Happy Easter!

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.

Commemoration

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.

SHILLS

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). 

Obs.

Does anyone know who the owner of the following IP address is: 77.86.117.135 - Kingston Upon Hull?

NOTE

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.

Tentacles

Do you remember this post:  http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/brussels-underground.html?

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)

Merry Christmas!

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.

El Comisario

 “I am completely half afraid to think” Flann O’Brien, The third policeman 

At tomorrow’s elections, Hull may choose to entrust its law and order affairs to Lord Prescott. This is, of course, totally thoughtless, but entirely possible. Yes, Lord Prescott is standing for election as Police Commissioner in Hull, and what is more shocking is that he could actually win the necessary votes(*).

This, however, will not simply be an error of collective judgement or the consequence of some historical adversity inflicted from afar; it will be an act of self-persiflage - that is of self-directed piss-taking by the voters in Hull. It will also be sheer madness to wish to ruin your hometown for a laugh. You cannot cast your ballot like that without exposing yourself to permanent ridicule, to the condemnation of all the clear minds of the future.

John Prescott may fancy the power and the material rewards that the role confers, as well as the advantage of having access to snooping and interfering powers – remember his knack of compiling dossiers on the people he has an interest in (which is probably why he has never been brought to justice even by a half-Tory government).

The people of Hull, however, deserve a proper commissioner – and I trust that they will not indulge in frivolity or in that morbid attraction, which, sometimes, victims of cruelty show towards their aggressors.

 _____________________________________________

(*) Although soon enough, they would have to elect a new one. 


UPDATE: 17 November 2012

John Prescott failed to secure the necessary number of votes and  was therefore not elected Police Commissioner. The proud citizens of Humberside were very wise in choosing a different candidate and, I must say, have also had a lucky escape. Congratulations and many thanks!

Remembrance Day

The Royal Courts of Justice

There’s been regretfully a protracted period of silence on this blog, owing to our busy schedule breaking the silence elsewhere and dealing with a whole set of related matters – matters that have eventually taken us all the way up to the Royal Courts of Justice. 

That was for us a first time experience and we were filled with trepidation at the chance of visiting that magnificent bastion of righteousness in the Strand. The edifice housing the Royal Courts of Justice is impressive; designed by George Edmund Street in the Victorian Gothic Revival style, the appearance of the construction, both external and internal, is illustrative of the idea of what society ought to be – morally correct, spiritually elevated and pure. 

And to make sure that society is so, nowadays, visitors are X-rayed and frisked at the entrance, lest some deadly weapons are fired in court. The inner corridors (and there are over 3 miles of them, we are told) were pretty vacant, except for a few black flocks of bewigged barristers, dashing along – vulturine and predacious – and descending upon various courtrooms in their paths. They were followed by judges, more measured in pace, making their way towards the same venues, with the confidence and composure of those habituated to veracity. 

At the oral hearing held by the Court of Appeal, we were honoured by the presence of a lord justice of appeal and allowed to present our argument at length. The facts were plain and our dispute pointed at the distorted logic of earlier court decisions. Our case being so politically sensitive and embarrassing, the lower courts must have thought that it could only be tackled by abandoning standard logic. And abandon it they did. 

The appeal judge, however, did not seem to be listening; we got the impression that he had other preoccupations, which our oral submission hindered to some extent. Not that it was any point in listening anyway, as the Court of Appeal seemed to have made their minds beforehand as to the outcome – or to have had their minds made for them. (Nothing of what we submitted seemed to be acknowledged.) So, in order to save everybody time and spasms of mind, the court quickly decided that the appeal should not be allowed. 

We were told that the decision was for our own good. This may be true, but, as we know very well from history, this assurance is often used by the State to justify the perpetration of many crimes. 

The idea of justice – as Epicurus said, is that it prevents men from harming and from being harmed. And that is, I have to admit, the very idea that the British justice system applies when it prevents us from harming the interests of our opponents – high-rank politicians and officials - and when it prevents them from the unpleasant task of accounting for their actions.

The Hillsborough tragedy

With the publication of the Hillsborough report, that famous saying, according to which tragedy in life normally comes with betrayal and compromise, has been verified again.

The report from the panel created by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in 2009 has just been disclosed to the public, thus allowing the families of the football fans who died in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster to find out the truth about the circumstances of their death.

And a series of shocking aspects have emerged, and further intrigues have started to take contour.

Familiar with the dealings in the Gaul, Derbyshire and Trident formal investigations (planned under Blair’s government), I could not help noticing the similarities and a number of disturbing aspects:

As the Hillsborough report revealed:

• official negligence was covered up by blaming the victims for their own deaths;
• the media colluded in the cover-up by presenting a misleading version of the events and  spreading smears;
• police statements were amended to avoid liability;
• the existence of a conspiracy to withhold the truth right across the Establishment.

Sadly, the same (and a lot more and a lot worse) can be said about several other public inquiries.

Such tragedies represent terrible, both private and public, loss. It is therefore the duty of the public, thorough the institution created to serve it, to properly investigate the causes of the loss, mitigate it and learn lessons for the future. This is not and should never be a political game. If it were, this would show a far deeper level of depravity than a hundred doctored statements.

The Hillsborough tragedy occurred under a Conservative government, and I therefore have my doubts as to whether the keenness on the part of Labour to get to the truth has been a hundred per cent motivated by compassion and honour. Why, in the campaign for the truth, has Labour been the loudest?

The panel was formed in 2009 by a Labour government who expected to lose the 2010 elections. What prevented them from setting up this panel 12 years earlier or sooner after Labour had come to power?

We have also noticed that Lord Falconer and Michael Mansfield QC are involved in advising the Hillsborough Family Support Group, with the former making lavish use of conditionals in his statements about future legal actions, and with the latter, hastily, calling the Hillsborough “the biggest cover-up in history”. 

The families, as Prime Minister Cameron said, suffered a double injustice and they have suffered a lot. Justice now needs to be done – and, most importantly, done for the right reasons. This was a tragedy and it should never be turned into a Tu Quoque defence for Labour.

UPDATE
It now turns out that documents showing the role of the police in covering up the Hillsborough disaster were handed to the Crown Prosecution Service 14 years ago. That is under the last Labour government, who must have decided to stash the evidence away as political ammunition for the future.
 
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202961/Complaint-senior-Hillsborough-officer-serving-blamed-fans-despite-report-referred-watchdog-lawyer-claims-cover-documents-handed-CPS-14-years-ago.html)

UPDATE

Negotiations are now ongoing:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/hillsborough-files-lawyer-casts-doubts-over-prosecutions-1-2533661

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/9554051/Hillsborough-Police-watchdog-may-be-limited-in-investigation.html

Sad news

On the 18th of August 2012, the Hull Daily Mail announced the death, at the age of 71, of Norman Fenton, the TV-documentary maker. It was Mr Fenton who commissioned the search for the Gaul and was on board of the search vessel when the wreck was located, in 1997.

Norman Fenton’s death was sad news for the Gaul families whom he had known well and worked with over the years. (He also attended, for a brief period, the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation.)

In his long TV career, Norman Fenton made many films, including 5 documentaries about the Gaul and, as his family have revealed, was working on a book about the Gaul at the time of his death. 

Norman Fenton (like a few others) knew the truth about the Gaul and one can imagine that he was eventually going to lay it down on paper. It was, however, not to be. 

May he rest in peace!

It really happened here

Back in town

He did not retreat into a monastery or take the path of the desert; he has enjoyed instead the worldly pleasures to the full. He has not been silent, contrite or resting in prayer – but has given highly remunerated after-dinner speeches and money-making counsels to the world’s potentates. Nonetheless, he can still justify, in almost theological terms, his international gold rush – as some kind of voyage of initiation, the lucrative aspects of which were not ends in themselves, but means to charity and enlightenment. As a promoter of the Third Way in politics, he may have also found a Third Way to heaven. 

Now, fully initiated, his mind enkindled by his expanded bank account and portfolio of properties, Tony Blair is back in town…preaching to us again. He has not given up his political ambitions – his recent interviews revealing the hair-raising prospects of his return as PM or, more portentously, as EU president – which, considering the powerful friends he has made by single-handedly taking his country to war, he may well stand a chance of fulfilling.

Means of communication

Online communication is pretty unreliable, care of the slime that make up the British authorities. So, we have come to the conclusion that more direct means of communication are necessary.

Diamond Jubilee

A glorious national celebration marking the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth's reign - Her Majesty's remarkable devotion to her duty - without lapse, without fault, without measure - her faith and dedication to her people.

We cannot ever thank Her Majesty enough for her long-standing service to her nation, but we can all celebrate the occasion and wish: God bless the Queen and the Royal Family!

Conquest by disorder

Sartre said that we are what others have made of us. As far as the British political and bureaucratic elites are concerned, the statement is true in a much more literal sense than originally intended. 

This is, in fact, the fate of any occupied country, where laws and official decisions are no longer sanctioned by the agreement between society and the state, but by the whims of external powers. This is not a fortunate state of affairs as our modern ideologists, in their immense foolishness or dishonesty, would rush to persuade you, peddling the fallacy that extreme departures from the requisites of national dignity, moral principles and the rule of law, together with the ensuing chaos, are acceptable to establish a new social order, in which, irony of ironies, even the smallest ideological departure would be repressed. 

And so, propped by a network of spies, treacherous political actors and pubic servants, and a lot of ordinary stupidity, the invisible occupation of Britain goes apace. 

Yet, in spite of what it looks like, the damage is not irreversible. Stupidity, for a start, when not caused by some permanent medical affliction, can be cured. Truth and transparency would open eyes and work miracles in this respect. Then, our politicians would be moved to recognize that pragmatic justifications for their lack of action have no credibility – when we can all see the self-interest and the cowardice behind them - and to recognize that the politics of intelligent diplomacy and compromise is one thing – beneficial to all - and collaborationism is another.

The spread of infamy

What is going on? Even from our remote vantage point we can clearly see a recrudescence of infamy. The left are going through another bout of rowdiness - they have these regularly, as we can all remember, since the time that the wretched Brown was in charge of the UK government.

But these days, just as we had all sighed with relief at finally finding ourselves under a government made of predominantly sane people, the fetid bolgias of the Labour party broke open again. Given succour from the East and the West (if not direct orders), the British left, hollowed out long time ago to make room for a motley assemblage of political pygmies and charlatans, are trying to brawl their way back into power. (Goodness, what a nightmarish thought! Yet, there are plenty of poor souls who still believe the Labour party is what it says on the tin and that it truly represents them.) 

Had the winds not been propitious to an international spread of ‘socialist’ infamy, British Labour would have never had the fervour for such orchestrated action, since what Labour are most famed for is the introduction of the concept of slime as acceptable conduct in public life. Slime, not honourable opposition… 

So we now have Mr Miliband spluttering with concern about the press, while failing to see the dereliction within his own ranks. As you know, we have asked him several times about the Gaul cover-up and the rest (chronicled on these pages), but Mr Miliband did not have the grace to give an answer. Neither scintillating, nor handsome, one wonders why he was chosen as the Opposition front-man. 

Besides, if we were to criticise the press, we reckon that the most important complaint and the biggest charge that could be levelled at them is not one of prying, but quite the opposite – that of selectively revealing the truth or not revealing it all.

Happy Easter

Crooks International

The US administration (past and present) and authorities have been giving a helping hand to their fellow crooks in the UK - figures in the Labour party, former leaders and other equally commanding figures - by offering operational assistance in cover-ups and exercising pressure  (Murdoch's scandal being just one of the levers) on a morally ambiguous and feeble UK government to pervert the course of justice, bend the law and refrain from investigating high-profile crimes and official misdemeanors.

Long live Crooks International!

(More details to come... meanwhile we see the PM trying to buy concessions for his friends at News International and cover up his own faults on our backs.)

Advice

The British authorities should soon catch up with our most notorious criminals.

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)

Hull Trawlermen's Memorial

The 6000 trawlermen who lost their lives at sea will have a memorial built at St Andrew's Quay in Hull. The approval follows many years of campaigning and donations by the public. The Hull Council authorities will also allow the families and local trawlermen to participate in the design of the monument.

The memorial is intended to keep alive the memory of those who gave their lives to one of the most daring and honourable of professions, and offer a terrestrial symbol for all those who wish to remember the men lost to the sea and pay their respects.

LINK

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 rule of derision

We heard that John Prescott is considering standing for the post of elected Police Commissioner and that he also had a go at becoming a chanteuse. Splendiferous! It reminds us of that movie scene with a group of yobs breaking in a luxury fashion store and trying on various fineries, one after the other, madly exhilarated by the fun of seeing themselves in incredible guises.

But this is nothing unusual, for we have already seen entertainers posing as revolutionaries or statesmen – depending on what fitted best their haircut and mirror-reflected physique - and politicians constantly acting as impersonators - for nothing most of them say nowadays betrays any conviction.

When all things turn belly up, it is only natural that Mr Prescott should dispense law and order in Hull. (With the summer coming, it may be getting too hot for the lordly ermine.) Just imagine his heavy fist cracking down on gambling and vice, and the admiration he would command in his brand new uniform, epaulettes and Brasso-polished badges, and the benefits of a short-skirted sergeant in tow.

The reality as seen on the ground or as reported in the press is just tragedy and derision. Delinquent and joyous is today’s legendary figure. But this hero is not the tough highway robber or the fearless outlaw celebrated by folklore, but the well-connected, risk-averse, confidence man. Being a scoundrel has never been safer or more entertaining.

There is only one comfort that we can derive from the present state of affairs, and that is that, compared to other places on earth, ours still looks pretty sane.

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)

Anniversaries

This 8th of February marks another years since the loss of the Gaul and another year of official efforts to obliterate the true causes of the tragedy.

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.

Update

Our post of 06/12/2011 has been updated - - and Mr Cameron has started pulling the strings harder.

The the authorities' inaction in this matter makes Mr Cameron and all those who know about it accomplices to serious criminal acts. (The skin up there must be very thick.)

Shameless!

2012 - New Year and New Surprises, no doubt

Christmas 2011

More ordinary abuses

A few weeks ago we read reports that Her Majesty the Queen had signed the amendment “to ensure that the UK’s justice system can no longer be abused for political reasons” and Israeli politicians do no longer stand the risk of being welcome with an arrest warrant when visiting Britain.

Fair enough, but we cannot help wonder why Her Majesty cannot also ensure that the UK's justice system is no longer abused (and not only abused, but made a mockery of) for party political reasons by Her Majesty’s government, when the abuses do not affect foreign dignitaries, but her Majesty’s more ordinary subjects. The sovereign is deemed, after all, to be the fount of justice, in whose name justice is delivered by the British courts.

Her Majesty has known (even better than us) about these abuses for at least four years and knows very well what the families of the sea tragedies' victims and we have gone through all this time - about the continual harassment, intimidation and the systematic destruction of our lives. Yet, for as many years, we've been left to fend ourselves against revenge-seeking criminals. It is true that the Royal Family have shown us their support from time to time, and we are deeply grateful for their encouragement, especially during the hostile Labour regime, and for the hope that when the Tories returned to power our troubles would end. [*] 

However, so far, no amendment has been signed or word has been delivered in our favour, and things for all concerned have gone from bad to worse. (We understand that, at the same time, the phone-hacking saga and other associated political pressures have caused Her Majesty’s government a lot of discomfiture and that, therefore, promises cannot be honoured on time.) Yet, we would very much like to know why such outrageous abuses can get ignored for so long and the rules of morality kept so long in suspense.

Of course, our Head of State is now very old; so, perhaps in asking such questions now there’s hardly any point - if there’s ever been one.

UPDATE 1: We have been offered wonderful career prospects in Scotland to shut up.

UPDATE 2: Well, it appears that Her Majesty is quite happy for the UK’s justice system to be abused for political reasons, when the reasons suit Her Majesty's Tory Party. Blair and the New Labour Party have been condemned for their opportunistic, 'ends justify the means' methods, only for the same methods to be now embraced by the Royals themselves (and without any honourable ends). What a shame!

CONCLUSION: If Her Majesty told the truth openly to her Majesty's servants, rather than only in secret, a lot of harm done to a lot of people could be repaired and further harm prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------

[*] We did not quite understand what the US administration had to do with the cover-up of all this wrongdoing, but we can easily venture a guess.

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.

Another whistleblower

Apart from the naval architect whose disclosures have been published on this blog over the last five years, the Department for Transport, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency more precisely, were blessed with another whistleblower. The latter, Mr Jayan Pillai, an article in the Private Eye (see below) informs us, raised concerns about the MCA’s flexible approach towards the registration of ships with fire-fighting arrangements that fell short of the international seagoing safety standards.

The Department has not owned up to anything yet and has decided to fight them both - a move, which, we suspect, is going to be associated with a lot of mess.

 (article c/o Private Eye, No.1300, 28 October 2011)

The DfT/MCA, it seems, have made rather a hobby of plastering over the cracks, and, although in a small MCA branch there once existed two whistleblowers, within the organisation itself, there is certainly scope for many more.

Remembrance Day

Greece Bailout

"A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the rope and be free," N. Kazantzakis

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.

Export Goods

Nobody enjoys reminiscing about an old acquaintance as much as I do – especially when the acquaintance in question played an important role in the Department for Transport under the last Labour regime.

The legal proceedings that we started against the government – referred to in our previous posts – came to a stage when witness testimonies were called for and, as the whole action hinged upon our disclosures about the Gaul, the Derbyshire and the Trident investigations, we thought it beneficial to ask the Head of Shipping Policy in the DfT, Mrs Theresa Crossley, to contribute her inside knowledge to the case. (You will remember Mrs Crossley as the official who answered our more recent Freedom of Information requests in respect of the Derbyshire RFI.)

Well, to our disappointment and surprise, when we looked for her, we found that she was no longer there - she had been exported to Lisbon. Yes, as the March 2010 copy of the European Maritime Safety Agency’s newsletter informs us, on 16 February 2010, Theresa Crossley was amply rewarded with an appointment as head of the Department ‘B’, ‘Implementation’, in EMSA. That made our witness, from the UK legal action point of view, out of reach. We offered to pay her costs to either come to the UK or give a sworn statement from Lisbon, but were refused point blank. This was really a pity, given her tenure of the DfT key management post all through the turbulent years of the Gaul and the Trident RFIs. Just like us, Mrs Crossley knows very well where the whitened bones of the murdered formal investigations lay buried.  Amongst other similarly serious matters. Unlike us, she's not going to make a full disclosure.

It seems that EMSA has a penchant for collecting UK personnel with knowledge about the miscarriages of justice perpetrated under Labour. Is this pure coincidence or is it something akin to a collector’s fascination with artefacts of the past?

(More to come)

Voting in Parliament

HM Courts and Tribunals - part 2

Broken Government

I have written before on this blog about the campaign to have the results of past formal inquiries (starting with the one held into the loss of the trawler Gaul) into several maritime casualties reviewed. These inquiries resulted in miscarriages of justice, which were the handiwork of the past labour government.

Years ago, I received the most credible and respectable assurances that the Conservative administration would sort these things out. 

Well, that has certainly not been the case. Cameron’s government shows no appetite in upholding the law. Rioters on the streets of London were fair game, Establishment figures are, however, a completely different matter – especially when their crimes lead to the powerful Mr Blair and his allies.

Having been persecuted by officialdom for blowing the whistle about the FV Gaul farce, we have taken the government to court. We hope that the information which we will bring to light will do some good in restoring justice in this case as well as in others.

But it is not going to be easy. Mr Cameron, so willing before the 2010 election to attack Labour and be indignant about what we exposed - in fact, mercenarily, Cameron’s Conservatives even considered using the Gaul scandal as electoral ammunition in 2010 [*] - has now been mollified. Recently his government has even started to raise obstacles and put pressure on us so as to make us abandon the court case, which harms the prime minister’s current interests. All done to protect Murdoch.

Mr Cameron is in no mind to address the wrongdoing committed by Labour … he has the phone-hacking saga to worry about right now. (And he seems determined to cover that one up, no matter the costs.) The appalling miscarriages of justice that took place under Labour and the misery of those who have been affected by the maritime tragedies referred to on this blog are being used by Cameron’s government to parry attacks from Labour - thus trading misfortune for short-term political gain.

Yes, it is as squalid as that, and there is still more to add. However, what is most shocking is that all this is going on with the acquiescence (and any recent appearance to the contrary is nothing but theatre) of the very top of the British Establishment. There is, at the moment, no public authority that one can trust or that deserves to be trusted.

(More to come)
----------------------------------------

[*] But more about what happened at that time, in a different post

Memorial service at sea

Relatives of Trident fishermen killed after trawler sunk hold memorial service at sea

Sufficient for the DfT

Following on from our post of 1 August 2011, which referred to the Trident families’ FOI request addressed to the DfT, the search for the missing video footage of the NMI model tests on FV Trident continues [LINK]. However, the DfT, as solicitous as ever, appear to think that a couple of blurred snapshots taken from the 1976 cine film should be sufficient to satisfy anyone who has the audacity to be interested in that research:

Part of the DfT letter dated 19 August 2011

We beg to differ and consider that the comments made by Professor Dahle, in the written discussion that followed the formal presentation of this research at RINA in 1979, show both the importance and the relevance of this research to the investigation into the loss of the Trident:

Comments by Professor Dahle cited in Tony Morrall’s 1979 paper

(More to come)

Lessons from the street

Suddenly, though not quite unpredictably, infernal images of mayhem and rampant law breaking, pouring out from all of the media channels, have shocked our senses. The young generation out of control – the product of 13 years of Labour regime were out on the streets, ready to devour their elders and burn down everything in their path. The moral relativism of the New Labour era and their overarching ‘the ends justify the means’ philosophy have come home to roost.

Was it not Labour who told the poor that neither academic achievement nor a better upbringing exempted one from ‘equality’ with the rest? Were they not promised that there would be no losers? The biggest sin of the Labour dogma was that it prevented its believers from knowing themselves. This led to unfulfilled expectations and, then, the self-hatred trying to cure itself through self-destruction and the destruction of others.

Yet, the moral decay has not been confined to deprived areas or to the periphery of large and affluent urban centres, where upmarket glamour and fashion collapse into vulgarity; it has infiltrated many other quarters.

The rabble recently seen flooding the streets of London has its matches at other levels of society, for the reckless cruelty and irresponsibility of a teenage looter is not unrelated to that within the less riotous social layers.

Is there any difference between an illiterate thug robbing the injured and a government minister or other Establishment figure cheating a defenceless widow out of her rights? Have we not seen the callous irresponsibility of some of our public servants who would consciously put human lives at risk just to please a political master and secure a promotion or some advantage for themselves?

Young people, deprived of a humanist education, have learned that getting what you want means bending the law. The notion that playing by the rules is only for losers has, however, been established by today’s elite.

If we are to become a more responsible nation and accept the consequences of our actions, which we must, then that should necessarily start from the top. If authority is to be respected, that authority has to be made respectable first.

So, now that we, at last, have a sane government in power, we should ask them the question: when are those hardened criminals amongst the elite going to be rounded up and held to account for their actions?

Confirmation bias

In 1975 in the aftermath of the Gaul and Trident disasters the Department of Trade decided to sponsor a program of research at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), to try and discover why two well found fishing vessels had suddenly capsized and sank with significant loss of life. This research would focus on stability issues and would be carried out by the ship division of the NPL (subsequently renamed the National Maritime Institute, NMI), one of the world’s leading maritime test establishments at that time.

Scale models of the Gaul and the Trident hulls were then built and subjected to a program of sea keeping tests in waves of varying magnitude; their behaviour in different conditions was filmed, documented and analysed. Unfortunately, the outcome from this research was initially kept under wraps by the DOT, until, in 1979-80, Dr Tony Morrall (NMI) was allowed to publish two brief technical papers, through the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. The two papers gave an edited overview of the NMI’s research/conclusions for the two vessels and video footage from the NMI tests was shown, although the identity of the Trident was concealed:

1. ‘Capsizing of small trawlers’ published at a RINA meeting in Glasgow on February 20 1979 (N.B. The Trident was not identified within this report; it was merely referred to as ‘trawler A’)

1. ‘The Gaul disaster: an investigation into the loss of a Large Stern Trawler’ -  published at a RINA meeting in London on April 15 1980
   

In brief, the conclusion from the NMI research about the loss of the Trident was that she had capsized in moderate sea conditions because she had insufficient stability, while the conclusion about the loss of the Gaul was that she had capsized because of severe weather conditions in conjunction with some unknown circumstance such as internal flooding, which had degraded her inherent stability reserves. [1]

Following the discovery of both wrecks and the decision to re-open both formal investigations (RFI), the DfT’s experts dusted down and sifted through the NMI’s research folders and decided that:

• The NMI research data on the loss of the Gaul, had yielded the ‘right’ answers, as far as the DfT was concerned, and therefore could be utilised as evidence during the Gaul RFI. In fact in their marine accident report no. 4/99, the MAIB went as far as praising the NMI’s research as being “a comprehensive and ambitious project lasting two and a half years”. Video footage of the NMI tests together with the Morrall research paper were considered to be new and important evidence for the purposes of the Gaul RFI hearings in 2004

•  Unfortunately, the NMI research data on the loss of the Trident (which had an identical pedigree to that of the Gaul) had yielded the ‘wrong’ answers, as far as the DfT was concerned, and was therefore deemed to be unsuitable for a public airing or disclosure during the Trident RFI.

Thereafter, in 2005 the DfT allegedly shredded the Trident research folders and in the RFI hearings of 2010, the Advocate General and her experts together with the Aberdeen Sheriff summarily dismissed the NMI research data (see below):

Pages 188-90 Trident RFI - transcripts of evidence 12/7/2010:

The above exchanges between Mr Thomson, the counsel for the Trident families, and Sheriff Young, where rational argument is being summarily dismissed by ridicule, do not cast the Sheriff in a favourable light.

While the DfT and its associates have been keen to disregard and discard the Trident’s NMI research data with its inconvenient conclusion regarding stability, the Trident families have not, as yet, been convinced [LINK] by this official obfuscation.

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

[1] In our posts of 1 January 2010 and 8 February 2010 we revealed that the DOT/Owners had estimated the Gaul’s stability reserves for her last voyage to be greater than was reasonably justifiable. This ‘enhanced’ level of stability was also specified by the DOT for the model used in the Gaul NMI tests, the test results would undoubtedly have been influenced by this factor.

Stability standards for scallop dredgers - Solway Harvester and Olivia Jean

On 10 October 2009, a crewmember onboard the scallop dredger Olivia Jean was injured when a trawl wire parted and he was hit by a falling bridle. The fisherman sustained chest injuries and was subsequently airlifted to hospital

Following that accident the MAIB carried out a detailed safety audit onboard the Olivia Jean and a number of regulatory non-compliances, including stability deficiencies, were identified,

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) were notified and they also inspected the vessel; however, they subsequently permitted the Olivia Jean to continue fishing even though the official limits in her trim and stability book were regularly being exceeded [1].

As a consequence, the MAIB issued Safety Bulletin No 1/2010, which called on the Olivia Jean’s owner to cease fishing operations immediately and on the MCA to:

Ensure that the stability of Olivia Jean (TN 35) is verified and all safety critical limitations are applied before allowing further fishing operations to take place

The release of this safety bulletin, critical of MCA, was an unusual action for the MAIB to take as generally both MAIB and MCA worked together and supported one another (both being part of the maritime section of the Department for Transport).

Perhaps the MAIB were remembering previous scallop dredger losses – the Pescado in 1991 (where six men died) and the Solway Harvester in 2000 (where seven men died) and were concerned that stability deficiencies on yet another scallop dredger could lead to another tragedy.

The MAIB would also have been mindful of the fact that in 2006 when they had published the Solway Harvester report they had been obliged, once again [2], to tidy up a mess left for them by MCA, which they did by skipping over the Solway Harvester’s stability deficiencies.

Stability Standards

Extracts from the MAIB’s casualty reports for the Olivia Jean and the Solway Harvester are reproduced below, where the stability of each vessel has been assessed by MAIB for compliance with minimum stability standards.

Olivia Jean

MAIB’s stability assessment - they compared Olivia Jean’s actual stability reserves against the official stability minima (ringed in purple); these minimum criteria include the 20% stability enhancement that is required for scallop dredgers. In the example shown here, the Olivia Jean fails to meet the required stability standard in the ‘depart grounds’ sailing condition.

Solway Harvester – stability curve for the loss condition

The Solway Harvester’s marginal stability reserves and poor GZ values are clearly visible from this curve:

MAIB’s stability assessment – they compared the Solway Harvester’s estimated stability reserves against the minimum stability criteria ringed in purple above; however, these minimum stability criteria, chosen by the MAIB for comparison purposes, are different from the criteria they used for the Olivia Jean – they are the wrong criteria as they do not include the 20% stability enhancement that is required for scallop dredgers and beam trawlers. However, by comparing the Solway Harvester’s stability values against a lower stability standard, the MAIB were able to say that she ‘passed’ the requirements (the figures reveal a marginal pass of the lesser stability standard).

The MAIB were aware that they were on shaky ground here and, when they published their report on the Solway Harvester’s loss, the important part within their report - where the minimum stability criteria were identified - was barely legible as well as very carefully worded.

They talk about “compliance with regulations”, yet they do not identify which specific regulations the vessel allegedly ‘passed’.

It certainly didn’t meet the regulations applicable to scallop dredgers (i.e. Rule 16 of the Fishing Vessels Safety Provisions Rules 1975 with the 20% increase in stability for fishing vessels engaged in twin boom fishing).

Moreover, it is also highly likely that, given the number of questionable assumptions made by the MAIB in their calculations for the Solway Harvester’s loss condition, she did not even comply with the lesser stability standards either.

Solway Harvester

In the above image (c/o STV website), the Solway Harvester can be seen sailing in a deeply laden condition where her freeboard and stability reserves are clearly suspect. In the above image, the blue arrow indicates the position of her watertight main deck – only just above the sea-surface.

It should be noted that Solway Harvester’s design allowed seawater to freely enter the non-weathertight steel enclosures and wash across her decks.

If, as shown in the sketch below, the non-weathertight enclosures are removed, the watertight hull and three-weathertight superstructures become apparent. The main deck is only just above the sea-surface (arrowed) and thus, when the above photo was taken, the only things keeping the vessel afloat and upright at that time were the meagre buoyancy reserves provided by the small part of her hull above seawater and the three small superstructures.

MAIB report no. 1/2006

Concluding remarks

If, on 11 January 2000, the Solway Harvester had complied fully with official stability standards it is just possible that, she would not have succumbed to the weather and capsized with the loss of all onboard.

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

[1] The MCA have sole responsibility for statutory surveys, stability approval and the issue of fishing vessel safety certification on UK fishing vessels.

[2] The MAIB have had to investigate and report on a number of fishing vessel casualties where the MCA’s ‘light regulatory touch’ has been an obvious factor in the loss.

Labour Party Hypermetropia

In our post of 9 June 2011, we revealed the email sent to Mr Ed Miliband in relation to the miscarriages of justice and the ugly cover-ups, which took place while his party was in power.

Naturally, we have received no reply. The Labour leader, it seems, has been far too busy rising with virtuous indignation against the right-wing press and its terrible misdemeanours to be able to clean up his own backyard.

This is, of course, a well-known Labour affliction whose debilitating symptoms allow them only to see things, selectively, in the distance. And so, the greater the moral insalubrity within their own ranks, the greater and noisier the tenacity with which they follow and criticise others.

Today, Mr Miliband has made some grandiloquent statements; he condemned the irresponsibility of the powerful and their belief in being untouchable. All this sounds very nice, indeed, were it not meant to apply only to his political adversaries and their connections. Like his own party, Mr Miliband, alas, shows great difficulty in focusing on those rather more unpleasant matters that are right there under his nose.

The Solway Harvester

The Solway Harvester was a scallop dredger that capsized and sank on 11 January 2000 with the tragic loss of her seven crew members.

The standards of stability that the Solway Harvester should have satisfied at the time of her loss are indicated in red in the following DOT letter:

Unfortunately, the Solway Harvester was unable to meet these official minimum standards.