P&O Debacle

Messages
1,687
Here's a sobering thought for you all.
Apologies, if it's been mentioned already.

The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster happened in March 1987. I will never forget it.
The Herald of Free Enterprise was operated by Townsend Thoresen.

Late in 1987, Townsend Thoresen was bought by P&O and renamed P&O European Ferries.

P&O had planned to crew their ships from now with Russian and Ukrainian seamen, who had no prior
idea, which company they were being recruited (by agencies) for.
Russian and Ukrainian.

I've just been watching the first parts of the Transport Committee's 'hearing' on The P&O affair
and the more I hear, the more I'm convinced that if P&O could get away with it, they'd put
unsafe ships to sea and put our lives and the lives of our loved ones at risk.
 
Last edited:

Felonious Crud

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
21,011
... which is why I'm glad that my annual boat-trip - the SM Le Mans Spa and Mental Wellness Break - shall commence its journey of tranquility, relaxation and getting sideway on beer (also sideways on account of traction off*) on a DFDS boat.

*qv Spartacus // le Lude // what does this button do?
 
Messages
1,687
I would recommend you watch the Transport (& other) Committee's 'hearing', via Parliament TV

In particular. Professor Bog, of Bristol Uni. Professor of Law.
MCA witnesses. Maritime and Coastguard Agency. (there were two main witnesses from MCA)
Two union heads. RMT & Nautilus.
Peter Hepplethwaite, CEO of P&O European Ferries and Jesper Something, CEO of DPWorld Maritime.
The two committee chairs kept the proceedings moving along at a good canter.
It was very instructive. (the P&O and DPWorld witnesses) Both in what they said. What they admitted to.
What they denied and what they lied about.
It was one of the most lively committee sessions that I've seen. Not that I watch many.

I have no proof of what lies I believe were told to the Commons Committee by the P&O & DPWorld
execs, but given my experience at board levels in multinationals, as well as my previous experiences
in uniform, I believe that I have a fairly good idea of when people are lying and these guys told some
real whoppers. I believe that they believe that these whoppers can't be found out, but I think that they're
wrong and it will be very interesting to see how far the government wants to take things, against both
companies. Maybe assurances have already been asked for and given, that the focus remains on P&O.

I saw on social media that the P&O CEO's previous work experience was in pub chains. This would go
some way to understanding why and how this has turned into an enormous clusterf**k. Or as one MP put it.
P&O's Ratner moment :)

One question which wasn't asked, which I was begging an MP to ask. Was if P&O could only continue to trade
by cutting their crewing costs in half and paying between £5.15 and £6 p.h., how come the other ferry companies
that sail in UK waters haven't been forced to do the same thing? With one exception. Somebody in the hearing mentioned that Irish Ferries might have adopted the same crewing methodology, at the same rates. It may also have been said that they also did a fire and rehire. But the latter point, I'm less sure about.
 

zagatoes30

Member
Messages
20,758
From what I have seen P&O knew what that what they were doing was wrong and were prepared for the response, I think that overtime it will settle down and they will return to normal practises. They won't be concerned but I won't be using P&O in the future but I doubt there will be enough like minded customers who do the same to worry them too much. I'm afraid we all shout in horror when these things happen but we quickly return to using those services based on convenience or price which is why companies are prepared to use these tactics.
 

Scaf

Member
Messages
6,511
From what I have seen P&O knew what that what they were doing was wrong and were prepared for the response, I think that overtime it will settle down and they will return to normal practises. They won't be concerned but I won't be using P&O in the future but I doubt there will be enough like minded customers who do the same to worry them too much. I'm afraid we all shout in horror when these things happen but we quickly return to using those services based on convenience or price which is why companies are prepared to use these tactics.
I dont disagree, their CEO said as much yesterday.
The big risk for them is government freight contracts.
 

CatmanV2

Member
Messages
48,539
From what I have seen P&O knew what that what they were doing was wrong and were prepared for the response, I think that overtime it will settle down and they will return to normal practises. They won't be concerned but I won't be using P&O in the future but I doubt there will be enough like minded customers who do the same to worry them too much. I'm afraid we all shout in horror when these things happen but we quickly return to using those services based on convenience or price which is why companies are prepared to use these tactics.

Correct. I expect the CEO will have a large, gold coloured parachute as well....

I dont disagree, their CEO said as much yesterday.
The big risk for them is government freight contracts.

And what options might the government actually have as an alternative?

My feeling is that they'll dole a slap on the wrist so they can say that they did their bit and.....around we go again.

C
 

midlifecrisis

Member
Messages
16,101
From a compliance point of view, I don't know how you can replace regulated staff with new regulated staff at a moment's notice. Surely they have to do some familiarisation and assessment before going to see with fare paying passengers?

So glad we have safety as the paramount priority in aviation.
 
Messages
1,687
If you care to dip into the Committee session, all of your queries and comments are answered.

I know from bitter experience that when a life threatening incident happens and I mean a major
incident, many people responsible for responding will freeze. Some will panic. One or two will
wet themselves. A few will run. Some will forget all their training and take actions that cause
more death and injury.

And above, I'm referring to competent, well trained and practiced teams, who all speak the same
language. In the P&O case, also those who are intimate with the ship and it's systems.

The replacement crew, didn't know what company or ship, nor base they were going to until they
got there. P&O expected to turn the ships around and get MCA certification to carry passengers etc
within 24 hrs.

The CEO has been shown to be two things. A willing criminal, who was so stupid as to engage in actions,
with no idea of how many laws he planned to break and their penalties.
The other thing is that he was so incompetent as regards how his own company operated, that he executed
a plan that was NEVER going to succeed within it's set timelines and perhaps not at all.
Actually, there's one more thing. Clearly he's an incompetent leader of people. I know no CEO that I've worked
with, who did not surround themselves with robust teams of qualified, highly experienced professionals,
who would have challenged this idiotic plan from it was first mooted and if necessary would've gone over the
CEO's head, to prevent the company shooting itself in every extremity.

If it was me. I'd impound/secure the ships in British ports. I'd threaten the whole board of P&O with prison, start an immediate criminal investigation and get the High Court to declare them all unfit to be directors. I would raise **** with DPWorld and let them know that they would also be part of the criminal investigation and not to speak to any director subject to criminal proceedings. Then I would nationalise P&O Ferries, if that's what it took. Recrew with those sacked and start trading immediately. Or, instruct DPWorld to recrew and restart operations, or else the government would. I'd work out the fine details with DPWorld later and possibly hand the company back
so long as legally binding assurances were made, that if broken would mean that we could seize DPPorts in the UK.

The DPWorld exec that was interviewed remotely was an arrogant SoB. As well as a liar. Its long overdue that our government develop some balls so that no other company feels it can do anything like what P&O did and not expect a metric s**t ton of bricks to fall on them. I seriously doubt that Margaret would've stood for this for one second. Reagan was afraid to pick up the phone when she called him, to tear him a new one after Grenada.
And if Reagan and others who were in the Oval Office at the time are to be believed, she tore him several new ones
in the course of a very long call.
 

RodTungsten

Member
Messages
562
My point exactly re safety - human factors. Response from one of my several ex-MN brothers (engineer) about the £200M dividend was “buy shares” ffs.
 

Scaf

Member
Messages
6,511
If you care to dip into the Committee session, all of your queries and comments are answered.

I know from bitter experience that when a life threatening incident happens and I mean a major
incident, many people responsible for responding will freeze. Some will panic. One or two will
wet themselves. A few will run. Some will forget all their training and take actions that cause
more death and injury.

And above, I'm referring to competent, well trained and practiced teams, who all speak the same
language. In the P&O case, also those who are intimate with the ship and it's systems.

The replacement crew, didn't know what company or ship, nor base they were going to until they
got there. P&O expected to turn the ships around and get MCA certification to carry passengers etc
within 24 hrs.

The CEO has been shown to be two things. A willing criminal, who was so stupid as to engage in actions,
with no idea of how many laws he planned to break and their penalties.
The other thing is that he was so incompetent as regards how his own company operated, that he executed
a plan that was NEVER going to succeed within it's set timelines and perhaps not at all.
Actually, there's one more thing. Clearly he's an incompetent leader of people. I know no CEO that I've worked
with, who did not surround themselves with robust teams of qualified, highly experienced professionals,
who would have challenged this idiotic plan from it was first mooted and if necessary would've gone over the
CEO's head, to prevent the company shooting itself in every extremity.

If it was me. I'd impound/secure the ships in British ports. I'd threaten the whole board of P&O with prison, start an immediate criminal investigation and get the High Court to declare them all unfit to be directors. I would raise **** with DPWorld and let them know that they would also be part of the criminal investigation and not to speak to any director subject to criminal proceedings. Then I would nationalise P&O Ferries, if that's what it took. Recrew with those sacked and start trading immediately. Or, instruct DPWorld to recrew and restart operations, or else the government would. I'd work out the fine details with DPWorld later and possibly hand the company back
so long as legally binding assurances were made, that if broken would mean that we could seize DPPorts in the UK.

The DPWorld exec that was interviewed remotely was an arrogant SoB. As well as a liar. Its long overdue that our government develop some balls so that no other company feels it can do anything like what P&O did and not expect a metric s**t ton of bricks to fall on them. I seriously doubt that Margaret would've stood for this for one second. Reagan was afraid to pick up the phone when she called him, to tear him a new one after Grenada.
And if Reagan and others who were in the Oval Office at the time are to be believed, she tore him several new ones
in the course of a very long call.
I appreciate what they have done is abhorrent and breached employment law, but unless I have missed something I don’t think what they did was criminal.
Of course the consequences of what they are doing now in terms of staffing the ship could well leans to criminal charges if someone were to get killed.
He should have stepped down by now, reality will be that this was a board decision not his alone.
 

midlifecrisis

Member
Messages
16,101
From a compliance point of view, I don't know how you can replace regulated staff with new regulated staff at a moment's notice. Surely they have to do some familiarisation and assessment before going to see with fare paying passengers?

So glad we have safety as the paramount priority in aviation.
Looks like Grant Shaps reads SportMaserati

 
Messages
1,687
I appreciate what they have done is abhorrent and breached employment law, but unless I have missed something I don’t think what they did was criminal.
Of course the consequences of what they are doing now in terms of staffing the ship could well leans to criminal charges if someone were to get killed.
He should have stepped down by now, reality will be that this was a board decision not his alone.
Not being a lawyer and being in a rush this morning, I can't answer you properly 'Scaf'.
Suffice to say.
Pleading ignorance of a law that you break is never a defence. He (the CEO) admitted in public, on record to a
Commons Committee, that he knew what he was doing was unlawful, even if he didn't know exactly or all of the laws he was breaking by his planned actions. For some criminal offences, intent is enough to be guilty. If memory serves.
There's a term in law called 'mens rea'. Its Latin for 'guilty mind'. Some offences depend on proving 'mens rea' and he admitted this when he testified that he knew he was breaking the law, had planned to break whatever laws applied to his actions and went ahead and did it anyway.
So, specifically which laws did he break. That needs to be investigated. However, there is one huge complicating factor for this man, if the government decides to 'hang him' as an example and throw the book at him.
He conspired to commit whatever offences he's guilty of. The offence of conspiracy is an extremely serious one in criminal law, because (I believe) it usually only applies to the most serious offences and in effect multiplies the seriousness of the offences you may have committed.
He has definitely broken laws relating to his responsibilities as a company director. Criminal offences.
If he can be shown to have compromised the health and safety procedures/ safeguards of his ships, employees and potentially of passengers, those would be criminal offences.
Breaching employment law, which he did by his own admission, is a civil matter, but still involves stiff penalties for the company and perhaps also for the directors personally.
Must dash. To be continued. With Perjury to Parliament ;)

Don't have to dash after all. If I were the Attorney General, I'd be looking for examples in previous health & safety related or other cases, where company directors putting one business unit into operation, were found to have breached health and safety law. And then planned to put other business units of a similar kind into operation without ensuring thorough health and safety compliance. I'm thinking of the Larne ferry here.
For a private company, breaches of H&S law are extremely serious, depending on the seriousness of the breach.
Penalties include fines and imprisonment for those found responsible. Of course many shady companies flout H&S law, but from my own personal experience, I can tell you that if private companies that wish to maintain a good reputation, the seriousness of breaches would be regarded as extremely serious by boards of directors.
(because they are aware of the penalties)
Perjury to Parliament. Suffice to say, its unlikely to apply here. Sadly. But if it were to be enforced, it would be regarded as seriously as would perjury to a court of law, with fines and imprisonment as penalties.

I cannot understate the depths of stupidity of the P&O CEO and his board of directors. They have made themselves
liable for large fines and imprisonment and made P&O liable for enormous fines and impounding of their ships at a cost per unit of a million pounds per day.

Suffice to say. I doubt that any of the P&O board will ever be directors again in the UK. I suspect that this plan, if you can even call it that, was imposed by DPWorld but whether British authorities can ever secure the evidence to support this, I wouldn't like to guess. I'm stating the obvious, however, I'd say that whatever penalties are imposed ultimately, will be decided largely by the PM and Attorney General, via the courts.

I hate to say it, for more reasons than I care to explain. And very personal reasons too. But, I feel that we're about due for another Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Before the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, the previous ferry loss was thirty-four years previously, in the storms of early 1953 and involved the Princess Victoria ferry, which sailed between Stranraer and Larne. Its thirty five years since the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking and the 'institutional memory' of that incident has dissipated. Disasters rarely happen for one reason. Contributing factors build up over time. Both in number and severity. The warning signs are usually there to be seen or ignored.

When you have the blood of others on your hands. You can never wash it off.
 
Last edited:

midlifecrisis

Member
Messages
16,101
Not being a lawyer and being in a rush this morning, I can't answer you properly 'Scaf'.
Suffice to say.
Pleading ignorance of a law that you break is never a defence. He (the CEO) admitted in public, on record to a
Commons Committee, that he knew what he was doing was unlawful, even if he didn't know exactly or all of the laws he was breaking by his planned actions. For some criminal offences, intent is enough to be guilty. If memory serves.
There's a term in law called 'mens rea'. Its Latin for 'guilty mind'. Some offences depend on proving 'mens rea' and he admitted this when he testified that he knew he was breaking the law, had planned to break whatever laws applied to his actions and went ahead and did it anyway.
So, specifically which laws did he break. That needs to be investigated. However, there is one huge complicating factor for this man, if the government decides to 'hang him' as an example and throw the book at him.
He conspired to commit whatever offences he's guilty of. The offence of conspiracy is an extremely serious one in criminal law, because (I believe) it usually only applies to the most serious offences and in effect multiplies the seriousness of the offences you may have committed.
He has definitely broken laws relating to his responsibilities as a company director. Criminal offences.
If he can be shown to have compromised the health and safety procedures/ safeguards of his ships, employees and potentially of passengers, those would be criminal offences.
Breaching employment law, which he did by his own admission, is a civil matter, but still involves stiff penalties for the company and perhaps also for the directors personally.
Must dash. To be continued. With Perjury to Parliament ;)
Perjury to Parliament..I didn't see or read his responses to questions in Parliament but I believe he admitted criminal intent and applied it.

I really don't see how P&O can continue with agency staff or this CEO. I can see Businees Schools updating their 'How to be a CEO' courses deleting Gerald Ratner to Peter Hebblethwaite
 

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,107
These days it's all too common for large companies to flaunt their credentials with 'ethical policies' and seek the moral high ground, whilst behind the scenes anything goes in the pursuit of the balance sheet and directors' bonuses. As Catman says, the CEO is unlikely to get any meaningful sanction, and you can't expect much from a parliament that's run by BJ and packed with MP's who spend much of their time looking for 'consultancies' and lucrative directorships. Either the government knew this was coming and did nothing to stop it, or they didn't know because they were sleeping on the job - again.

None of that means much to the poor s*ds who lost their jobs, but you only have to look at the companies who screwed employees in the name of Covid to see that they're not alone.
 
Messages
1,687
Perjury to Parliament..I didn't see or read his responses to questions in Parliament but I believe he admitted criminal intent and applied it.

I really don't see how P&O can continue with agency staff or this CEO. I can see Businees Schools updating their 'How to be a CEO' courses deleting Gerald Ratner to Peter Hebblethwaite
Yes Martin. He did. I saw him do it. Many times. MPs couldn't believe their ears, so kept circling back to the point and asked him several times, during his testimony whether he knew he was breaking the law when he did it and he was unequivocal every time.
 
Last edited: