Destabilised

Voting down the government’s proposed legislation, the Prime Minister warned, will have apocalyptic consequences: it will de-stabilise the government; it will de-stabilise the markets… it will make the earth roar and the abyss spew off its stench.

Meanwhile, the PM is taking great care not to de-stabilise himself and, to that effect, he is prepared to do away with formality.

He allocates cabinet jobs for political compromise rather than for the competence and suitability of the person employed, appoints as chief of the Met a New Labour favourite to placate those in his party who have reasons to fear the arm of the law, and procures fast-tracked seats in the Upper House, clumsily knocking over the barriers in his pursuit of short-term political gain.

Amazingly, now it appears that even John Prescott (the Hull MP who played a nefarious part in both the Gaul and the Derbyshire RFIs) is being re-habilitated and courted for political support. Acrimony in the House of Commons can’t be afforded at this time - it is politically much cheaper to whip up a scandal in the Lords, instead, and thus appear tough on corruption.

We would have hoped that the Prime Minister was able to carry his party along with him by the force of his talents and personality, not by peddling gongs, favours and immunities from prosecution. The PM has, of course, many other ways of stabilising his political tenure, but these are, perhaps, too fraught with risks and difficulties.

And, as the old wisdom goes, no one can really climb out beyond the limitations of his own character.

http://www.dailymotion.com/gadflymotion531

The necessary muck-out

This Wednesday, the clean-up of politics started in America with the pledge by the new US President to introduce new rules for openness and integrity in public life. Lucky Americans!

Here, unfortunately, things don’t look as promising. In recent years, the political structures have been contaminated by sleaze and corruption, with the Labour party taken over by rogues and opportunists, in much the same way that organised-crime racketeers infiltrated the Labour movement in the 1930s America. This phenomenon, albeit to a much smaller extent, has also gained ground inside the other political factions.

Politics in Britain is now seriously tainted, in need of a thorough cleansing, a revitalization of ethics and the reinstatement of the rule of law. Without firm action the decay will continue; it has already spread into many, once respectable, state institutions, and even some, more vulnerable, sections of society have now been corrupted by the humiliating dependence on the political power, and turned into tools of control for the state.

The malign influence of this state of affairs on the human character and dignity is growing alarmingly visible.
Ethics, it’s been said, becomes an issue only when things become dangerous; hence, with the coming recession, an ethical revival in British politics should be treated now as a matter of urgent priority.

To clean the stables and make it such that, in future, only the best men and women are eligible to represent us is, of course, a Herculean task – but not a task that a strong-willed political leader, and a good sweeping broom, would be unable to achieve.

***

“AUGEAS: But it makes a difference whether we muck out just a bit or whether we have a radical muck-out. If we muck out just a bit, after a year, the muck will stand as high as it stands now or even higher, considering the amount of it we produce. Therefore we have to muck out radically.” (Friedrich Dürenmatt, The Augean Stables)

Judge in his own cause

During the ill-famed Hutton inquiry, Geoff Hoon’s conduct was often described as “slippery” and “dishonest”. We couldn’t follow those events very closely, but we can relate how Mr Hoon, now Secretary of State for Transport, has conducted himself recently.

In a letter dated 17 December 2008 (see HERE), Mr Hoon made known his opposition towards a possible re-hearing of the Gaul Formal Inquiry.

In his elaborate message, the Transport Secretary sought to suggest that the evidence and analysis we had provided over the last three years was not of a quality and quantity that would undermine his confidence in the execution of the 2004 RFI. Consequently, with his confidence intact, Mr Hoon considered himself free from any obligation to have the results of the Gaul RFI re-examined.

Back in 2003, if I remember correctly, Mr Hoon didn’t used to be so demanding, and needed a lot less evidence to be able to claim, against the best experts’ advice, that two trailers found in Iraq were ‘mobile weapons laboratories’. That was a different kettle of fish, of course, but Mr Hoon’s variable stance towards evidence standards, somehow, undermines his credibility as trier of fact.

What intrigued us even more, however, was that, this time, Mr Hoon would reveal neither the source nor the substance of the technical advice that had underpinned his decision, offering us no other option than to take him at his word and rest assured that the hint of political embarrassment or scandal was not a factor in his weighty deliberations, deflecting him from his pursuit of the public good.

(We have, of course, replied to Mr Hoon’s letter, and our response can be read at this link or here.)

Sadly, what follows from the Transport Secretary’s position is that, whenever the results of a government-led public inquiry are contested, no matter how compelling the evidence adduced, it is solely up to the government to decide whether or not those results should be re-examined, and it is totally in the government’s power to cloak their decision-making from public view and independent scrutiny.

I wonder, on a large scale, what the consequences of this trend are going to be.

More about MV Derbyshire

This is to wish you all a Happy New Year and to let you know that we have just published a new post on the MV Derbyshire blog [1].

In this latest commentary we show that the hatch covers on the Derbyshire complied neither with the minimum strength requirements of the International Load Line Convention 66 nor with the standards of Lloyd’s Register of Shipping that were in force at the time of the vessel’s build. These non-compliances, which could have been a crucial factor in the loss of the vessel, were ‘overlooked’ during 2000 RFI, the final report of which stated: “7.16 At the time of the DERBYSHIRE’s last voyage her hatch covers complied with the minimum strength requirements of ILLC 66 and of the Lloyd’s Register of Shipping Rules”, and concluded that it was a severe deficiency within those standards that allowed the vessel’s hatch covers to be built with inadequate strength, thus making their failure and the subsequent loss of the vessel in heavy seas possible.

However, independent strength calculations (presented in detail on the MV Derbyshire blog), carried out both through classical methods and by means of finite element analysis, show that the strength of the hatch covers fell short even of the minimum requirements that were set in those “deficient” 1966 standards.

Whether or not the vessel would have been lost if the construction of the hatch covers had conformed to the rules applicable at that time - insufficient as they were - is, furthermore, debateable. Placing the blame on the ‘regulations’, however, as the 2000 RFI so kindly did, made further debate redundant and removed the risk of subsequent commercial litigation for the vessel’s Shipbuilders and the Classification Society.

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

[1] The Derbyshire Re-opened Formal Investigation bears many similarities with the Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation – not the least of which is the fact that both investigations were presided over by judges who were acknowledged experts in the field of maritime commercial litigation.

Why was it that these two public inquiries, supposedly aimed only at finding the truth, were set up in this way?

Merry Christmas

The Detectives' Story

The New Labour Militsiya, formerly known as the Metropolitan Police, have been trying to spin their way around the institution’s publicly avowed commitment to openness and accountability.

Asked to provide information (see our FOI request HERE) about the manner in which they had dealt with our fraud and corruption allegations about the conduct and outcome of the 2004 Gaul RFI, they refused to do so, making the most of the exemption provisions in the FOI Act, and pettifogging about their grounds for absolute secrecy.

Amongst other things, they argued, disclosing the detectives’ assessment of the case and their justification for refusing to investigate our complaint could expose their “operational methodology and investigative techniques” to the general public and, potentially, to any crooks with an interest in foiling them.

Far from it being our intention to wreck the operational capability of the Met, we contend that our request was only aimed at confirming their ability to act as politically impartial public servants; we were not particularly interested in their investigative methods - which, frankly speaking, are already known to many of us, having recently read about them in the national press.

Therefore, availing ourselves of the same FOI Act provisions and of the Information Commissioner’s interpretation thereof, we have sent the Met our reply (HERE) and insisted on a review.

The whole exchange of correspondence can be seen at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/complaint_about_re_opened_formal

Launching day

Today is the 6th of December. Thirty-seven years ago, on 6 December 1971, the Gaul was launched at the Brooke Marine Yard in Lowestoft. At the launching ceremony – a sort of baptism for the ship – the vessel was given her first name: Ranger Castor.

The ship launch itself signifies the moving of the ship from shore into the sea. With the Gaul, as with many other vessels, this was done using slipways – greased sliding ramps along which the vessel slid slowly into the water.

It Happened Here - (Original Trailer)

Враги трудящихся *

“All leaders of the Constitutional Democratic party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court” [1]

That our government is ruling over this country by inalienable, divine right is no longer debatable. They have now assumed absolute power, and along with it the conviction that they always do what is ‘right’ and, therefore, must never be challenged.

Members of Parliament find it increasingly difficult to obtain straight answers to their questions and are no longer able to hold the government to account. Most of the time, the New Labour ministers manage to deflect attention away from any inconvenient topics, obfuscate unhindered and, on occasion, even get away with impudently insincere replies.

We ourselves know it only too well, since none of the MPs whom we have contacted in relation with the Gaul RFI miscarriage of justice was able to break the government’s silence and bring the matter to the fore.

And, as though things were not bad enough as they were, it now turns out that the government has decided that some of these inconvenient questions should not even arise.

As confirmation on this state of affairs, we learn that, a couple of days ago, a member of the shadow cabinet was arrested for the ‘crime’ of having embarrassed the government with the disclosure of some leaked information - data which, in the public interest, we should all have the right to see.

The British Police, in pure Cheka [2] fashion, seem to have started rounding up the Opposition politicians who are still able to confront the executive – a few sparse, dissenting voices, now treated as ‘enemies of the people’, who must be annihilated and made an example of.

(This, of course, is the same police force who, faking ignorance and confusion, sidestepped the allegations of fraud in the Gaul RFI in order to protect the Labour high ranks and the murky interests behind them.)

“Anyone who dares to spread the slightest rumour against the Soviet regime will be arrested immediately and sent to a concentration camp.” [3]

_________________________________________________

* Enemies of the labourers

[1] Grigory Zinoviev

[2] Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (i.e. Soviet Police)

[3] Izvestiya, "Appeal to the Working Class", 1918

Behind time

As this blog attests, we have periodically requested various bits of information from the Department for Transport, on the subject of the Gaul RFI.

Periodically, though not without additional prompting, one of Mr Jim Fitzpatrick's officials, like a cuckoo out of the clock, would come out to deliver his two-note message - a message sterilised beforehand by the various DfT attorneys - and then quickly withdraw.

The answer to our latest request (see
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/trawler_gaul) is now overdue.

The government seems to be playing for time. Maybe, they hope, with time, the questions will go away and everything will be nice again.

Or, maybe, we reckon, the questions will get a lot worse.

Asking the PM

The dapper Number 10 YouTube channel is currently offering the proletariat in this country the chance to ask the PM questions (in video format) about the economy.

Wishing to take advantage of this unique opportunity, we prepared a short video clip (see below the better Dailymotion version) and confidently submitted it to http://uk.youtube.com/DowningSt.

Unfortunately, our clip, it seems, is not going to make it to the Prime Minister's attention.

Why? Probably, its content was not considered pertinent enough to economic matters, or, perhaps, too pertinent for its own good. Who knows?

Anyway, Downing Street has kindly sent us a reply to a related FOI request (you can see it here:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/corruption_investigation), on which we shall comment properly in due course.

The epistemological virtues of John Prescott’s class concerns

The BBC has recently delighted us with a two-part documentary about John Prescott, MP and his opinions on the class system in Britain.

The programme was designed to portray Mr Prescott as a man of the people, full of candour, bonhomie and good intentions - the idyllical tones in the scenes of his domestic life tempered only by his robust take on the social inequalities in Britain.

Having had the chance, during his ten years in office, to improve the lot of those less fortunate than him, Mr Prescott now has the chance to decry that lot while at leisure.

Although Mr Prescott is not so interesting as a personality, he is still noteworthy for his symbolic value.

The BBC show, light though it was, provided a glimpse into the worldview of John Prescott’s kind of militant - i.e. the kind which remains forever insurgent.

This type - even after they have acquired wealth, political power, and have gained access to high government office and the chance to trample the social barriers underfoot - are always frustrated, deep down in their hearts, always harbouring a resentment, a grudge against the objects of their failed emulation, against something that eludes them, but which others acquire with ease and lightly pass down successive generations - a situation which, they protest, is terribly unfair.

This must be due to the fact that Mr Prescott and some of his compeers see the differences between people mainly in ephemeral terms. If they included in their ranking of human merit some more perennial values, they would find what really makes people differ, and, maybe, would also realise that modest origins are not always a guarantee of altruism and concern for the poor and that, quite often, the opposite can be true.

The pitiful saga of the Gaul stands testimony to that.

Verba volant scripta manet

When Moses received God’s commandments, he didn’t have any paper to write them down on. Still, he dutifully carved them onto clay tablets, which he carried all the way down the mountain to show his people the proof.

More than three millennia down the line, the UK Department for Transport, inexplicably, are not even able to store the instructions received from their earthly superiors, and the reasons behind some of their most important decisions are not kept in any decipherable form.

As already mentioned in a previous post, in response to our FOI request of 4 July 2008, the DfT informed us that they held “no specific technical justification [of their decision not to re-hear the Gaul RFI] recorded in any form”. Within the same reply, the DfT also mentioned that their earlier decision “fully sets out the Secretary of State’s reasoning in relation to the re-opening of the investigation”.

Unaware of what that reasoning was, we have formally asked them, via another FOI request (dated 11 September 2008), to provide us with a full account of the reasoning behind the Secretary of State’s decision not the re-open the Gaul Formal Investigation.The DfT’s response to this latest enquiry, received on 13 October 2008, was astounding. It stated simply that “The department does not hold such an account in recorded form.” Hmm! From the Department’s contradictory statements we are now left to surmise that either there was no analysis and justification behind their decision not to re-open the Gaul RFI, or that their reasoning has not been ‘set out’ and recorded on any physical media or legible format. It may, therefore, only exist in their heads – in the form of mental images, conceptions, impressions or phantasms. Or, perhaps, it only manifested itself via sensory representations, dispositions, moods or affections.

It is, of course, also possible that the DfT is not telling the truth. But, that would be terribly bad and unbecoming.

MV Derbyshire

Recent events have compelled us to re-visit the MV Derbyshire shipping disaster, its causes and the ways in which the British Government conducted both the investigation and the re-investigation of the tragedy and to what effect.

We have therefore decided to dedicate a separate blog to the MV Derbyshire case, and this can now be visited at the following link: http://mv-derbyshire.blogspot.com/

As with the Trawler Gaul, we shall progress matters one step at a time, make the necessary disclosures, analyse and present the evidence piece by piece.

Possibly, with time, the number of our blogs will increase. Our government, certainly, offers enough scope for that.

Portfolios and kisses

Last week’s cabinet reshuffle marked a return to the good, old days of the Blair regime, the allocation of government jobs designed to celebrate the various Labour factions' decision to kiss and make up.

The reshuffle saw Peter Mandelson, New Labour’s own Machiavelli, hurriedly brought back from Brussels for his alleged ingenuity in economic concerns. It also saw several other similar characters ennobled or promoted to important cabinet jobs.

Geoff Hoon, a politician much beloved by the armed forces, was appointed Secretary of State for Transport, taking over from Ruth Kelly who had left the political scene in a rush. Lawyer by profession and quite flexible by nature, Mr Hoon is expected to deal with the DfT problems in a more expedient and craftier fashion.

The Department for Transport also witnessed John Prescott’s good friend, Rosie, bartered in exchange for his former loyal attendant, Paul Clark [*] - thus allowing old Mr Prescott to keep his chubby index finger on the DfT’s pulse.

The ends justify the means, the Prime Minister might have thought in his desperate struggle to remain in power.

But is this really an effective approach?

In situations like this, we fear, the ends can be quickly forgotten and the questionable means, chosen to attain them, turned into ends in themselves. And, having forgotten where it all started and what for, those means could then easily become institutions.

Or, have they already become that?

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

[*] Just like Jim Fitzpatrick, the other Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, appointed in June 2007, who was once a junior minister at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Why no search for the Gaul?

Although the approximate position of the Gaul had been well known, both in official and unofficial circles, in the 23 years that preceded its discovery, successive governments were reluctant to survey the area in question, and to locate and identify the wreck.

It was only in 1997, when TV producer Norman Fenton chartered a vessel and launched a search in the Barents Sea, that the position and identity of the wreck could be confirmed. Finding the wreck took him no longer than six hours. His discovery triggered an obvious question: why had a search for the wreck not been carried out earlier, this would have put an end to much of the speculation and rumours that had surrounded the vessel’s loss and, more importantly, would have helped to ease the grief, frustration and anger felt by the families and friends of those who had perished with the Gaul.

The discovery of the wreck obliged the Government to answer this question; hence, in April 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, asked Mr Roger Clark, Head of Shipping Policy in the DETR, to conduct an ‘independent’ [1] investigation into why there had been no search for the Gaul after her disappearance in 1974.

Mr Clark applied himself to the task and, a year later, his findings were published in a 60 pages DETR report (see Annex 1).

In brief, the Government’s justification, presented within Mr Clark’s report, claimed that:
Initially we didn’t really know where the vessel was and it would have cost too much to find her and, even if we were to find the vessel, the expense of carrying out an underwater survey of the wreck could not be justified in terms of the benefits it would bring for marine safety.
John Prescott lauded Mr Clark’s conclusions and expressed his total confidence in their soundness and objectivity.

During the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation, in response to the victims’ families’ dissatisfaction with Mr Clarke’s explanations, justice David Steel, the Wreck Commissioner, re-examined the arguments, then endorsed, in his turn, Mr Clarke’s earlier conclusions (see the final report of the RFI [2]).

While the official reasoning may appear quite plausible, we have reasons to believe that, in fact, the Government had never been too keen to discover the location of the wreck, not on the grounds advocated by Roger Clarke, but for an entirely different reason: i.e. because a survey of the wreck and an analysis of the evidence that it revealed would have raised questions as to the adequacy of her design. The DfT’s marine experts, it now appears, had long suspected that the arrangement of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul were a weakness in her design and that this weakness might have been a causal factor in her loss.

(Further details to follow)

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

[1] As head of the DfT’s shipping policy section, Roger Clarke could hardly be considered independent of the government whose actions he was asked to investigate

[2] “We accept the Department’s submission that its actions were solely directed to balancing the interests of those immediately affected by the loss of the GAUL with the wider public interest and the resources available”

The sure thing

In our post of 20 August 2008 we revealed the content of a Freedom of Information request that had been sent to the Department for Transport and the response received from them. This response confirmed that “no specific technical justification [of the Secretary of State’s decision not to re-open the FV Gaul Investigation] recorded in any form” was held by the DfT.

Consequently, we sent back a reply and also lodged another FOI request asking the Department to provide us with “a full account of the reasoning (of whatever kind and however held or expressed) behind the Secretary of State’s decision not to re-open the Gaul Formal Investigation)”. (See the full text at this link: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/justification_for_the_decision_n.)

The deadline for Mrs Kelly’s reply was 9 October 2008 and we were waiting with feverish anticipation for the arrival of that day, knowing that, whatever faults Ruth Kelly might have had, dishonesty was not one of them.

Alas, Mrs Kelly is to quit her post before that date. Who the next person to take over this 'poisoned chalice' will be, it is not yet known, but his/her identity, when revealed, will provide us with a clue as to whether the Prime Minister wants the cover-up to continue (and whether indeed he has a stake in it), or whether things will finally be resolved in a correct and honourable fashion.

So far, those with an interest in keeping the scandal under wraps have been quite lucky. But – as an old maxim warns us - the only sure thing about luck is that it changes.

Ruth Kelly

Mrs Ruth Kelly, it has been announced, is to quit her post of Secretary of State for Transport. The reason given for her departure was "spending more time with her family". Family and high-powered politics must be difficult to reconcile, we imagine.

Also, we hear, she had strong feelings about the government's position on the Embryology Bill.

In respect of what we are mainly concerned with - the FV Gaul Investigation - the Secretary of State for Transport found herself caught, once again, between a rock and a hard place.

Perhaps Mrs Kelly owed too many loyalties and they were all conflicting. No one can really serve more than one master, at the same time.

Anyway, we wish Ruth Kelly all the best for the future, and hope we haven't caused her too much offence.

New Labour rondo

We are no longer in touch with the government. They are no longer governing; they are plotting, fighting the plotters or watching the plot.

The DfT, for instance, the department we are most concerned with, is now completely out of sorts, the officials waiting to see which way the wind will be blowing before taking even the smallest decision.

It’s the same all over again. The rebellious overture, the chorus of discontent, the war cries in the media, the panic, the bluster, the acrimonious retorts, the suspense, the empty declarations of loyalty or the opportunistic ambivalence, John Hutton’s eyes icily fixing us from the television screens, the foreboding lull and then… the return to the beginning.

We have seen them at it so often now that we can recognise their motives, the tactics and the idiosyncrasies of each of them, just as girls in a massage parlour can, after a while, recognise their clients by their individual penchants and dislikes.

After so many months, however, the monotony of this repetition is starting to irritate, wearing down our patience and turning it slowly into disgust. And the danger is that, if the plotters have their way, our disgust could turn into anger.

Objectivity Constrained

In their 30 year-long search for truth, the relatives of the trawlermen who lost their lives on the Gaul had to compete against a number of adversaries whose interests would not have been best served if the reasons for the tragedy had become known.

The victims’ relatives were not aware of the nature of the fight they were in, nor did they know the identities or the motives of their adversaries. All they knew was that they were not being given straightforward answers to their questions, and that the facts were somehow eluding them.

Although, in theory, meant to provide an explanation as to the most likely causes for the tragedy, the 2004 Gaul Formal Investigation, like a number of other public inquiries, became, in fact, nothing more than a case of ‘shadow commercial litigation,’ organised and controlled by the very parties whose interests would have been adversely affected by an impartial verdict. The Gaul RFI was therefore an unequal fight - dressed up as an expert and unbiased analysis - a fight the outcome of which was both pre-determined and inevitable.

Concerns have already been raised that, due to their legalistic and adversarial nature, many formal inquiries, instead of pursuing the truth, provide in fact a platform from which opposing parties, flanked by their legal representatives, can pursue their specific interests, and that, when the ‘adversaries’ are not evenly matched, it is usually the interests of the mightiest that prevail.

It is evident to us that improvements in respect of the rules by which formal inquiries are conducted are necessary and important.

However, above and beyond any rules and safeguards that may be applied, what is most important is the professionalism and personal integrity of the individuals involved - the principal guarantee that the results of an inquiry will be meaningful and sincere.

(More details to come)

Two years after

Yesterday we marked two years since this blog was started, two years since we made public our findings and our concerns regarding the miscarriage of justice in the Gaul Formal Investigation.

What has happened since? Nothing much. Nothing except gaining further knowledge about how the current regime works, how it respects the law and the rights of ordinary people, and how it retaliates when taken to account.


Two years after we have started this blog, the only conclusion we would draw is that we, as well as those whom the 2004 Gaul inquiry betrayed, are treated as insignificant, that financial & political might is always right, and that there are no longer any principles to be cherished, rules to be played by, or even appearances to be saved.

Ho hum, what to do next? ... Pursue the matter all the way to its rightful conclusion, of course.

Video Interlude

Russian trawler in storm. Excellent video clip, kindly provided by RuTube.

http://rutube.ru/tracks/880557.html?v=568383d214265ffcd7d718852064bc86

The limits of reasoning

On the 4th of July, we lodged an FOI request with the Department for Transport, asking them to provide us with the reasons and technical arguments underpinning the Secretary of State’s earlier decision not to re-open the Gaul investigation on the basis of our disclosures.

(You can see the full exchange of correspondence at this link: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_
undermining_the_results)

The DfT eventually sent us their reply in which they stated that the Secretary of State’s decision “fully sets out the Secretary of State’s reasoning in relation to the re-opening of the investigation” and that the DfT held “no specific technical justification [of that decision] recorded in any form”

The Department’s statement, short though it is, is pregnant with implied meaning.

Thence we found out that our disclosures and technical arguments made over the past two years have washed over the DfT like water off a duck’s back. This is an admission by the British government that concrete evidence, invalidating the results of a public inquiry, was not considered as required by law. (See also our post of 12 July 2007)
This, of course, is understandable since the Department know damn well that the outcome of the Gaul RFI represents a miscarriage of justice, without having to review our evidence. The officials’ obstinate non-engagement with the subject is their way of maintaining the deceit without getting themselves ensnared by their tongues.

Their claim that the Secretary of State’s decision “fully sets out the Secretary of State’s reasoning in relation to the re-opening of the investigation” is already hazarded, and so untrue as to make it laughable.
Given that the response previously received from the Secretary of State only mentions that “the Department is satisfied that there is no reason to doubt the outcome of the expert analysis that led to the Re-opened Formal Investigations conclusions and consequently there is no reason to re-open the investigation”, the DfT’s latest statement can only be taken as a crude parody or as a blunt admission that this is, actually, as far as the Secretary of State’s reasoning powers normally go.

Yet, through its very brevity, the DfT’s reply provides us with further confirmation that the decision not to re-open the Gaul RFI was unlawfully taken and politically motivated.

Answer from Lord Goldsmith

In response to our message of 25 June 2008, Lord Goldsmith has gracefully sent us his reply.

"As I am no longer Attorney General those matters are more properly for the present Attorney General and I therefore send a copy of your letter onto her."

(The present Attorney General will be looking forward to its receipt, I'm sure. We already contacted her office, a year ago, and that proved to be an unsuccessful enterprise.)

In truth being said, we did not address Lord Goldsmith in his present official role, but in his role as the leading party in the 2004 Gaul RFI.
We did not call upon his current employment duties as much as upon his remanent responsibility for an investigation conducted under his baton, and we did not count much on the requisites of formal routine, but on the munificence of lordship.

And we would have been very much interested to learn more about the rationale behind his past decisions.

Licence to jest

When Tony Blair relinquished his power, he left John Prescott behind to enliven his court. Thus, Mr Prescott has maintained his privilege to entertain and his licence to speak freely about whatever he liked.

It has always been one of the roles of the jester to turn reality on its head, so that people can see it the wrong way up and laugh at its funny appearance. This well-known trickiness of the jester may now give us the key to Mr Prescott's reflections recently published on his blog [www.labourhome.org/comments].

"Gordon's the right Captain" (albeit of the Titanic), he proclaimed there, making us realise how sometimes the truth can be spoken in jest, or with the opposite intention by the clown.

"I always find it interesting when people use maritime analogies when they talk about leadership", added John Prescott who served both "on a ship and in a leadership" - experience which makes him readily prepared to talk about the Titanic (though not about the Gaul).

"The best way to avoid disaster is to manage your way around the problem", Mr Prescott also suggested.
Well, that's exactly how complaints about the Gaul RFI have been dealt with, so far.
So, was John Prescott's suggestion simply a piece of his wisdom, or a baleful warning?
"For me, it's all about setting the right course", he further explained, proudly tinkling the bells on his hat.

The Goths

Another episode in the New Labour saga is rapidly unfolding under our eyes this season – the complex and unsightly drama of a ruling tribe in its death throes, wrought up in havoc, blazing scandal, and intestine discord.

For longer than a decade, its rowdy bands of mercenaries, chancers, quacks, bejewelled interlopers and freebooters have ravaged our lands, vandalising and turning everything to dust. Where they've passed, the grass no longer grows.

Now, cursing him for their sores, the scarcity of future plunder, the inauspicious weather and the accumulated discontent of their slaves, the bands have turned against their leader, plotting to sack him, take away his power, and burn his tent.

The plan is to replace him with a man more suited to their habits, with more lustre, but without valour.

Will their present chieftain find the necessary strength and ruthlessness to chop the heads of those who have raised against him, evangelise the rest, reverse the depredation and teach his men to cultivate the land instead?

Or will he follow the tragic fate of Gothic queen Amalasuntha? She also tried to curb corruption in her kingdom and put an end to the barbarians’ invasions. Sadly, she took the fatal step of sharing power with her cousin, a vengeful man who stirred up her people’s disaffection, usurped all her authority, and had her banished on the island of Martena.

Answers in a fishtail

In our previous posts (27 April, 05 May and 12 June), we have discussed the matter of the inner covers to the offal chute on the Gaul and provided photographic evidence from the wreck which showed that these covers had in fact been secured in the closed position prior to the loss of the vessel and that they could have been opened by the forces of the sea before sinking took place.

The 2004 RFI panel thought, however, that the offal chute inner covers – found open on the wreck – had been negligently left so by the crew. (The same explanation was employed in respect of the duff chute inner covers, which had also been found open.) (See also this POST)

It must be mentioned here that the regime on the Gaul was such that the operation of offal chute would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the factory manager and his team, while the operation of the duff chute was under the control of the deck crew.

This arrangement gave the RFI experts the opportunity to claim that the factory deck staff, as non-fishermen, had been ignorant about the importance of keeping the offal chute inner covers closed when not in use and, tragically, had failed to secure them at the end of a busy working day.

Unfortunately, the RFI also failed to draw any conclusions from the relevant information that was available to the inquiry. This information relates to the following facts:

1. The offal chute overboard discharge acted as a relief valve during the fish processing operations and, as such, it would only be used when the fish meal plant (rate = 25 tonnes/day) was operating at full capacity or when the fish meal hold was full (capacity = 120 tonnes)

It is also known that the Gaul skipper’s reports recorded that at the time of the loss, the vessel had only managed to accumulate about 20 tonnes of fish fillets onboard together with about 7 tonnes of fish-meal (i.e. a poor catch for the period she was fishing).
The logical conclusion that follows from these data is that there would have been no need for the factory crew to use the offal chute overboard discharge during the vessel’s last voyage.

2. Furthermore two witnesses (Messrs George Petty and Raymond Smith) testified at the hearings that the offal chute would not have been used during the last two voyages in the Gaul’s short life, simply because the fish meal hold was never filled.

More explanations, quotes and details on the subject have been published at this LINK and HERE (diagram).

Like the rest of the conclusions in the 2004 RFI report, the assumption of negligence by all parts of the crew, no matter how implausible, were forced into relevance and given the status of fact.

The Grey Zone

The Grey Zone was defined by Primo Levi as the zone of the privileged prisoner - the area of “ethical uncertainty and collaboration with evil”.

Today, many of us complain about widespread corruption and the decay of democracy, laying the blame for these ills solely upon the political elite and their corporate handlers.
In fact, as recent events have clearly shown, through complicity or inaction, the rest of us are just as responsible for what’s going wrong. For it is always a combination of the perversity of the system and the feebleness of the human character that causes the problem.
Greed, selfishness, duplicity, defeatism and fear are useful human weaknesses, exploitable by any fraudulent regime, weaknesses from which repressive states have always drawn their power and even a certain degree of legitimacy.

It is of course understandable that, with increasing deprivation, collaboration with a corrupt authority can appear logical and unavoidable - after all, the state can hold the key to every little need and comfort in our lives. Most often, however, it is not necessity, but the self-centred human desire to be given a shortcut to undeserved privilege and power that buys our collaboration, turns us against one another, and, in the process, makes us all more vulnerable and easily subdued.

Although history should have taught us how to defend ourselves when confronted with similar trials, we have been drawn, once again, within the boundaries of the ‘Grey Zone’- that “murky space of moral ambiguity and compromise” – which, for as long as it prospers, gives us little chance of ridding ourselves of authoritarianism and corruption, and returning to normal.

Incommunicado

Not to mention the truth is like hiding gold. (Proverb from Iraq)

Following on from our previous post, in which we published links to the message sent to Lord Goldsmith on the subject of the Gaul, we can now inform you that our noble Lord has not yet replied.

Although they had been asked to expect and check its arrival, his office did not acknowledge receipt of that message.
It was claimed, in fact, that the initial communication, as well as its subsequent four re-transmissions, sent from two different email accounts, had not been received.
Nor was Lord Goldsmith able, I gather, to read the content of the message published online.

There are many technical stumbling blocks, it seems, preventing Lord Goldsmith from reading that query and making his viewpoint known.

We now hope that the Royal Mail will not miss him as well.

A message to Lord Goldsmith

In order to gain more knowledge on the internal workings of the 2004 Gaul RFI, we thought it would be a good idea to contact the ex-Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, on whose behalf the inquiry was held.
A message has therefore been delivered to his Lordship, the contents of which can now be scrutinised at:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddpkgjpm_27fxg936cp
or at: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/User:Gadfly3D

The smaller risk

By voting 'No' in the EU treaty referendum, the Irish people have expressed their wish to be free from external political domination and able to decide their own fate.
Despite the Irish veto and the will of the British electorate, our government has however decided to carry on with the ratification process.

According to the EU rules, the treaty does not come into force unless it has been endorsed by all 27 EU countries. This means that when one country does not ratify it, the document is dead letter. Or so it should be.
Our government's pressing ahead with the ratification means that they are either ignoring the Irish vote - a sign of disrespect towards the democratic choice of our neighbours - or they are disregarding the EU unanimity rule, asking us at the same time to entrust our future to a political entity that does not even abide by its own laws.

Hence a petition has been recently lodged on the Downing Street website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon asking the Prime Minister to respect the result of the Irish referendum and abandon the attempt to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. If you subscribe to its statement, please sign it!

Liberty, a philosopher wrote, is not a right but a risk to be run at every moment - on the political plane as well as in our private lives.
We trust that our PM will be strong enough and of good courage to take a 'risk' and accept the people's decision, because - after the treaty - there is the greater risk of neither him nor us having much left to decide upon.

Photographic evidence

In our posts of 27 April and 05 May we provided photgraphic evidence from the 2002 underwater survey of the wreck of the Gaul showing damage to the closing arragement of the vessel's offal chute's inner covers. This evidence clearly contradicts the final conclusions of the 2004 Gaul RFI.
As previously advised, we are now presenting a video clip which contains further details on this subject, including a model of the offal chute's inner covers and their probable behaviour when subjected to seawater pressure.

Gaul - offal chute inner covers
Video sent by gadflymotion531

The doorkeepers

There is a parable in Kafka’s novel, The Trial, which begins with “Before the Law stands the doorkeeper” and tells about the difficulties that the “man from the country” has with the Law, to which he never gains access. This parable seems very relevant to what I have recently learned.

On the 20th of May I had a most interesting conversation with Mr Max Gold, the solicitor who represented the families of the Gaul crew in the 2004 RFI.

Mr Gold admitted that it did come out during the formal inquiry that the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul had a design defect, which meant that, in certain sea conditions, the vessel could take water on into the factory deck, loose stability and sink.

So, the families’ solicitor admitted that he knew all along that the loss of the Gaul had not been due to crew error, but due to a design defect.

As regards the compensation for the families of the deceased, Mr Gold made some extraordinary assertions:

1. That, during the inquiry, the bereaved families had in fact been informed that the most probable cause of the tragedy was a design defect. (?!) (Obs. However, it appears to me that not all of them were informed.)
2. That only a few of the families were "interested" in suing for compensation. (?!)
3. That those who were interested in suing for compensation were advised by their barrister (Mr Tim Saloman, QC) that they stood no chance of getting any because of the limitation rules that exist on such claims. (?!) According to Mr Gold’s recollection, Mr Saloman’s expert opinion was that no action for compensation could be brought after the expiration of 15 years from the date of the victims’ death, no matter if the cause of the tragedy was only ‘discovered’ in 2004.
   (Obs. This opinion, as far as I have learned from independent advice, does not appear to be correct, the law being pretty straightforward in this respect.
   And, in any case, this could not have given any justification to the RFI panel to manipulate the results of a public inquiry.)
4. That Mr Saloman’s written advice is confidential and I am therefore not entitled to receive a copy of his counsel. (?!)

I had more questions for Mr Gold, but he was in a hurry and promised to call me back towards the end of the week (i.e. last week.). Unfortunately, he never managed to.

(To be continued…)

Abuse of power

While the Minister for Transport is obstinately feigning innocence about the rigging of the Gaul RFI, we can assure you that some officials in the higher echelons of the Department for Transport and its agencies have already admitted that the Gaul Investigation was a sham.

In 2006, a well-meaning British official suggested to us that our indiscretions in respect of the Gaul RFI could only lead to deep regret. The wisdom was: why not enjoy instead the luxuries associated with a post abroad, secured by the mercy of the UK government, for as long as it lasts. (The belief at that time was that Tony Blair would sort out his business and resign early in 2007.) Speaking below his breath, another insider hinted that our prosperity would rise in proportion to our silence.

In the same year, a foreign official subtly let us know that we had been ranked as some kind of terrorists.The Home Office had apparently issued some Assistance Requests to various EU countries whose representatives were working in Brussels at that time. Our being classified as terrorists was possibly the expedient way of obtaining assistance in keeping a tab on us. (Home Secretary at the time was Charles Clarke and Jack Straw headed the Foreign Office)

Those foreigners who were aware of the situation seemed sympathetic and amazed that such abuses should happen. In their eyes, I am sure, the credibility of the Blair government must have suffered another blow as a result.

It is now time for these things to be made more widely known because, as a philosopher put it, “there is no defence against an evil which only the victims and the perpetrators know it exists.”

FV Trident

The Trident was a Peterhead-registered seine-net trawler which sank on 3 October 1974 with the loss of seven lives.

The first Formal Investigation into the sinking of the Trident held in Aberdeen, in 1975, found that the probable cause of the loss was that “Trident took aboard a sea or a succession of seas and foundered” and that “the precise causes of the casualty” were “unascertainable”, although design deficiencies relating to her stability could have contributed to her foundering.

The wreck of the Trident was discovered in 2001 thereupon the MAIB was able to collect and examine new material evidence in respect of her loss.
On 22 March 2002 (!), Stephen Byers, then Secretary of State for Environment and Transport, ordered the re-opening of the Formal Investigation.
In 2003, 2004 and 2006, further surveys were carried out.
The RFI is under the jurisdiction of the Advocate General for Scotland. Solicitor for the victims’ relatives is Max Gold (who also represented the families of the Gaul’s crew, during the 2004 RFI).
Today, 6 years since the decision to re-investigate the loss of the Trident was taken, the RFI is still nowhere near its conclusion.

Recently, the Department for Transport advised the victims’ families that the latest delays were related to the wave tank tests on a model of the vessel.

The Trident investigation, as was the case with the Gaul, bears commercial implications for the parties involved. We are curious to see how these are going to be dealt with.

We do not wish to presume anything untoward about anybody, but only hope that the delays in the Trident RFI are not caused by the government’s desire to see first which way the wind is blowing in the Gaul saga (and whatever else might come to light), and then decide on how to handle the Trident.

We DO want a referendum

A daring man, Mr Stuart Wheeler, is taking the government to court for having broken their promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and planning to drag us heels first into a complete and self-annihilating union with Europe.

As such legal proceedings can be very expensive, he is now in need of additional funds.

As this is a fight for our collective rights - to sovereignty and democratic rule - I hope that we'll be able to collectively contribute towards the associated costs.

Call it ransom for the captives, tax on freedom or charity - the money that you will donate could be the best money you will have ever spent.

Mr Wheeler's website can be accessed at: http://www.stuartwheeler.co.uk/.

Continuation from previous post

The damage to the forked lug (securing clip) of the offal chute lid, which is visible in the image below, indicates that the crew of the Gaul (prior to the loss of the vessel) had secured the inner covers in the closed position. The covers were subsequently damaged when the sea burst them open.

In the above detail, the normal outline of the forked securing clip was drawn in orange

This evidence clearly negates three of the principal conclusions of the RFI:
1. That proper use of the inner covers would have prevented water ingress
This is incorrect - the above photo indicates that the covers had been used ‘properly’ but, unfortunately, this could not prevent the water ingress.
2. That, at the time of the loss, the inner covers were not closed and secured
This is incorrect – the evidence indicates that not only had the covers been closed and secured at the time of the loss, but also that the forces of the sea subsequently opened them.
3. That, at the time of the loss, there was no physical reason to prevent the crew from closing and securing these covers
The photo shows clearly that the securing arrangements were physically damaged and as such could not be used to secure the covers. It is most likely that this damage occurred ‘at the time of the loss’
Besides, the inner covers were in no way strong enough to be watertight. If they had been, they would not have been damaged.

More to come...

Another bent thing and more damning evidence

If the evidence we have published so far may have presented “an ostensibly compelling case”, to use Mr Jim Fitzpatrick’s expression from a recent letter, the evidence we will be publishing from now on should provide the Minister for Transport with extra certainty. As, in the same letter, he claimed that the information we presented did not constitute the whole picture – a claim with which, for probably different reasons, we agree - we have decided to show you more of that ‘picture’.
In previous posts we have already argued that the RFI assessment, that the inner lids of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul had been left open by the crew prior to the loss of the vessel, was unsound. The condition of the closing devices of the duff chute indicates that its inner cover was, in fact, closed when the tragedy struck.

We can now reveal that the split covers of the offal chute were also closed. The images below, captured from the 2002 underwater survey film footage, illustrate that the bar attached to one of the offal split covers, as their means of closure, was found in its place and deformed in a way consistent with it having undergone strong pressure from the underside.

This finding, which the RFI panel was aware of, supports the proposition that the inner lids of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul had initially been closed by the crew, but were burst open by the force of the incoming waves, at the time of the loss.


We have also constructed a model of the offal chute and tested it against the effects of water pressure acting on the underside of its inner lids. We used this model to replicate the damage to the securing bar, as observed in the images from the wreck of the Gaul. The photo below shows the result.

More to come...

8 ½ Britain

We live in a surreal political climate, filled with the symbols and atmosphere of Fellini’s famous movie: 8 ½.

Fantasy overlaps reality. At one stage, we are offered the lurid details of Saraghina’s coarsely voluptuous dance on the beach; where, completely out of mind, she performs the rumba in exchange for a coin, tantalising the viewers with her flabby undulations and lascivious appetite.

Then we see the revolt in the harem, where a group of women rise in protest against the director – the man who hired them. In the end, they will be quelled with a bullwhip.
The main characters have unfinished scripts and start changing their roles. The production team gets restless while awaiting direction. The spirit of collaboration turns into internal strife, causing chaos and confusion. Money has been spent, but the sets are dormant. The director struggles to reconcile his vision with the frustrating dependence on external factors. Financial pressures, his staff’s egos and attacks from the press are compounding his problems. Anonymous characters - ordinary people - appear trapped in a traffic jam, going nowhere. The atmosphere gets gloomy.

“Saraghina! The rumba!” and the fat woman emerges again from the ruins of a concrete bunker, displaying the vestiges of her fleshy charms and her insatiable lust for attention.

Guido, the film director can be seen floating high in the air, his ankle tethered by a rope, one end of which is being held firmly by the Screenwriter.

Don’t expect anything from the governing party; right now, they are busy performing.

Esoterica

In a recent letter sent by the Department for Transport, Mr Jim Fitzpatrick, the Minister for Shipping, rather than answering our specific questions, took his turn in restating the government’s belief in the results of 2004 Gaul Formal Investigation.

This time round, however, he also claimed that that there was some additional evidence in support of the RFI conclusions - evidence that has never been publicised, which, for some reason, he assumes that we have not yet seen, and which, if it is to be attached any credence, will need to defy the observable facts.
This material was not revealed during the two Gaul formal inquiries, nor did it come to the knowledge of the naval architect who, as an employee of the MCA, has carried out research into the loss of the Gaul since 2002. The DfT claim that they are in possession of this ‘elusive’ evidence, but, alas, … they are not showing it.

Having wondered for almost four years, how the RFI panel had derived their conclusions – whether they had come from esoteric knowledge or from some nebulous fluffs – we are now being told that, basically, it was on this undisclosed evidence that the RFI findings were based. Hmm! Why bother then going through such expensive formal proceedings if that was really the case?

Our curiosity stirred, we would have liked to challenge Mr Fitzpatrick to show us the proof. After all, formal investigations are meant to be public affairs (with disclosure of all relevant facts), held in the public interest.

The Minister, however, seemed unwilling, and, anxious to put a stop to any further questions, he gravely informed us about the wishes of the deceased: “the crew of the Gaul should now be left to rest in peace, undisturbed by the speculation created by their dramatic disappearance”. We must not awake the ghosts and revive the sorrows of the past.

Six stages in the life of a New Labour politician

The first stage is, if we may call it so, the virginal stage - that is the season of grand promises, populist overtures and effusion. (In the FV Gaul inquiry saga, this would be the time when the families of the Gaul crew were promised a thorough and honest investigation of the tragedy.)

The second stage we would call the temptation and fall stage, which would correspond with the time when the Labour politician, now in power and overwhelmed with the giddiness of high office, succumbs to temptation, reneges on his promises and gives in to shabby compromise and complacency. (In the Gaul case this is the time when the 2004 RFI took place and when the Labour government, in response to pressures from various quarters as well as out of cynical calculation, decided to skew the investigation in a way that would bar any future claims for compensation)

The third stage is when the Labour politician, now hardened and over-confident in his luck, is eventually caught red-handed. I suggest we could call this juncture the awakening stage, because this is the point when the public realise whom they are dealing with. (This is when disclosures challenging the outcome the 2004 Gaul RFI were brought to the attention of the public)

The fourth stage, which we might call the denial stage or the period of ‘angelic pharisaism’, is the stage when our politician fights back trying to save his image. This is the time of quibbles, protestations of innocence, ‘national interest’ arguments, disinformation, lies and, eventually, stonewalling. (In relation to the Gaul, this is the period when, confronted with embarrassing evidence, the government kept re-asserting their innocence and their faith in the results of the 2004 RFI.)

The next stage, and the most distressing, could be called the decomposition stage. That means that, too much having been already revealed, the Labour politician has no longer any appearance to preserve and is therefore no longer bothered to cloak his inadequacy. The time has now come when, since there is no honour or legitimacy left to hang on to, our politician clings only to his chair, and from the armrests of this chair no one can unclench his fingers. This is also the time when the dirtiest weapons in his arsenal are pulled out. (In respect of the Gaul inquiry, this is where we are now)

The final stage …it’s up to the rest of us

Elastic conclusions or the re-writing of history

In an earlier POST we already mentioned one embellishment contained in a paper produced by the experts in the 2004 Gaul RFI

In that same paper, drawn up as a summary of the results of the formal investigation, the experts also went a step beyond the official findings and stated with conviction:

“There was no logical reason why the duff and offal chute lids were secured in the open position, whilst dodging, other than crew error. It is also difficult to understand why the flap valves were jammed in the open position other than bad maintenance onboard or ashore.”

The authors were, of course, well aware of the fact that the offal chute lids had not been found secured in the open position. They were also aware that it was only around the duff chute lid that some kind of ‘ligature’ had been seen hanging and, therefore, one could not truthfully say that both the duff and the offal chute lids had been secured open by the crew of the Gaul.

The RFI final report, having been drawn up by better-versed legal minds, went only as far as advising that:

“In the case of the duff chute, the single lid was apparently secured in the open position by some form of ligature and in the case of the offal chute the split lid was found with the forward half open and the aft half closed, but not secured.”

The RFI experts must have also realised that any future interested parties would be more likely to read their free paper rather than the costly and voluminous RFI report, and that their words may therefore be taken as fact.

In the light our previous post and the above observations we would ask our readers the following question: What can one make of these exaggerations, which, it so happened, had the effect of adding undeserved weight to the Court’s ‘crew error’ verdict?

Clues and toggles

In continuation of our post of March 09, we are now publishing a DOCUMENT, which points to some differences and similarities in the ways in which the re-opened formal investigations (RFIs) into two major marine accidents: the MV Derbyshire and FV Gaul have been conducted and the reasons why the first was able to deliver better quality results than the second.

We considered the formal investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire, in which, initially, the Assessors wrongly concluded - on the basis of a rope seen emerging from the Bosun’s store hatch opening and of a simple examination of the disposition of that hatch’s toggles - that the loss of the vessel had been due to crew error.

In a curiously similar manner, the Gaul RFI also put the blame for the loss of the trawler on the crew, who, the RFI panel claimed, had neglected to close the inner covers to two openings in the hull - this time on the basis of a ligature apparently holding the vessel’s duff chute inner lid in the open position.

However, as the Derbyshire Assessors’ report had been made public two years prior to the RFI court hearings, their findings were openly examined and contested when appropriate and this allowed the court to arrive, in the end, at a set of different and more robust conclusions.

What is worthy of note here is that, in the Derbyshire RFI, it was the subsequent examination by independent experts of the condition and position of the Bosun’s hatch cover’s toggles that led to the rebuttal of the Assessors’ initial verdict of crew error.

Finally, the court concluded that the crew had not failed to secure the hatch lid and that the rope emerging from the Bosun’s store hatch opening was nothing more than post-casualty debris.

Unfortunately, despite the precedent provided by the Derbyshire inquiry, during the Gaul inquiry no external, independent examination of the case was allowed.

In the Gaul Investigation, the report of the Assessors, the retained experts and the court was presented at the end of the RFI as one final document, ‘set in stone’. Nonetheless, a mere glance at the position of the toggles, as shown by the underwater survey footage, suggests that the inner lids of both chutes on the Gaul had been initially closed.

Surprisingly, during the court hearings, neither the strongback bar (which, in conjunction with two toggles, secured the offal chute cover) nor the condition of the toggles was even mentioned.
In addition to and more intriguingly than this oversight is, however, the creative, ‘non-figurative’ manner in which the retained experts produced the drawings of the duff and offal chutes, in their supposedly ‘as found’ condition.

The toggles, which in the underwater survey video footage are clearly shown to be in the ‘hatch closed’ position, appear on the experts’ drawings to be in the ‘hatch open’ position.

The unfortunate effect of these inaccuracies is that it can mislead subsequent examiners into concluding that, since all the toggles were found in the ‘open’ position on the wreck, the court’s finding that the crew had left the hatches open prior to the loss of the vessel is most likely correct.

More about it HERE