496 replies to this topic

[*Fluffy the Cat*]

I read the charge against him that carried many years was abandoning the ship before all passengers were off.

I don't think he murdered those people, it wasn't his intention that anyone should die, at least I don't think so -

He was showing off doing what he had done several times before and was obviously NOT paying attention that caused everything that followed.

That's manslaughter, not murder.

He's still worse than a cockroach.

When you put your own cock-waving above people's lives.........

[C E]

I was not defending him just saying I don't think he could be charged with murder.

He's a lying pos that will probably off himself because that's what cowards do.

[*Fluffy the Cat*]

I was not defending him just saying I don't think he could be charged with murder.

He's a lying pos that will probably off himself because that's what cowards do.

Nope, that type is even too chicken to do that.

He'd rather rot in prison. And he will.

[Guardian]

I read that he had emptied the safe, and taken its contents ashore with him after he "fell" into the life boat.

[Anus Chicken]

I put forth the proposition that Schettino fucked up in almost every way possible.

[sarafina]

Costa Cruises could face criminal charges


High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7d2687c-4374-11...l#ixzz1kAqm4aaY

The events aboard the Costa Concordia on January 13 raise questions not just about Captain Francesco Schettino’s actions, but also about whether the company itself could face any criminal allegations.
Italian law 231, enacted in 2001, introduced the principle that corporations can receive administrative sanctions for crimes committed by employees within the scope of their employment.


More
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7d2687c-43...l#axzz1kAqMFH4B

I do not agree with the law. If the company had clear policies in place and the captain refused to follow them, why should they be held liable?

[*Fluffy the Cat*]

I do not agree with the law. If the company had clear policies in place and the captain refused to follow them, why should they be held liable?

Because they hired him and he was their employee.

[Guardian]

Too late now, it would be under the water.

[sarafina]

I do not agree with the law. If the company had clear policies in place and the captain refused to follow them, why should they be held liable?

Because they hired him and he was their employee.

I do not agree that a company should be held liable for an employee breaking the company rules. They have no control over that - all they can do is put rules in place and enforce them by disciplining/firing anyone who breaks them. That is not what lawyers want you to believe but then I think lawyers have done almost as much to fuck up our society as banksters.

Now if Carnival knew he was breaking the rules and did nothing to discipline him then they are liable. And it is quite possible that may be the case and it will probably come out in the trials unless everyone settles out of court.