southerncross

Seven arrested during bar fracas at Volvo Ocean Race stopover at Rhode Island

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sidecar said:

What is the point of having a rule if you are never going to use it and no one knows where the bar is set? Sorry about the pun.

Unknown anonymous sailors in drunken altercations with police is one thing.. But world reknown sailors presumably wearing official team/VOR gear in the spotlight of the world media is another? 

 

In common law jurisprudence, there's such a thing as vague criminal law being unenforceable because the vagueness breaches the rights of the accused. 

 

The folks that got arrested pleased no contest, no injuries, no real victims, paid a penalty. What is the 69 for?

I saw 69 as being about conduct on the boat. For example? If a Skipper has a habit of VHFing profanities to harass a competitor. Calling racial or sexist slurs attacking a particular crew member or boat. 

If off boat conduct is in play. How about Ben Ainsley? Dispute for taking big money? Charles for attacking OBR! Do we bring 69 on Turner for leaving an org before it's event?

What is the standard off the boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree with me,  rule 69 is pointless, especially as there are no precedents. In which case, no rules/law should ever exist or come into being....

What do you do about about the bad publicity and bringing the sport into disrepute and setting a bad example for young sailors then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"that? Don't do that. You might not be so lucky"

Sailing is hardly life. If sailing rules are needed to keep ppl on the right path, then why bother. It's already over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree, it is already over.....

The world is full of rules, laws and regulations which some people can ignore and others get canned for it..

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Miffy said:

I saw 69 as being about conduct on the boat. 

The wording of the rule was changed specifically or badly if it was unintentional,  to capture bad conduct both on and off the boat that is exposed to third parties.

Unless there is a third party complaint to support the (subjective) "disrepute" hurdle and evidence that can be argued by both sides i.e. recording of the incident exists (in the absence a bunch of reliable tetotalling Amish people who just happened to be passing and are willing to be witnesses to a hearing) clearly showing the actions of each individual, a 69er is not going to fly.

Anyone who thinks this is 69er territory should do the world a favour and walk in front of a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that means that policemen and the bar staff are totally unreliable witnesses? Appearing before the judiciary is not prima facie? Fines not proof? Worldwide (bad) publicity non existent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

So that means that policemen and the bar staff are totally unreliable witnesses? Appearing before the judiciary is not prima facie? Fines not proof? Worldwide publicity non existent?

There has to be a complaint and witnesses have to be willing, they can't be forced. Evidence of disrepute is the bar, not fines etc for something else. As for witnesses, how long would a bar owner or staff member be welcome in Newport if they were a witness supporting a bullshit complaint like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worldwide (bad) publicity and the fines/donations should be sufficiently self evident enough.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

The worldwide (bad) publicity and the fines/donations should be sufficiently self evident enough.....

Answered already. Why don't you lodge a complaint then and get the ball rolling instead of blowing it out of your arse. You can do that email to the RO in 30 seconds and sit back. They don't even need you any further after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, doesn't anyone have anything better to do than piss for a couple of days over a minor incident in a bar? Seems like it was handled and resolved appropriately, discussion here of race is completely unnecessary, and Rule 69s ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, despacio avenue said:

and Rule 69s ridiculous.

Absolutely...unfortunately they don't they have the Electric Chair and there is no string in Newport..them people of colour learnt long ago the key to survival was stealing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Absolutely...unfortunately they don't they have the Electric Chair and there is no string in Newport..them people of colour learnt long ago the key to survival was stealing that.

There’s a couple of assholes on this forum.

then there’s you.

the level of your selfreightousness knows no limits.

i actually feel sorry for you, a little man locked inside a keyboard.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the race thread kiddies, take it elsewhere.

We really do need a sarcasm font in here sometimes, people go off over the stupidest things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, paps49 said:

Not in the race thread kiddies, take it elsewhere.......

This isn’t the race thread.....  would you like me to post a link for you?..... Now that is sarcasm.

Or how about: the clue is in the thread title?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paps49 said:

Not in the race thread kiddies, take it elsewhere.

We really do need a sarcasm font in here sometimes, people go off over the stupidest things.

we do. type in pink . and ignore captain 69'r .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sunseeker said:

i actually feel sorry for you, a little man locked inside a keyboard.

Wow with your level of moral indignation I would expect something more pique and original than that zinger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

This isn’t the race thread.....  would you like me to post a link for you?..... Now that is sarcasm.

Or how about: the clue is in the thread title?

My sincere apologies, I forgot which place I'm in, happens sometimes at my age.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sidecar said:

Or how about: the clue is in the thread title?

Well actually that is Southern's work and being a non- reflective ex-policeman, he was itching to write "Seven white honkys arrested.." but must have thought better of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, paps49 said:

My sincere apologies, I forgot which place I'm in, happens sometimes at my age.

No need to apologise ......At my age, I regularly forget much more than that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B141ACC4-A45B-4DDF-9331-858A90B11A5A.jpeg

For all the idiots screaming about 69. :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paps49 said:

You forgot something Jack.

No I didn't ..Southern is a person of colour, like he is so black he wouldn't disappear on a dark night.

We both go to Nazi swap meets together where he covers himself with a white sheet and pretends to be the only surviving "Grand Dragon" Klu Klux Klan member from the Tennessee chapter.

They buy us drinks, we interfere with their tall blonde girlfriends who think Germany is some sort of STD, the trade off is we agree Pakistanis should not be allowed to drive cabs but that is far better than finding out your sister is shagging a Mexican pool boy ....and then we both disappear into the night.

I know a shallow existence, but it is more exciting than the VOR in its current form. If Volvo fuck off Southern will come out and get rid of the sheet is my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:
4 hours ago, paps49 said:

 

No I didn't ..Southern is a person of colour, like he is so black he wouldn't disappear on a dark night

Far from the sad truth actually.  I’m as white as they come.  Plantation owners from my fathers side.  Benevolent ones if you can believe that.  There’s a book about them and a collection of children’s stories told by their Mammy that Disney passed on.  Not quite the Brare Rabbit type I’m guessing.  My kids are rightly mixed though; two kids Apache and another son French Caribbean.  My ancestors tossing in their graves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, southerncross said:

Far from the sad truth actually.  I’m as white as they come. Plantation owners from my fathers side...

 ..two kids Apache and another son French Caribbean.

Yeah sure Uncle T. I'm shattered. You told me you had never been OS let alone to India or even further south than that gay bar in Key West. Fuckin liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW Newport cops can be the friendliest, most casual people around...if you're a local and used to sit at the Rogers lunch table with them.

On the other hand there is very little tolerance for aggressive drunk brown baggers from Mass or la-de-da's from anywhere.

All in all, I like this result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Parma said:

FWIW Newport cops can be the friendliest, most casual people around...if you're a local and used to sit at the Rogers lunch table with them.

On the other hand there is very little tolerance for aggressive drunk brown baggers from Mass or la-de-da's from anywhere.

All in all, I like this result.

In other words, the cops are fine with pro sailors getting in their face because they are the talent that brings in tourist dollars. So, basically bribable. See also : judges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sunseeker said:

In other words, the cops are fine with pro sailors getting in their face because they are the talent that brings in tourist dollars. So, basically bribable. See also : judges. 

No, that's not what I said at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 5:41 PM, random said:

What if he did?

His comments sound reasonable to me, but to a racist they would probably be offensive.

Race had nothing to do with it, and please don't imply that I'm a racist.  AJ Oliver played the race card for no reason other than to stir up some sort of political discussion in this thread about the Volvo Ocean Race.  I'm also not offended by his comments, I'm annoyed by his inability to stay on topic.  It's ok if you have nothing to add to the conversation, but don't try to change the topic.

Those of us who spend time in Newport and the surrounding area know exactly how the police work up there, we understand that Rhode Island is not just the Ice Cream cones and t-shirt shops on Thames street, and if you stop and look around you'll notice that the population of RI is increasingly diverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RumLine said:

 Rhode Island is not just the Ice Cream cones and t-shirt shops on Thames street, .

Wait......what??

Newport has a subculture unlike anywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Parma said:

Wait......what??

Newport has a subculture unlike anywhere else.

A "subculture?" What, you mean sailing?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jarcher said:

A "subculture?" What, you mean sailing?
 

No it's more like people go to Newport and figure it's like Vegas and they can do anything they want....that's gotta be frustrating for the coppers.

The subculture (at least that i see) are the genuinely native Newporters who don't embrace the Vegas concept, who know what Newport used to be and what the understanding was "before". They have preserved that understanding amongst themselves and it is still their town.

And Thank God they have - Newport would not be what it is without them. 

The Volvo racers? Yeah great, they bring in the dollars, but they come and go while the cops, judges, the golfing or sailing buddies do what they need to to preserve their town.against all comers.

I like the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Vegas, the new Newport Grand casino was announced recently. Look out for it in about two years. So far they are being a little coy about what forms of gaming will be on offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Why does Newport need cops...

Fall River, Swansea & Connecticut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 7:41 AM, random said:

 

His comments sound reasonable to me, but to a racist they would probably be offensive.

His comments would sound reasonable to you, but to a normal person they would probobly be a reason for a good belly laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Parma said:

The subculture (at least that i see) are the genuinely native Newporters who don't embrace the Vegas concept, who know what Newport used to be and what the understanding was "before". They have preserved that understanding amongst themselves and it is still their town.

.. better not look too far back into those genuine Newporter's , though.

Best to limit it to the last 150 years or so... much more palatable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Parma said:

Fall River, Swansea & Connecticut

NY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2018 at 9:13 AM, jack_sparrow said:

Why does Newport need cops...

Middletown.

 

 

Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 6:35 PM, Miffy said:

 

In common law jurisprudence, there's such a thing as vague criminal law being unenforceable because the vagueness breaches the rights of the accused. 

 

The folks that got arrested pleased no contest, no injuries, no real victims, paid a penalty. What is the 69 for?

I saw 69 as being about conduct on the boat. For example? If a Skipper has a habit of VHFing profanities to harass a competitor. Calling racial or sexist slurs attacking a particular crew member or boat. 

If off boat conduct is in play. How about Ben Ainsley? Dispute for taking big money? Charles for attacking OBR! Do we bring 69 on Turner for leaving an org before it's event?

What is the standard off the boat?

The standard off the boat will have to be determined through the process of cases being brought and working their way through the appeals process. As I review the documents from this incident, I see its very clear that the alleged conduct meets the definition of "misconduct" in the rule. There is substantial evidence of this misconduct. It's inconceivable that the VOR protest committee, whomever they are, is not aware of this incident. The rule, therefore, requires that they actively make a decision about whether to hold a hearing. As I read the rule, they could simply meet and decide not to have a hearing, which would make a joke of R69 and, frankly, the entire concept of people being expected to follow the rules and enforce them ourselves. 

I'm not sure how I feel about the broadness of this rule as written, but the rule exists and as such should not be ignored. Maybe it should be changed, but if it exists it should be followed. The VOR protest committee has to make a decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Capey's sack left behind?? I hear the local hospital did some reconstruction surgery after the fat copper stood on it. No respect for old bloke's who sail in that town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised no one has posted the booking photos, or is that not possible in RI? Based on the written report, I bet the photos are awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I am surprised no one has posted the booking photos, or is that not possible in RI? Based on the written report, I bet the photos are awesome.

I’m working on those as well as the body cam video. I have been denied the booking video on the pretext that it’s an invasion of privacy which is bullshit, it’s under appeal. The body cam video was temporarily denied because the PD is claiming that it’s part of an “internal investigation.” Another stretch of the statute. 

When I get this it will all be posted. I got the radio traffic but it’s on a damn CD and I have not been able to extract the data from it yet.

What I have seen thus far is, in my opinion, clearly R69 material. People may not like R69 and maybe it’s a bad rule, but it’s a rule none the less. The jury needs to make a decision about whether to open a hearing. But they can make that decision secretly. Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jarcher said:

What I have seen thus far is, in my opinion, clearly R69 material...

The jury needs to make a decision about whether to open a hearing.

But they can make that decision secretly. Amazing

Actually the IJ don't have to do didley squat, which begs the question about your interpretation of the rules.

In the absence of either WS or the RO recieving a formal and supported 3rd party complaint and then deciding either alone or with the assistance of independant investigation that the matter should be referred to the IJ, this thing is going nowhere.

So off you go, put your name on the public record and go for it, which clearly the ilks of you don't do, preferring instead to bleet on about the incident and how corrupt the system is.

What your promoting if the IJ was to agree with you, is potentialy career threatening sanctions applying independent of a legal system that treated the matter as trivial and to just those persons who are WS affiliated members. The others involved can't be touched. So be careful what you wish for.

By the way what is the colour of the sky in your world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Actually the IJ don't have to do didley squat, which begs the question about your interpretation of the rules.

In the absence of either WS or the RO recieving a formal and supported 3rd party complaint and then deciding either alone or with the assistance of independant investigation that the matter should be referred to the IJ, this thing is going nowhere.

So off you go, put your name on the public record and go for it, which clearly the ilks of you don't do, preferring instead to bleet on about the incident and how corrupt the system is.

What your promoting if the IJ was to agree with you, is potentialy career threatening sanctions applying independent of a legal system that treated the matter as trivial and to just those persons who are WS affiliated members. The others involved can't be touched. So be careful what you wish for.

By the way what is the colour of the sky in your world?


From the RSS, with emphasis added:

Quote

 

69.1 Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution

(a) A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.

(b) Misconduct is:

(b)(1) conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or

(b)(2) conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.

69.2 Action by a Protest Committee

(b) When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, believes a person may have broken rule 69.1(a), it shall decide whether or not to call a hearing.

 

My mistake, I should have said "protest committee," not Jury. The rules are quite clear. They say nothing about a "formal and supported 3rd party complaint." In fact 69.2(b) provides exactly the opposite. Note the use of the word "shall" in 69.2(b). I did not say they need to call a hearing, I said they need to decide if they are going to call a hearing. This is clear and not open to interpretation. 

Further, it is impossible that the racing officials and protest committee don't know about this incident "from its own observation" but just in case someone wants to make that claim (that they missed this bit of global news), the reports linked here have been provided to them, and not anonymously. 

As for "career ending sanctions" any penalty, if applied, need not arise to that. In fact a decision could be made that the trivial non-penality applied by the authorities is sufficient. 

Finally, I'm not "promoting" anything beyond the rule being followed in that someone needs to decide if a hearing be called. I merely pointed out that this applies as a R69 issue, which fact can not be disputed under any reasonable interpretation of the rule. The rule clearly requires that a decision be made as to whether or not to hold a hearing. Apparently such a decision can be made in secret, with no transparency, leaving people to wonder if the rule was followed and if not, why not. Such lack of transparency promotes suspicion and provides an opportunity for abuse. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of anything; I said that this lack of transparency opens the door to abuse in any situation in which R69 may apply. 

As for the seriousness of the incident, I too thought it was minor and posted that opinion in this thread. After reading the reports I changed my mind. This was a serious fight in which police officers were assaulted and people resisted arrest. Other disorderly conduct ensued. People were injured and one was transported to a hospital for treatment. Without doubt, this conduct meets the definition of "misconduct" under the rule.

You don't have to like the rule, but it is a rule and we can't pick and choose the rules we like and don't like and only enforce the rules we like. Would you tolerate a protest committee deciding that they don't like rule 10 and not enforce it? That's an extreme case but the same logic applies. If the rule is too broad then it should be changed, not ignored. People required to take action under these rules should be required to do so in a transparent manner to the greatest extent possible, both to ensure the community that rues are applied fairly and as a check against abuse that either penalizes too harshly or let's certain favored persons off completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jarcher said:


From the RSS, with emphasis added:

My mistake, I should have said "protest committee," not Jury. The rules are quite clear. They say nothing about a "formal and supported 3rd party complaint." In fact 69.2(b) provides exactly the opposite. Note the use of the word "shall" in 69.2(b). I did not say they need to call a hearing, I said they need to decide if they are going to call a hearing. This is clear and not open to interpretation. 

Further, it is impossible that the racing officials and protest committee don't know about this incident "from its own observation" but just in case someone wants to make that claim (that they missed this bit of global news), the reports linked here have been provided to them, and not anonymously. 

As for "career ending sanctions" any penalty, if applied, need not arise to that. In fact a decision could be made that the trivial non-penality applied by the authorities is sufficient. 

Finally, I'm not "promoting" anything beyond the rule being followed in that someone needs to decide if a hearing be called. I merely pointed out that this applies as a R69 issue, which fact can not be disputed under any reasonable interpretation of the rule. The rule clearly requires that a decision be made as to whether or not to hold a hearing. Apparently such a decision can be made in secret, with no transparency, leaving people to wonder if the rule was followed and if not, why not. Such lack of transparency promotes suspicion and provides an opportunity for abuse. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of anything; I said that this lack of transparency opens the door to abuse in any situation in which R69 may apply. 

As for the seriousness of the incident, I too thought it was minor and posted that opinion in this thread. After reading the reports I changed my mind. This was a serious fight in which police officers were assaulted and people resisted arrest. Other disorderly conduct ensued. People were injured and one was transported to a hospital for treatment. Without doubt, this conduct meets the definition of "misconduct" under the rule.

You don't have to like the rule, but it is a rule and we can't pick and choose the rules we like and don't like and only enforce the rules we like. Would you tolerate a protest committee deciding that they don't like rule 10 and not enforce it? That's an extreme case but the same logic applies. If the rule is too broad then it should be changed, not ignored. People required to take action under these rules should be required to do so in a transparent manner to the greatest extent possible, both to ensure the community that rues are applied fairly and as a check against abuse that either penalizes too harshly or let's certain favored persons off completely.

maybe you should try getting laid, because all you look like right now is, an ambulance chaser. i've heard life in RI is dull, but damn, you are taking it to another level. good luck with your witch hunt, because you are a month late dickhead.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bigrpowr said:

maybe you should try getting laid, because all you look like right now is, an ambulance chaser. i've heard life in RI is dull, but damn, you are taking it to another level. good luck with your witch hunt, because you are a month late dickhead.

Getting documents takes time. And, it's a major flaw in the rule that there is no timeframe, either limiting how long after an incident it can be acted upon, or how quickly those obligated to call a hearing must do it.

When you get a traffic ticket, do you blame the officer who wrote it? Probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jarcher said:

Getting documents takes time.

When you get a traffic ticket, do you blame the officer who wrote it? Probably. 

good luck, maybe you'll get famous. then again, you're up at 12:30 at night trying to mow down professional sailors for getting loose , yet the local PD didn't find sufficient evidence to make a case, but yet you, of no life, are making your own case . sounds like you missed your calling as an LEO , now you look like a hall monitor / town cryer. as i said before , good luck, dickhead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jarcher said:

69.2 Action by a Protest Committee

(b) When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source,...

...My mistake, I should have said "protest committee," not Jury. The rules are quite clear. They say nothing about a "formal and supported 3rd party complaint." In fact 69.2(b) provides exactly the opposite. Note the use of the word "shall" in 69.2(b). I did not say they need to call a hearing, I said they need to decide if they are going to call a hearing. This is clear and not open to interpretation. 

Your emphasis. Unless they were in attendance then the only source they have is a 3rd party complaint to clear the first hurdle being was the incident offensive (to someone) to firstly justify investigation to decide if convening the IJ is necessary. Secondly if so have that supporting evidence on hand to present to the IJ.

The last 69 hearing of this nature heard by the IJ lasted 15 minutes and 15 minutes longer than it should have.

The fact that no 3rd party has stepped forward to complain speaks volumes about the nature of the incident, a point you fail to grasp.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bigrpowr said:

maybe you should try getting laid, because all you look like right now is, an ambulance chaser. i've heard life in RI is dull, but damn, you are taking it to another level. good luck with your witch hunt, because you are a month late dickhead.

 

11 minutes ago, bigrpowr said:

good luck, maybe you'll get famous. then again, you're up at 12:30 at night trying to mow down professional sailors for getting loose , yet the local PD didn't find sufficient evidence to make a case, but yet you, of no life, are making your own case . sounds like you missed your calling as an LEO , now you look like a hall monitor / town cryer. as i said before , good luck, dickhead.

Nothing but ad hominem attacks; nothing on the merits. This issue is completely divorced from the criminal justice system. If you can demonstrate that my interpretation of the rule is incorrect, then do so. If you can demonstrate that the rule was complied with then do that. If you can't then just admit that you're unconcerned about rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Your emphasis. Unless they were in attendance then the only source they have is a 3rd party complaint to clear the first hurdle being was the incident offensive (to someone) to firstly justify investigation to decide if convening the IJ is necessary. Secondly if so have that supporting evidence on hand to present to the IJ.

The last 69 hearing of this nature heard by the IJ lasted 15 minutes and 15 minutes longer than it should have.

The fact that no 3rd party has stepped forward to complain speaks volumes about the nature of the incident, a point you fail to grasp.

A third party has stepped forward and filed a complaint. Setting that aside, I think your interpretation of "observation" is too narrow. Is there an appeal case on that? If so I'm happy to defer to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bigrpowr said:

... you're up at 12:30 at night trying to mow down professional sailors...

And again, I'm not trying to "mow down" anyone. I'm simply advocating that a rule be followed in a transparent manner. I didn't even advocate that there be a hearing, let alone a penalty.  I said that a decision needs to be made, ideally in a transparent manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jarcher said:

A third party has stepped forward and filed a complaint.

Great now what was the result;

The RO has ignored it; OR

The RO's has investigated the complaint, or had it investigated and decided it did not warrant convening the IJ either in Newport, Cardiff or Gothenburg?

You seem to be implying the former.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Great now what was the result;

The RO has ignored it; OR

The RO's has investigated the complaint, or had it investigated and decided it did not warrant convening the IJ either in Newport, Cardiff or Gothenburg?

You seem to be implying the former.

Perhaps they are getting around to it, but no one knows if it was addressed or not or will be addressed or not. Not even the complainant. There is no transparency whatsoever. So either of those could have happened, or neither yet. Would you at least concede that they should at a minimum affirm that a decision was made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you want transparency then tell us who the complainant is.

Put up or shut the fuck up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jarcher said:

And again, I'm not trying to "mow down" anyone. I'm simply advocating that a rule be followed in a transparent manner. I didn't even advocate that there be a hearing, let alone a penalty.  I said that a decision needs to be made, ideally in a transparent manner. 

Why the hard on for this.??? One of them fuck your wife/daughter etc in the stop over?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5a83a595e14e5_unnamed(9).gif.fc5d812abc586a79ed8f14292fae8730.gif

3 hours ago, jarcher said:

Perhaps they are getting around to it, but no one knows if it was addressed or not or will be addressed or not. Not even the complainant. There is no transparency whatsoever. So either of those could have happened, or neither yet. Would you at least concede that they should at a minimum affirm that a decision was made?

Fuuucckk.

Firstly, under SI's of the Race the protest room is a World Sailing International Jury (IJ). They are flown into stopovers at the direct expense of the RO and competitors and indirectly at the cost of every WS affiliated member, or in other words fucking  us.

Secondly, until there is a protest, the IJ is not convened. A point you continue to miss. In this case the determination of whether there is a protest or not rests with the RO. All decisions of the IJ are made public, sometimes with and sometimes without support to their decision. What you are suggesting is the RO should have a public notice board listing every decision they make including those that may potentially involve the IJ?? That is fucking nonsence.

I would be highly surprised the RO hasn't responded to a 3rd party R69 complaint as you clearly state. In fact stump up or shut up in that regard.

As an aside variations to the SI's are made every day. Some with and some without competitor consultation. Some with and some without wider public disclosure. As an example of the latter this RO's variation to the SI's for haul out/work at the Melbourne stopover are of more concern to real sailors than this bullshit you are propogating.

Finally to hopefully close this thread you are so wanting to prosecute along Rule 69 misconduct lines something needs to be acknowledged by you.

That is the rule was recently amended and drafted very badly to go far beyond sportsmanship on the race course or in the clubhouse carpark as intended. The outcome of that is things like the Dawn Riley R69 protest against Scallywag during Leg 2 and this bullshit you are on about.

The irony in Dawn's case by both airing her complaint at a world sailing conference then lodging a complaint using R69 under the guise of misogyny in sailing actualy put women's inclusion in offshore sailing back a few pegs as evidenced by public comments in response made by those actually doing it, not Dawn drafting off past glories sitting in an armchair prosecuting her own femmist agenda.

The further irony is some years back in the Newport Postcode when she and Brad Butterworth crashed a car pissed (he must have thought he was going to get lucky using alcohol in the laid department), then under her current standard she would up in front of the Jury dealing with a R69 back then.

So in your our case unless you are Amish and don't sail, I suspect a quick browse though your or affiliated social media accounts will find a pic of you pissed, wearing a sailing club T-shirt and being escorted off the premises.

The hypocrisy of you people plowing the Rule 69 field to your own ends defies imagination.

Bottom line is R69 is an abomination as currently worded to allow, even maybe well meaning, but absolute knumbskulls like you the oxygen to run your own agenda. 

If you don't agree, then maybe you should team up with Dawn, though I should warn you she prefers a strap-on and you will be Mummy.

I start to wonder why I feel forced to write this stuff. It is not fucking rocket science.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that yet you didn't actually answer the question.
 

Quote

 

Firstly, under SI's of the Race the protest room is a World Sailing International Jury (IJ). They are flown into stopovers at the direct expense of the RO and competitors and indirectly at the cost of every WS affiliated member, or in other words fucking  us.

 

Yes, in some cases a rule is difficult and expensive to enforce. This is not an argument against enforcing it; quite the opposite. It's important that rules are enforced consistently, especially at the highest levels of competition. If we accept expense as a reason for non-enforcement we create a situation where competitors at the highest level are given passes while lower level competitors, even ammeters, are not, and are therefore held to a higher standard.

Quote

Secondly, until there is a protest, the IJ is not convened. A point you continue to miss. In this case the determination of whether there is a protest or not rests with the RO. All decisions of the IJ are made public, sometimes with and sometimes without support to their decision. What you are suggesting is the RO should have a public notice board listing every decision they make including those that may potentially involve the IJ?? That is fucking nonsence. (sic)

I mistakenly posted this error about the IJ vs the protect committee in my first post and have since corrected that. I didn't miss it at all. I don't see why the RO can't have such a public notice board. The OA and sponsors seem to have a firm grasp on publicity and doing this would be easy. Websites are cheap enough and they already have one anyhow. at the very least they could respond to the complainant. 

Quote

I would be highly surprised the RO hasn't responded to a 3rd party R69 complaint as you clearly state. In fact stump up or shut up in that regard.

So you like transparency when it benefits your argument, but not when it matters. It does not matter who filed a complaint, only that one was filed. But what the heck. I filed it. And I'm not the only one. 

Quote

That is the rule was recently amended and drafted very badly to go far beyond sportsmanship on the race course or in the clubhouse carpark as intended. The outcome of that is things like the Dawn Riley R69 protest against Scallywag during Leg 2 and this bullshit you are on about.

Oh I agree the rule is badly drafted, although for different reasons that you do. It's way to vague on how complaints are handled and still, there is that complete lack of transparency. That's still not a reason to ignore it. As for the "intent" how exactly do you know the intended scope of the rule? 

I don't know anything about the prior R69 complaint you referenced. It may be true that invalid complaints are filed. Each one should be adjudicated in conformance with the rules and when there is no merit they should be dismissed. It should be revealed that this happened. The fact that there was a prior protest filed and dismissed by the IJ is not a reason to ignore future misconduct or the entire rule. Knowing nothing about the incident you mentioned, even if I accept at face value what you have said about it then it was handled appropriately. There will always be people who try to game a system, but that's not a reason to not have a system.

Quote

 

So in your our case unless you are Amish and don't sail, I suspect a quick browse though your or affiliated social media accounts will find a pic of you pissed, wearing a sailing club T-shirt and being escorted off the premises.

The hypocrisy of you people plowing the Rule 69 field to your own ends defies imagination.

Bottom line is R69 is an abomination as currently worded to allow, even maybe well meaning, but absolute knumbskulls like you the oxygen to run your own agenda. 

If you don't agree, then maybe you should team up with Dawn, though I should warn you she prefers a strap-on and you will be Mummy.

 

You were doing well sticking to arguments on the facts. Pity you devolved into exploiting biased stereotypes and petty insults. 

Clearly you don't like the rule but again, that is not a justification for ignoring it. It's a great argument for working to change it. 

You won't find any pics of me being thrown out of a club and I don't have any personal agenda. 

Sailing is a sport which demands the competitors respect the rules and police themselves. We expect competitors to have a high level of integrity. Most sailors know this. I'm sure you do too. If you touch the top mark and no one is around to see it, do you just continue on happy you didn't get caught? If you get a speeding ticket do you blame the officer who wrote the ticket? If there are laws in your jurisdiction you don't like do you feel entitled to ignore them? Do you believe you don't have to pay your taxes because they are too high? And when people don't agree with your arguments, do you always resort to petty insults and bullying? Based on what you have written the answers all seem to be yes, and if so, that would make you a poor example in this sport. If you can't win through reasoned argument, bullying won't fix it. It will, however, help to suppress opinions but I'm sure you know this. 

In RI, and probably many other places, sailors are often thought of as rich, spoiled, entitled brats born with a silver spoon in their mouths. The people involved in this incident breezed in here and demonstrated exactly that. Their behavior was well beyond "getting loose" as someone else said. If R69 does not apply here then it applies nowhere. Sailors complain that sailing is on the decline, and it is. People complain that club membership, race participation and juniors programs are all falling. The VOR and similar events are great opportunities to reverse this. Until something like this incident comes along to wipe out any good impressions made. Even if you argue that it didn't hurt the sport, you sure can't believe it helped.

So R69 was probably made for exactly this situation. I don't believe it's broad scope was accidental. Sports leagues enforce conduct codes all the time, even when the conduct does not rise to a criminal incident. They do it to protect both the reputation of the sport and their industry. It is entirely reasonable. We're talking about professional athletes here, whether it's the NFL, the NBA or the VOR. Their conduct does reflect well or badly on their sport.

Doing nothing sends a message that at the highest levels, the rules don't really count. It broadcasts, at the very best, indifference to the conduct of the participants and at worst condoning it. Convening a hearing and applying a penalty would at least demonstrate that the conduct is taken seriously and not considered normal. Should they be drummed out of sailing? Of course not. I'm sure a reasonable fine would suffice. 

 

Quote

I start to wonder why I feel forced to write this stuff. It is not fucking rocket science.

You're not "forced" to write anything. You chose to write it. Accept responsibility. The fact that it exposes your emotional immaturity is completely on you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jarcher, if you actually care about the sport of sailing, please direct your energy to changing the rule.  Your actions are similar to standing by the freeway with a radar gun and filing complaints against everyone exceeding the speed limit.  "All rules must be obeyed".  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He seems upset that there's prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining in the judicial system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Dumas said:

Jarcher, if you actually care about the sport of sailing, please direct your energy to changing the rule.  Your actions are similar to standing by the freeway with a radar gun and filing complaints against everyone exceeding the speed limit.  "All rules must be obeyed".  

Actually I intend to file comments on the rule. I agree it's badly written from many angles. I can see many ways to improve it, including limiting it's scope as far as whats covered and who is covered. It looks like very little thought went into it.

As for "All rules must be obeyed" this is not a little incident that should be dismissed with the "boys will be boys" attitude, although I realize some could honestly disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Miffy said:

He seems upset that there's prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining in the judicial system. 

I only oppose an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. If plea bargaining was done in secret I would always oppose it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jarcher said:

I only oppose an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. If plea bargaining was done in secret I would always oppose it. 


A plea was negotiated between the parties. The police who referred charges to the prosecutors did not object. The prosecutors did not object. The judge with whom the plea was submitted did not object. There were no victims or property damage. 

You're opposed because you weren't involved?

My understanding is in many US jurisdictions - you can remove the elected judges and prosecutors. Perhaps even the police chiefs. 

You want to spend everyone's time prosecuting crimes with no real victims? Fine - participate in the electoral process and get those ppl out.

69ing ppl because they're involved in sailing and don't live perfect lives OUTSIDE of sailing is pretty petty. In a comically stereotypically American Rhode island sort of way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Miffy said:


A plea was negotiated between the parties. The police who referred charges to the prosecutors did not object. The prosecutors did not object. The judge with whom the plea was submitted did not object. There were no victims or property damage. 

You're opposed because you weren't involved?

My understanding is in many US jurisdictions - you can remove the elected judges and prosecutors. Perhaps even the police chiefs. 

You want to spend everyone's time prosecuting crimes with no real victims? Fine - participate in the electoral process and get those ppl out.

69ing ppl because they're involved in sailing and don't live perfect lives OUTSIDE of sailing is pretty petty. In a comically stereotypically American Rhode island sort of way.

I'm heading out the door, so I'll reply to this later in detail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only place on earth this is still being discussed is here. It is over. Chalk up another win for us white guys. 'If you're white, you're always right'. AJ, Randumb, underlay, son-seeker and the rest of the darkies have been put back in their place. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One note here as to why this Volvo situation pisses me off... I personally don’t care about the R69 debate or the Volvo race for that matter. What matters here is the undisputed fact as to how this all started - a bunch of drunk Volvo sailors and officials impeded a fire crew from responding to an alarm because they were too self-absorbed with getting their drink on. Why this matters to me is that a member if my immediate family perished in a house fire two years ago. In that case, the fire crew were impeded from responding and possibly saving my sister-in law’s life by a bunch of drunks who ran out into the street after an NFL game ended in an upset. Sometimes real human lives are on the line when the fire brigade arrive and ask you to vacate your bar stool.

Everyone involved in this situation - the sailors, the race officials, the team managers and the Volvo organization look like a bunch wankers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jarcher said:

It does not matter who filed a complaint, only that one was filed. But what the heck. I filed it. And I'm not the only one. 

Post it here then and we can have a mock IJ hearing and put you out of your misery. If you have no money for legal representation LB will gladly stand in your corner. I will be Capey.

PS. I hope we don't find any photos of you pissed on Facebook...the IJ won't like that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jarcher seems to be a serial complainer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jarcher said:

I don't know anything about the prior R69 complaint you referenced. It may be true that invalid complaints are filed. Each one should be adjudicated in conformance with the rules and when there is no merit they should be dismissed. It should be revealed that this happened. 

For someone lodging a R69 complaint I'm surprised you are not up to speed on precedence in this race.

https://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/10506_Misconduct-charge-against-sailors-dismissed.html

https://www.sailingillustrated.com/single-post/2017/12/07/VOR-Rule-69-protest-has-been-dismissed-on-a-number-of-grounds

 

6 hours ago, jarcher said:

I mistakenly posted this error about the IJ vs the protect committee in my first post and have since corrected that. I didn't miss it at all. I don't see why the RO can't have such a public notice board. The OA and sponsors seem to have a firm grasp on publicity and doing this would be easy. Websites are cheap enough and they already have one anyhow. at the very least they could respond to the complainant. 

They have a noticeboard for competitors and those interested. They don't have one listing correspondence that the RO or WS recieves day by day, item by item for reasons that require no explanation.

The point you continue to miss is third parties like yourself you don't have any standing as a protestor, and nor should you for obvious reasons. Whether your complaint gets in front of the IJ is up to the RO/WS as the one lodging the protest. It would appear you have not made the cut.

https://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/noticeboard.html

Time to fold your tent.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jarcher said:

I only oppose an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. If plea bargaining was done in secret I would always oppose it. 

Seen the news about Cohen, Manafort etc lately? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

The only place on earth this is still being discussed is here. It is over. Chalk up another win for us white guys. 'If you're white, you're always right'. AJ, Randumb, underlay, son-seeker and the rest of the darkies have been put back in their place. 

Fuck I love this place. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

 If you have no money for legal representation LB will gladly stand in your corner.

If his GF is hot i will do it pro-boner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

If his GF is hot i will do it pro-boner.

She would have pulled over on the Newport Bridge and jumped by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanna know about the real issue here;

How did Coppers, a reportedly 230lb guy, get his arse handed to him by the cop Coyle.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chapter Four said:

I wanna know about the real issue here;

How did Coppers, a reportedly 230lb guy, get his arse handed to him by the cop Coyle.....?

Coppers and Coyle??

Don't you mean Bodie & Doyle??

images (41).jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites