Mt Erebus Disaster 40th Anniversary

[prospector]

I am afraid you will be proven correct re the kerfuffle that will arise out of the White Island tragedy. The lawyers will be rubbing their hands together in glee. Already being printed who will be liable for what and how much they could be sued for. The.people went there voluntarily, knowing the risks that must be faced wandering around the crater of an active volcano
\
3 Holer, Once again this question which has been asked a number of times, never gets a reply


3 holer'
You never debate a point, all you have ever contributed to this thread is the findings of Justice Mahon, are absolutely watertight. The following is relative to your utterances that Mahon report was fireproof.

You say
"Ah, I feel the end is nigh for the 40 years debate on Erebus.

The winner is still the Mahon Camp because:

1. No new evidence to dispute any of the findings in the Mahon Inquiry during the past fifteen (15) years. More accurately, the past 38 years but who wants to split hairs?
2. Same old arguments from the Chippendale Camp that cannot be substantiated by facts and most lack credibility anyway.
3. Points deducted from the Chippendale Camp for personal and libelous attacks on individuals during the debate.

Please advise the facts that lack credibility, especially those made by Ron Chippindale, an investigator with much experience, who also points out the failings of Air New Zealand.


And 36 years ago this was the finding of the Privy Council.

"In their judgement, delivered on 20 October 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy council dismissed the Commissioners appeal and upheld the Court of Appeals decision, which set aside costs order against the airline, on the grounds that Mahon had committed clear breaches of natural justice. They demolished his case item by item, including exhibit 164 which they said could not "be understood by any experienced pilot to be intended to be used for the purpose of navigation", and went even further, saying there was no clear proof on which to base a finding that a plan of deception, led by the company's chief executive, had ever existed."

That is fact, tell me why you disagree with their finding?? or do you believe that is not fact?? Then tell us why??

Do not come up with the argument they never challenged his findings as to cause. They did not do that because that was not their brief, their job was to give a ruling on the conduct of the commission of enquiry... Note the comments re exhibit 164.