greasy al

The Australian Sailing and RQYS Kabuki Theatre Thread

Recommended Posts

Being a theatre in which disgruntled members, ex members and others with excrement on the liver may don exotic costume and engage in an arcane choreography intertwining Veiled  Allegations, suggestion of Inside Knowledge, and Delphic Prophecies of Doom And Unmitigated Failure, tantalising the audience with the prospect of a glimpse of the Sordid Inner Machinations by Faceless Men and the Karmic Justice that shall imminently be meted out to them, yet all the while remaining shrouded between the Shadow and the Mist such that once the ritual is complete the question remains unanswered and the viewer can only guess at whether the thing is real, or just a half remembered Dream.

Leave your facts at the door as the only currency in this theatre is suggestion, and the only rule is never, ever answer what was asked.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner of a  classic ex Fasnet winner certainly has asked many questions that aren’t being answered. 

Have some more Kool aid Al, your glass is looking half empty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll drink the Kool Aid if someone can clarify exactly what’s going on.
 

If I’ve interpreted it correctly Sir Joh has risen from the dead, is running for a board seat at RQYS and has been having an affair with Peter Beattie?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jas, I think this is what Al is talking about but now I am confused!

4a3o6h.jpg.96420f19633c271188a936a579331a8f.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al, that must be quite a crystal ball you have!

Any tips on the outcome of the US election

Date: 2020-08-01 No. Type

02 Protest by RC

Race Initiator

1 Race Committee

Respondent(s)

RQ0052 - Envy Scooters

2020 Club Marine Brisbane to Keppel Yacht Race Hearing Schedule

Schedule Location

Aug 01 18:30 Zoom
* PTL means Protest Time Limit

Share this post


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

...the only currency in this theatre is suggestion...l

I'd suggest you use fewer capital letters.

Share this post


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

Al, that must be quite a crystal ball you have!

Any tips on the outcome of the US election

Date: 2020-08-01 No. Type

02 Protest by RC

Race Initiator

1 Race Committee

Respondent(s)

RQ0052 - Envy Scooters

2020 Club Marine Brisbane to Keppel Yacht Race Hearing Schedule

Schedule Location

Aug 01 18:30 Zoom
* PTL means Protest Time Limit

I don’t recall making any predictions and I could give a fuck about RC protests in a race I haven’t done for at least 10 years - the last time was with you I think.

Similarly I could give even less of a fuck about club or any other form of politics. I haven’t believed a word that’s come out of someone in a position of power’s mouth since I was 13 and that’s not about to change. But you and LB seem to take the position that there was some utopian time when club politics wasn’t venal, petty and self interested, which you, he and I know is simply not true. Always was, always will be, across the board for any type of club.

So fine, go full Quixote, knock yourself out, I‘ll lend you some jousting sticks if you want BUT:

1. don’t tell me I’m drinking the kool aid just because I disagree with you - and on that point I think it’s safe to say that Godwin’s Law applies equally to Kool Aid and Holocaust references alike by now ; and

2. If you’re going to make accusations then make them and be done, and stop with the secret squirrel insider knowledge shit.
 

Beef out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don’t recall making any predictions and I could give a fuck about RC protests in a race I haven’t done for at least 10 years - the last time was with you I think.

Similarly I could give even less of a fuck about club or any other form of politics. I haven’t believed a word that’s come out of someone in a position of power’s mouth since I was 13 and that’s not about to change. But you and LB seem to take the position that there was some utopian time when club politics wasn’t venal, petty and self interested, which you, he and I know is simply not true. Always was, always will be, across the board for any type of club.

So fine, go full Quixote, knock yourself out, I‘ll lend you some jousting sticks if you want BUT:

1. don’t tell me I’m drinking the kool aid just because I disagree with you - and on that point I think it’s safe to say that Godwin’s Law applies equally to Kool Aid and Holocaust references alike by now ; and

2. If you’re going to make accusations then make them and be done, and stop with the secret squirrel insider knowledge shit.
 

Beef out.

They're all shit-scared of defamation suits, that's why there's just a lot of in-your-end-o's and no substantive statements flying about the place.

100% agree about clubs having always been venal, petty and self interested, The big thing that separates stuff is, is it *your* guys the ones in power and exercising that venality & self-interest in your favour or - not.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the NoR

5. AIS

Boats must be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive which shall be active in both modes at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use it for social distancing.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, greasy al said:

 

1. don’t tell me I’m drinking the kool aid just because I disagree with you - and on that point I think it’s safe to say that Godwin’s Law applies equally to Kool Aid and Holocaust references alike by now ; and

 

If you don’t want to Drink the Kool Aid try these. I think the idea is to jam them in the same place that your opinion came from.

FB17CFF5-4905-4CF5-A774-23B1DCD92D90.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 9:31 AM, lydia said:

Date: 2020-08-01 No. Type

02 Protest by RC

Race Initiator

1 Race Committee

Respondent(s)

RQ0052 - Envy Scooters

2020 Club Marine Brisbane to Keppel Yacht Race Hearing Schedule

Schedule Location

Aug 01 18:30 Zoom
* PTL means Protest Time Limit

2020 Brisbane to Keppel Tropical Yacht Race (Start 31 July 2020)

__________________________

18 months after 2018 S2H and AISGate...a sycophantic RC, a "dead cat" protest, a end of race competitor declaration not mentioned ..... and it seems still not a lesson learnt.

IMG_20200804_201041.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, you seem to be under the impression that anyone actually cares about bullshit like this anymore.

Everyday the sport dies some more.

It is not like anyone will lose their jobs or get sacked from Australian Sailing.

No one was ever going to ask the only relevant question and no one was going to answer it.

The conclusion is one of the most laughable statements ever made by protest committee..

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lydia said:

Jack, you seem to be under the impression that anyone actually cares about bullshit like this anymore.

Far from bullshit we have here a fascinating fairy tale. 

1. Maybe this is in a new AS course for RO/RC's on " How Not to Conduct Protests." It seems to tick most boxes.

2. Then something really fucking spooky. Two seperate boats in seperate races incur give way protests in Sydney Harbour, where they both questioned about being penalised. Then same boats in different subsequent races incur RC protests for exactly the same rule breech, but it is dismissed/fails and they both keep the silverware.  

Is there a Triology in the making?

Share this post


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

Far from bullshit we have here a fascinating fairy tale. 

1. Maybe this is in a new AS course for RO/RC's on " How Not to Conduct Protests." It seems to tick most boxes.

2. Then something really fucking spooky. Two seperate boats in seperate races incur give way protests in Sydney Harbour, where they both questioned about being penalised. Then same boats in different subsequent races incur RC protests for exactly the same rule breech, but it is dismissed/fails and they both keep the silverware.  

Is there a Triology in the making?

Surely you’re not suggesting some form of collusion has occurred! Are you questioning the integrity of the protest system itself or just the fact that a home IJ chaired the panel?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Lydia on this...I think that the sport has jumped the shark....the absolute lack of fucks given over this off the charts... not even if viewed from the perspective of "manufactured hype for the purposes of entertainment in these covid lockdown times" does this warrant further comment... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

Surely you’re not suggesting some form of collusion has occurred! Are you questioning the integrity of the protest system itself or just the fact that a home IJ chaired the panel?

Ultimate you appear to be a person who never asks a question unless knowing the true answer...so maybe ask yourself those questions and report back here truthfully. Otherwise you will appear to be "jumping the shark" too, just as Couta says.

I think rules are there to be followed...in this case the Kool Aid sucking, Shark Jumping OP and his thread rule about questions. :lol:

On 8/1/2020 at 10:23 AM, greasy al said:

....the only rule is never, ever answer what was asked.

Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 2:51 PM, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

Surely you’re not suggesting some form of collusion has occurred! Are you questioning the integrity of the protest system itself or just the fact that a home IJ chaired the panel?

On 8/5/2020 at 3:35 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Ultimate you appear to be a person who never asks a question unless knowing the true answer...so maybe ask yourself those questions and report back here truthfully. Otherwise you will appear to be "jumping the shark" too, just as Couta says.

 

Ultimate you had so many expert questions.

Don't tell me you are still asking yourself those questions or did you forget the questions?

My goodness. OK to recap.

Somewhere North of 27.6° South

- On the way to the start the life-raft release line was found to be detached from the life-raft. The raft canister can be opened to try and re-fix the gas cartridge release connection/mechanism and then canister securely closed up again, seeking to leave all in safe working order obviously.

- If not fixed and working safely and properly, then a rule breech regarding such operations on a mandated piece of safety equipment will occur upon starting, thus necessitating immediate race retirement obviously.

- Not sure if repair can be done before the start and if so, not sure if repair and will last, so it needs to checked during the race obviously.

- So there is a potential issue with a mandated piece of safety equipment for all or maybe some duration of the race, but won't really be sure until the finish obviously? 

- Race Control contacted and appraised of situation obviously.

Ten Questions - Safety Equipment & RC Protests

1. Having regard to vessel Skipper obligations should they fix and if satisfied start the race? Yes or No.

2. Notwithstanding the Skippers advice the issue has been attended to, completely satisfied and will check it regularly, should the RC allow the boat to start? Yes or No.

3. If vessel does start with Skipper satisfied all is well, should a post race Skipper Declaration, describe the above events in detail incl reference to relevant race documentation? Yes or No.

4. Upon receipt of the Skippers Declaration, should the RC for instance carry out a life-raft inspection, take further statements if considered necessary, seek expert input on life-raft operation etc? Yes or No.

5. If after consideration of the above the RC is of the opinion a rule breech has or may have occured, should the RC Protest? Yes or No.

6. Would the Jury be normally expecting to have presented to it the Skippers Declaration (that instigated the actual RC protest) and any evidence collected by the RC to enable the Jury to make a proper determination? Yes or No.

7. Should a Jury when making a determination have "any regard" for evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make a proper determination, BUT that evidence wasn't presented and or withheld and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

8. If there is any missing evidence a Jury would normally be expecting to be presented with by the RC for it to make a proper determination on their protest; should the Jury DISMISS the RC protest and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

9. Do all your answers including this one end with Yes? Yes or No

10. Are you asute enough to be aware of a serious underlying issue revealed by this QA, so are wondering whether to post your answers OR slink away and ignore this Questionnaire? Yes or No

Chop chop mate.

327b19b1-3035-413e-8989-4cd0d728e062.gif

IMG_20200804_201041.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, you don't have the right version, try this one!

This was the one originally posted.

I have marked the changes for you.

Seems to change everything really!

 

Fill in and tick as appropriate

Withdrawal requested ; signed ............................................................... Withdrawal permitted Protest time limit ..1149..................
Protest, or request for redress or reopening, is within time limit 
Y Time limit extended Protestor, or party requesting redress or reopening, represented by Mark Gallagher.

Other party, or boat being considered for redress, represented by Skipper - Barry Cuneo.

Names of witnesses ................................Nil..................................................................................................

Interpreters .......................................N/A............................................. Remarks

   

Objection about interested party
Written protest or request identifies incident

‘Protest’ hailed at first reasonable opportunity
No hail needed, protestee informed at first reasonable opportunity Red flag conspicuously displayed at first reasonable opportunity Red flag seen by race committee at finish

N............................................. Y............................................. N/A......................................... Y.............................................N/A........................................ N/A........................................

       

Protest or request valid, hearing will continue Protest or request invalid, hearing is closed FACTS FOUND

  1. Envy Scooters notified Race Control they had been advised that there AIS was not visible on the Marine Traffic website at 1030 on Friday morning 30 min before the commencement of the race

  2. The Race committee reported that Envy Scooters AIS appeared to be intermittent on Marine Traffic

  3. Envy Scooters reported their position on all Radio Scheds and were visible on the race tracker at all times while they were racing

  4. Envy Scooters skipper is a Commercial Mariner - Master Grade 1 and gave expert testimony regarding the reliability of Type B  AIS and confirmed that there is currently no standard or performance criteria for this equipment

Diagram of boat .......................... is endorsed by committee Committee’s diagram is attached CONCLUSIONS AND RULES THAT APPLY

Given that the RC could only provide evidence that Envy Scooters AIS was not visible on the Marine Traffic website and app intermittently, it was not shown that Envy Scooters AIS was not active in both modes at all times as required by NOR  Appendix B5

DECISION

Protest is dismissed Boat(s) ........................................................... is (are) disqualified ; penalized as follows : .................................................................................

Redress is not given ; given as follows : ......................................................................................... Request to reopen a hearing is denied ; granted

Protest committee chairman and other members Mark Dingley SJ  QLD, Erica Kirby NJ  NSW, Steve Hatch IJ/IU  NSW, Nev Willis IJ  QLD

         

Chairman’s signature . Date and time ....................................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is asking the copy I have is signed by the chairman, Mr Willis, the handwritten signature has not copied across.

Share this post


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

Jack, you don't have the right version, try this one!

This was the one originally posted.

I have marked the changes for you.

Seems to change everything really!

WTF.

ONE protest hearing but TWO seperate hearing outcomes, where the current and one standing DELETES paragraph 4 in Facts Found and some words in Conclusion...and with NO explanation for the deletion???

"Seems to change everything.." it changes COMPLETLY what occured at the hearing, by way of the record and expunges COMPLETLY from the record ALL evidence submitted by the protestee. They might as well not have been in attendance now according to the record. 

So post hearing and 1st hearing outcome, is it the Protestor (RC), the Protestee (Envy) and or the Jury thinking that paragraph 4 and words, "and app intermittently" were suddenly unwanted or unpleasant things??? Someone thought so, but who?

Are these people for fucking real. 

@shanghaisailor to the white phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you acknowledge that Marine Traffic was working the whole game goes to shit!

Which is more likely Marine Traffic working intermittently or and AIS Class B transponder working intermittently?

Of course para 4 of the Facts Found has no relevance unless of course your AIS was unreliable.

Share this post


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

WTF.

ONE protest hearing but TWO seperate hearing outcomes, where the current and one standing DELETES paragraph 4 in Facts Found and some words in Conclusion...and with NO explanation for the deletion???

"Seems to change everything.." it changes COMPLETLY what occured at the hearing, by way of the record and expunges COMPLETLY from the record ALL evidence submitted by the protestee. They might as well not have been in attendance now according to the record. 

So post hearing and 1st hearing outcome, is it the Protestor (RC), the Protestee (Envy) and or the Jury thinking that paragraph 4 and words, "and app intermittently" were suddenly unwanted or unpleasant things??? Someone thought so, but who?

Are these people for fucking real. 

@shanghaisailor to the white phone.

And that is the reason I have zero respect for Nev Willis. It’s as if RQ gets to write their own facts found  regardless of reality. 
This is why I appealed to AS, who let the lies stand as fact and proved they’re just paper stampers . And that’s why I took AS to CAS, and  AS ran and hid. 
They all deserve each other.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To explain, to take AS to the Court ofArbitration for Sport you have to get AS to consent

Of course AS were gutless and refused consent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2020 at 10:23 AM, greasy al said:

Being a theatre in which disgruntled members, ex members and others with excrement on the liver may don exotic costume and engage in an arcane choreography intertwining Veiled  Allegations, suggestion of Inside Knowledge, and Delphic Prophecies of Doom And Unmitigated Failure, tantalising the audience with the prospect of a glimpse of the Sordid Inner Machinations by Faceless Men and the Karmic Justice that shall imminently be meted out to them, yet all the while remaining shrouded between the Shadow and the Mist such that once the ritual is complete the question remains unanswered and the viewer can only guess at whether the thing is real, or just a half remembered Dream.

Leave your facts at the door as the only currency in this theatre is suggestion, and the only rule is never, ever answer what was asked.

So you want defend this then, play though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if there is a Hobart this year him and I can sort it out sitting on the rail for a few days!

Share this post


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

Ultimate you had so many expert questions.

Don't tell me you are still asking yourself those questions or did you forget the questions?

My goodness. OK to recap.

Somewhere North of 27.6° South

- On the way to the start the life-raft release line was found to be detached from the life-raft. The raft canister can be opened to try and re-fix the gas cartridge release connection/mechanism and then canister securely closed up again, seeking to leave all in safe working order obviously.

- If not fixed and working safely and properly, then a rule breech regarding such operations on a mandated piece of safety equipment will occur upon starting, thus necessitating immediate race retirement obviously.

- Not sure if repair can be done before the start and if so, not sure if repair and will last, so it needs to checked during the race obviously.

- So there is a potential issue with a mandated piece of safety equipment for all or maybe some duration of the race, but won't really be sure until the finish obviously? 

- Race Control contacted and appraised of situation obviously.

Ten Questions - Safety Equipment & RC Protests

1. Having regard to vessel Skipper obligations should they fix and if satisfied start the race? Yes or No.

2. Notwithstanding the Skippers advice the issue has been attended to, completely satisfied and will check it regularly, should the RC allow the boat to start? Yes or No.

3. If vessel does start with Skipper satisfied all is well, should a post race Skipper Declaration, describe the above events in detail incl reference to relevant race documentation? Yes or No.

4. Upon receipt of the Skippers Declaration, should the RC for instance carry out a life-raft inspection, take further statements if considered necessary, seek expert input on life-raft operation etc? Yes or No.

5. If after consideration of the above the RC is of the opinion a rule breech has or may have occured, should the RC Protest? Yes or No.

6. Would the Jury be normally expecting to have presented to it the Skippers Declaration (that instigated the actual RC protest) and any evidence collected by the RC to enable the Jury to make a proper determination? Yes or No.

7. Should a Jury when making a determination have "any regard" for evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make a proper determination, BUT that evidence wasn't presented and or withheld and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

8. If there is any missing evidence a Jury would normally be expecting to be presented with by the RC for it to make a proper determination on their protest; should the Jury DISMISS the RC protest and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

9. Do all your answers including this one end with Yes? Yes or No

10. Are you asute enough to be aware of a serious underlying issue revealed by this QA, so are wondering whether to post your answers OR slink away and ignore this Questionnaire? Yes or No

Chop chop mate.

327b19b1-3035-413e-8989-4cd0d728e062.gif

IMG_20200804_201041.jpg

Sorry was bouncing around off the coast - personally at Q1 I would withdraw if I was skipper, I would never risk someone else’s life with a fault in a primary piece of safety equipment. Q2 opens the can of worms as it takes the onus of responsibility question From the skipper to the race committee. Again if anyone ever let me run a race I’d be saying no start. 

But assuming I’m not making those decisions at 1 & 2 then...

3-7. Yes

8. This is another can of worms, the Jury / PC can only deal with the evidence bought before them. The Q is did the RC seek to have a hearing merely to assuage their own fear that other boats knew about the issue and were demanding answers and so accidentally or deliberately failed to provide the evidence that the jury needed to have?

9. No

10. Jack I’ll let you make your own conclusion

Share this post


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

- personally at Q1 I would withdraw if I was skipper, I would never risk someone else’s life with a fault in a primary piece of safety equipment.

From the moment a race entry is accepted the skipper is vested with the sole responsibility for crew and vessel safety so it is their call. 

2 hours ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

Q2 opens the can of worms as it takes the onus of responsibility question From the skipper to the race committee. Again if anyone ever let me run a race I’d be saying no start. 

As for Q1. All the RC can do is immediately protest, they don't have any DSQ powers. They could notify authorities, who do have the power to intervene, providing the safety equipment was one that fell within within their jurisdiction. There are many safety equipment inclusions in racing that do not. A life-raft is one.

18 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

7. Should a Jury when making a determination have "any regard" for evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make a proper determination, BUT that evidence wasn't presented and or withheld and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No

2 hours ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

3-7. Yes

 

So all Yes 3 - 7.

Noting Yes to 7 where Jury when making a determination can "have regard" for missing evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make  a proper determination. In this case the obvious things would be if they weren't presented would be:

Protestee (vessel) - Skippers Declaration and contents relating to the life-raft and actions taken to be in compliance with the race documents for the duration of the race.

Protestor (RC) - Evidence of their life-raft inspection and at the hearing evidence on their interrogation of the Skippers Declaration and views if that not the subject of their protest.

This missing evidence obviously attaches to the weight of the evidence being presented to the Jury by both parties and where the Jury rules accordingly. The Jury is entitled if not has a duty to seek that evidence, not just ignore it, whether it does or not is up to them.

18 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

8. If there is any missing evidence a Jury would normally be expecting to be presented with by the RC for it to make a proper determination on their protest; should the Jury DISMISS the RC protest and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

2 hours ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

8. This is another can of worms, the Jury / PC can only deal with the evidence bought before them. The Q is did the RC seek to have a hearing merely to assuage their own fear that other boats knew about the issue and were demanding answers and so accidentally or deliberately failed to provide the evidence that the jury needed to have?

 

It is not up to the Jury to assess the motivation behind any protest. Be it as you suggest for a RC to assuage their own fears or even engineering a protest for the purposes of having it dismissed etc.

You are dead right it is not up to theJury to make a case for the Protestor (RC) or the Protestee.

However for this and Q8 their determination is being made on the weight of the evidence and where it is their duty to rule accordingly. That duty does extend to seeking that evidence, not just ignoring it, whether they do or not is up to them.

For instance if the RC didn't present evidence of their life-raft inspection or their interrogation of the Skippers Declaration, then in the absence of anything else, a dismissal of their protest would almost be automatic. 

So as you can see 9/9 Yes IMO is the correct answer.

If you wanted to take this life-raft example and draw parallels to recent and notable AIS RC protests, then clearly those protests should have been dismissed.

It could be argued they were lodged by RC's and designed to be dismissed with little or no regard for the actual operation of safety equipment their own rules mandate.

If those Protestees and Jurys were aware of this intent or not, draw your own conclusions. You can however clearly regard the Protestees as beneficiaries in the silverware department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what planet RQYS and its Commodore lives on.  And as for MR Willis.  Well - the laws of defamation and all that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up here at ABRW there was some chap being very rude about the RC, and the Commadore of RQYS and the club itself on VHF during race 1. The person identified themselves over the radio. The term ‘69’ is trending amongst the chattering classes. Doing the Molles race right now and very pleasant it is. Anyway I better get back to navigating.

over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Up here at ABRW there was some chap being very rude about the RC, and the Commadore of RQYS and the club itself on VHF during race 1. The person identified themselves over the radio. The term ‘69’ is trending amongst the chattering classes. Doing the Molles race right now and very pleasant it is. Anyway I better get back to navigating.

over.

Anyone we know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

Anyone we know?

Yep.

Share this post


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

Up here at ABRW there was some chap being very rude about the RC, and the Commadore of RQYS and the club itself on VHF during race 1. The person identified themselves over the radio. The term ‘69’ is trending amongst the chattering classes. Doing the Molles race right now and very pleasant it is. Anyway I better get back to navigating.

over.

Has the tide risen enough to actually allow sailing up there?

FKT

Share this post


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

WTF.

ONE protest hearing but TWO seperate hearing outcomes, where the current and one standing DELETES paragraph 4 in Facts Found and some words in Conclusion...and with NO explanation for the deletion???

"Seems to change everything.." it changes COMPLETLY what occured at the hearing, by way of the record and expunges COMPLETLY from the record ALL evidence submitted by the protestee. They might as well not have been in attendance now according to the record. 

So post hearing and 1st hearing outcome, is it the Protestor (RC), the Protestee (Envy) and or the Jury thinking that paragraph 4 and words, "and app intermittently" were suddenly unwanted or unpleasant things??? Someone thought so, but who?

Are these people for fucking real. 

@shanghaisailor to the white phone.

Thanks Jack :-( I'm not the font of all knowledge.

A few observations that some above have failed to realise. Perhaps never used an AIS or even a VHF.

There are a number of reasons why a boat will not be identified on AIS much less Marine Traffic. Firstly the AIS ident is provided via VHF which is already a weak signal from a racing yacht and entirely dependant first of all on the transmission circuit. AIS was, after all, initially designed for vessels of over 300 tons which are an infinitely more stable transmission platform and being generally built in steel provide a much greater ground plane for radio transmission (read the books)

During my mi-spent youth (a long time ago) i was part of the CB Radio crazy that swept the UK. In fact i was secretary of a club of 4,800 - i was right into it.

If your 'rig' - the radio and antenna was tuned badly you would be lucky to be heard a few blocks away but get it right, particularly the SWR of the antenna and you could speak to the USA from the middle of England and I have done so. 

The AIS set up on most yachts uses a splitter to enable the same antenna to be used for both AIS and VHF transmissions. That in itself reduces the effectiveness (read reliability and range) of the signal of both transmissions and i bet like most yacht installations it has never had an SWR meter within half a mile of it.

On my own boat i eschew this set up and have a dedicated antenna for each system - a bit more clutter but a lot more reliability.

One also has to realise that it is all operating in a marine environment. Were the cable junctions secure and damp and salt free, the GPS and VHF connections on the AIS, the splitter (in and out).

I cannot see the NoR or SIs so cannot comment on the exact wording but there are a number of reasons why an AIS is ACTUALLY SWITCHED ON and the information not getting out through to Marine Traffic

Regarding the case in point, the boat radioed in pre-race that they seemed to have a problem and the fact that the Race Committee statement quoted as a fact found that they appeared intermittently would perhaps point to a fault somewhere in the antenna circuit. I seem to remember a 100 footer in a much longer race last year that was reportedly not transmitting AIS details correctly due to a claimed circuit fault.

The change in the published decision with point 4 being removed as hiding something is a wonderful but (I believe) completely pointless conspiracy theory. Point 4 appeared in the "Facts Found" part of the decision and in my opinion it was correctly removed because it wasn't a fact, it was an opinion.

It was also erroneous in that is it relatively easy to discover how efficient an antenna system is using a Sine Wave Ratio (SWR) Meter. To measure the SWR using a sound system you key the mike, to measure the AIS you just switch it on to transmit. Also if on switching on the AIS the SWR meter didn't deflect you would know instantly you had a problem (no signal coming down the coax) . Whether it was transmitting the position and other information  would be easy to check on another AIS receiver.

That said, these would be dockside checks and unlikely to be performed on the fly, especially when racing and a yacht is likely to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are "AIS invisible" unless specifically told so.

I use as a point of reference for this multiple conversations and advice over the years from my closest UK sailing buddy (and excellent mainsheet trimmer) who has spent his entire working career (40 years - he's an old bugger like me) with mobile communications all the way up to satellite dependant yacht telematics. (Look it up) AIS is a puppy by comparison.

My final comment i would direct to Shaggybaxter. I dare you to tell Nev Willis to his face that you have zero respect for him. I have worked with him and found him to be straight arrow. Apart from anything else he was only one of 4 Judges in this case, all of which hold various levels of Judge certification.

The actual decision? Well the RC are quoted as saying that the AIS reception from the yacht in question was intermittent. Does that not mean that they could be seen sometimes and not others? That points very strongly to a faulty system unless they were flicking it on and off which sounds pretty doubtful to me.

I may have missed something and the above is just some thoughts FROM A DISTANCE.

It's an absolute bugger being a judge or umpire. One party in the room is always going to be happy and the other party pissed off.

Come back at me if you think i am wrong - it is how we learn after all.

See ya on the water (soon i hope - bloody virus)

SS

 

 

Share this post


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

Thanks Jack :-( I'm not the font of all knowledge.

A few observations that some above have failed to realise. Perhaps never used an AIS or even a VHF.

There are a number of reasons why a boat will not be identified on AIS much less Marine Traffic. Firstly the AIS ident is provided via VHF which is already a weak signal from a racing yacht and entirely dependant first of all on the transmission circuit. AIS was, after all, initially designed for vessels of over 300 tons which are an infinitely more stable transmission platform and being generally built in steel provide a much greater ground plane for radio transmission (read the books)

During my mi-spent youth (a long time ago) i was part of the CB Radio crazy that swept the UK. In fact i was secretary of a club of 4,800 - i was right into it.

If your 'rig' - the radio and antenna was tuned badly you would be lucky to be heard a few blocks away but get it right, particularly the SWR of the antenna and you could speak to the USA from the middle of England and I have done so. 

The AIS set up on most yachts uses a splitter to enable the same antenna to be used for both AIS and VHF transmissions. That in itself reduces the effectiveness (read reliability and range) of the signal of both transmissions and i bet like most yacht installations it has never had an SWR meter within half a mile of it.

On my own boat i eschew this set up and have a dedicated antenna for each system - a bit more clutter but a lot more reliability.

One also has to realise that it is all operating in a marine environment. Were the cable junctions secure and damp and salt free, the GPS and VHF connections on the AIS, the splitter (in and out).

I cannot see the NoR or SIs so cannot comment on the exact wording but there are a number of reasons why an AIS is ACTUALLY SWITCHED ON and the information not getting out through to Marine Traffic

Regarding the case in point, the boat radioed in pre-race that they seemed to have a problem and the fact that the Race Committee statement quoted as a fact found that they appeared intermittently would perhaps point to a fault somewhere in the antenna circuit. I seem to remember a 100 footer in a much longer race last year that was reportedly not transmitting AIS details correctly due to a claimed circuit fault.

The change in the published decision with point 4 being removed as hiding something is a wonderful but (I believe) completely pointless conspiracy theory. Point 4 appeared in the "Facts Found" part of the decision and in my opinion it was correctly removed because it wasn't a fact, it was an opinion.

It was also erroneous in that is it relatively easy to discover how efficient an antenna system is using a Sine Wave Ratio (SWR) Meter. To measure the SWR using a sound system you key the mike, to measure the AIS you just switch it on to transmit. Also if on switching on the AIS the SWR meter didn't deflect you would know instantly you had a problem (no signal coming down the coax) . Whether it was transmitting the position and other information  would be easy to check on another AIS receiver.

That said, these would be dockside checks and unlikely to be performed on the fly, especially when racing and a yacht is likely to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are "AIS invisible" unless specifically told so.

I use as a point of reference for this multiple conversations and advice over the years from my closest UK sailing buddy (and excellent mainsheet trimmer) who has spent his entire working career (40 years - he's an old bugger like me) with mobile communications all the way up to satellite dependant yacht telematics. (Look it up) AIS is a puppy by comparison.

My final comment i would direct to Shaggybaxter. I dare you to tell Nev Willis to his face that you have zero respect for him. I have worked with him and found him to be straight arrow. Apart from anything else he was only one of 4 Judges in this case, all of which hold various levels of Judge certification.

The actual decision? Well the RC are quoted as saying that the AIS reception from the yacht in question was intermittent. Does that not mean that they could be seen sometimes and not others? That points very strongly to a faulty system unless they were flicking it on and off which sounds pretty doubtful to me.

I may have missed something and the above is just some thoughts FROM A DISTANCE.

It's an absolute bugger being a judge or umpire. One party in the room is always going to be happy and the other party pissed off.

Come back at me if you think i am wrong - it is how we learn after all.

See ya on the water (soon i hope - bloody virus)

SS

 

 

SS, please - if you spent so much time playing with antennae, you should surely know that SWR stands for "Standing Wave Ratio", not "Sine Wave Ratio".  There's a lot of difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks Jack :-( I'm not the font of all knowledge.

A few observations that some above have failed to realise. Perhaps never used an AIS or even a VHF.

There are a number of reasons why a boat will not be identified on AIS much less Marine Traffic.... 

Shang you could have stopped right there. :lol:

My post was on the dual jury outcome where part of the facts found and conclusion was expunged. Any thoughts on that, if only frequency in your experience?

BTW online AIS platforms either getting their AIS data via terrestrial/marine providers or satellite providers (available on subscription) there is no guarantee of a constant connection. The former simply by being outside RX distance. This particular race course has large black holes despite being close to the coast.

The latter via satellite is pretty good but lower signal strength with lower powered Class B TX and transmission losses with small mast mounted antennas optimised for horizontal not skyward transmission.

Anyone trying to use these online AIS services to substantiate or otherwise a constant AIS TX transmission in the protest room will fail

That begs the question why it (Marinetraffic) was trotted out in this protest by both the protestee prerace and RC as protestor? The protest was doomed to fail.

Why the traditional means of declaration for dealing with safety equipment operation it seems is not being used in the protest room escspes me. :lol:

 

Share this post


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

My final comment i would direct to Shaggybaxter. I dare you to tell Nev Willis to his face that you have zero respect for him. I have worked with him and found him to be straight arrow. 

Bad move Shang...there is a very taudry back story. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

SS, please - if you spent so much time playing with antennae, you should surely know that SWR stands for "Standing Wave Ratio", not "Sine Wave Ratio".  There's a lot of difference.

:-) Of course you are correct Recidivist.

When I first got into 2 way comms (40 years ago) it was told (erroneously) it was Sine Wave Ratio and it kind of stuck. As a young breaker all i was interested in was if i set the twig up with an SWR of less than 1.5 'whatevers' my transmission (and reception) dramatically improved. As my first set up was a Jaws 2 through to a Half Breed on a Yamaha 350LC which naturally had a relatively ground plane i needed all the help i could get. I later graduated to a Marko 747, '480 channel' rig with a 7' helical wound Tiger Stick bolted through my first car's boot lid (that's the trunk for US readers. We used to sit on a hill just north of Stoke on Trent in Staffordshire and DX with American Truckers. It as in a period of the right kind of sun activity to make the 'skip' off the ionosphere just right to bounce the signal. And all that was on just 27W of radiated power on SSB. I once had a conversation with a truckie who thought i was in New England and had to send him a QSL card to prove i was in "Mid England". He told me i was "blowing his doors off". It is not only sailing that has its own language.

It was fun times back then and we had to dodge the 'Post Office Radio Services because none of had licences (they weren't available) 

It's funny when someone tells you that something is such and such - like SWR = Sine Wave Radio is sticks even though you later learn the term is wrong.

Having said that a good SWR is VERY important for getting a good signal off your "twig". Twig being CB parlance for antenna.

I said i wasn't the font of all knowledge :-)

28 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Shang you could have stopped right there. :lol:

My post was on the dual jury outcome where part of the facts found and conclusion was expunged. Any thoughts on that, if only frequency in your experience?

BTW online AIS platforms either getting their AIS data via terrestrial/marine providers or satellite providers (available on subscription) there is no guarantee of a constant connection. The former simply by being outside RX distance. This particular race course has large black holes despite being close to the coast.

The latter via satellite is pretty good but lower signal strength with lower powered Class B TX and transmission losses with small mast mounted antennas optimised for horizontal not skyward transmission.

Anyone trying to use these online AIS services to substantiate or otherwise a constant AIS TX transmission in the protest room will fail

That begs the question why it (Marinetraffic) was trotted out in this protest by both the protestee prerace and RC as protestor? The protest was doomed to fail.

Why the traditional means of declaration for dealing with safety equipment operation it seems is not being used in the protest room escspes me. :lol:

 

You are probably right Jack, I can be a bit verbose at times :-) Hope you are well.

 

 

Share this post


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

My final comment i would direct to Shaggybaxter. I dare you to tell Nev Willis to his face that you have zero respect for him. I have worked with him and found him to be straight arrow. Apart from anything else he was only one of 4 Judges in this case, all of which hold various levels of Judge certification.

Hiya SS, 

I did by asking him to recuse himself from adjudicating my RfR, and did so without a hint of malice or bitchiness.  I went to quite calmly state all my evidence and he refused to let me speak. I then handed him my carefully written out evidence, and he refused to accept it and removed all evidence of it from the facts found. 
Aside from the red faced ranting and yelling until they forced a break he was the epitome of independent wise counci his position demands. After that it got a bit ugly, and not once was  any escalation from me.

I’m glad to hear your experience was different SS. 
Cheers,

SB

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

Hiya SS, 

I did by asking him to recuse himself from adjudicating my RfR, and did so without a hint of malice or bitchiness.  I went to quite calmly state all my evidence and he refused to let me speak. I then handed him my carefully written out evidence, and he refused to accept it and removed all evidence of it from the facts found. 
Aside from the red faced ranting and yelling until they forced a break he was the epitome of independent wise counci his position demands. After that it got a bit ugly, and not once was  any escalation from me.

I’m glad to hear your experience was different SS. 
Cheers,

SB

 

Apologies are due then Shaggy. Healthy Humble Pie portion on the menu this evening. A Protest Committee has a duty under RRS63.6 states "The protest committee SHALL take the evidence ....and of their witnesses". Shall in the rule means MUST, i think the term is an imperative, an "authorative command". If you were a party to the protest and felt AND declared that you felt there was a conflict of interest and that should have been ( I understand) written up in the protest document.RRS63.4(a). 

I don't know the full story and it is often difficult as a jury member or an umpire to please everyone but one has to be careful to not only be fair but be seen to be fair. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs Octopussy is strangely quiet. Normally she would trip over her dick rushing to defend ‘The glorious Squadron’. 

Share this post


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

Apologies are due then Shaggy. Healthy Humble Pie portion on the menu this evening. A Protest Committee has a duty under RRS63.6 states "The protest committee SHALL take the evidence ....and of their witnesses". Shall in the rule means MUST, i think the term is an imperative, an "authorative command". If you were a party to the protest and felt AND declared that you felt there was a conflict of interest and that should have been ( I understand) written up in the protest document.RRS63.4(a). 

I don't know the full story and it is often difficult as a jury member or an umpire to please everyone but one has to be careful to not only be fair but be seen to be fair. 

It’s all incestuous and that’s the problem.

Share this post


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

Mrs Octopussy is strangely quiet. Normally she would trip over her dick rushing to defend ‘The glorious Squadron’. 

Hi stalker/ my play thingy.

Nice? to see you miss me ,cup cake.

Still trying to work out the fascination for this particular storm in a tea cup.

The squadron thingy is getting so “passé” these days. The bitter and twisted whiners really need to get a life or move to another club, that’s if the club hasn’t already moved them on.

bwahahaha

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

It’s all incestuous and that’s the problem.

Incest - the game the whole family can play BUT if you really love someone/something (fairness in our sport) you should be able to put ego aside and do what's best and right for them/it (our sport and the competitor) not for your own self interest or influence.

Perhaps an obtuse reference but I would be horrified if I could ever be accused of a conflict.

I remember, some years ago, I spent a weekend coaching a Shanghai team on match racing. At the end of the weekend I told them to remember that if I was ever umpiring a match they were in they would just be another boat.

Not that many weeks later, sure enough it was them against another boat and they collected 2 penalties in the pre-start (wasn't much of a coach was I - ha ha). They crossed the start line and had room to sail clear and clear one penalty. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - no attempt to clear - whistle - black! The look on their faces. I went up to them and "I bloody told you!" was all I said.

Reputation is everything. As a judge or an umpire you can be friendly but on the water or in the room you can have no favourites and if people realise that they respect you more not less.  

Share this post


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

Hiya SS, 

I did by asking him to recuse himself from adjudicating my RfR, 

SB

 

RfR........ request for release

I hadn’t realised you were banged up in the big house. 
 

RQYS doesn’t mess around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

RfR........ request for release

I hadn’t realised you were banged up in the big house. 
 

RQYS doesn’t mess around.

Hullo Mrs O,

I don't know what that means, but all the best to you. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Perhaps an obtuse reference but I would be horrified if I could ever be accused of a conflict.

Reputation is everything. As a judge or an umpire you can be friendly but on the water or in the room you can have no favourites and if people realise that they respect you more not less.  

Not obtuse, but an observation. 
 

A number of judges are / or have been sailing managers at their clubs, some of them are / or have been flag officers, and some have commercial links to the club. Sadly I think that these sometimes cloud the views.
 

How can someone who has a commercial arrangement with an organisation sit on a panel that hears a protest involving the very people who decide how that commercial arrangement is structured, especially whilst said arrangement is being negotiated without declaring a conflict of interest?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

That said, these would be dockside checks and unlikely to be performed on the fly, especially when racing and a yacht is likely to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are "AIS invisible" unless specifically told so.

5 hours ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Still trying to work out the fascination for this particular storm in a tea cup.

 

"...especially when racing and a yacht is likely to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are "AIS invisible" unless specifically told so."

"Still trying to work out the fascination for this  particular storm in a tea cup."

OK two birds one stone.

AIS operating as per race documents is no no different than any other piece of mandated equipment on board. There is a responsibilty clearly spelt out to the entrants responsibility to ensure they maintain it so. The skippers post race Declaration is the place where they confirm they have done so, OR if there is an issue for the RC to consider. 

First is to ensure everything pre-race is operating as per the race documents to enable an entry to be accepted. Liferafts checked, lifejackets and harnesses checked, EPIRB checked, PLB's checked, signalling devices checked, communication equipment checked and AIS checked. BTW guess which one of those often never seems to be properly checked by entrants, even though listed as being done? 

Secondly to checking AIS TX mid-race to enable the post race Declaration to be signed with confidence by the skipper/navigator, so even if there is a potential issue, all will be well, even in the protest room as a protestee. Failure of equipment, particularly electrical is not a hanging offence if reasonable steps are taken. 

There are a variety of quick and practical ways to check a AIS TX signal.

- The TX LED on the AIS unit itself and preferably remote alarmed.

- Play a AIS software diagnostic when operating incl quantify antenna status,

- Dial up a online AIS platform (preferably using subscription for AIS satellite feed **) and check in relation to boats sighted or known to be in the same postcode,

- Is AIS RX signal receipt looking normal, and

- If in doubt contact another competitor. Better still have a culture where other competitors tell each other if their RX signal looks shit, where protest is the last thing on people's mind. If that a concern then carve out competitor AIS protests just as the Convid Yacht Club have done for S2H.

With that a Declaration is made and the AIS rule is fully respected and there shouldn't be any issues.

However now and in recent times it clearly isn't, and in fact is being abused. I say abused because Declarations (that would reveal the above checks) are not being presented at RC protest hearings.

This should be an RC embarrassment, but it seems isnt. Isn't it their own saftey rule they are supposed to be policing??

In this Kepple protest AIS TX was a potential issue (confirmed by protestee pre-race), that may or may not have been resolved? There was no RC inspection so no one knows. Alternatively could it simply have been concocted as an insurance policy to thwart a potential competitor protest? Who knows.

What we do know is the concept of "self policing" goes down yet another notch in the sport courtesy of those who should know better, but clearly don't.

As for there being a jury hearing with two outcomes and where a significant section of the facts found and conclusion was "expunged"? Gobsmacked.

That "storm in the tea cup" must have washed all those unwanted or unpleasant things away.

______________________________

** AIS via Satellite. This shows the AIS history of three 100 footers in 2018 S2H. You can see where the VHF TX signals from 2 boats in same postcode were lost at around the same times.

This is on account they were out of satellite orbiting range for the same period where both have a very similiar AIS set up and so similiar TX capability.

This comprises Class B AIS powered VHF signal (lower than Class A), an oscillating mast mount (long, small guage inefficient coax cable run), a small "linear polarised" antenna radiating propogation horizontally (not vertically) and antenna shared with VHF voice, all that degrade the signal strength to and direction with AIS satellite receiver. 

That makes use of online AIS platforms (even via satellite feed when offshore out of range of terrestrial AIS relay recievers) as evidence used by any party in the jury room very questionable, except in certain circumstances. 

BTW the 3rd boat is highly regarded for its VMG running and terrestrial capability:lol:

2018 S2H - AIS via Satellite Record - 3 x 100 footers

IMG_20200809_114516.jpg

Share this post


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

Not obtuse, but an observation. 
 

A number of judges are / or have been sailing managers at their clubs, some of them are / or have been flag officers, and some have commercial links to the club. Sadly I think that these sometimes cloud the views.
 

How can someone who has a commercial arrangement with an organisation sit on a panel that hears a protest involving the very people who decide how that commercial arrangement is structured, especially whilst said arrangement is being negotiated without declaring a conflict of interest?

ha ha - I mean that comparing actual incest to this situation was perhaps obtuse, sorry for the confusion. If you really care about something you should either be totally non-conflicted or stand aside.

If someone expects preferential treatment that would take a situation outside the rules or even bend them then they are a lesser person and if anyone expected me to do so then they clearly don't know me very well. 

You are right though, if there is some other commercial arrangement it could quite easily cloud the issue although in my experience although there are judges/umpires that fall into the categories you mention above with their noses in some way "in the trough", the vast majority of those I have worked with are independent of such politics or financial pressure.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hi stalker/ my play thingy.

Nice? to see you miss me ,cup cake.

Still trying to work out the fascination for this particular storm in a tea cup.

The squadron thingy is getting so “passé” these days. The bitter and twisted whiners really need to get a life or move to another club, that’s if the club hasn’t already moved them on.

bwahahaha

 

Dance little puppet dance. All I have to do is clap my hands and say ‘Beatle juice’ and he appears.

fuck I love this place.

Share this post


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

Not obtuse, but an observation. 
 

A number of judges are / or have been sailing managers at their clubs, some of them are / or have been flag officers, and some have commercial links to the club. Sadly I think that these sometimes cloud the views.
 

How can someone who has a commercial arrangement with an organisation sit on a panel that hears a protest involving the very people who decide how that commercial arrangement is structured, especially whilst said arrangement is being negotiated without declaring a conflict of interest?

The OA are his commercial land lord. And he made a formal complaint previously about the person who was central to the appeal. 

Little wonder that club is now a punchline.

Share this post


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

Hullo Mrs O,

I don't know what that means, but all the best to you. 

 

 

What you meant to say was he hopes you choke on the next Dick you have in your mouth, but shaggy is too polite. So I am happy to step up to the plate. Go eat a bag of dick you twice bankrupt, fat little loser.

Share this post


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

ha ha - I mean that comparing actual incest to this situation was perhaps obtuse, sorry for the confusion. If you really care about something you should either be totally non-conflicted or stand aside.

If someone expects preferential treatment that would take a situation outside the rules or even bend them then they are a lesser person and if anyone expected me to do so then they clearly don't know me very well. 

You are right though, if there is some other commercial arrangement it could quite easily cloud the issue although in my experience although there are judges/umpires that fall into the categories you mention above with their noses in some way "in the trough", the vast majority of those I have worked with are independent of such politics or financial pressure.  

In my experience they are normally quite professional. Normally I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

What you meant to say was he hopes you choke on the next Dick you have in your mouth, but shaggy is too polite. So I am happy to step up to the plate. Go eat a bag of dick you twice bankrupt, fat little loser.

8 cunts and 8 mouths ...only one bag won't make him choke.

Share this post


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

In my experience they are normally quite professional. Normally I said.

14 hours ago, LB 15 said:

The OA are his commercial land lord. And he made a formal complaint previously about the person who was central to the appeal. 

Little wonder that club is now a punchline.

Conflict of Interest: A person has a conflict of interest if he

(a) may gain or lose as a result of the decision to which he contributes,

(b) may reasonably appear to have a personal or financial interest which could affect his ability to be impartial, or

(c) has a close personal interest in the decision

RRS Definitions p7 - pretty clear cut in my humble opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, cosmicsedso said:

The 2 differing protest outcomes is disturbing to say the least.

Same outcome just different facts and conclusion. More unprofessional than disturbing but also par for the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey, there were two sets of Facts Found in the Catherine Mary Protest as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But hey, there were two sets of Facts Found in the Catherine Mary Protest as well.

A very well respected and now retired IJ was known for having at least two sets of facts found written up before the hearing commenced, just use the one that best suits the narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always a bastard when the pictures come out later and the damage don't match the facts found!

Share this post


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

Always a bastard when the pictures come out later and the damage don't match the facts found!

There are always those pesky 'alternative facts'....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

There are always those pesky 'alternative facts'....

FKT

Then there are the Facts Found when one of the "places" they were found are suddenly an unwanted or unpleasant place, so that "place" has to be expunged too from an "alternative" Jury Outcome.  

It has got to the stage where you need to have the Facts Found hard wired to an AIS to record the "places" where they are found, before those "places" suddenly disappear from the record.

Otherwise one gets really giddy and in need of a lie down just trying to keep up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Then there are the Facts Found when one of the "places" they were found are suddenly an unwanted or unpleasant place, so that "place" has to be expunged too from an "alternative" Jury Outcome.  

It has got to the stage where you need to have the Facts Found hard wired to an AIS to record the "places" where they are found, before those "places" suddenly disappear from the record.

Otherwise one gets really giddy and in need of a lie down just trying to keep up.

Honestly, Jack, this sort of shit is why I'm not a member of any of these 'august' clubs and most likely never will be (one should never say 'never'). I simply have zero tolerance for wankers regardless of how much gold braid they have on their caps or jackets.

FKT

Share this post


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

The 2 differing protest outcomes is disturbing to say the least.

3 hours ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

Same outcome just different facts and conclusion. More unprofessional than disturbing but also par for the course.

 

"..2 differing protest outcomes.."

"Same outcome just different facts and conclusion.."

Yes the same "outcome" providing that is only to mean the way a protest hearing(s) "turns out" or a "consequence." 

However with different Facts Found and Conclusion that is two entirely different "determinations" where that is to mean the "process" of establishing the "outcome." Two outcomes even though identical, necessitates two completely different "processes."

"More unprofessional than disturbing.."

Multiple "determinations," same "outcome" is MORE THAN "unprofessional" or "disturbing." It is arguably "insane" when incorporated is facts found or evidence has been "expunged" from the outcome record, there has only been "ONE" hearing and "NO" explanation is attached to the "outcome."

That would be the basis for an immediate redress or appeal, unless it involved an International Jury where appeals are not permitted.

The prospect of an appeal is the furtherest thing on the protestee and protestors (RC/PC) mind here, be assured.

Other parties may not be time barred, though difficult to prosecute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Honestly, Jack, this sort of shit is why I'm not a member of any of these 'august' clubs and most likely never will be (one should never say 'never'). I simply have zero tolerance for wankers regardless of how much gold braid they have on their caps or jackets.

FKT

Mate yes  ...opening day is always a giveaway for those organisations whose leaders award themselves a lot of trinkets to wear and to put on the mantlepiece. 

This mob are right into it and they shoot their wayward members AND their relatives. So not a good sign.

IMG_20200810_181808.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno. I took that photo from the tender documents for a club's new flag officer wardrobe contract. Docs specified uniform front had to be Kevlar either as protection against grumpy members or to hang shit off I think. The tender only remained open for 15 minutes, so maybe "outcome" was preordained?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lydia said:

Did you tender on the right version jack

Actually funny you say that. My cousin submitted an alternative specification for flag officer uniform a lot cheaper involving concrete not kevlar. They rejected that on the basis it didn't float. Seems he mistakenly listed that as a club member feature in his tender.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lydia said:

I meant the version with the yellow stripe.

No he got that yellow stripe thing too...even had a safety warning label saying medals had to be attached either side using explosive power tool and while wearing ear and eye protection and importantly while garment fitted to the uniform wearer to ensure a sound fit. As I said his tender could have been better thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As your ‘boots on the ground’ at ABRW, I have breaking news that ADF contact tracers have been brought in to try to find the source of the mystery radio transmissions during race 1. 

In on the water news, after yesterday’s lay day Turkey Slapper (WMYC) leads his division while Scanas and I on Matrix (QCYC) have been beating up on IOR maxi’s taking line and handicap Honors in race 3 (by 30 mins to Condor) and effectively fucking our rating for the rest of the regatta. 

Hollywood ray continues to dominate in the TP52 division despite only being 40 foot long. With the forecast of 5 to fuck all today we can expect the trend to continue. 

In the Thompson 7 division Googles and the boys may have given themselves a hill to climb today with a huge day on the piss at northies on yesterday’s lay day. But as 12 year veterans of this regatta they know what it takes to grab a few dishes.

More up dates once we are out on the water. I have to go make the sandwiches.

Over.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me n Phizzle and the Doc wish we were there.....:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites