Which make IV+ ?

[andy....@ge.com]

What are good makes of IV+ to consider buying?

And specifically... are George Sims IV's any good, we are looking at (a
very green, six years old, carbon) one in a couple of weeks.

Thanks

[carol...@aol.com]

You're presumably in the UK if you're talking about George Sims. I
didn't know they were still in business...... Our club had an old
wooden one which gave good service - it's now at the University of Kent
I believe and still in use.

Otherwise - nobody ever got fired for buying Janousek.

Caroline

[anto...@aol.com]

Janausek. Everytime. They can do a referb that makes them as new.

[andy....@ge.com]

Bow or stern loaded?

Any advantages to bow loaded?

Have also got a couple of bow loaded Janouseks to look at that should
be coming up for sale soon, but have never rowed in a bow loader... so
don't know if that's a good thing or not?

[paul_v...@hotmail.com]

Hey Cran,

I'd suggest having a talk with my colleagues at:
http://www.rowingcenter.com/swift UK/swift_uk_top.htm

Bow or stern coxed? The benefits of stern coxed would seem to outweigh
any percived liabilities, IMO. YMMV.

- Paul Smith

[anto...@aol.com]

Frankly I don't think you can beat a bow loaded Janausek. They are
stiff, robust and internationally competitive. Good shape, good
fittings.

[JD]

I just had the opportunity to race our Senior Women (there are 3 tiers
in the US, Intermediate, Senior and Elite) at Nationals in the club's
Hudson 4+ with a new hull shape. It is a wonderful bow-coxed 4+, best
I have been around. No hobbyhorsing or plowing through the water,
stiff, stable and very fast (they won). Bit of a stretch to get it to
the UK, but for those over here, I would think it a good choice. Also
looking forward to Vespoli's new V1 coxed four.
JD

[Henry Law]

anto...@aol.com wrote:
> andy....@ge.com wrote:
>> What are good makes of IV+ to consider buying?

> Janausek. Everytime. They can do a referb that makes them as new.

This may go for other makes these days, but Janos have always had sealed
compartments; in other words they float. (Well, of course, this being
r.s.r someone will now pop up and tell me that Janousek have also made
open-frame boats. Well *I've* never seen one.)

--

Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

[Nick Suess]

<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155058799.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Yeah, but a Janousek is far better

[James Elder]

Are you speaking from recent experience? I would agree about the
bowloader fours that Janousek were producing 10 years ago or so -
excellent boats (and if you can find one that has been well cared for
since then, probably a very good secondhand purchase)

However, I believe that the company has changed hands (more than once I
think?) in recent years and I know several knowledgeable, experienced
people who are less convinced about the boats they are currently
producing.

Before I retired from coxing two years ago, I was regularly coxing a
2002/3 J-Class Janousek frontloader and two Empacher frontloaders (2000
and 2003/4). Greatly preferred the latter.

I also think, as an aside, that the often-heard comment that Empachers
don't last does not tally with my experience. I raced several times in
an early 1980s Empacher frontloader ('Olly' from Wesminster School - an
ex GB women's boat, I think) which had been looked after and was still
an excellent racing boat in 2001.

Someone told me recently that Filippi produce a range of club/training
boats which are similar construction to Janousek (i.e. should cope with
damage quite well). Might be worth investigating.

[anto...@aol.com]

James

I will definitely yield to your more recent experience. I am speaking
of a Janousek pre Stamfli merger. In those days Empachers would be the
preferred choice still but much more expensive. I suspect though that
the author of the thread will be looking at older Janouseks.

Fillipi 4+ are also excellent as you have heard. Especially the 70-80kg
shell. Again good robust shells that hold their stiffness.

[simonk]

James Elder wrote:
> anto...@aol.com wrote:
> > andy....@ge.com wrote:
> > > Bow or stern loaded?
> > >
> > > Any advantages to bow loaded?
> > >
> > > Have also got a couple of bow loaded Janouseks to look at that should
> > > be coming up for sale soon, but have never rowed in a bow loader... so
> > > don't know if that's a good thing or not?
> >
> > Frankly I don't think you can beat a bow loaded Janausek. They are
> > stiff, robust and internationally competitive. Good shape, good
> > fittings.
>
>
> Are you speaking from recent experience? I would agree about the
> bowloader fours that Janousek were producing 10 years ago or so -
> excellent boats (and if you can find one that has been well cared for
> since then, probably a very good secondhand purchase)
>
> However, I believe that the company has changed hands (more than once I
> think?) in recent years and I know several knowledgeable, experienced
> people who are less convinced about the boats they are currently
> producing.

I don't know ... construction-wise (as far as one can tell from the
wrong side of several thick coats of white gelcoat) they seems as sound
as they ever were.

They have some new hull-shapes, which aren't necessarily an improvement
IMHO, but they way the boats are put together doesn't seem to have
changed much, and we've not had any real lemons in our fleet.

I suspect that in many cases, the economics of developing new
construction methods are such that prototyping, with the associated
material, labour and resource allocation costs, is sometimes not
performed to the extent to which it might be, which might explain
"runs" of dodgy boats from various manufacturers.

--
simonk

[Michael Walker]

Andy - if you're the Andy I think you are, and are mostly rowing on the
Cam, then a stern loader is a lot easier to steer on our twisty river!

[andy....@ge.com]

Michael Walker wrote:
> Andy - if you're the Andy I think you are, and are mostly rowing on the
> Cam, then a stern loader is a lot easier to steer on our twisty river!
>
>

Hi Mike,

Yes I am the Andy you are thinking I am... I think...

I won't be steering it myself... so I'm more interested in how fast it
is :)

But being a newly formed crew, getting a good cox is quite high on our
list (after getting a boat), so if it's easier to steer and/or coxes
prefer stern loaders that might be a deciding factor.

Although I think it might just end up being a case of which boat comes
up at the right price first... beggars can't be choosers and all
that... And we have only borrowed our current boat until September.

[macker]

I would definitely recommend the Fillipi. Jumped in a borrowed one from BU
for the the Charles and it ran and sat like a dream.

<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155128638....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[Michael Walker]

I'm told that a bow-loader has a theoretically higher top speed than a
stern loader (no idea if that's true), but as I said, on our river I
think that's outweighed by being able to see the look of panic on the
cox's face before they even say anything ;-) Personally, as a stroke,
I miss communication from/to the cox, but that's just a personal
preference. And, of course, they can't see what's behind them, and
no-one else is in a position to tell them - it's not as if bow can see
much! Of course, this is all about training - in a straight-line race
you might be better off bow-loaded.

[Carl Douglas]

Michael Walker wrote:
> Andy - if you're the Andy I think you are, and are mostly rowing on the
> Cam, then a stern loader is a lot easier to steer on our twisty river!
>
>

Michael -
Since you do happen to be the Michael Walker that I know you are:

Why have you, still, not had the courtesy to respond to the serious
challenges made to your recent naive, misleading & offensive postings
regarding shell buoyancy & the death of Leo Blockley (who rowed at
Downing as well as on the Isis)?

Did you even bother to do the reading towards which your attention was
pointed? And are you ready to tell us the source of the misinformation
that you spouted?

Your answers would, I am sure, be appreciated.

Carl

--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[carol...@aol.com]

I'm sure Donal Casey will be happy to sell you a Hudson in the UK
(surprised he hasn't answered this post, as he is a regular RSR
correspondent). I believe he will have some slightly used boats
available after the World Champs.

Caroline

[andy....@ge.com]

Carl,

Whilst your post is off topic, and neither called for or constructive,
you have mentioned bouyancy which is relevant to the question on boat
choice...

So given a budget of about £3k what would you advise as good choice(s)
of boat?

[andy....@ge.com]

Paul,

We have a double from Swift, which is good (once you fix the
footstretchers) but the elite IV's are out of our price range, and we'd
get a 2nd hand boat rather than a swift club one.

Caroline,

Thanks I will look into that, although I suspect we are looking at
slightly older boats to match our budget.

I do however need a good 70kg single scull as well, which he might be
able to help with, the current favourite is Fillipi, but Hudson may
also be worth looking at.

Any idea how I can contact Donal?

Thanks

[andy....@ge.com]

Thanks

We should probably borrow one and try it out... do they not have wing
mirrors?

Any ideas where we can borrow (a 85/90kg) one? :)

[Carl Douglas]

andy....@ge.com wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Whilst your post is off topic, and neither called for or constructive,

What trite nonsense!

Perhaps you have forgotten, in your prim & maidenly haste to deliver
unsolicited life-style advice, that Michael chose to launch his
miserable & ill-informed attack on my posting on shell buoyancy with a
misguided & deeply offensive assault on my own motives? Or was that, in
your view & terms, either "called for or constructive"?

We can leave Michael to defend himself without your help - supposing a)
he is minded so to do & b) he can offer even the slightest defence.
Better, IMHO, that he show the guts to swallow his unnecessary slurs &
admit that he spouted nonsense. He might also name the sources of his
scandalous misinformation.

And since Michael chooses a thread centred on equipment for the first
appearance since ignoring my earlier invitation to make amends, it is
highly appropriate to remind him of the need for keeping the record
straight.

> you have mentioned bouyancy which is relevant to the question on boat
> choice...
>
> So given a budget of about £3k what would you advise as good choice(s)
> of boat?

Oddly, it is definitely _not_ my job as a manufacturer to pass public
judgement on the wares of other manufacturers.

As you say, buoyancy should be highly relevant (regardless of Michael)
in the decision to purchase a boat since failure to give this adequate
attention may expose a club & its committee to the danger of subsequent
litigation. However, as buyer you can insist on a prospective purchase
being swamp tested against the Leo Blockley Buoyancy Performance Standard:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/documents/buoyancy_standard.doc

A swamp test is not difficult to organise:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/tests.asp
and I would advise against buying a boat whose present owner will not
allow you to make such a test.

And note too what Caroline Smith (Leo's crew's cox) wrote in the first
paragraph in that piece on buoyancy testing:
"The only sure-fire way to find out to what degree a swamped shell will
support its seated crew and remain manoeuvrable is to test it."

Just in passing - do let's avoid top-posting of replies. It disrupts
the logical flow of discussion & makes threads difficult to follow.

Cheers -
Carl

[Michael Walker]

Carl -
I have no intention of descending into a slanging match with you over
this issue. It is diverting, in a small way, that you are so mortally
wounded by anybody daring to question your impregnable authority on
these matters, yet quite happy to describe others as 'trite', 'prim',
'misinformed', 'miserable', 'deeply-offensive', 'naive', 'misleading'
etc. etc.

Happily, being offensive is not yet a crime in this country - although
doubtless you are already petitioning your MP to make it so, along with
rowing, towing a trailer, and almost anything else that might ruffle a
hair on one's head - and equally happily, this board is not your
personal suzerainity and the rest of us are in no way bound to jump to
your 'demands' that we respond to your vapourings.

I find it odd that someone so comprehensively clued-up on this matter
as you claim to be seeks the source of my information - possibly you
have done insufficient research into the matter? For your
enlightenment, follow this link:
http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2001wk0/news/a_tragedy

Whilst on this aspect of the matter, I should like to make two further
points:

Firstly, I did not introduce the subject of the Blockley incident into
either this or the original thread. It must surely be common ground
that this incident was due to a series of unpredictable and exceptional
circumstances and to constantly refer to it as if it were a commonplace
eventuality likely to be repeated any day of the week is not helpful to
a sensible debate. Here, to refresh your rather selective memory, is a
quote from one of my original posts on the matter, referring to
buoyancy: "Please don't misunderstand me - I am not arguing that we
don't need it or shouldn't have it" - clear enough? It will have to do
- I cannot think of shorter words.

Secondly, I regret that the original thread drew the attention of Leo's
parents and thus may have opened up old wounds and distressing memories
for them and I apologise to them for any part I (unwittingly) played in
that.

You will not hear from me again on this matter, so kindly go and find
another itch to scratch.

Andy: If you're still bothering yourself reading this, let me advance
the apology you deserve for my having been the cause of diverting your
thread from its original purpose. Drop me an email - we have a couple
of bow-loaders in the 80 - 85Kg range and I'm sure we can arrange a
couple of test outings in one or the other of them for you so you can
get an idea of how they behave.

[andy....@ge.com]

Carl Douglas wrote:
> andy....@ge.com wrote:
> > Carl,
> >
> > Whilst your post is off topic, and neither called for or constructive,
>
> What trite nonsense!

Indeed

[andy....@ge.com]

Michael Walker wrote:

> Andy: If you're still bothering yourself reading this, let me advance
> the apology you deserve for my having been the cause of diverting your
> thread from its original purpose. Drop me an email - we have a couple
> of bow-loaders in the 80 - 85Kg range and I'm sure we can arrange a
> couple of test outings in one or the other of them for you so you can
> get an idea of how they behave.

Thanks Mike, will be in touch.

[Carl Douglas]

Indeed!

Carl

[Carl Douglas]

Michael Walker wrote:
> Carl -
> I have no intention of descending into a slanging match with you over
> this issue. It is diverting, in a small way, that you are so mortally
> wounded by anybody daring to question your impregnable authority on
> these matters, yet quite happy to describe others as 'trite', 'prim',
> 'misinformed', 'miserable', 'deeply-offensive', 'naive', 'misleading'
> etc. etc.
>
> Happily, being offensive is not yet a crime in this country - although
> doubtless you are already petitioning your MP to make it so, along with
> rowing, towing a trailer, and almost anything else that might ruffle a
> hair on one's head - and equally happily, this board is not your
> personal suzerainity and the rest of us are in no way bound to jump to
> your 'demands' that we respond to your vapourings.
>
> I find it odd that someone so comprehensively clued-up on this matter
> as you claim to be seeks the source of my information - possibly you
> have done insufficient research into the matter? For your
> enlightenment, follow this link:
> http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2001wk0/news/a_tragedy

Thanks, Michael.

Despite your promising no slanging match, you just could not resist
delivering a string of invective & insult. How infantile! But at least
I stung you enough to extract some kind of a response, however daft.

In "defence" of your ignorant remarks on Leo Blockley you offer further
insults plus article written for an Oxford student newspaper in January
2001. Nothing else? Well, were that really the very latest information
available it'd have been small wonder that you got it so horribly wrong.
But it wasn't, & you knew it wasn't. In view of which, wouldn't &
shouldn't any reasonable person have gone away to read up on the
subject, as suggested, & then reported on what they'd learned? Seems
you've learned nothing & prefer not to burden yourself with knowing (or
shall we say admitting to?) the facts.

Apparently you'd like us to believe that you've remained ignorant of the
shameful truth that a major cover-up & blame-the-victim
damage-limitation exercise was mounted by OU directly after Leo's death?
That exercise involved deceiving Leo's parents, the Spanish & the
Oxford police, & the rowing world at large. For it to succeed, as so
nearly it did thanks to the active cooperation of the ARA (a conspiracy
which continues even now), it was essential that the blame be planted on
Leo, that everyone was kept shtum, that no one learned about the
seriously pissed coaches (who had to be cautioned during the inquest),
that the lie was propagated that "the boat did not sink", & that the
fiction was spread - just as you tried so very hard to spread it - that
Leo "swam away from the boat". You really want us to believe you knew
none of that, despite it having been exposed both here & during last
year's inquest? That'd be pretty hard to swallow if you'd been living
under a stone. But it's just not credible in view of your encyclopaedic
familiarity with the range of safety issues I've raised on RSR (all of
which you make such haste to scorn).

Obviously you should have said spared us your splenetic outburst, since
with it you blew your case for being simply ignorant! Now go, please,
do the decent thing & read through the densely packed information that's
freely available on www.leoblockley.org.uk

>
> Whilst on this aspect of the matter, I should like to make two further
> points:
>
> Firstly, I did not introduce the subject of the Blockley incident into
> either this or the original thread. It must surely be common ground
> that this incident was due to a series of unpredictable and exceptional
> circumstances and to constantly refer to it as if it were a commonplace
> eventuality likely to be repeated any day of the week is not helpful to
> a sensible debate. Here, to refresh your rather selective memory, is a
> quote from one of my original posts on the matter, referring to
> buoyancy: "Please don't misunderstand me - I am not arguing that we
> don't need it or shouldn't have it" - clear enough? It will have to do
> - I cannot think of shorter words.

Either you think buoyancy is a necessary element of a rowing shell, or
you do not. If the former, then why the calculated insults of your
first posting in that thread?

Of course you're free, as you demand, to hurl insults on RSR. Similarly
you're free to spread misinformation & lies. But do try to remember,
when so doing, that others are just as free to respond - as, when &
where they see fit. You acted the fool, so it should not surprise you
that several of us picked you up on that. Nor should it surprise you
that I might press the case home. Just get used to it.

>
> Secondly, I regret that the original thread drew the attention of Leo's
> parents and thus may have opened up old wounds and distressing memories
> for them and I apologise to them for any part I (unwittingly) played in
> that.

Sadly those 2 decent people, who've done so much & are still doing so
much to advance rowing safety, have had far worse to cope with than your
inane meanderings. Had your apology been accompanied by an
acknowledgement that you'd got it badly wrong - instead of a petulant
attempt to defend the indefensible - then it might have been significant.

Why, Michael, is "Sorry", or "I goofed", so hard for some folk to say?

>
> You will not hear from me again on this matter, so kindly go and find
> another itch to scratch.

As I said in the first sentence of this reply, you just can't leave well
alone can you? You got it horribly wrong, Michael, & you're too damn
cocky to admit it. Shame on you.

[paul_v...@hotmail.com]

andy....@ge.com wrote:
> Paul,
>
> We have a double from Swift, which is good (once you fix the
> footstretchers) but the elite IV's are out of our price range, and we'd
> get a 2nd hand boat rather than a swift club one.

What did you have to do to 'fix' the foot stretchers, I have a 2x and
haven't seen any issues in 6 months, but would surely like to head off
any if you can advise.

- Paul

[andy....@ge.com]

We had to get longer screws for the shoes and also araldited them in,
as they screw directly through the wood and work loose.

We also replaced the split pins in the bottom stretcher fixings which
came out.

You may have a different footstretcher to us.

They are also very fiddly to adjust, but if you don't have lots of
crews using the boat that wouldn't be so much of a problem.

[donal...@gmail.com]

The Hudsons have undersealed compartements for their UK boats and the
September container is being delivered with Zero transport cost to UK
M4 corridor

Donal

[donal...@gmail.com]

Thanks Caroline -

Donal

[Nick Suess]

"Michael Walker" <webm...@cantabsrowing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1155486353.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> I find it odd that someone so comprehensively clued-up on this matter
> as you claim to be seeks the source of my information - possibly you
> have done insufficient research into the matter? For your
> enlightenment, follow this link:
> http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2001wk0/news/a_tragedy
>

Hell's teeth, what sort of a joker is this Walker guy? Surely he must have
spelt his name wrong!

So his "evidence" amounts to nothing more than a 5˝ year old piece of
tabloid journalism long since utterly discredited, most especially by the
second inquest and the parliamentary adjournment debate. If that's his idea
of "enlightenment", he might as well have claimed at the same time that the
heavenly bodies all revolve around the earth, because some few years back a
Pope insisted it was so when Galileo dared to question that little bit of
accepted wisdom.

Pathetic!

Apologise, Walker.

[paul_v...@hotmail.com]

andy....@ge.com wrote:
> We had to get longer screws for the shoes and also araldited them in,
> as they screw directly through the wood and work loose.
>
> We also replaced the split pins in the bottom stretcher fixings which
> came out.
>
> You may have a different footstretcher to us.
>
> They are also very fiddly to adjust, but if you don't have lots of
> crews using the boat that wouldn't be so much of a problem.

What is the age of the boat? I'm not familiar with what was in use
prior to mine, but it sounds a lot different than what I'm seeing.
We've gone to a seperate plate that the shoes mount to and that
assembley is then mounted to the regular foot stretcher.

It would be nice to find a very robust and adjustable system that would
not be 'fiddley' in some way, if you come across something, let me
know. [;o)

Thanks.

- Paul Smith

[Gripper]

Why is it that any one who dares to offer an opinion on this group is
seen off with such spit and bile.
There will be little or no debate if people don't offer an opinion, and
simply "shouting" down anyone who does will result in the same few
people posting replies to themselves.

[Henning Lippke]

Gripper wrote:
> Why is it that any one who dares to offer an opinion on this group is
> seen off with such spit and bile.

Anyone may offer their opinion, but then should keep it as their opinion
and not try and make it seem like some sort of fact or truth.

[Mike Sullivan]

"Gripper" <watso...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155573631.1...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

Nick Suess wrote:
> "Michael Walker" <webm...@cantabsrowing.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:1155486353.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

>Why is it that any one who dares to offer an opinion on this group is
>seen off with such spit and bile.
>There will be little or no debate if people don't offer an opinion, and
>simply "shouting" down anyone who does will result in the same few
>people posting replies to themselves.

Debate is worthwhile and valid when people w/ the same
set of facts disagree over redress, over compensation,
over cause, over responsibility, over consequences... etc..

Walker is willfully ignorant of the facts and now chooses
to ignore whatever didn't match his original spew.

btw, spewing is perfectly acceptable on RSR as is puking,
hiking, farting, and trolling -it's a free forum.

However, if you wish honest debate, at least try to START with
honest debate.

[Gareth Gruenbaum]

Very well said, Mike.

And regards the posting about Swift stretchers, the type where shoes
are attached directly to stretchers is no longer used, as it was too
fiddly (this was on WIN boats by the way). The new system is what Paul
has, and is meant to be more user friendly.

Regards

Gareth
Rowing Center (UK) Ltd

[Nick Suess]

"Gareth Gruenbaum" <itsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155593374....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Very well said, Mike.
>
Thanks Henning, Mike and Gareth

Yes, Walker's error was to quote a bit of journalistic hype from as long ago
as January 2001 and claim this as "enlightenment" (his own word) and as a
fact that had never been challenged, making Leo responsible for his own
death. The only fact was that this was a load of bollocks, which he must
surely have known, unless he had been hiding in a very dark cave for a long
time.

[Carl Douglas]

So has Michael got an undeclared agenda WRT the Blockley/buoyancy topic?

If he has, how interesting that it corresponds precisely with that of
the ARA's E. Region - within which Cambridge lies.

It was E. Region, under Mike Mansfield, which published on the ARA
website the totally false statement - no, the lie - that the verdict in
the second Blockley inquest was identical to that in the first. It was
not. Mansfield knew it was not. And so did his deputy, the well-know
Chatteris solicitor & member of PCRC, Brian Hawden. But that did not
stop E. Region from publishing its lie.

When Jane & Stephen Blockley asked Mansfield to correct the false
statement they got no response. When they wrote again, they got the
precedural brush-off. This was yet another instance of the deliberate
publication of lies so that, in 5 years time, chumps like Michael Walker
can so pompously quote them as "enlightenment" to make an utterly
spurious case. Unfortunately for him, he picked the wrong person for
his naive put-down attempt.

So should I not, as 2 contributors have suggested, have exposed
Michael's nonsense in the terms it so richly deserved? Pull the other
one! Without withdrawing the core of his false allegation against their
son, that guy tried to slide out behind a weaselly-worded "apology" for
having "opened up old wounds and distressing memories for them". Not
one word from our Michael to say, "I am sorry that I got it so wrong",
so he leaves the barb in their sides, just where he first planted it.
Nice guy!

Those in the real world, who know that Leo lived in the ARA's NW region
& rowed at Oxford, can find no honourable explanation for why E. Region,
which has & had no standing whatsoever in the matter, took upon itself
to "explain" the verdict of the Blockley inquest on the ARA website.
Since that supposed "explanation" was both a lie & a deliberate slur
against a dead man, & since the region then ignored repeated requests to
have its lie deleted, the whole business stinks.

So who has been advising Gary Harris, at ARA HQ, on his dealings with
the Reading & the S. Manchester Coroners? Well, Brian Hawden, of E.
Region, was co-opted onto the ARA Council specifically, according to the
ARA website, for his legal expertise. And it was Brian Hawden who
proposed the vote of thanks, at the February Council meeting, to Gary
Harris for his conduct of the ARA's dealings with the 2 Coroners. So it
is clear that Hawden's legal expertise has blessed Harris's misconduct,
& it may well be that it guided it. Not many ARA Council members will
have known anything of that when, hoping to sweep a discreditable bit of
ARA business finally under the carpet, they gave their "ayes" to that
creepy vote of thanks.

Manipulated? ARA Council members? Perish the thought!

I've previously drawn attention to Mr. Hawden's unfortunate run-ins with
the Law Society, leading to a 6-month suspension from practising:
http://tinyurl.com/zpbug
(scroll to the bottom of that page)
I think one may reasonably wonder whether the ARA has based its
bloody-minded & dishonest conduct over the Blockley, buoyancy & safety
issues in recent years on the most reliable of legal advice.

[Carl Douglas]

Carl Douglas wrote:
> Nick Suess wrote:
>
>> "Gareth Gruenbaum" <itsg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155593374....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Very well said, Mike.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Henning, Mike and Gareth
>>
>> Yes, Walker's error was to quote a bit of journalistic hype from as
>> long ago as January 2001 and claim this as "enlightenment" (his own
>> word) and as a fact that had never been challenged, making Leo
>> responsible for his own death. The only fact was that this was a load
>> of bollocks, which he must surely have known, unless he had been
>> hiding in a very dark cave for a long time.
>>
>
> So has Michael got an undeclared agenda WRT the Blockley/buoyancy topic?
>
> If he has, how interesting that it corresponds precisely with that of
> the ARA's E. Region - within which Cambridge lies.
>
> It was E. Region, under Mike Mansfield, which published on the ARA
> website the totally false statement - no, the lie - that the verdict in
> the second Blockley inquest was identical to that in the first. It was
> not. Mansfield knew it was not. And so did his deputy, the well-know
> Chatteris solicitor & member of PCRC, Brian Hawden. But that did not
> stop E. Region from publishing its lie.
>

FWIW, there is still no formal retraction, & still no apology from E.
Region to the Blockleys, for the region's published lie, despite E.
Regional minutes of 1 February 2006, available at:
http://tinyurl.com/nd5ec
where it is stated:
"12 Safety
"Deaths of a junior at Reading and Oxford rower in Spain. The
verdict at the second ‘Oxford’ inquest was recorded as a
narrative verdict, not as recorded in the 19 October minutes.
Lessons had been learnt from both tragedies"

What lessons, pray?

Clearly _no_ lessons have been learned, within E. Region or within the
ARA as a whole. Neither as to the necessity of buoyancy nor the deadly
folly of the swim-to-the-bow capsize drill. Nor as to the inhumanity of
continuing to publish lies about opther people's dead sons.

This really is despicable.

[Jeremy Fagan]

Michael Walker wrote:
> Carl -
> I have no intention of descending into a slanging match with you over
> this issue. It is diverting, in a small way, that you are so mortally
> wounded by anybody daring to question your impregnable authority

You didn't question his authority, but rather his motives. Very different.

>
> I find it odd that someone so comprehensively clued-up on this matter
> as you claim to be seeks the source of my information - possibly you
> have done insufficient research into the matter? For your
> enlightenment, follow this link:
> http://www.oxfordstudent.com/ht2001wk0/news/a_tragedy

I remember the journalist ringing me up to find out what happened. I was
2 weeks back from the accident, and dealing with half a hundred other
things at the same time - it's hardly the most accurate source of
information - an article 5 1/2 years ago in a student newspaper.
Especially considering the amount of information on the internet since.

>
> Whilst on this aspect of the matter, I should like to make two further
> points:
>
> Firstly, I did not introduce the subject of the Blockley incident into
> either this or the original thread. It must surely be common ground
> that this incident was due to a series of unpredictable and exceptional
> circumstances and to constantly refer to it as if it were a commonplace
> eventuality likely to be repeated any day of the week is not helpful to
> a sensible debate. Here, to refresh your rather selective memory, is a
> quote from one of my original posts on the matter, referring to
> buoyancy: "Please don't misunderstand me - I am not arguing that we
> don't need it or shouldn't have it" - clear enough? It will have to do
> - I cannot think of shorter words.

So why introduce yourself to the group in such a pointless way?

>
> Secondly, I regret that the original thread drew the attention of Leo's
> parents and thus may have opened up old wounds and distressing memories
> for them and I apologise to them for any part I (unwittingly) played in
> that.

And myself and one or two others who were there who still read and lurk
on the group. When you say unwittingly, again, it wouldn't take much
research to realise that they read this group regularly.

>
> You will not hear from me again on this matter, so kindly go and find
> another itch to scratch.

La la la la la la la can't hear you la la la la

>
> Andy: If you're still bothering yourself reading this, let me advance
> the apology you deserve for my having been the cause of diverting your
> thread from its original purpose. Drop me an email - we have a couple
> of bow-loaders in the 80 - 85Kg range and I'm sure we can arrange a
> couple of test outings in one or the other of them for you so you can
> get an idea of how they behave.
>

Jeremy

[gledders]

A lot of people seem to recommend Janousek boats.

Whilst true that they are plentiful and give good service, sorry but
they are the equivilent of the Ford Mondeo !! Hard to fault, but also
hard to fall in love with or boast about to your friends.

Also, in my experience, they hole very very easily, and due to the
honeycomb construction, soak up water like a sponge if crushed / run
aground. Also, the paint finish flakes off very easily on river debris
or being beeched etc etc.

We have a couple of Sims evolution's, and they are much better, so much
more robust. I do not know the technical difference in the finish, but
they simply do not chip, I suspect the finish is some form of plastic
coating ???? If you do hole it, ie a very sharp rock, you just tape it
up and carry on, no drama with drying it out etc etc.

But, as you mention, availability and price will actually decide for
you.

Good hunting.

[mpruscoe]

gledders wrote:
> We have a couple of Sims evolution's, and they are much better, so much
> more robust. I do not know the technical difference in the finish, but
> they simply do not chip, I suspect the finish is some form of plastic
> coating ????

Gel coat instead of paint.