The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[EVALUATOR]

CC posted the police report:

 

http://c3270052.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/freedom-incident-report.jpg

 

From the police report it was only 50 minutes and 43 seconds from the time they were notified of the issue until the item was tested, the ship notified, and the cruisers were denied boarding.

 

I wish they worked for guest services. Then maybe it wouldn't take 6 weeks to get the inappropriate towel charges refunded.:eek:

[Heidils]

You could use the search feature on CC or just Google it (K2 and/or Spice) but from the tone of you response, it sounds like you really don't want to learn anything that might change your opinion.:rolleyes:

 

The search engine I choose to use right now is CC. If you don't want to answer my question, I won't get you kicked off the ship.

[Ocean Boy]

So Ocean Boy, since I live in the same state as you, (we must know the same peeps) why don't you come on our dec 13 from bayonne?

 

Because instead of spending two days on a ship being cold I prefer to walk out of the airport in San Juan and get hit in the face with 80 degree air.:D

[bigeagle12]

I have read the entire thread and I'm not a fan of the poster mentioned, so I wouldn't go back. My opinions stand until someone shows that I need correction. In which case I will.

 

Not a fan of Aquahound .. that will get you kicked off a RCI ship :eek:

[aurelius180]

From the police report it was only 50 minutes and 43 seconds from the time they were notified of the issue until the item was tested, the ship notified, and the cruisers were denied boarding.

 

I wish they worked for guest services. Then maybe it wouldn't take 6 weeks to get the inappropriate towel charges refunded.:eek:

 

 

Sorry to hear that! They agreed to refund ours immediately after we returned home and it posted to my CC within the week.:D

I missed out on the double points on my RCI CC but I didn't want to spend the $25 anyway.

[nellydean]

Not a fan of Aquahound .. that will get you kicked off a RCI ship :eek:

 

 

You sound very immature

[BeagleOne]

The last line of the police report says it all. "This was a non law enforcement issue."

 

Those who have posted "innocent until proven guilty" and "they did nothing illegal" and who've gone so far as to wish that other posters get arrested have COMPLETELY missed the point. It DOESN'T MATTER that the substance (apparently) wasn't illegal (or, at any rate, wasn't pot). What matters is that the husband's conduct in packing the stuff and the pipe in a secret compartment aroused the suspicion of security and was enough for the captain, who is responsible for the welfare of thousands of passengers and crew, and a VERY expensive ship, to make a time-constrained decision to deny them passage. Maybe if this had occurred at 11 a.m. instead of within an hour or so of sailing, giving the captain more time to sort things out, things would have been different.

 

And of course none of us, even those who were on the cruise, witnessed the incident so we don't know if the husband and/or wife might have reacted in such a way as to exacerbate the situation.

 

The couple won't get anywhere in court. Maybe RCI will refund them, maybe they won't. If I were RCI, I might be less inclined to work with them because of her postings on CC and his admissions in the CC article. I don't think this is as much of a publicity nightmare for RCI as some people think, but I could be wrong.

 

As for the rum runners...I don't drink much and I think it's stupid to try to sneak booze onto a ship. It's a clear violation of the contract; just because the cruise lines generally just confiscate the booze doesn't mean they can't deny boarding if they want to. Why risk your vacation just to reduce your bar bill?

 

Whether the contracts are fair is another discussion. I would argue that aspects of them are not. But the cruise lines are private businesses and we are free not to do business with them. We have to decide whether cruising is worth giving up certain rights. So far it appears that everyone here has decided it is.

[Ocean Boy]

You sound very immature

 

It was a joke!:rolleyes:

[bigeagle12]

The report does not contradict her. We really have no reason to doubt her.

 

But .. we have reason to doubt RCI :rolleyes:

[Jumbiecruiser]

You sound very immature

 

It was a joke. Lord help us.

[Heidils]

Ya think?

 

Ya know that's not even close to true. I come here to learn. It's fun. I'm not well, so sadly I have time to delve into something fun. I get sucked into debates that sometimes I realize I should not. However, do not second guess me about my tone. If you don't understand me, fine. Just ask what I meant and I will be glad to comply.

[mopartime]

I've read both threads and also the news article and have mixed feelings here.

There still are a lot of unanswered questions here. Did the couple get hostile towards security (although I could see me getting a little irate)? Was the can brought only to conceal the tobacco and nothing else? Why not put it in your carry on and explain it upfront?

 

I hate all the security at airports but I do enjoy feeling safe while flying. The same goes for cruising, I don't want to feel threatened at all. Here is a ship with thousands of passengers and crew members and I feel that if you're trying to hide something then probably you're not a person to be trusted. Therefore maybe you shouldn't be on the ship.

 

I do believe that the couple should have been reimbursed for the cruise portion but I have no problem with them not sailing.

[Ocean Boy]

It was a joke!:rolleyes:

 

It was a joke. Lord help us.

 

I got your back there Jumbie!:)

[NJcruisenewbie]

In all of the pages, in all of the threads, through all of the posts, looking even at the police report, I can't see one shred of evidence that the couple did anything wrong...not one.

 

So, you don't like what the couple smokes (when I saw "hooka", I thought it was some form of Marijuana, and the Capt was in the right....only to find out it's tobacco)? OK, nothing wrong there. You don't like the way the couple packs? OK...still not illegal. You say the couple sounds suspicious? I could say that about many, many people I've met on cruises.

 

RCCL should buck up, admit they were wrong, refund the couple all of their monetary outlay, and probably at least offer them a deeply discounted future cruise.

 

So you don't think the Captain had to take into consideration the safety of the other passengers and the possibility that this couple could be up to no good or planning to smuggle drugs on based on how this hooka was packed?

 

I said this on the other thread and was dismissed by many but it just doesn't make sense to pack this like they did unless they were trying to sneak it on or test the waters.

 

The couple drove so there isn't event the arguement that luggage space was at a premium. I know if I was concerned that something would be construed as illegal I'd be bringing it in my carryon in its original packaging. People don't hide things unless they have something to hide.

[EVALUATOR]

Sorry to hear that! They agreed to refund ours immediately after we returned home and it posted to my CC within the week.:D

I missed out on the double points on my RCI CC but I didn't want to spend the $25 anyway.

 

That's maybe because the presumptive lint test was negative for a stolen beach towel. The other time was waiting for FBI forensic analysis to confirm it wasn't from a cabin wash cloth either.:)

 

They were never able to confirm it wasn't a hand towel, but eventually agreed to refund the money.:D All in the name of good customer relations.:eek:

[teajak]

I think he was referring to the port spokesperson. That's the way that I read it.

You are correct,sorry about that.:o

[nellydean]

The last line of the police report says it all. "This was a non law enforcement issue."

 

Those who have posted "innocent until proven guilty" and "they did nothing illegal" and who've gone so far as to wish that other posters get arrested have COMPLETELY missed the point. It DOESN'T MATTER that the substance (apparently) wasn't illegal (or, at any rate, wasn't pot). What matters is that the husband's conduct in packing the stuff and the pipe in a secret compartment aroused the suspicion of security and was enough for the captain, who is responsible for the welfare of thousands of passengers and crew, and a VERY expensive ship, to make a time-constrained decision to deny them passage. Maybe if this had occurred at 11 a.m. instead of within an hour or so of sailing, giving the captain more time to sort things out, things would have been different.

 

And of course none of us, even those who were on the cruise, witnessed the incident so we don't know if the husband and/or wife might have reacted in such a way as to exacerbate the situation.

 

The couple won't get anywhere in court. Maybe RCI will refund them, maybe they won't. If I were RCI, I might be less inclined to work with them because of her postings on CC and his admissions in the CC article. I don't think this is as much of a publicity nightmare for RCI as some people think, but I could be wrong.

 

As for the rum runners...I don't drink much and I think it's stupid to try to sneak booze onto a ship. It's a clear violation of the contract; just because the cruise lines generally just confiscate the booze doesn't mean they can't deny boarding if they want to. Why risk your vacation just to reduce your bar bill?

 

Whether the contracts are fair is another discussion. I would argue that aspects of them are not. But the cruise lines are private businesses and we are free not to do business with them. We have to decide whether cruising is worth giving up certain rights. So far it appears that everyone here has decided it is.

 

You are wrong. If you look the CC article:

 

Royal Caribbean spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez told Cruise Critic that the item tested positive for a controlled substance in a field test conducted by RCI security and witnessed by Port Canaveral police officers. "The 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," Martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's Guest Conduct Policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, Mary and Robert were denied boarding.

 

it shows categorically that RCI was basing its decision not to allow them to reboard on the discovery of a proven illegal substance, which violated their Guest Conduct policy.

 

So it had nothing to do with the couple's behaviour, otherwise I'm sure we would have heard about it from RCI.

 

The cruise line messed up.

[phoenix1181]

The last line of the police report says it all. "This was a non law enforcement issue."

 

Those who have posted "innocent until proven guilty" and "they did nothing illegal" and who've gone so far as to wish that other posters get arrested have COMPLETELY missed the point. It DOESN'T MATTER that the substance (apparently) wasn't illegal (or, at any rate, wasn't pot). What matters is that the husband's conduct in packing the stuff and the pipe in a secret compartment aroused the suspicion of security and was enough for the captain, who is responsible for the welfare of thousands of passengers and crew, and a VERY expensive ship, to make a time-constrained decision to deny them passage. Maybe if this had occurred at 11 a.m. instead of within an hour or so of sailing, giving the captain more time to sort things out, things would have been different.

 

And of course none of us, even those who were on the cruise, witnessed the incident so we don't know if the husband and/or wife might have reacted in such a way as to exacerbate the situation.

 

The couple won't get anywhere in court. Maybe RCI will refund them, maybe they won't. If I were RCI, I might be less inclined to work with them because of her postings on CC and his admissions in the CC article. I don't think this is as much of a publicity nightmare for RCI as some people think, but I could be wrong.

 

As for the rum runners...I don't drink much and I think it's stupid to try to sneak booze onto a ship. It's a clear violation of the contract; just because the cruise lines generally just confiscate the booze doesn't mean they can't deny boarding if they want to. Why risk your vacation just to reduce your bar bill?

 

Whether the contracts are fair is another discussion. I would argue that aspects of them are not. But the cruise lines are private businesses and we are free not to do business with them. We have to decide whether cruising is worth giving up certain rights. So far it appears that everyone here has decided it is.

 

Thank you! I was wondering when someone was finally going to get it.............

[Aquahound]

One thing that you all should realize, and cruise Critic should realize is, the link on the news story is NOTa police report. It is a CAD report. It stands for Computer Aided Dispatch. It is a record that is created for every single call. Info recorded on a CAD report is entered by a dispatcher based on his/her communication with the officer. It is not completed by an officer and does not include statements, including RCI's comments. CAD reports are one-sided only and only create a record of the call.

 

This should be considered when making assumptions based on that report.

[EVALUATOR]

One thing that you all should realize, and cruise Critic should realize is, the link on the news story is not a police report. It is a CAD report. It stands for Computer Aided Dispatch. Info recorded on a CAD report is entered by a dispatcher based on his/her communication with the officer. It is not completed by an officer and does not include statements, including RCI's comments. CAD reports are one-sided only.

 

This should be considered when making assumptions based on that report.

 

Didn't the OP state the police report she had was 5 pages long???

[aurelius180]

That's maybe because the presumptive lint test was negative for a stolen beach towel. The other time was waiting for FBI forensic analysis to confirm it wasn't from a cabin wash cloth either.:)

 

They were never able to confirm it wasn't a hand towel, but eventually agreed to refund the money.:D All in the name of good customer relations.:eek:

 

 

Now you've lost all credibility...RCI would never engage in good customer relations. :)

[Heidils]

I've read both threads and also the news article and have mixed feelings here.

There still are a lot of unanswered questions here. Did the couple get hostile towards security (although I could see me getting a little irate)? Was the can brought only to conceal the tobacco and nothing else? Why not put it in your carry on and explain it upfront?

 

I hate all the security at airports but I do enjoy feeling safe while flying. The same goes for cruising, I don't want to feel threatened at all. Here is a ship with thousands of passengers and crew members and I feel that if you're trying to hide something then probably you're not a person to be trusted. Therefore maybe you shouldn't be on the ship.

 

I do believe that the couple should have been reimbursed for the cruise portion but I have no problem with them not sailing.

 

Good post! It's amazing how many pedifiles are let loose, yet this guy that brought legal stuff on the ship was kicked off. I want to be safe on my upcoming cruise, but I'm not willing to say that someone should be kicked off because of what they might do. I just can't live in that world. I'm actually a whislte blower, I just blow the whistle when the crime is commited.

[Jumbiecruiser]

I got your back there Jumbie!:)

 

Appreciate that.:)

[EVALUATOR]

Now you've lost all credibility...RCI would never engage in good customer relations. :)

 

Now that's two people that say I've lost all credibility. I should quit while I'm...???:D

 

Like the first one said, I'm not sure I had it to begin with.:(

[aurelius180]

One thing that you all should realize, and cruise Critic should realize is, the link on the news story is NOTa police report. It is a CAD report. It stands for Computer Aided Dispatch. It is a record that is created for every single call. Info recorded on a CAD report is entered by a dispatcher based on his/her communication with the officer. It is not completed by an officer and does not include statements, including RCI's comments. CAD reports are one-sided only and only create a record of the call.

 

This should be considered when making assumptions based on that report.

 

 

A police incident report acquired by Cruise Critic corroborates Harvey's comments.

 

 

Is a "police incident report" the same as a CAD or would that generally be considered a police report in the general sense the OP stated she had a copy of?

 

I know the link is to the CAD but I'm curious about the language used in the article. It seems, at this point, everyone involved (or not involved) is using misleading statements...:cool: