# Allegation - Fail to give Aid



## Mad Landsman (Dec 1, 2005)

The Daily Mail are now wishing to blame Costa Crociere for an apparent, or alleged, failure of communication on the Star Princess:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...ssenger-pleas-help-stranded-fishing-boat.html 

According to the Mail the Star Princess is a sister ship of the Costa Concordia and the Captain failed to stop and assist a fishing boat which some passengers believed to be in distress in the Pacific off Panama. This happened in March. 

A couple of weeks later a fishing boat was rescued after two of the three crew had died and it is claimed to be the same boat. 

What is not stated in the article (or the original in the Guardian) is whether the passengers actually confirmed that any message was passed to the command bridge. 

see also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/cruise-company-ship-fishing-boat


----------



## Union Jack (Jul 22, 2009)

*The Daily Mail are now wishing to blame Costa Crociere for an apparent, or alleged, failure of communication on the Star Princess:*

.... not quite how I read their report, although a question mark after the opening three words might have helped in the lead in to the statement:

"The Star Princess, which has an English captain, is *said* to have sailed on even though three passengers told the crew they had spotted the stricken boat."

Jack


----------



## kewl dude (Jun 1, 2008)

http://gma.yahoo.com/princess-cruis...ress-call-233100964--abc-news-topstories.html

Santa Clarita, Calif.-based Princess Cruises, which is British-American owned, said in an email that it has launched an internal investigation into the matter, writing, "We're aware of the allegations that Star Princess supposedly passed by a boat in distress that was carrying three Panamanian fishermen on March 10, 2012. At this time we cannot verify the facts as reported, and we are currently conducting an internal investigation on the matter."

The consequences could be dire if it is found that the captain, who claims that he believed the fisherman were waving at him as a thank you for avoiding their nets, was acting negligently in ignoring the fishermen's signals.


Greg Hayden


----------



## tunatownshipwreck (Nov 9, 2005)

The cruise had a group of birdwatchers on board at the time, who used their binoculars to view the small boat and left them with no doubts that the boat was in distress. Our newspaper in Portland had a feature story on two local birdwatchers who were on board and took cellphone photos. I'll see if I can find a link to post.
Here it is:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/04/bend_bird-watchers_caught_up_i.html


----------



## Mad Landsman (Dec 1, 2005)

kewl dude said:


> http://gma.yahoo.com/princess-cruis...ress-call-233100964--abc-news-topstories.html


That's a better report from GMA - None of the sensationalist stuff that the Daily Mail seems to relish, together with some quotes from the birders that the Mail seems to have missed.


----------



## Union Jack (Jul 22, 2009)

Further to my earlier post, and as Binnacle points out elsewhere:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17780503

Jack


----------



## Julian Calvin (Feb 2, 2011)

Difficult decision, nowadays in particular.
Am sure others have shared my experience. Was passing islands in the Philippines when a stopped fishing boat appeared with three guys waving for attention. We watched closely but altered course away.
When we showed no signs of stopping, about ten or more other heads suddenly appeared and boat went away at speed.
What would you do if same thing happened off Somalia? (although I suppose not may bird watchers around there!!)


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK (Mar 27, 2012)

All captains i have met would i am sure stop to check and help if they believed there was any possibility of a distress situation (K)even with the chance of pirates,and would in any case report it to ALL LOCAL AUTHORITIES(Thumb)


----------



## LouisB (Dec 23, 2007)

Mad Landsman said:


> The Daily Mail are now wishing to blame Costa Crociere for an apparent, or alleged, failure of communication on the Star Princess:
> 
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...ssenger-pleas-help-stranded-fishing-boat.html
> 
> ...


To my mind and that of many of my aquaintances the main interest of the Daily Mail it seems is to outrage its readership with apparent stories of incidents based on the flimsiest of hard fact and heavy innuendo. It also seems to attach alleged 'facts' from other incidents into the story it is trying to push. The result of this is a perception by the public that through hearsay becomes fact which is then quoted as such.

It is an unfortunate trait with many people that they seem to crave this sort of headline journalism. This point is patently obvious amongst newspaper editors because it sells papers and spawns fat dividends for others. There are pitfalls however such as Chris Jeffries libel action but only when sufficient funds are available fo front up the newspapers - as the Daily Mail found out to its cost.

I still cannot forgive the Daily Mails reference to 'Cowardly' in relation to the actions of a Fleet Auxiliary when the Chandlers who were captured by pirates and the vessel refused to open fire with her (defensive) armament.


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK (Mar 27, 2012)

(Whaaa)MOTO of the media NEVER LET THE FACTS SPOIL A GOOD STORY[=P]


----------



## LouisB (Dec 23, 2007)

DAVID ALCOCK said:


> (Whaaa)MOTO of the media NEVER LET THE FACTS SPOIL A GOOD STORY[=P]


Maybe, but the damage it can do to people, quite often spoiling their lives in perpetuity is unforgivable. If someone comes to your house and assaults a family member, you have recourse to the law or use more direct methods yourself. If someone is wrongfully named in the national tabloids as a 'molester' however, even after a small print retraction, then that persons whole life is affected - because as mentioned previously 'that's the way that people are'.

I hope that Leveson will ensure that false allegations of a serious nature by the media (including the broadcast media) is an offence carrying an automatic large minimum payment to the aggrieved party and a front page apology. That money would then help the claimant to pursue a private action if he/she wished to.

This is not muzzling the media it is simply a move to make them sure of their facts before attempting to rip people to shreds and thinking that there will be no comeback. I wonder if Lord Leveson reads SN?


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Mad Landsman (Dec 1, 2005)

I have just checked the Mail website to see whether any reasoned comments had been posted (or allowed) and whether Costa were still in the firing line.

They have now altered the headline of the original article to: 
'British captain of Costa cruise ship 'devastated' by claims crew ignored passengers who alerted them to dying men on stranded fishing boat'.

They have also rehashed the story as fresh news under the headline:
'We saw the ship and thought we'd be saved': Anguish of sole survivor of fishing boat tragedy who watched friends die after Cost (sic) cruise liner 'ignored pleas for help'

They have also run the rather disturbing story about the Cunard employee who sexually assaulted children in his care. - The Mail could not resist yet another mention of the Costa Concordia, even though it is, of course, totally unrelated.

The Mail really seem to have it in for Costa.


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

For a balanced account from ain independent professional perspective, try here:

http://maritimeaccident.org/2012/04/devastated-cruise-captain-not-told-about-castaways/#more-18462


----------



## Union Jack (Jul 22, 2009)

Here's an example of an even worse case much closer to home - in several respects:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2112173,00.html?xid=newsletter-europe-weekly

Jack


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK (Mar 27, 2012)

(Whaaa)If the lawyers(Pint) had not made it impossible to send anyone,in particular criminals, back then the situation would not arise.
it seems like in this case,in a war situation ,this boat fell through the system.
Surely the real CRIMINAL is the CAPTAIN who took an overloaded boat to sea(no doubt having charged his "passengers" a fortune)(?HUH) and why throw the satphone away unless it was stolen???


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

DAVID ALCOCK said:


> (Whaaa)If the lawyers(Pint) had not made it impossible to send anyone,in particular criminals, back then the situation would not arise.
> it seems like in this case,in a war situation ,this boat fell through the system.
> Surely the real CRIMINAL is the CAPTAIN who took an overloaded boat to sea(no doubt having charged his "passengers" a fortune)(?HUH) and why throw the satphone away unless it was stolen???


Eh!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett (Mar 13, 2007)

Agreed. Much worse. An actual breach of British and US law (both incorporate the Salvage Conventions 1911 and 1989, which impose a duty on those in charge of a vessel to attempt to save life if it can be done without endangering their own vessel).


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK (Mar 27, 2012)

hi satanic mechanic read union jacks link that will explain


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

DAVID ALCOCK said:


> hi satanic mechanic read union jacks link that will explain


Yeah but how can you blame lawyers, and another captain for passing by people in distress


----------

