Could this be the face that distracted the Captain of the Costa Concordia then propelled her, with all 4200 souls aboard her, onto some rocks?

I am truly sorry for those who have lost loved ones, but CAN it possibly be 'Capitan Coward' (as he has been dubbed by the media), had his eye taken 'off the ball' by this undoubted beauty? Its probably just me - but I am more than a little suspicious of the shipping company's completely apparent 'abandonment', of any responsibility for their employee.

Do I smell fish?

Something doesn't ring quite true about all this 'cut & dried' attitude. All too convenient for a man to be 'strung up' and found guilty - without even an inquiry having taken place.

Wee davy, I've not followed the story much, but I was surpised to see the sudden (timely) emergence of a very photogenic blonde onto the scene. The media have certainly gone after the captain big time, which must be good for the company as it limits the bad headlines devoted to them before the media circus moves on.

Tragic that lives were lost.

GG.

I did have this debate the other day when the wife and kids were demanding that he should be in jail. They have him guilty before he was even out the water.

In a different tone when a woman was mentioned as being on the bridge when the collision took place I suggested it went further and it was a woman driver, the glares would have lit up hampden.

Would he know as soon as it hit that it would sink and how did he get ahead of everyone else in getting off, was he on a lifeboat.

One thing that puzzles me is that it was so close to land, why would you care about lifeboats, surely you would have swam the thirty or forty yards to shore.

Is he being hung out to dry. The radio message telling him to get back aboard seems a compelling argument against him.

Got this on Facebook this morning.
If it wasn't retouched then the Editor should be hung by the short-and-curlies.

Some background information from the BBC, and an interesting development reported in the Guardian:


Full story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/1...cesco-schettino

GG.

The captain as well have all been made aware is ultimately responsible for the safety of his ship,crew and passengers.
There is however a chain of command so that when the captain is not on the bridge,on a ship of that size, there would be a Ist and 2nd officer and an OOW(officer of the watch) and helmsman all covering the navigation duties.
So the question which will eventually be answered is did he order the ship to draw too close to the shore or is there other factors which took the ship there?Malfunction in equipment,seismic activity?
I have no doubt having read about his conduct after the collision he has not acted in a proper manner and will no doubt be punished in due process.
Another issue re the conduct of the crew.In a ship that size every eventuality is broadcast to the crew in code,eg power fail,code yellow,engine fail,code blue et al so another question has to be who issued the code that there was merely a power failure and that passengers should return to their rooms?

It isn't looking good for the captain. Maps showing the route he should have followed and the deviation he ordered are striking, and whilst one has to await the formal enquiry result, it's going to be pretty hard to explain it as a malfunction or seismic activity. Reports so far paint a very awkward picture of the captain's behaviour and command.

Aha so you are of the opinion we should believe the media..... lol

Fish, na it's Photoshop.

I have traveled a few times on Coata Cruises as well as others.So far Costa have been the best as they cater to the Italians who demand the finest in cuisine, and thats what Costa gives. I remember this capitano also on one of my cruises , but didn't see too much of him on deck. Guess he was busy with Dominica

I'm generally skeptical of the media, certainly the printed press, which is why it's always wise to wait for the formal enquiry, but even so, if the maps showing the route he took and the extent of his deviation from the planned route are realistic, he sure has some explaining to do. Either way, his career is over.

There is now suspicion the firm actually ENCOURAGED him to do a 'fly past
Alex!!
Its never over until ....

Too true. I don't know enough about marine practices and the like, but I have been wondering why the ship's navigation equipment didn't warn of underwater obstacles. Perhaps I'm just too naieve in these things, but the first thing I thought of was my brother's car, which has an audible and visual alarm on the dashboard which tells him if he's too close to some other object when making, say, a parking manoeuvre. It didn't seem like rocket science to have something similar in a large vessel like this. Maybe someone with background knowledge could offer an opinion.

I know what you meant Alex, just had to wind you up, it was just too good an opportunity not to say something. His career will be the last thing he'll be thinking about at the moment, he could be in the pokey for a long time to come.

I walk into it every time, don't I?

well since your asking Alex,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes

As easy as a clockwork.

Upgrade to digital status Alex, then them wee buggers cannea wind ye up.

Far be it from everytime, in fact just to clarify that you have restored my faith in human nature. I really do enjoy your contributions immensely Alex and to uncover you leaving a wee window open for an all out attack was priceless. Keep it up, your an untapped source of honesty, integrity and what makes my day is the black humour. More importantly your arguing and debating prowess is second to none and I do find myself seeking to disagree with your posts.

Sadly I end up disagreeing with everyone else's posts and get banned approx every three days.

Long may all your posts be aired as it takes all types.

Right, Alex ... that's at least 2 fans you've got (me included)

Make that 3