’s statement is to support any future ‘development risks defence’ argument, the statement in itself is clearly nonsense. In 1974, fishing vessel capsizes were an all too frequent occurrence and what happened to the Trident was, in fact, foreseeable; that is why, at that time in the UK, there was a requirement for fishing vessels to be designed and constructed to meet the IMCO minimum stability standard.

It is our belief that public inquiries should be about seeking the truth, not about providing cover for potential defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------

[*] http://www.jstor.org/pss/4507206

Rough Politics

So, the day is coming, when the truth about the Gaul will emerge from obscurity. As surprising as intercepted secret communications which, when exposed to the light of the day, can reveal crude, new meanings, striking even to their authors - the truth about the conspiracy to pervert the Gaul formal investigation and its ongoing cover-up will equally strike those who plotted it.

What I want to announce today is that we have recently taken legal action against the Department for Transport and that part of our complaint concerns their failure to address the disclosures about the Gaul RFI cover-up.

However, the prospect of a court hearing seems to have alarmed the offenders – who are now trying their best in order to prevent a lawful resolution to this long-standing problem. The past Labour governments managed to suppress this scandal, but now, no longer in power, they fear that the current regime may not be so effective in maintaining the pretence.

Consequently, so it appears, political pressure – and political pressure from the left is no trifling matter - is being applied on the current government for the purpose of forcing them to prolong the sham. The government is, thus, expected to tie themselves up in lies, interfere with the course of justice and undermine our legal case for the sake of political expediency.

The Labour party is well known for their unscrupulous ways and power to cause damage. Also known is that socialists, even fake ones such as ours, have always had a penchant for direct action; and today, although they no longer mount assaults on public buildings and main street liquor stores, abetted by sections of the press and our meek State Institutions, they can ambush and twist the arms [*] of their opponents with the same ruffian vigour.

Yet, we are confident that, at the end of the day, there can be no more vigorous riposte, than the truth.

We shall keep you informed...
---------------------------------------------------------------
[*] Somebody has even boasted about that.

Police Investigative Methods

Following on from our post of 19 August 2010, in which we decried the fact that after a FOI request, one demand for an internal review and one complaint to the FOI team within the Information Commissioner’s Office, the mystery surrounding the content of paragraphs 8 to 18 in the assessment report complied by the Metropolitan Police in response to our allegations about the Gaul RFI remained unresolved.

Persistence, however, brought some results, for, after having submitted another complaint - this time to the Data Protection team within the Information Commissioner’s Office - the Met was forced to release their case assessment report - unredacted.

And what a letdown that was. The eleven paragraphs in question refer exclusively to our allegations in respect of the 2004 Gaul RFI, which they reproduce therein almost word for word. No personal data in there, except for our names mentioned once or twice. A copy of the Met’s unredacted report can be seen HERE.

The report contains no information to suggest that the Met contacted any witnesses or in any way probed the alleged facts.

Contrary to what we had expected, the Specialist Crime Unit in the Met does not appear to have even tried to obtain any further information about the case, by contacting for example, experts in the domain, the Department for Transport, the Gaul RFI legal teams, the Treasury Solicitor, the representatives of the victims’ families or any other witnesses.

The Met, although conceding in an addendum to their assessment report that "the Inquiry’s findings as to why various chutes were open are not necessarily correct" [LINK], chose not to pursue the matter any further.

At the end of their assessment, they concluded that, based on the information we had provided at that time, they were "unable to find sufficient evidence to support any further investigation into the allegation" and that they "did not detect fraud, any other crime, or any other matter which warrants any further Police investigation.".

Based on the same approach, the police could just as well refuse to investigate a murder and claim that, although it was reported that a person had been seen gunned down on the street, they did not visit the scene or verify any of the alleged facts, and that, therefore, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that a crime might have been committed.

Back in December 2008, in their first refusal to disclose the contents of their case assessment report, the Met argued that the disclosure would expose to the layman the "operational methodology and investigative techniques" of the Police. They were quite right. Now, that we’ve seen the unredacted report, we know precisely what these techniques really are.

Personal Data

In an earlier post we disclosed a previously redacted paragraph from the Met Police (Specialist Crime Unit) case assessment report – to which we had recently gained access care of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The report in question had been, as you can see from our post of 10 of May 2009, almost entirely redacted by the Met who claimed that: "the majority of information contained within the report has been redacted as it is exempt by virtue of Section 40(1)&(2) of the Act."

Section 40(1) of the Freedom of Information Act refers to the personal data of the subject data applicant, whereas Section 40(2) refers to the personal data of other people .[*]
Thus, the Met implied, over 80% of their assessment of the Gaul RFI consisted of biographic detail … (!?) although in their response to our FOI request for information regarding any witnesses/ parties questioned by detectives during their assessment process, the police indicated there were none.

The Met also advised that, should we wish to request the redacted information in respect of Section 40(1) (i.e. personal data about ourselves), which is contained in that report, we would have to complete a Subject Access Request (SAR) application.

We did complete two SAR forms and paid the associated fees. The response we got, however, was the release of another few lines from their case assessment report (these, except for our names, did not contain any other personal data, but only the allegations we had made about the shortcomings of the Gaul RFI).

The rest still remained concealed. That is a big chunk of the report – paragraphs 8 to 18 – remained redacted, purportedly, under the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, which relates to third parties’ personal data.

Now, if we take another look at the redacted report, we can see that paragraph 19 states that the case officer "reviewed the materials described at paragraphs 10 to 18" in order to assess the validity of our complaint about the undisclosed design faults of the Gaul. The materials should, therefore, have contained technical rather than personal information. For, anyway, what personal information could they have contained and about whom? Under the 1998 Data Protection Act (DPA), personal data is clearly defined as data about a living individual, who can be identified from those data.

It may be that the documents referred to in the police assessment report did, in effect, contain information relating to technical matters, but - based on the fact that those materials had an author who, by necessity, must have been a living person, and judging that any expressed opinions reveal the insights of a person’s mind - the Met may have gone as far as to conclude that disclosure of such insights were prone to lead to undue intimacy and breach, therefore, the author’s rights under the Data Protection Act.

Thus, the Met have conveniently missed the fact that personal data is information about a person, not information a originating from a person – otherwise, except that produced by non-human species, all information would be exempt.

Also, as we have already contended in our reply to the Met, a witness statement is not considered personal data under the provisions of the 1998 Data Protection Act, unless the witness himself is the focus of that information. Just because a document contains the name of a person does not mean that it is about that person.

All opinion has an author, but if the opinion is not about the author himself and his personal life, then that opinion should be able to be passed on. Besides, the Data Protection Act itself suggests the means by which information can be conveyed without revealing its source: i.e. the omission of names or other identity details.

Unfortunately, by choosing not to disclose the requested information, the Metropolitan Police have now left room for suspecting that the content of their case assessment report is either embarrassing or untrue.

---------------------------------------------------------------

[*](1) Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject.

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if-

(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and

(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied. [etc]

Payment in nature

On the 18th of February 1974, in an interview with ITN News, David Shenton, the National Fisheries Officer for the Transport and General Workers Union, said that lack of evidence [1] about what had happened to the Hull trawler Gaul on the day it disappeared could cost the families of her 36 crewmen as much as £312,000 each [2] .

His statement [3], made just 10 days after the loss of the vessel, managed to crystallise, in a few words, the crux of the matter, which, for the next 35 years, would deny the general public the facts behind the vessel’s loss, and the families of the crew the right to know what happened to their loved ones.

It is now evident that it was not a submarine, a cold war spy-ship encounter, official secrets or hijack and capture by the Russians that had prevented the truth about this tragedy from emerging (these were just convenient ‘red herrings’ made up for the excitement of the public); it was money - purely and simply - and the British Establishment’s unwillingness to pay what amounted to a considerable sum, even though this was proper, fair and legally due to the victims’ families.

The reluctance of both governments and private companies to pay legal damages to injured parties is well-known, and has a long and colourful history in the maritime business world; what is particularly sickening, however, in the Gaul and other recent cases is the shoddiness of the tactics employed to circumvent the law: the cynical setbacks, the unnecessary delays, the long and costly legal battles, the blatant lies and, despite the recent disclosures, the persistent suppression of the truth, all of which go far beyond reasonable prudence and concern for the interests of shareholders and taxpayers.

But what is, perhaps, even more disturbing is the ease, the audacity and the extent to which the ‘cartel’ of politicians, businesses, insurers, civil servants, law firms and the judiciary are nowadays prepared to collude in order to prevent the payment of lawful compensation to those who have suffered such terrible losses.

In the Gaul case, this collusion led to a dubious but costly public inquiry, which, contrary to the available evidence, laid the blame for the tragedy with the crew.

A decade ago, in the debate about the limitation of liability for the maritime industry, justice David Steel placed himself firmly on the side of the shipping and insurance industries, whose financial interests he considered more important than fair compensation to claimants for damages caused by shipping mishaps.

The same justice Steel was then appointed to chair the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation into the sinking of the Gaul, which, surprisingly, found no fault with the vessel and, therefore, no grounds for subsequent compensation claims by the victims’ families.

Of course, a fine balance between safety and profitability has to be struck, no one wants the shipping or the insurance industries to go bust, but “at no time should any innocent party be expected to subsidize any business by their personal loss”, [4] nor should a formal legal process to be turned into a farce.

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Simply put, as long as there was no firm evidence concerning the loss of the Gaul, liability could not be established and there could be no compensation for the dependents.

[2] About £3.5million in present day worth

[3] Unfortunately the families were soon to lose their champion as Mr Shenton passed away shortly thereafter. Mr James Johnson paid the following tribute to Mr Shenton in the House of Commons on 5 April 1976: “The late David Shenton, National Fisheries Officer for the Transport and General Workers' Union—whose untimely death is a great loss to the industry—did a great deal for the fishermen in Hull.”

[4] Serge Killingbeck, SCU Law Review Volume 3 November 1999

The culture of callousness

It is common knowledge that the measure of a civilised society is given by the way in which it cares for its weakest members. Judged by that measure, I’m afraid, today’s Britain would not score very high - the sympathetic activities of our so-called social-democratic regime being more declamatory than real.

A culture of callousness seems instead to have pervaded Britain, the latest and most shocking example of which being the disgraceful treatment of the soldiers wounded in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As if possessed by some ungodly avarice, the government has adopted the moral philosophy of the money-changers, and has now the audacity to take those wounded in war to Court, for the purpose of minimising their injury compensations.

Taking from the most deserving and giving to the least - this is what the squandering of public money on frivolous schemes and dubious contracts, rather than paying for the state’s most basic obligations, equates to.

The whole charade of leaving the MOD to handle competing financial obligations on a fixed, limited, budget is just an unseemly subterfuge; the government could very well set up a separate, special, fund to settle the claims of the military and avoid this ugly and ungenerous quarrel.

Also nowadays there appears to be a stigma attached to any search for compensation – as if all those seeking to obtain financial redress for their losses were some kind of system spongers or benefit cheats.
The so-called ‘culture of compensation’ that many within the British Establishment often decry is, in fact, the normal application of the law; it is not charity.
The right to compensation represents one of the principal checks and balances that society has created so as to ensure that its weakest members have some protection against the might of the strong.
What is more, the prospect of litigation can make both governments and private employers much more careful when dealing with human lives.

Our government should be able to recognize these factors and strike a fair balance between ethics and their various financial priorities.