Story About Couple Being Kicked off Zuiderdam

Kind of two different sides to the story...as there usually is.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/travellers-stories/humiliated-couple-kicked-off-cruise/news-story/0519228f6d99330b917d6218034d6462

There already is a very long thread about this:

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2658474

thx, didn't realize it was the same one as it has just now hit some major news wires.

WOW

Somehow I missed this thread.

Thank you for the links.

We have been following the thread (regarding this story) with a lot of interest. As folks who regularly cruise on HAL we certainly hope there is another side to this story. But as is too typical of the media in this era of fake and biased news we are likely to never hear the other side of the story. And one would suspect that HAL will not do anything to clear the air since they have to listen to their own attorneys.

Hank

There are two sides to every story. But after been asked to leave the ship and pay for their flight home seems strange to me. And then hoping they'll cruise with HAL again?? I'll bet they'll never cruise with HAL.

... and pay for their flight home ...

The article said " ...the duo was told to get their belongings together and were handed tickets back to San Francisco."

This was one reason (among many) that we thought there must be another side to the story. If the article was to be believed, the couple was simply called in, given tickets, told to gather their things, and go home. All this without any due process, discussion, options, etc. In over forty years of extensive cruising we have never heard of a tale similar to this story. Yes, passengers do get kicked off cruises (we have seen it happen a few times) but it always seem to happen after some discussion and even warnings. What makes the story seem phony is that a cruise line would not normally give folks tickets home without first asking if they even wanted to go home :). For all they know, that couple might not have planned on going directly home and perhaps were planning to go to the North Pole after leaving the cruise :).

In the cases of which we are personally aware, the involved passengers were summoned to a meeting with the Hotel Manager (and one time with the Captain) where the situation was discussed and arrangements made. The lack of such a meeting defies reason.

Hank

There are two sides to every story. But after been asked to leave the ship and pay for their flight home seems strange to me. And then hoping they'll cruise with HAL again?? I'll bet they'll never cruise with HAL.

That might be mutually satisfactory outcome. Pay no attention to that discordant "grace note".

This new article adds nothing to the original Elliot story upon which it is obviously based in its entirety. As with the Elliot article, the author clearly loves to sensationalize, as these headlines from some of her more recent articles attest:

• Paradise beach plunged into hell
  
• Twisted family’s secret shame exposed
  
• Virgin flight saga: ‘I’m so upset’
  
• Sneaky trick deceives tourist
  
• ‘I was screaming naked in the tub’
  

Now, where's my National Enquirer?:rolleyes:

we were on a Seabourn cruise from Miami and there was a strange looking guy in the waiting area with a Mohawk. Later on the ship he was at a bar drinking Johnnie Blue and coke.I heard that when we docked in St. Thomas the police cane and removed him from the ship. Seems he claimed he was very rich and also had a bomb in his cabin. If it was a joke it sure was an expensive one since the cheapest cabin for 1 was $10,000 or more.

Doesn't it bother anyone cruiseline will not permit the couple or anyone on their side to see the video tape that q uite possibly (probab ly ?) exists?

Why? not let defense view it?

Doesn't it bother anyone cruiseline will not permit the couple or anyone on their side to see the video tape that q uite possibly (probab ly ?) exists?

 

 

 

Why? not let defense view it?

You are making an assumption that there is some kind of recording. If it exists, HAL would simply be protecting the privacy of all concerned. Just about all corporations "circle the wagons" and completely clam-up when issues are taken public and there is the threat of legal action. At that point everyone is told not to comment. The story as it has been published does not make sense and one would suspect that the passengers omitted some key facts from their side of the tale. I doubt if we will ever know the real story.

Hank

Doesn't it bother anyone cruiseline will not permit the couple or anyone on their side to see the video tape that q uite possibly (probab ly ?) exists?

 

 

 

Why? not let defense view it?

I've only heard one side of the story. The defendant rarely gets to tell their side until the trial starts. It's common for the Plaintiff and their attorney to make baseless or unproven claims with the plan of creating such bad press for the company that they are forced to settle rather than harm their business.

I asked a rhetorical question :)

I have a hard time believing that HAL would kick passengers off a ship unless they were certain. The potential of lawsuits and bad press if they had any doubts would not be worth it.

I also wouldn't think they would release any evidence or videos to the public or passengers if there was a chance of legal action.

You are making an assumption that there is some kind of recording. If it exists, HAL would simply be protecting the privacy of all concerned. Just about all corporations "circle the wagons" and completely clam-up when issues are taken public and there is the threat of legal action. At that point everyone is told not to comment. The story as it has been published does not make sense and one would suspect that the passengers omitted some key facts from their side of the tale. I doubt if we will ever know the real story.

 

Hank

I did NOT assume I said quit e possi bly exists followed by " ?? "

thereby questioning it s existence.

I do strongly agree there seem to be some missing facts to the story.As it does not fully make sense to me.

I would think video can prove guilt but to prove innocence it would have to completely cover the area from various angles, continuously and with clarity. The expelled couple might think it proves his innocence if it does not prove his guilt, or use that misconception to press their case on that website. Wiser for HAL to avoid a PR situation where it has to explain all the nuances to the public.