• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Now you are beginning to think critically.
Click to expand...

So no medals for individual initiative, action or bravery?

Medals do get awarded awarded for team effort. In the Royal Navy it is taken that the Captain of a ship is awarded a medal for the action of the whole ship but individual awards to crew members are also given.
Medals are also awarded for individual acts of bravery and also for cumulative individual acts that form a larger narrative.
Here are examples from Victori Cross awards in WW2. (Yes I know we aren't talking about a wartime medal but these are the easiest examples to use.

For team effort, the Captain of HMS Campbeltown was awarded the Victoria Cross, it was seen as being awarded to the whole crew of the ship

From the Citation
"For great gallantry and determination in the attack on St. Nazaire in command of HMS Campbeltown. Under intense fire directed at the bridge from point blank range of about 100 yards, and in the face of the blinding glare of many searchlights, he steamed her into the lock-gates and beached and scuttled her in the correct position. This Victoria Cross is awarded to Lieutenant-Commander Beattie in recognition not only of his own valour but also of that of the unnamed officers and men of a very gallant ship's company, many of whom have not returned."

There was a double VC awarded to PO Gould and Ltnt Watkinson Roberts for a single act of gallantry, their actions in saving a submarine from an unexploded bomb

From the citation
"Roberts and Gould entered the confined space (which was no more than 2 feet (61 cm) high in places), and lying flat, wormed past deck supports, battery ventilators, and drop bollards. The petty officer then lay on his back with the 150 lb bomb in his arms while the lieutenant dragged him along by the shoulders. "It was then a matter of the two of us, lying horizontally, pushing and pulling the bomb back through the casing. It was pitch black and the bomb was making this horrible ticking noise while the submarine was being buffeted by the waves". They pushed and dragged the bomb for a distance of some 20 feet until it could be lowered over the side.
Thrasher was surfaced, stationary, and close inshore to enemy waters. If the submarine was forced to crash dive while they were in the casing, they must have been drowned. It was 50 minutes before they got the bomb clear, wrapped it in sacking, and dropped it over the side."



For cumulative effort the example is my own local WW2 VC Hero Stanly Hollis

From his citation
"In Normandy on 6 June 1944 Company Sergeant-Major Hollis went with his company commander to investigate two German pill-boxes which had been by-passed as the company moved inland from the beaches. "Hollis instantly rushed straight at the pillbox, firing his Sten gun into the first pill-box, He jumped on top of the pillbox, re-charged his magazine, threw a grenade in through the door and fired his Sten gun into it, killing two Germans and taking the remainder prisoners."

"Hollis pushed right forward to engage the gun with a PIAT [anti-tank weapon] from a house at 50 yards range. He later found that two of his men had stayed behind in the house and were pinned down by enemy fire.
In full view of the enemy who were continually firing at him, he went forward alone, distract their attention from the other men. Under cover of his diversion, the two men were able to get back."

"Wherever the fighting was heaviest he appeared, displaying the utmost gallantry. It was largely through his heroism and resource that the Company's objectives were gained and casualties were not heavier"

He was the landlord of the pub in Liverton Mines just over the railway from where we lived.

Each one of the actions from Hollis was worth a DSO or MM but together they added to something greater.

End of the diversion.
 
Vixen said:
They were attached to HRU's and encased. So whilst all EPIRB's can be activated manually, not all EPIRB's are so-called 'float free' ones, as the Estonia ones were.
Click to expand...

Yes they were float free, they were buoys but they had to be turned on.

All EPIRB buoys are 'float free' in that they are not a part of the ship.
there are distress systems that are part of the ships radio and communications fit, they are fixed items.
Also aircraft systems are not 'float free' although if there is a life raft on the aircraft it can have float free buoys.
That is what the 'float free' refers to. It is nothing to do with their mode of activation.

The reason automatic buoys are encased is because they are on the exterior of the ship and they will activate if they get wet. They need to be protected from spray and rain.
If a manufacturer produces manual and automatic buoys in the same range they will only produce a casing that can be activated by immersion to avoid a mix up and ensure that automatic buoys deploy and work as they should.
 
Vixen said:
That is incorrect.

SOLAS made the recommendation that such vessels should have installed an automatically activated EPIRB on either side of the vessel and that the edict should be complied with by 1993 iirc.

MRCC Turku Commander Mononen expressed great concern about there being no sign of any signals from the Estonia EPIRB's, which had they been 'manual operation only' would not be rocket science as to why not.


He even went so far as to order the Norwegian base that received the COSPAS-SARSAT signal from that region to search their records for a possible missed signal because he could not figure out how it could not have sent a signal if it had floated free.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep repeating this lie about automatic buoys being mandated iby 1993?

It is false, automatic buoys were not mandatory until after the Estonia sinking and the IMO through SOLAS changed regulations at their first conference after the sinking.

There was concern that no signal was received because if the transmission had been missed it could have meant there was a serious fault in the whole system.

It turned out that they weren't received because the buoys hadn't been activated by the crew.

Until the buoys were recovered how would it be known what the buoys were or why they didn't work?
 
JayUtah said:
You missed the point. You have said 48 hours constitutes a "prolonged time" as defined in the various statutes that prohibit enforced disappearance. But ordinary arrests would then fall under that. It's reasonable to conclude that the "prolonged time" element was made part of the enforced disappearance statute to differentiate that activity from other activities on the part of the state that may require people to be detained incommunicado for shorter periods, and which would be considered acceptable under international law.

You are the one who must prove that 48 hours constitutes "prolonged time" under whichever enforced disappearance statute you're arguing applies.
Click to expand...

You are mixing up the concept of when the lawyer discovered the act had taken place and how long the chap was actually missing for until he was exactly located in situ.
 
Vixen said:
Er, it was fitted to a hydrostatic release unit.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does not mean it was an automatic buoy.

If there are manual and automatic buoys in the same range then the enclosure available for them will always be hydrostatic to avoid a mix up.
 
Vixen said:
That translates as 'However, a panel of investigators disputed Stenmark's data on Friday,' Not committee.

It continues:

HS ibid

The headline is: "There are many versions of the fate of Captain Piht".
Click to expand...


Vixen: stop using contemporaneous newspaper reports as reliable/accurate sources of information.

I imagine you're still cribbing from Bjorkman, right? Well, you should know well by now that Bjorkman is a fraud and a nutter.

So stop quoting early-days newspaper reports in this thread and claiming they are accurate or reliable. OK?
 
Vixen said:
That is your opinion. Totally without logic.
Click to expand...

It is not opinion.

EPIRB buoys have only one switch, it sends a distress when turned on.

There is no other way for a user to do anything to the buoy, there is provision for activating storage switches or tuning them.
There is nothing for the user to set up other than to put them in to the storage bracket or container.

Any other work can only be done in a service centre.
 
Vixen said:
It didn't find it was 'a poorly maintained and badly repaired ship', it states very clearly that when it departed Tallin it was seaworthy and had no outstanding issues.
Click to expand...

What does Hofmeister have to say on this?
 
Vixen said:
Fair enough. You make a good point. However, although the case of the two Egyptians differ - which is why there is no need to go into the minutiae of the two Egyptians' cases - the salient point is that they were disappeared. Whether that was for 48-hours as you claim, whilst a frantic lawyer tried to find out his client's whereabouts, or 48 years, they were disappeared during the time frame nobody at all knew where they were, except their removers.
Click to expand...


The thing is, Vixen: they were not disappeared.

You clearly don't understand what the term "to disappear someone" actually means. Which is strange, because you've now been told plenty of times (by people who know better than you) what it means - and what it does not mean. And what Sweden did to those two Egyptians plainly doesn't come anywhere near falling under the definition of "disappearing" them.

So, I'd suggest that you take the time and trouble to learn from people who understand the subject far better than you do. And then to - perhaps - stop repeating the same misunderstanding over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...............?
 
Vixen said:
So a relative eventually finding out the location of a loved one and going to visit them in a jail that they had sought grounds for seeking asylum against in the first place, somehow cancels out the period during which they were disappeared by the state?
Click to expand...


Vixen: these men were deported (unlawfully) by the state. They were not disappeared by the state. Stop making the same ignorant mistake please.
 
Vixen said:
You are mixing up the concept of when the lawyer discovered the act had taken place and how long the chap was actually missing for until he was exactly located in situ.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not mixing it up. The 48-hour period refers to the time it took the Swedish government to provide notification to one person. Clearly in order for that to happen, other people had to know about the deportee's whereabouts both in Egypt and in Sweden. Cherry-picking one lawyer's experience does not establish the element of refusal to disclose. And in any case, the "chap" would have been missing in Egypt, not missing in Sweden. In your rush to blame Sweden, you seem to be forgetting that your newly-emerging scenarios would mean that Egypt, not Sweden, be accused of enforced disappearance. But as that does not fit your desired narrative...

I know what the precedent is for the "prolonged time" element of enforced disappearance under international law. Do you? It's not 48 hours, and it comes with strings attached.
 
Vixen said:
It didn't find it was 'a poorly maintained and badly repaired ship', it states very clearly that when it departed Tallin it was seaworthy and had no outstanding issues.
Click to expand...

It states that according to the certification and legislation it was in compliance and apparently seaworthy.

JAIC for obvious reasons could not have inspected the ship before it sailed.

If you read the report you will see where they detail and list what was subsequently discovered about it's certification, maintenance record, methods of construction, compliance with SOLAS requirements and how both Sweden and Finland had exempted themselves through domestic law from enforcing some SOLAS and certification requirements on Roro Ferries.
 
Vixen said:
The immediate claim it was caused by the bow visor falling off due to a strong wave lifting it up (forgetting that the same wave would press the car ramp door firmly shut) and that it was a 'design fault'.


Claiming it was a mark two version of The Herald of Free Enterprise was very clever, for sure.
Click to expand...

But the sinking wasn't covered up, it was a world headline.

You haven't shown that there was any 'immediate claim' All we have are your claims on the subject which have been shown in this thread to be in error.
 
Vixen said:
The method of the Finnish rescue teams was to dive in from five metres.

You do know, to get onto these teams you have to be a strong swimmer?
Click to expand...

Rescue men rely on a winch, we know they are strong swimmers but so are some of the people that need rescuing, diving in is all very well but you still need to be got out again.

Do you think they always dive in from 'five meters'?

How low do you think a helicopter is going to go when the waves are 6 to 8 meters?

How often were they diving in when they were rescuing Estonia survivors?

Why would it be any quicker to dive in and then have to find the winch line, recover it and attach yourself compared to going in on the wire?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom