I digress from the subject of Mr. Moxon to illustrate a point on the question of freedom of speech and being disingenuous.
Mr. Moxon was disingenous and to be frank dishonest with regard to the Inquiry into the loss of Koombana. This might be considered a harsh judgment but one that I can substantiate.
I love X and am an unconditional fan of Elon Musk (to whom I am distantly related as I am to William Moxon).
I post and comment 'to my heart's content' as my dear late mother would say and was rather taken aback to be 'blocked' albeit it temporarily - like being sent to detention at school, if you will.
I understand the principle behind being 'blocked' as any form of violence should not be tolerated for a second. But there are instances when being 'sarcastic' can be misconstrued and the original subject of the comment, in my opinion, far more egregious
i.e. 'getting rid of more than half of the voting United States of America'
And by what means?
Context??
Response to Ivanka Trump's (https://x.com/IvankaNews_) ?? seeking reaction to Will Smith's allegation "the US needs to get rid of Trump supporters", I wrote in so many words that he should receive what he dished out at the Oscars -
Satire / sarcasm / poor taste in sense of humour - take your pick. Certainly not literally intended....
I was immediately blocked.
Is GROK as nuanced as it could be moving forward into the future? Will Smith's comment is far more scary.
Or is there an element of wokeism creeping onto the very platform within which I have sought refuge from legacy media misinformation and 'the woke mind virus'?
Also GROK can get down and dirty on a different level which might not be to everyone's taste but certainly did not offend my sensibilities nor incite me to 'violence'
https://x.com/Stellar17Arya/status/1721807977370312865
Back to Mr. Moxon:
Although distantly and not by blood, I am related to William Ernest Moxon, a man who did not have his finest hour in the wake of the Koombana disaster. He was ambitious and determined to provide the finest luxury steamer dedicated to the Nor'West trade. This was to be the fast top heavy RMS Koombana, a disaster waiting to happen. Subsequent to the loss of Koombana Moxon's west coast Adelaide Steamship Co operation stumbled and faltered ultimately supplanted by the State Steamship Service.
Lucille Jessie van Rensburg my mother --> Dorothy Sachse Mackenzie her mother --> Frederick William Juby her father --> Wilfred Edgar Juby his brother --> Martha Elizabeth Juby his wife --> Clement Arthur King her brother --> Lucy Hilda King his wife --> Charles William Webber her father --> Alexander James Webber his brother --> Horace Graham Webber his son --> Jess Webber (Cowley) his wife --> William Cowley her father --> Abraham Cowley his father --> Ebenezer Cowley his brother --> Clara Lucy Moxon his daughter --> William Ernest Moxon her husband
I am Attorney and Manager in Western Australia for the Adelaide Steamship Company.
C.H.M. The SS 'Koombana' was one of a fleet of vessels owned by your company ?
Ans. Yes, and as manager for W.A. this vessel was under my direct supervision.
C.H.M. The loading of this vessel and the distribution of cargo was attended to by the Marine Superintendent in consultation with the Chief Officer acting for the Master.
Ans. Yes.
C.H.M. The Company has laid down rules and regulations for the guidance of Masters and ships?
Ans. Yes, I have the rule book here.
(rule book put it in)
C.H.M. In connection with the last voyage of the 'Koombana', were any special instructions given to the Captain to push on or make up any lost time ?
Ans. She was running to time on a liberal time table.
C.H.M. The Captain was not directed to hurry up in any way ?
Ans. As a matter of fact the 'Bullarra' had just preceded her and had lightened her work at intermediate ports so that she had everything well in hand. The ship was not late and had nothing to pick up but a very small cargo at Port Hedland.
C.H.M. The movements of the ship when in Port Hedland were entirely in the hands of the Captain ?
Ans. Yes. Once a steamer leaves Fremantle on the north west trade matters are left practically to the master.
C.H.M. It was left to the discretion of Captain Allen when to sail or stay in port ?
(regulation number 4 read)
...Captain Allen would not let his judgment be interfered with by any one. He was a man of strong character.
The first point to note is that Captain Irvine, Chief Harbour Master, questioning Mr. Moxon, was almost leading his witness down the path of exculpation - "The movements of the ship when at Port Hedland were entirely in the hands of the captain ?"
This certainly gives an initial impression that the shipowner and authorities were closing ranks.
Mr. Moxon referred to Koombana 'running on time on a liberal time table'.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Annie Boyd offers an eloquent explanation in Koombana Days illustrating how challenging it was for Koombana to make spring tides at Hedland and Broome within the 28 day cycle, including return trips from Derby or as far afield as Wyndham, via ports.
Being caught or 'neaped' at Hedland could cost up to a week's delay and throw the entire schedule out. Koombana was a subsidized mail ship which if running late for 'not good enough reason' could be fined £ 5 per hour delayed. This was significant, never mind passenger and cargo demands.
To say that it was a 'liberal time table' was being disingenuous and taking people on the Northwest for fools.
Mr. Moxon went further to claim that 'once the steamer leaves Fremantle on the north west trade matters are left practically to the Master.' and 'it was left to the discretion of Capt. Allen when to sail or stay in port.'
In one blunt sweep Captain Allen was 'thrown under a bus', a man who could never defend himself and his actions; and who had gone to a watery grave with his complement of 157 innocent souls.
Whether Captain Allen had made an error of judgement as regards emptying and filling tanks, one will unlikely know. All that we do know is that he had little choice to leave Port Hedland that Wednesday morning with these words emphasizing his predicament:
"My passengers think they will get to Broome to-morrow (Thursday)," he remarked; "but they will be lucky if they get there by Saturday. I am going to put right out to sea, and as might bump the bar going out I will leave my ballast tanks until I get outside and fill them out there."
Finally, the Company's rule No 4 was as follows:
Passing the buck ! Captain Allen could not win that day. He was damned if he stayed and damned if he sailed.
Note that there is no mention of lives, only that of the Company asset, the ship.
"Captain Allen would not let his judgment be interfered with by any one. He was a man of strong character."
Moxon in effect used this ploy to dispute the conversation alleged to have taken place between Captains Allen and Upjohn; in which Captain Upjohn claimed that he was going to 'take his chances at sea in the older vessel', to which Captain Allen replied that if Bullarra was going out, it wouldn't do for him to remain in Port Hedland for an additional 24 hours. In other words that he could be swayed by the more junior master.
Case closed.
 |
| courtesy State Records Office, Western Australia, series 2357, cons 066 |
 |
| courtesy State Records Office, Western Australia, series 2357, cons 066 |
No comments:
Post a Comment