Chinook - Still Hitting Back 2
Can anyone out there post the text of the Graydon/Johns letter? From the excerpts in the Grauniad article it looks like another example of "unwarrantable arrogance" by their Airships.
So only an aviator can understand the complexities of this accident? Hmmm, excuse me Messrs Graydon and Johns, but that is exactly what the President of the BOI was - and an experienced Chinook operator to boot. He didn't arrive at a verdict of "gross neglience" did he? Ah, of course, how stupid of me; you need to be both an aviator and an arrogant airship to be able to dismiss technical hypotheses (by such august bodies as the AAIB et al) as irrelevant.
Just exactly who do these people think they are? Do they think that by drawing Wratten into their cosy circle of establishment cronyism they can protect him from the results of the HoL Inquiry? I hope their little ploy fails.
Unwarrantable arrogance - too bl**dy right - I'm really mad about this.
Rant over!
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]
So only an aviator can understand the complexities of this accident? Hmmm, excuse me Messrs Graydon and Johns, but that is exactly what the President of the BOI was - and an experienced Chinook operator to boot. He didn't arrive at a verdict of "gross neglience" did he? Ah, of course, how stupid of me; you need to be both an aviator and an arrogant airship to be able to dismiss technical hypotheses (by such august bodies as the AAIB et al) as irrelevant.
Just exactly who do these people think they are? Do they think that by drawing Wratten into their cosy circle of establishment cronyism they can protect him from the results of the HoL Inquiry? I hope their little ploy fails.
Unwarrantable arrogance - too bl**dy right - I'm really mad about this.
Rant over!
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hard to see what Wrotten hopes to gain from this. Presumably he hopes that Peers who were not part of the Inquiry Committee will vote down its conclusions and recommendations.
I don't know about Ad Hoc inquiry committees, but decisions of the Law Lords are (technically) recommendations to the House and are 'voted' on when judgment is given. The last time a lay-lord intervened in judgment was when Lord Denman intervened at judgment in the case of Bradlaugh v Clarke in 1883, but it is not clear whether his vote was counted and it did not affect the decision. No lay Lord has sought to intervene in the consideration of an appeal since.
For individual peers in the House in general not to accept the recommendations of an inquiry committee chaired by a law lord would be tantamout to acting as Lord
Denman attempted to do.
I fear that even queenie Wratten's delusional nature has really over-extended iself this time. Incidentally, this month's Chartered Inst of Personnel Mgmt (CIPD) mag has an interesting article on 'Working for a Bastard'. It points out that it is psychological insecurity that makes people into bastards. Anyone care to start a list for the RAF's biggest bastard of the last 25 years?
I don't know about Ad Hoc inquiry committees, but decisions of the Law Lords are (technically) recommendations to the House and are 'voted' on when judgment is given. The last time a lay-lord intervened in judgment was when Lord Denman intervened at judgment in the case of Bradlaugh v Clarke in 1883, but it is not clear whether his vote was counted and it did not affect the decision. No lay Lord has sought to intervene in the consideration of an appeal since.
For individual peers in the House in general not to accept the recommendations of an inquiry committee chaired by a law lord would be tantamout to acting as Lord
Denman attempted to do.
I fear that even queenie Wratten's delusional nature has really over-extended iself this time. Incidentally, this month's Chartered Inst of Personnel Mgmt (CIPD) mag has an interesting article on 'Working for a Bastard'. It points out that it is psychological insecurity that makes people into bastards. Anyone care to start a list for the RAF's biggest bastard of the last 25 years?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it looks like their Lord Airships have overstepped the mark a little. Perhaps 3 more to join the que for resignations from office. Hasn't Wratten picked up on one of the first rules of life - When you find yourself digging a hole, stop digging.
If and it is only an if the HoL committee found that the initial rulings should stand, the 'Marx Brothers' have thankfully paved the way for the next hearing, brought about by behind the doors coniving and conspiring, or methinks trying to pervert the course of justice?
You can run but you can't hide!
If and it is only an if the HoL committee found that the initial rulings should stand, the 'Marx Brothers' have thankfully paved the way for the next hearing, brought about by behind the doors coniving and conspiring, or methinks trying to pervert the course of justice?
You can run but you can't hide!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear oh dear oh dear.
this strikes me as the petulance of a condemned man.
i'm afraid Lords Graydon and Johns et al have displayed a naivety only demonstrable by people who have been sheltered from the real world for the majority of their careers. These people have (and in some cases continue to do so) acted as judge, jury and executioner in many cases. The majority of these cases are only capable of being examined at Judicial Review. If DLS (discount laughable serfs) opine the case is questionable they settle, ergo there is no investigation into an invalid decision. Consequently the net result is a mindset which dictates that one is above question, examination and ultimately above the law(unwarrantable arrogance).
Their Lord ex Airships have demonstrated a monumental error in judgement (IMHO). The house of lords is the highest court in the land. The law lords, in order to be appointed, must have displayed an almost unmatched knowledge of the law (unsurprisingly), and be of the utmost integrity and impartiality. if the law lords decide a point of law in a case before them, then their judgement passes into law as precedent...I think you get the picture.
The house of lords are fundamentally aware of the stature and importance of the law lords. The fact that they (airships)consider themselves capable of taking the law lords on, on what is essentially a point of law (discharge of burden of proof) is laughable.
I can only hope that the rest of the house view the event as a serious attempt at circumventing due process, and that it was a blatant attempt to destroy the credibility of the committee before it had the opportunity to publish its findings.
Furthermore, in attempting this act of cronyism Graydon and johns et al have demonstrated they are unsuitable to remain as members of the house, as they have no fundamental understanding of what is required of a peer, and how to conduct oneself as such.
I'll get your coats.
this strikes me as the petulance of a condemned man.
i'm afraid Lords Graydon and Johns et al have displayed a naivety only demonstrable by people who have been sheltered from the real world for the majority of their careers. These people have (and in some cases continue to do so) acted as judge, jury and executioner in many cases. The majority of these cases are only capable of being examined at Judicial Review. If DLS (discount laughable serfs) opine the case is questionable they settle, ergo there is no investigation into an invalid decision. Consequently the net result is a mindset which dictates that one is above question, examination and ultimately above the law(unwarrantable arrogance).
Their Lord ex Airships have demonstrated a monumental error in judgement (IMHO). The house of lords is the highest court in the land. The law lords, in order to be appointed, must have displayed an almost unmatched knowledge of the law (unsurprisingly), and be of the utmost integrity and impartiality. if the law lords decide a point of law in a case before them, then their judgement passes into law as precedent...I think you get the picture.
The house of lords are fundamentally aware of the stature and importance of the law lords. The fact that they (airships)consider themselves capable of taking the law lords on, on what is essentially a point of law (discharge of burden of proof) is laughable.
I can only hope that the rest of the house view the event as a serious attempt at circumventing due process, and that it was a blatant attempt to destroy the credibility of the committee before it had the opportunity to publish its findings.
Furthermore, in attempting this act of cronyism Graydon and johns et al have demonstrated they are unsuitable to remain as members of the house, as they have no fundamental understanding of what is required of a peer, and how to conduct oneself as such.
I'll get your coats.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is beyond belief that this super arrogant man Wratten now wishes to extend his arrogance still further by trying to gain the confidence of Lords Graydon and Johns. That THEY let him is absolutely amazing.
In similar circumstances, in a court of law, it is almost tantamount to interfereing with the jury.
However, I agree with JN. I think Wratten finds himself in a corner, a scared rat, looking to get support from other rats. I do think he is running scared because it has come home to him that their Lordships have done their job with due dilligence. I like to think that they would not allow Wratten, who has already had his say, to be allowed to sway them.
However, there is the all important vote on their Lordships findings to come.
Let us hope that it will put Wratten's name where it belongs, with Day's, but sadly, in the annals of RAF infamy.
In similar circumstances, in a court of law, it is almost tantamount to interfereing with the jury.
However, I agree with JN. I think Wratten finds himself in a corner, a scared rat, looking to get support from other rats. I do think he is running scared because it has come home to him that their Lordships have done their job with due dilligence. I like to think that they would not allow Wratten, who has already had his say, to be allowed to sway them.
However, there is the all important vote on their Lordships findings to come.
Let us hope that it will put Wratten's name where it belongs, with Day's, but sadly, in the annals of RAF infamy.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forgot to mention above that the uncorrected evidence of the final day of the committee's hearing has been added to the hansard pages.
would do one of those link thingys but you confuse me with someone who knows anything about compooters.
it now appears that day and wratten have "adapted" their reasons for their findings in light of evidence previously unavailable to them.
i could not make the hearing in person, nor did i catch it on the parliamentary channel, so i am not privy to the tone adopted by wratten, but he appears to display open hostility towards the committee. day was also caught out attempting to lie about previous evidence.
perhaps the most telling evidence was offered by air commodore crawford, in that he had great difficulty in determining what the burden of proof (no doubt whatsoever) actually meant. he claimed the wording he used was clumsy as "he was not legally trained"
this was later reiterated by day, who also pointed out that his knowledge was limited due to no formal legal training.
did someone say bandwagon?
would do one of those link thingys but you confuse me with someone who knows anything about compooters.
it now appears that day and wratten have "adapted" their reasons for their findings in light of evidence previously unavailable to them.
i could not make the hearing in person, nor did i catch it on the parliamentary channel, so i am not privy to the tone adopted by wratten, but he appears to display open hostility towards the committee. day was also caught out attempting to lie about previous evidence.
perhaps the most telling evidence was offered by air commodore crawford, in that he had great difficulty in determining what the burden of proof (no doubt whatsoever) actually meant. he claimed the wording he used was clumsy as "he was not legally trained"
this was later reiterated by day, who also pointed out that his knowledge was limited due to no formal legal training.
did someone say bandwagon?
I've got the letter Graydon & Johns sent to the Lords - I don't want to publish the full text but the most important part is contained in the Gruniad piece:
"for those unfamiliar with aviation matters...it is not easy to understand the many complexities..."
"The Select Committee has spent much of its time in its hearings examining possible technical failings....when it can be shown that clearly that the Chinook was seviceable, these technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrrelevant."
Now that't what I call arrogance!!!!!
So, Herr (or Herren?) Wratten, the fact that almost every person who has heard BOTH sides of the argument accepts that there is doubt simply means that we are stupid?
Just to reiterate Mr Wratten, you don't have one single jot of evidence to support your case that the Chinook was serviceable. Not a jot.
You are going to fail, you deserve to fail and I know of not one person in the RAF who will shed a single tear at your downfall.
"for those unfamiliar with aviation matters...it is not easy to understand the many complexities..."
"The Select Committee has spent much of its time in its hearings examining possible technical failings....when it can be shown that clearly that the Chinook was seviceable, these technical hypotheses, as our letter makes clear, are irrrelevant."
Now that't what I call arrogance!!!!!
So, Herr (or Herren?) Wratten, the fact that almost every person who has heard BOTH sides of the argument accepts that there is doubt simply means that we are stupid?
Just to reiterate Mr Wratten, you don't have one single jot of evidence to support your case that the Chinook was serviceable. Not a jot.
You are going to fail, you deserve to fail and I know of not one person in the RAF who will shed a single tear at your downfall.
I am still seething about this.
That Wratten, Day - and now Craig, Graydon and Johns - are so utterly convinced of their own infallibility simply beggars belief.
(Perhaps the clue lies in that they have all in their time played a significant part in the continuing and irreversible decline in what was once a proud Service? Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind).
Their unwarrantable arrogance enables them to summarily dismiss any witness who has the temerity to differ from their collective view, no matter what that witness's experience and credibility.
I submit, sirs, that you are a disgrace and an affront to the uniform that I once wore with pride. This affair is not going to go away. I concur with JN; you are going to fail and then the only honourable way out for all of you will be the tradition of the samurai!
That Wratten, Day - and now Craig, Graydon and Johns - are so utterly convinced of their own infallibility simply beggars belief.
(Perhaps the clue lies in that they have all in their time played a significant part in the continuing and irreversible decline in what was once a proud Service? Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind).
Their unwarrantable arrogance enables them to summarily dismiss any witness who has the temerity to differ from their collective view, no matter what that witness's experience and credibility.
I submit, sirs, that you are a disgrace and an affront to the uniform that I once wore with pride. This affair is not going to go away. I concur with JN; you are going to fail and then the only honourable way out for all of you will be the tradition of the samurai!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the interests of accuracy, I should like to point out the following:
Neither Michael Graydon nor Richard Johns are members of the House of Lords (yet).
The House of Lords Committee enquiring into this accident is quite separate from the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity (ie as the final court of appeal in the UK).
I have no axe to grind in this matter, but let's not bring the sloppy journalistic style of the 'red top' newspapers to this serious debate.
Neither Michael Graydon nor Richard Johns are members of the House of Lords (yet).
The House of Lords Committee enquiring into this accident is quite separate from the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity (ie as the final court of appeal in the UK).
I have no axe to grind in this matter, but let's not bring the sloppy journalistic style of the 'red top' newspapers to this serious debate.
An update on yesterday's Wratten roadshow -
Apparently the grand total of 20 members of the HofL turned up for his comedy act - this included a number that support our case who went along out of interest. Wratten looked pretty sad and crestfallen at the dismal turnout.
In the words of one who was there, it was a "non-event".
Glad to see Wratten and his cohorts continue to embarrass themselves in public. What is truly sad is that the RAF is going to come out of this badly - it should never have got this far.
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]
Apparently the grand total of 20 members of the HofL turned up for his comedy act - this included a number that support our case who went along out of interest. Wratten looked pretty sad and crestfallen at the dismal turnout.
In the words of one who was there, it was a "non-event".
Glad to see Wratten and his cohorts continue to embarrass themselves in public. What is truly sad is that the RAF is going to come out of this badly - it should never have got this far.
[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: John Nichol ]
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadsword,
firstly, thank you for correcting my error - the assumption that Messrs Graydon and Johns were Lords. There was no intent to mislead. No offence taken either.
20 people eh? Something to tell their grandchildren I suppose. "I was there.... etc"
If you do read this thread Mr Wratten, may I say that I am fully prepared to accept the decision of their Lordships - whatever the outcome. They have conducted their Inquiry with dignity, fairness and impartiality. I, for one, have no doubt about their integrity.
You, on the other hand, obviously do.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
firstly, thank you for correcting my error - the assumption that Messrs Graydon and Johns were Lords. There was no intent to mislead. No offence taken either.
20 people eh? Something to tell their grandchildren I suppose. "I was there.... etc"
If you do read this thread Mr Wratten, may I say that I am fully prepared to accept the decision of their Lordships - whatever the outcome. They have conducted their Inquiry with dignity, fairness and impartiality. I, for one, have no doubt about their integrity.
You, on the other hand, obviously do.
Regards as always
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I had previously said, and JN has said again, that Wratten and Day, but more recently Wratten because Day cannot be seen to be lobbying while a serving AM, have bought shame upon the Royal Air Force whose cherished name they both had a sworn duty to uphold. Wratten sneeringly gives the impression, probably because that is what I want to think, that it is HIS air force.
Wratten I have news for you. The Royal Air Force is bigger than both of you and God knows it will survive. You, of course, will not.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, I do hope they read these pages!
Wratten I have news for you. The Royal Air Force is bigger than both of you and God knows it will survive. You, of course, will not.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, I do hope they read these pages!
Before our soiree in Oman I hadn't met Day (had met Wratten - covered in the original thread on this accident). Day had the cheek to suggest, in Muscat, that flight safety issues should not be used as blackmail for better living conditions. Charming! But it gives a tiny insight into what passes for the mans brain - "Don't make you're problem mine".
No way did he sleep in the camp! I'm not sure he even stayed overnight in the area. Other senior officers WERE downtown in hotels..........and we were instructed to stay away from them. But this is a subject for another forum...not here.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Whatever the outcome of this enquiry, my personal verdict will remain the same as it was seven years ago when my letter pointing out this gross injustice was published in Flight International.
I for one am happy to be no longer serving in the presence of such narrow minded and vindictive men intent in shifting the guilt of others to dead men.
I for one am happy to be no longer serving in the presence of such narrow minded and vindictive men intent in shifting the guilt of others to dead men.
Just a numbered other
Shyte
Hear Hear!
The latest ploy by Wrotten simply reinforces my view of the underhand jerk. Their Lordships were obviously not impressed by these two clowns.
They still miss the point entirely by saying that the select committee required specific aviation knowledge.
It was not a new BOI or AAIB investigation, it was an investigation into the decision by Day and Wratten to bring in a finding of Gross Negligence with no evidence to support it.
That committee simply needed common sense and a legal background. It possessed both in abundance.
I guess that Wratten's unwarrantable arrogance still refuses to believe that its his judgement in question here, and not why ZD576 crashed.
Hear Hear!
The latest ploy by Wrotten simply reinforces my view of the underhand jerk. Their Lordships were obviously not impressed by these two clowns.
They still miss the point entirely by saying that the select committee required specific aviation knowledge.
It was not a new BOI or AAIB investigation, it was an investigation into the decision by Day and Wratten to bring in a finding of Gross Negligence with no evidence to support it.
That committee simply needed common sense and a legal background. It possessed both in abundance.
I guess that Wratten's unwarrantable arrogance still refuses to believe that its his judgement in question here, and not why ZD576 crashed.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A page or so back it was suggested, I think, that ACM Wratten was presenting to the House of Lords under arrangements sponsored by MRAF Craig amongst others. It was also mentioned that MoD considered this a matter outwith their control / interest.
Do not MRAFs, in common with other *****s, remain on the active list for life?
Do not MRAFs, in common with other *****s, remain on the active list for life?