# Tanker sinking



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

How come no threads on this maritime disaster 13 days ago, I don't watch TV news, or get a paper, but I heard about this on the car radio a week ago, nothing since.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...l-tanker-sinks-off-china-no-hope-of-survivors

https://www.wsj.com/articles/irania...transmitting-location-before-crash-1515777061


----------



## listerdiesel (Aug 3, 2012)

Not exactly mainstream MH stuff is it?

How about more Apple bugs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42728336

Peter


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

That is why it's in off topic.


----------



## listerdiesel (Aug 3, 2012)

Not many tanker fleet owners on MHF?

Peter


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

??? so are you saying if it isn't in the UK or moHo related we just ignore it Peter?


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Kev

There must be hundred of topics in the Media whch are not covered on here - we are not a media outlet.

Anyway it has been well covered on the BBC News website, so if you persoally want to know more just read it there - It has been covered every day, including today, since it happened.

Seek and ye shall find.

Geoff.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I just observed that no one had mentioned a national disaster, but recall that others have had threads.


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

Remoaners blame tanker sinking on Brexiteers, calls for Prime minister to resign as not enough money was spent on keeping it afloat..


There you go Kev, the story will now have wings!.

ray...


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

rayrecrok said:


> Remoaners blame tanker sinking on Brexiteers, calls for Prime minister to resign as not enough money was spent on keeping it afloat..
> 
> There you go Kev, the story will now have wings!.
> 
> ray...


Bout time the remoaners took the blame for something innit > >


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Hmm, looking at that, you could take it either way, I'll leave it as is then > > >


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> Bout time the remoaners took the blame for something innit > >


He bit Ray.:laugh:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

OOOOOH no I didn't I drew you out Ray   D


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Probably the only MHF user that would have been reall interested in such an event, however sad it may be with a loss of life that is greatly regretted, would be TugBoat and I don't think he has been around much recently (sadly).

He is still listed as a "Senior Member" (don't think that is intended as an insult) and according to the Members List he has been active on here this morning.....

Maritime safety is something that most of us know nothing about, I know that Carol's husband used to be a tanker captain but he has never particpated on here AFAIK

I wonder how many MH incidents would be being currently discussed on "TankerFactsForum" - whch I am sure would be a VS owned centre of "excellence" (not)?


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Well after all the negativity, I don't think I'll bother in future.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> Well after all the negativity, I don't think I'll bother in future.


Why not?

You may feel that there has been much negativity but surely stimulating discussion is not negative?

The topic may not be of massive interest but then to many people many topics are also not of great interest but we would not wish to stifle them - far from it. But topics such as "naturism" or "Rainbow Bridge" or for me topics about the problems with a specific MH make/model that is not one that I am familiar with may also not be of massive interest - but I still can comment on such threads.

Don't give up Kev - your input is valuable :smile2:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Discussion was my aim Dave, but what I got was moaning about why I'd posted it at all, astonishingly, I'm informed this is a motorhome forum, when did that happen :roll:


----------



## listerdiesel (Aug 3, 2012)

Kev: 

Even you must have thought twice before posting that?

No one was moaning, I just commented and gave you a subject that has far more relevance, but nobody picked that up either.

Peter


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Even I, it gets better.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

I never knew about it Kev so thanks for posting it. What I Cannot get my head around is on a ship so large why the total loss of all souls? It must have literally exploded but it says in the report the lives were lost in the first hour so it hasnt just sunk straight away. Perhaps they were unable to launch life boats and if the see was ablaze jumping in wasnt an option. A horrible way to go. So very sad and tragic.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

The incident happened a week ago and those who do read papers. watch TV will know all the facts so a post on here with no discussion input is not likely to generate much interest.

For Barry, if you read the reports it initially caught fire, but did not 'explode until several days later(5?) just before it sank. All that remains are some burning oil slicks, so a lot of the information is old news.

Does anyone wish to discuss the flight of the AN2 aircraft from Ukraine to Hungary? Well if you do, go ahead but I will not be joining in on here.

Geoff


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I have no comment which printable cept to say I won't bother in future.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Did everyone get out the wrong side of bed this morning or summut?


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Several times last night, why do you ask mate?


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

I do seem to remember it being on 24 hour news last week fleetingly.

Ray.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Well, here we are on page 3 dicussing whether there should have been a thread to discuss this incident.

The Op seems to have the flavour of a complaint that there is not a thread, but no contribution to the discussio.

The only contribution to the discussion seems to hane been from barryd, who appeared not to be too well infomed on the matter.

I provided some facts, but no discussion.

So we are at the point where there was raised why there was no thread, but since then there has been little said about the incident, only discussion about whether there should be a thread on it.

That seems to prove why nobody has started a thread - even the OP did not and has not made any comment on the incident.

Crazy!

Geoff


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

.

*Pardon?*

.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> Well, here we are on page 3 dicussing whether there should have been a thread to discuss this incident.
> The Op seems to have the flavour of a complaint that there is not a thread, but no contribution to the discussio.
> The only contribution to the discussion seems to hane been from barryd, who appeared not to be too well infomed on the matter.
> I provided some facts, but no discussion.
> ...


But you take it so well Geoff. Keep up the good work.

Ray.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

I tasted the flavour of a question, not a complaint from the OP.

But I did get a flavour of grumpiness from some, as did Barry it seems.

Maybe some would like to censor all new threads to assimilate us all to MH related threads only ?

Terry


----------



## Matchlock (Jun 26, 2010)

dghr272 said:


> I tasted the flavour of a question, not a complaint from the OP.
> 
> But I did get a flavour of grumpiness from some, as did Barry it seems.
> 
> ...


But it was in "Off Topic" which to me means nothing to do with Motorhomes so the ones who want to read only MH threads should avoid that part of the forum.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

dghr272 said:


> I tasted the flavour of a* question, *not a complaint from the OP.
> 
> But I did get a flavour of grumpiness from some, as did Barry it seems.
> 
> ...


A rhetorical question maybe.

Ignoring the grumpiness, which I accept existed, I was trying to point out that there has been almost no interest in discussing the topic, which could answer Kev as to why there was no thread before he posted the OP.

No censorship needed, but maybe it is not necessary to query why there is no thread. If it is a topic that interests one just start a thread and see what happens. In this case the answer may have been - very little, but who knows because the discussion veered away from the incident.

Geoff


----------

