Re: Rule 43 letters

anton2468@xxxxxxx wrote:
Jeremy Fagan wrote: 



The mistakes that were made have been gone over in both inquests. Gary
Harris is not the coroner. Why does this have any part to play in a
response to a Rule 43 letter, written to the coroner?

Harris is quite simply inventing a fantasy story of what happened, that
bears only superficial resemblance to the events that actually happened.
He underestimates the conditions that we were in, and dishonestly
insults and denigrates everyone involved in an attempt to sling as much
muck as possible and obscure the picture for most people.

There were mistakes made, of course. No-one has ever denied that. But
Harris wants to build those mistakes up into such a gargantuan catalogue
of errors that it almost seems criminal that we were ever allowed out of
nursery, let alone going rowing. His letter is 100% about avoiding any
possibility of the ARA getting any blame for this.

Jeremy 


Jeremy

It is agreed that the ARA response is arrogant and rude.

Nevertheless, OUBLC were in Spain, not the ARA.

Of course there MUST be an element of responsibility from those that
were there and not just those that were alledgedly drunk.


OULRC were in Spain.

Have you read my last 3 paragraphs? And my other post in response to Jonny?

I've apologised to the Blockleys for anything that I've done wrong, and accepted responsibility for the mistakes that I made.

But the fact remains that Harris was writing in response to a Rule 43 letter. The coroner had heard exactly what had happened in Spain, not some fantasy from someone who wasn't there, didn't take notes at the inquest, and seems to have deliberately have invented scurrilous accusations to sling against us.

It has no relevance for him to try and to blame _anyone_ for what happened. It's not appropriate in a letter supposed to tell the coroner what the ARA are going to do about safety changes.

The contents of his letters can be summarised as: there's nothing wrong with our procedures, everybody else but us is incompetent, you don't know what you're talking about, we won't do anything about what you've suggested, apart from a few tokenistic half-hearted efforts, but they won't really make any difference, and we're only making them to humour you.

Some kind of serious engagement with the coroner's suggestions would have been nice. Posting the Rule 43 letters when they received them, and _then_ asking for members' opinions on safety would also have been nice. Instead we got that rather pathetic invitation to comment on safety after Sikander Farooq's inquest, without any idea of what the coroner had recommended.

Jeremy
.

Loading