Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought Sky News criticising the rescue teams for pandering to the world media - all whilst maintaining constant coverage feeds - absurdly hypocritical. "I think this feed from the mine we are showing you is impinging on the miners privacy". Well turn the sodding thing off then...
Wierdly the number 33 is really significant in this whole drama. There were 33 miners trapped. They were first located on august 22nd, which is the 33rd week of the year. The rescue shaft was finally completed 33 days after they started drilling. And today, the day of rescue, is 13/10/10. Add those numbers up and you get.....

Hopefully, out of this, people will start thinking a bit more about all the thousands of miners around the world and the kind of conditions they have to work in. This kind of event can be prevented


"Vincelot Tobar, who was in charge of risk prevention for San Esteban, claimed its bosses always put production before safety. He resigned in 2009 ? he said out of exasperation at the company's failure to institute safety recommendations. The company claims he was to blame for two of the deaths.


"They never carried out the most fundamental adjustments needed to avoid disasters like what we're seeing today," he said. "They always pushed on production. I was the only risk assessor, without a computer, secretary or even a phone."

"


whole article

I'd be interested to read more about the alleged dispute / fall-out between the majority of the miners and a certain 5 other miners who were (I think) temporary or contracted/sub-contracted. It was seemingly a significant rift (I mean they were living seperately in the mine by choice) and was hushed-up a bit in the interests of presenting a united front.

I read that they took a collective oath to not discuss this when back on the surface, in favour of securing the best deal for the group in respect of book, publicity and sponsorship deals.

Perhaps a little like the group split which occurred between the survivors of the Andes air crash in the 1970s..

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Fair enough - I'm absolutely wrong on that one. 👍
    • I'm still completely unclear what happened, apart from that a car apparently crashed into a lamp post opposite the Co-op. I presume the one in Lordship Lane, though the OP doesn't say. Was it speeding? Did it swerve to avoid someone who ran into the road? Did something go wrong with its brakes or steering? Did the driver have a medical emergency or fall asleep or got  distracted by something? Was there something slippery on the road surface? Was the driver hurt? Were any passengers hurt? Were any pedestrians or other road users hurt? Were there any witnesses? 
    • confused by the question?
    • My point was in response to this:  "The idea that serving as a local councillor (including dealing with the public, internal party politics - which is always the most vicious where the stakes are lowest, and plenty of unpaid prep work) is a great pathway for careerists and moneygrabbers is utter shite. On a per hour basis you'd be far better off working at Sainsbos."   You could give up your job at sainsbury's and do a councillor's work and be very much better off. Most of these councillors earn this sort of money and still have full time jobs on the side.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...