The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[aurelius180]

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

 

 

I'm RCI's Chief Optimistic Officer.

[mjldvlks]

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

I don't question that. Franky, he can deny boarding for about any reason he wants. Under the circumstances, I may well have done the same thing knowing everything I know now. I am simply saying that if the Captain does so and cannot point to a specific violation of the guest conduct policy, then the passengers should receive a refund. I have yet to see where suspicion of what a passenger might do in the future constitutes a violation of the policy.

[Jumbiecruiser]

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.

 

The couple made a mistake by coming to Cruise Critic if they intend to bring legal matters against the cruise line. She should have kept her mouth shut. Bet she regrets it now. I read earlier in this thread that she posted somewhere that she could no longer post on this subject. I think she's a little too late.

[Jumbiecruiser]

i'm rci's chief optimistic officer.

 

 

lol.....:d

[aurelius180]

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.

 

 

Makes sense. Given the atmosphere I thought you had joined some of the lesser crowd on here.

[bigeagle12]

Ok .. my last post .. I hope ;)

 

Obviously everyone is taking their sides. Here is my final statement:

 

1. Hiding what ever the substance was .. suspicious.

2. Original OP not telling the whole story in the original thread .. suspicious

3. Findings of drug test .. irrelevant

4. Captains judgement as "high risk" for suspicious activity .. 100% within his right

5. As I said before: Suspicious + still may be illegal + stupid = good decision by Captain ;)

[aurelius180]

The couple made a mistake by coming to Cruise Critic if they intend to bring legal matters against the cruise line. She should have kept her mouth shut. Bet she regrets it now. I read earlier in this thread that she posted somewhere that she could no longer post on this subject. I think she's a little too late.

 

 

If she REALLY intended on blowing the kind of money it would take to litigate through the contract and get before a court it went out the window a long time ago. But I think she was aware that was a long-shot and tried to drum up public support instead to create a story. She had a better chance getting RCI to refund the money after creating a story than through litigation and the costs associated for both sides.

 

Her actions, though, preclude us from ever knowing if RCI would have simply refunded the cruise fair through customer service had she dealt with them directly.

[Jumbiecruiser]

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.

 

I meant to post on this comment earlier. I do believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle but I do think that there was enough evidence for the Captain to make the decision to not allow this couple to reboard the ship. I also don't think we will ever know the full truth.

[ryano]

We don't know the whole story and I doubt we ever will. .

 

I agree with you :) I am not denying that the whole truth was not revealed in the original thread. All Im saying is to me at least, it appears the Captain kicked them off the ship based on what he THOUGHT they might do once in St Thomas or St Maarten and I feel that is just wrong.

 

While it was certainly his right to do so and while I understand he had very little time to make a decision, I still feel it was wrong and thats my opinion of which Im entitled to :) and I feel RCI will eventually cave in and give these people their money back. Again, JMHO.

 

I really dont feel like arguing this anymore so Im going to do my best to just stay away from this thread. Strong arguments from both sides and there is no changing anyones feelings on this subject.

 

My apologies for referring to Captain Olsen as Bing Bong Olsen. It was in no way meant to be an insult to him. He seemed like a nice man and he also can play the heck out of an electic guitar :D

 

Im out. Ive got better things to do like work on my review of my WONDERFUL vacation on board the lovely Freedom of the Seas.

[Jumbiecruiser]

If she REALLY intended on blowing the kind of money it would take to litigate through the contract and get before a court it went out the window a long time ago. But I think she was aware that was a long-shot and tried to drum up public support instead to create a story. She had a better chance getting RCI to refund the money after creating a story than through litigation and the costs associated for both sides.

 

Her actions, though, preclude us from ever knowing if RCI would have simply refunded the cruise fair through customer service had she dealt with them directly.

 

 

I agree. I do think that the couple came here trying to drum up support which she clearly gained some supporters. I'm just not one of them. Had this happened on any other cruise line........it would not have changed my mind.

[reallyitsmema]

Ive got better things to do like work on my review of my WONDERFUL vacation on board the lovely Freedom of the Seas.

I can't wait to read your review. I am so glad you had such a great time on the Freedom and had no elevator issues.:)

[teajak]

Ok .. my last post .. I hope ;)

 

Obviously everyone is taking their sides. Here is my final statement:

 

1. Hiding what ever the substance was .. suspicious.

2. Original OP not telling the whole story in the original thread .. suspicious

3. Findings of drug test .. irrelevant

4. Captains judgement as "high risk" for suspicious activity .. 100% within his right

5. As I said before: Suspicious + still may be illegal + stupid = good decision by Captain ;)

Couldn't have said it better,totally agree.:cool:

[Heidils]

Ok .. my last post .. I hope ;)

 

Obviously everyone is taking their sides. Here is my final statement:

 

1. Hiding what ever the substance was .. suspicious.

2. Original OP not telling the whole story in the original thread .. suspicious

3. Findings of drug test .. irrelevant

4. Captains judgement as "high risk" for suspicious activity .. 100% within his right

5. As I said before: Suspicious + still may be illegal + stupid = good decision by Captain ;)

 

Findings of drug test= irrelevant?

 

Hope everyone feels like you when you get pulled over for not having you seatbelt on, made to give a drug/alchol test and are found innocent yet put in jail.

[Jumbiecruiser]

Ok .. my last post .. I hope ;)

 

Obviously everyone is taking their sides. Here is my final statement:

 

1. Hiding what ever the substance was .. suspicious.

2. Original OP not telling the whole story in the original thread .. suspicious

3. Findings of drug test .. irrelevant

4. Captains judgement as "high risk" for suspicious activity .. 100% within his right

5. As I said before: Suspicious + still may be illegal + stupid = good decision by Captain ;)

 

Like!!!!!!:)

[Ocean Boy]

I don't question that. Franky, he can deny boarding for about any reason he wants. Under the circumstances, I may well have done the same thing knowing everything I know now. I am simply saying that if the Captain does so and cannot point to a specific violation of the guest conduct policy, then the passengers should receive a refund. I have yet to see where suspicion of what a passenger might do in the future constitutes a violation of the policy.

 

I suspect that might be exactly what ends up happening. They were denied boarding by what ever thought process the captain had. If his intentions were good, and made without malice, based on the information that he had at the time of the occurance then he acted within his rights as master of the ship. If RCI then finds that, with further research, the captain's decision might have been different based on further facts that come out but were not available at the time then they will probably refind the money and be done with this. By the same token, if it turns out, after that research, that the captain was spot on with his decision making process, then RCI most likely owes the disembarked folks nothing.

 

Many of us have to make decisions everyday based on information that is available to us at the time. Those decisions are sometimes changed over time as more information becomes available. But decisions often times need to be made on the spot. That is what the master of the ship is paid to do. Indecision is simply not an option in many professions. And with a sailing deadline looming and 3600 other passengers waiting to start their vacations there is only so much time do what needs to be done.

[Edd]

Realistically....tobacco, legal or illegal, may have been only one of the factors that determined the boot of the passengers. By his own admission, the guy made reference to the captain saying that he was "high risk".... What could cause the captain to say that...?? We will never know... The captain has several thousand other passengers to think about. If he was high risk, would you want him in the cabin next to you, or laying out by the pool across from you...??

 

So, now I am wondering, should RC even think about refunding their money..?? IF they are quilty of being a threat and RC was justified in kicking them off - why should RC bear the burden of losing the money?

 

None of this matters anyway. None of this is really any of my or anyone else's business - it's between the smugglers and RC...

[smoosh21]

Findings of drug test= irrelevant?

 

Hope everyone feels like you when you get pulled over for not having you seatbelt on, made to give a drug/alchol test and are found innocent yet put in jail.

 

Exactly. It is terrifying how many people are willing to just roll over and give up all their freedoms to overzealous authority.

[bigeagle12]

Findings of drug test= irrelevant?

 

Hope everyone feels like you when you get pulled over for not having you seatbelt on, made to give a drug/alchol test and are found innocent yet put in jail.

 

Ok can't resist ...

 

Irrelevant .. yes .. tests available at port cannot can't prove LEGAL .. they can only prove no THC .. today's synthetic drugs do not contain THC .. refer to Aquahound's posts ..

[Heidils]

Realistically....tobacco, legal or illegal, may have been only one of the factors that determined the boot of the passengers. By his own admission, the guy made reference to the captain saying that he was "high risk".... What could cause the captain to say that...?? We will never know... The captain has several thousand other passengers to think about. If he was high risk, would you want him in the cabin next to you, or laying out by the pool across from you...??

 

So, now I am wondering, should RC even think about refunding their money..?? IF they are quilty of being a threat and RC was justified in kicking them off - why should RC bear the burden of losing the money?

 

None of this matters anyway. None of this is really any of my or anyone else's business - it's between the smugglers and RC...

 

What did they smuggle?

[rubrrick]

720 + posts here and what have we learned?

 

That there is more than one side of the story, that's for sure.

 

The Captain has the final authority to allow or deny boarding.

 

And, I, for one, don't believe that the whole story is out yet!;)

 

Rick

[CruisingMachine]

Well we know Mary did not disclose the hair spray can deal. We also know that the police story and the RCI story are diametrically opposed -- they cannot both be accurate.

 

And we all know that Mary lied about the pipe. That's NOT a "Popeye the Sailor Man" pipe. LOL

[Heidils]

Ok can't resist ...

 

Irrelevant .. yes .. tests available at port cannot can't prove LEGAL .. they can only prove no THC .. today's synthetic drugs do not contain THC .. refer to Aquahound's posts ..

 

If I am wrong correct me....didn't the OP and in CC's news blog state that the substance was in fact not illeagal, and that it was tested at the police station and was ultimately given back to the Op's family?

[aurelius180]

Ok can't resist ...

 

Irrelevant .. yes .. tests available at port cannot can't prove LEGAL .. they can only prove no THC .. today's synthetic drugs do not contain THC .. refer to Aquahound's posts ..

 

 

Also because he wasn't denied re-boarding due to the results of the test. He was deemed "high-risk." We can only assume this was decided upon because of the stated intent in the manner in which he transported the tobacco.

 

Given that the OP left out so many details it's also not so far fetched to assume some type of verbal altercation may have occurred between her husband and security. This would be expected as emotions would run high but the OP seemed so level-headed in her original discussion. But again her omissions put this into question as well.

[beer1234]

I've been following yesterday and today and so far today there has not been anything new. It's just the same old drivel over and over again. Really people, Get a Life and get over this cause it is over.

[skippyy]

Good Grief....If you act suspiciously and people become suspicious how do you blame them for their precautionary behavior.I am pleased that Airlines and other agencies/personnel responsible for our safety take their jobs seriously.I am disappointed that when people screw up they want to blame everyone else for the consequences of their behavior.Certainly, these sanctions were severe but the OP's left themselves vulnerable as a direct result of their actions. Get real, there is no one out there assigned to be responsible for your/my happiness.Be responsible and quit whining and blaming others when you screw up !