The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[bigeagle12]

They brought on a LEGAL substance in a LEGAL container and Captain "Bing Bong" Olsen kicked them off the ship for what they MIGHT do and labled them as a high risk which is absurd at best.

 

Ryano .. I really am not picky on you .. you were just the most recent post to state "LEGAL"

 

It was not proven legal .. it was tested because it was suspicious .. could not be proven legal since that test does not exist at the port .. therefore may still have been illegal ..

 

So suspicious + still may be illegal + stupid = good decision by Captain ;)

[Jumbiecruiser]

So you were there and witnessed the entire thing?

 

That's what I thought.

[Ocean Boy]

They probably didn't want to go through the hassle of the substance being taken away from them and tested. If the substance, even though legal was out in the open, it might have been confiscated for testing and then delivered back to them AFTER the cruise was over. It's not as if they could or would test it between boarding and when the ship left the port.

 

I guess the decisions that they made could be labeled as having backfired, huh?

[debache]

It amazes me that:

1. People believe everything the OP says is true. ($50 for the security people for finding illegal substances or that the cruise was overbooked so RCI was looking to throw passengers off).

2. People believe everything that RCI says is true. (They say the substance was tested positive)

The truth lies (no pun intended) somewhere in the middle.

I just hope if the OP was unjustly treated RCI will man up and do the right thing.

Hopefully we will find out who was right or wrong in this mess.

[bigeagle12]

Seriously? RCI trots out its official spokesperson and they shouldn't be held responsible for what she says? I would be greatly surprised if she issued this statement without an investigation [not necessarily by her] and a lot of vetting from her superiors and corporate legal. That is why they are called spokespersons. They are designated to give the company's side of the story. If she is putting a "spin" on the story, I would be willing to bet it is not of her own initiative.

 

Or maybe the Port spokesperson was wrong :confused:

[mjldvlks]

So, I guess the Captain should have held the ship for 3 or 4 days while they sent those tests to an outside lab :rolleyes:

Not at all, but if the port police thought a felony had been committed, then I would have expected them to confiscate the substance or hold it somehow for further testing.

 

To be clear, I have no problem with the Captain making a decision to deny boarding, based on the information he had available, even if he was informed that the substance appeared to be legal. But if he is relying on suspicion and cannot point to a specific violation of the guest conduct policy, then I think the passengers should be refunded their entire cruise fare.

[KathyPet]

I have yet to hear a valid arguement for refusing to allow these people to sail once the substance was deemed not to be drugs. I don't care if he put the stuff up his B***. It was not a illegal substance and had passed the drug test. How can RCCL possible justify this stance when they allow passengers to remain on board after catching them will liquor in their bags which is clearly on the list of banned items. Also they also prevented the wife from sailing. Now I know that she would obviously not have gone without her husband but the items were in his luggage not hers and he claimed them so why was she also deemed to be "high risk" and denied reboarding.

I think they do have a lawsuit for at a minimum her cruise fare.

[aurelius180]

And you don't know either. It's all speculation on your part too or do you not understand that? Were you there? Did you see the entire situation unfold? Didn't think so.

 

Unfortunately he didn't. Again...all we have is speculation and conjecture. The full story still isn't available and may never be.

 

 

ryano:

 

OMG! :( Hager350Z if you are reading this, I just now read your thread on the Royal caribbean forum and I am so sorry to hear about your nightmare!

 

I cant EVEN imagine! I was wondering why you guys didnt show up for the Meet and Mingle and now I know!

 

It sounds like Royal Caribbean is totally at fault here and I do not blame you one bit! They would NEVER see any of my money again and I would hire an atty. to get me a full refund!

 

Best of luck to you and I hope you will keep us posted of the outcome! This may very well change who i cruise with in the future!

[bigeagle12]

Not at all, but if the port police thought a felony had been committed, then I would have expected them to confiscate the substance or hold it somehow for further testing.

 

To be clear, I have no problem with the Captain making a decision to deny boarding, based on the information he had available, even if he was informed that the substance appeared to be legal. But if he is relying on suspicion and cannot point to a specific violation of the guest conduct policy, then I think the passengers should be refunded their entire cruise fare.

 

As someone previously posted .. he can deny boarding for questionable or suspicious activity .. think this qualified :eek:

[johneeo]

Buh bye. Enjoy NCL.

 

Are you an Executive with RCI?

 

Maybe head of the Sales Prevention Team?

[Ocean Boy]

So tell us what they were up to then :rolleyes: and how do YOU know for sure they were up to ANYTHING? Simply put, you DON'T.

 

you have nothing but speculation and assumptions which are basically worthless. Good luck with that.

Y

Bottom line is, they didnt break any rules. They brought on a LEGAL substance in a LEGAL container and Captain "Bing Bong" Olsen kicked them off the ship for what they MIGHT do and labled them as a high risk which is absurd at best.

The way the brought it on and the fact that the OP kinda fudged the story on how it was brought on board is IRRELEVANT.

 

I still bet RCI winds up giving them a full refund.

Do you have some sort of personal history with, or knowledge of past actions of, this captain to refer to him in this way?

[reallyitsmema]

So tell us what they were up to then :rolleyes: and how do YOU know for sure they were up to ANYTHING? Simply put, you DON'T.

 

you have nothing but speculation and assumptions which are basically worthless. Good luck with that.

Y

Bottom line is, they didnt break any rules. They brought on a LEGAL substance in a LEGAL container and Captain "Bing Bong" Olsen kicked them off the ship for what they MIGHT do and labled them as a high risk which is absurd at best.

 

The way the brought it on and the fact that the OP kinda fudged the story on how it was brought on board is IRRELEVANT.

 

I still bet RCI winds up giving them a full refund.

Ryan, I know you were on this cruise and "know" this woman through the rollcall but the whole story didn't sound right from the beginning. When asked about the tobacco, Hager lied repeatedly about what it actually was, saying it was just regular loose tobacco which her husband has now confirmed it wasn't. The pipe was supposedly a new popeye type pipe that others have stated you can't even smoke that type of product in.

 

I don't know anything about tobacco or pipes but I do know that Hager wasn't upfront from her first post and that has led many of us to be hesitant to believe what was said. The news article posted here on CC doesn't help.

 

We don't know the whole story and I doubt we ever will. A decision was made to deny reboarding. Whether that was the correct decision is debatable. Hager needs to decide if it is worth the expense in legal fees to try to recoup what they feel they have lost.

[aurelius180]

Do you have some sort of personal history with, or knowledge of past actions of, this captain to refer to him in this way?

 

 

Unfortunately a few on here have simply resorted to name calling. I know...highly unusual on here. :rolleyes:

[mjldvlks]

Or maybe the Port spokesperson was wrong :confused:

 

Maybe. But the CC reporter claims to have seen the report and says it is consistent with the port lady's statement, so I have no reason to doubt her story. I assume that the port lady was really just telling the reporter what was in the report. So what we are really consdering is what was written in the report [which none of us has seen] by the officers on the scene. I have heard of police officers falsifying reports, but it doesn't seem logical in this case. It is significant to me that of all the players here, the port folks are the most neutral. They really have no iron in the fire so to speak.

[ryano]

Do you have some sort of personal history with, or knowledge of past actions of, this captain to refer to him in this way?

 

Because every time he came on the loud speaker his first words were "bing bong" this is your Captain speaking :)

 

It is in no way intended to be an insult to Captain Tor Olsen.

[marci22]

Actually I feel sorry for the ones who blind or ignorant and don't really see what this couple was up to but if you want to have a bleeding heart for these people then so be it.:rolleyes:

 

I don't think people are saying this couple is innocent, just that it's scary that Royal can kick you off a cruise if 'you might do something' illegal.

 

Royal should have just let them go on and searched their belongings in every port stop; then they might have been able to kick them off for a decent reason.

[TEXASMUNK]

This is some of the best reading anywhere!

Thank you CC

[ryano]

Unfortunately a few on here have simply resorted to name calling. I know...highly unusual on here. :rolleyes:

 

I am not calling him a name :rolleyes: I was ON this sailing and every day his first words were "bing bong"

 

This is in no way intended to be an insult to Captain Olsen.

[aurelius180]

We don't know the whole story and I doubt we ever will. A decision was made to deny reboarding. Whether that was the correct decision is debatable. Hager needs to decide if it is worth the expense in legal fees to try to recoup what they feel they have lost.

 

 

I'm sure plenty of attorneys would be glad to take their money but they've undermined themselves plenty. Her husband speaking to CC about his intent for starters. Never mind her half truths on the original thread.

[ryano]

I don't think people are saying this couple is innocent, just that it's scary that Royal can kick you off a cruise if 'you might do something' illegal.

 

.

 

Yep.

[Jumbiecruiser]

Unfortunately he didn't. Again...all we have is speculation and conjecture. The full story still isn't available and may never be.

 

You're 100% correct.

 

There are three ways that people are looking at this.

 

Group #1 - They could care less. Life goes on.

 

Group #2 - They think that the cruise line had the right to do what they did.

 

Group #3 - They think that couple should have been allowed to cruise or get a full refund.

 

Many are not going to agree. Those that think Royal did wrong can move on to another cruise line. I don't think Royal will miss them.

 

I doubt that we ever hear the true story as to what happened here. Either Royal will settle and make the couple sign a statement to keep their mouth shut or the couple will just move on if they were indeed trying were wrong in their actions.

[Jumbiecruiser]

Are you an Executive with RCI?

 

Maybe head of the Sales Prevention Team?

 

Not at all. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Heidils]

I was actually suspicious at first, but the article kind of makes me vote for the couple. In one paragraph it states the RCI security tested the tobacco and it was positive (as a controlled substance), this is probably the only report the Captain got. Port officials said the test was negative (probably never conveyed to the Captain). I understand the possibility of dry running a smuggle test (because I thought that too). My issue is if RCI security said it tested positive and that it was destroyed, two things that were proven false later can they really be trusted to display good judgment? NOT...I think they were denied boarding because of misinformation to the captain. It's like Minority Report, I can't presume a criminal act based on "profiling"...

 

I have a right to pack any way I feel. I have a right to smoke any legal substance I chose (I don't smoke).

 

Only on page 3 but this makes so much sense. I get the query of this couple. I still can't find what they did wrong.

 

We understood after 9/11 why we had to take off our shoes and do it because we lost all of those people. But now we are told how to pack? I brought empty water bottles on my last vaca...we bought some stuff and luggage was getting to full. We put items in the bottles on the way home, granted it was benadryl and what not, however, are we living in Russia in the early 1900's.

 

Now I have to tell you how I pack?

 

When do you come in the bedroom an critque me?

 

Having said that, It's true that maritime law is somewhat different from what we deal with on land.

[mickeysgal]

The CC article refers to only one test being conducted on the substance. The OP stated that there were three and that all three tested negative. Were there three tests or only one? Did I miss this somewhere in all these pages or was this further embellishment by the OP?

[Ocean Boy]

Because every time he came on the loud speaker his first words were "bing bong" this is your Captain speaking :)

 

It is in no way intended to be an insult to Captain Tor Olsen.

 

Thank you for the explanation.