Huge brawl on the Legend, with video.

[CKM]

The staff on Carnival DID NOT start the brawl. These “people” were looking for a fight every where they went. Read it was only one “big” family who were enrolled in more than one brawl. They were put off at the next port, VOILA! No more fighting.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[SCOT]

The staff on Carnival DID NOT start the brawl. These “people” were looking for a fight every where they went. Read it was only one “big” family who were enrolled in more than one brawl. They were put off at the next port, VOILA! No more fighting.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

This this your answer to my ? So the ship was at sea for 9 days?

[Haboob]

This this your answer to my ? So the ship was at sea for 9 days?

 

::sigh::

 

Read the thread, not just the last couple of pages:

 

4 days at sea, outbound, 4 days at sea homeward.

Until the homeward leg, the group was obnoxious, not in-your-face-combative.

[richstowe]

This this your answer to my ? So the ship was at sea for 9 days?

 

 

 

 

OK, here is my take . No videos means NO story !

You and me and thousands more wouldn't be braying our opinions and hundreds of news sources wouldn't be doing the same. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody films it then it just doesn't matter .

 

So we can all tut tut but if I'm Carnival I know nothing good will come from film of a conflict, any conflict ! Of course if they knew what they were doing they would direct gawkers away from the fight. Not having their staff filmed kicking people on the ground is a good idea . :rolleyes:

[payitforward]

No, you sue the company responsible, which in the case of a cruise operated by Carnival Australia, it's erm....... Carnival Australia. And guess where they're based?

 

What part of "Carnival Australia is owned by the Carnival parent company, which is based in Miami" is so difficult to understand?

[CKM]

This was not the fight these people had with other passengers, seems they were always looking for a fight and instigating one.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Keys2Heaven]

The staff on Carnival DID NOT start the brawl. These “people” were looking for a fight every where they went. Read it was only one “big” family who were enrolled in more than one brawl. They were put off at the next port, VOILA! No more fighting.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Thank goodness you chimed in. That's it people.....this guy has spoken....nothing else to report. Thread CLOSED!!!!

[tidecat]

wow, just wow.

 

So the New South Wales court case from the link I provided in the post you've replied has no jurisdiction and should be made to hand the money awarded back and hold the case in Miami instead because the parent company is based in Miami?

 

Good luck with that.

 

The Australian ticket contract specified the choice of venue as New South Wales in Section 31:

 

https://www.carnival.com.au/au-legal-notice/ticket-contract.aspx

[ShyFlirt]

BTW, if for some reason pictures or video get deleted from your camera, stop using it immediately. Pull the memory card. There is software that can recover the pictures/video. But if you take pictures/video after the deletion, it can overwrite the deleted stuff. You can always insert a different memory card for the time being.

[les37b]

What part of "Carnival Australia is owned by the Carnival parent company, which is based in Miami" is so difficult to understand?

 

For you it seems to be! It’s a word I’ve used a few times in this thread - irelivant!

 

If you need any help understanding the wording Carnival Australia use in their contracts regarding this, please let me know. But if you’d prefer to dig a deeper hole, be my guest.

 

31. CHOICE OF LAW & JURISDICTION

This contract is governed by the laws in force in New South Wales. You agree that any action you bring against us will be brought in New South Wales, Australia.

If you have a claim against us, you agree only to bring action against us and not any of our related bodies corporate as defined in the Corporations Act 2001(Cth).

 

 

Hope that helps. :D

 

I expect the others posting their snarky comments in regard to this will be along shortly to apologise! lol

Edited February 25, 2018 by les37b

[Stateroom_Sailor]

The staff on Carnival DID NOT start the brawl. These “people” were looking for a fight every where they went. Read it was only one “big” family who were enrolled in more than one brawl. They were put off at the next port, VOILA! No more fighting.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

VOILA! You've set an acceptable standard for:

 

A) Passengers looking for fights everywhere they go

B) No more than 1 big brawl per family

C) Free passage on ship, until the next port of call, following a 2nd big brawl.

[Maraprince]

why would Carnival delete pictures and videos from passenger if they did no wrong?to me It would help. So is Carnival hiding something? Something to thing about

 

 

The video is misleading in that it does not show what the family/families did that led up to what was actually being shown on the video.

 

MARAPRINCE

[crusinpsychRN]

Staff officer told me when a ship goes to Australia they add additional cameras everywhere. They have experienced so many fights.

[payitforward]

For you it seems to be! It’s a word I’ve used a few times in this thread - irelivant!

 

If you need any help understanding the wording Carnival Australia use in their contracts regarding this, please let me know. But if you’d prefer to dig a deeper hole, be my guest.

 

31. CHOICE OF LAW & JURISDICTION

This contract is governed by the laws in force in New South Wales. You agree that any action you bring against us will be brought in New South Wales, Australia.

If you have a claim against us, you agree only to bring action against us and not any of our related bodies corporate as defined in the Corporations Act 2001(Cth).

 

 

Hope that helps. :D

 

I expect the others posting their snarky comments in regard to this will be along shortly to apologise! lol

 

The problem was that, earlier in this thread, people were discussing civil cases being filed in Miami and you kept saying it was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia. People also specifically ASKED what the contract on Australian cruises said and you just kept saying EVERYTHING anyone else said was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia. When they explained that the parent company was in Miami, you kept saying "But this is Carnival Australia." It was as if you could not understand that Carnival Corp in Miami IS the parent company for Carnival Australia. Now that we're 40 pages in, you've FINALLY answered the question as to what the contract on the Australian cruises said. Does that mean we owe you an apology? I don't think so. You continued to use the word "irrelevant" through the entire thread while offering no indication that you "heard" or understood what others were saying and offered no wording or documentation to back up your theory. I will now concede that, if that's what the contract says, they don't need to file in Miami. But, I won't apologize for being frustrated with your repeated comments throughout the thread without any back up.

[Kingofcool1947]

The problem was that, earlier in this thread, people were discussing civil cases being filed in Miami and you kept saying it was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia. People also specifically ASKED what the contract on Australian cruises said and you just kept saying EVERYTHING anyone else said was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia. When they explained that the parent company was in Miami, you kept saying "But this is Carnival Australia." It was as if you could not understand that Carnival Corp in Miami IS the parent company for Carnival Australia. Now that we're 40 pages in, you've FINALLY answered the question as to what the contract on the Australian cruises said. Does that mean we owe you an apology? I don't think so. You continued to use the word "irrelevant" through the entire thread while offering no indication that you "heard" or understood what others were saying and offered no wording or documentation to back up your theory. I will now concede that, if that's what the contract says, they don't need to file in Miami. But, I won't apologize for being frustrated with your repeated comments throughout the thread without any back up.

 

Just wondering, are any of you people who chimed in regarding jurisdiction, Maritime Lawyers/Contract Lawyers?

Edited February 25, 2018 by Kingofcool1947

[les37b]

The problem was that, earlier in this thread, people were discussing civil cases being filed in Miami and you kept saying it was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia.

 

I didn't say that at all.

 

Someone from Texas stated LEO can kick people and it would stand up in court. I said that was irrelevant because there was no jurisdiction on this vessel and American law enforcment had no place on this ship. Someone else chimed it it would be a civil matter so had to be held in Miami. I've repeatedly stated that is inaccurate and gave an example of a civil court case held in NSW. I've now posted the contract that shows the silly claims made about "its American".... must be held in the US.... to be a complete falsehood.

 

People also specifically ASKED what the contract on Australian cruises said and you just kept saying EVERYTHING anyone else said was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia.

I didnt say that at all.... and Ive posted exactly what it said. Did you have trouble understanding it?

 

 

When they explained that the parent company was in Miami, you kept saying "But this is Carnival Australia." It was as if you could not understand that Carnival Corp in Miami IS the parent company for Carnival Australia. Now that we're 40 pages in, you've FINALLY answered the question as to what the contract on the Australian cruises said. Does that mean we owe you an apology? I don't think so. You continued to use the word "irrelevant" through the entire thread while offering no indication that you "heard" or understood what others were saying and offered no wording or documentation to back up your theory. I will now concede that, if that's what the contract says, they don't need to file in Miami. But, I won't apologize for being frustrated with your repeated comments throughout the thread without any back up.

For one. if you wish to claim what Ive said is wrong, then post you're proof. Why is it for me to prove something and not you? Stop keep posting "its a fact" when it is far from being that.

 

And secondly, I didnt expect you to apologise. Only grown ups can admit when they get it wrong. I guess "I'll admit and I concede" must have hurt enough, so I'll just have a chuckle at being right and knowing humble pie was too hard for you to swallow.

 

Do you not feel a bit of a fool for your snarky comment?

 

What part of "Carnival Australia is owned by the Carnival parent company, which is based in Miami" is so difficult to understand?

 

To answer you. It's not hard to understand at all and never once said I wasn't aware that was the case. Maybe it might have been better to explain why you believed only the parent company was responsible for anything the sibling company did and think Australian citizens have to go to the court in the US if they have complaints! Common, even you can see how ridiculous that would be?

Edited February 25, 2018 by les37b

[klfrodo]

The problem was that, earlier in this thread, people were discussing civil cases being filed in Miami and you kept saying it was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia. People also specifically ASKED what the contract on Australian cruises said and you just kept saying EVERYTHING anyone else said was irrelevant because the ship was in Australia. When they explained that the parent company was in Miami, you kept saying "But this is Carnival Australia." It was as if you could not understand that Carnival Corp in Miami IS the parent company for Carnival Australia. Now that we're 40 pages in, you've FINALLY answered the question as to what the contract on the Australian cruises said. Does that mean we owe you an apology? I don't think so. You continued to use the word "irrelevant" through the entire thread while offering no indication that you "heard" or understood what others were saying and offered no wording or documentation to back up your theory. I will now concede that, if that's what the contract says, they don't need to file in Miami. But, I won't apologize for being frustrated with your repeated comments throughout the thread without any back up.

 

Don’t admit when you’re wrong very well, huh?

[Aquahound]

I haven't been on this thread in a few days. I come back with my hat in my hand. I was wrong. I was not aware that Legend was sailing under the management of Carnival Australia. That's my bad for not looking at it deeper before responding.

 

It is true that under the Carnival Australia cruise contract, venue for litigation is New South Wales. Furthermore there is case law in the Southern District of Florida stemming from the Costa Concordia event. The court ruled in that event that all litigation was to be heard in Genoa, Italy. That ruling from the appellate court prevented....and will prevent...claims against the parent corporation in the future. So in reference to the context leading to this conversation, if anyone were to have a claim against Carnival, it has to be in NSW.

 

Les37b, I apologize. I hope you accept.

[TxChick]

I almost agree with this, however unfair it may seem.

 

 

same here. We are so close to Galveston and we love a quick 4 or 5 day cruise but with the cheaper cruises, comes, well...you get the idea.

[les37b]

I haven't been on this thread in a few days. I come back with my hat in my hand. I was wrong. I was not aware that Legend was sailing under the management of Carnival Australia. That's my bad for not looking at it deeper before responding.

 

It is true that under the Carnival Australia cruise contract, venue for litigation is New South Wales. Furthermore there is case law in the Southern District of Florida stemming from the Costa Concordia event. The court ruled in that event that all litigation was to be heard in Genoa, Italy. That ruling from the appellate court prevented....and will prevent...claims against the parent corporation in the future. So in reference to the context leading to this conversation, if anyone were to have a claim against Carnival, it has to be in NSW.

 

Les37b, I apologize. I hope you accept.

 

I certainly do..... and kudos to you for doing so and the way you have replied.

 

As I'd said at the start, my response initially was the notion that US LEO officers "tactics" would be admissible outside the US. I'd not even considered a civil case until your reply. I do agree though, there are lots of grey areas. It begs the question, if a US citizen purchases a Carnival cruise in Oz, if they'd be signed up under Carnival Aus rules or from the parent US company. It would be most unfair to expect a US citizen to travel to Australia for the same reason I was saying.

 

Ive tried to dig out the contract I had for Vista in the Med to see what that said, but cannot find. However, UK (and indeed EU) customers have a whole bunch of legal obligations over and above what the US company would give its own US based customers. In much the same way if a American Airlines from London delayed my flight by more than 2 hours, I would be compensated financially from American Airlines. US passage contracts are a whole lot different from the US and the airlines rights and obligations....... But thats for another thread! :D

[jimbo5544]

I haven't been on this thread in a few days. I come back with my hat in my hand. I was wrong. I was not aware that Legend was sailing under the management of Carnival Australia. That's my bad for not looking at it deeper before responding.

 

It is true that under the Carnival Australia cruise contract, venue for litigation is New South Wales. Furthermore there is case law in the Southern District of Florida stemming from the Costa Concordia event. The court ruled in that event that all litigation was to be heard in Genoa, Italy. That ruling from the appellate court prevented....and will prevent...claims against the parent corporation in the future. So in reference to the context leading to this conversation, if anyone were to have a claim against Carnival, it has to be in NSW.

 

Les37b, I apologize. I hope you accept.

Great post, I am impressed.

[ccsclean21]

Years ago you didn't need a passport to sail to the Pacific Islands and it was great but now we all have to go through a lot of hassle and costs to get a pass port to cruise all because of a few stupid trouble makers.

These trouble makers should be forced to reimburse the cruise fare of passengers they have affected and the damages they have caused.

Maybe if they hear that they could end up been bankrupt they might think twice before causing trouble.

You go on cruises to have fun, meet new people not belt them up.

[beerman2]

ccsclean21

 

Thanks for the laugh " belt them up"! That's a new saying !

[Maraprince]

Staff officer told me when a ship goes to Australia they add additional cameras everywhere. They have experienced so many fights.

 

 

In view of this poor tract record, it should go without saying that a notice should be given to all passengers boarding ships in Australia that no displays/disturbances will be tolerated on board. Those who do, will be disembarked at the nearest port and will need to find their own way back home.

 

MARAPRINCE

[payitforward]

I didn't say that at all.

 

Someone from Texas stated LEO can kick people and it would stand up in court. I said that was irrelevant because there was no jurisdiction on this vessel and American law enforcment had no place on this ship. Someone else chimed it it would be a civil matter so had to be held in Miami. I've repeatedly stated that is inaccurate and gave an example of a civil court case held in NSW. I've now posted the contract that shows the silly claims made about "its American".... must be held in the US.... to be a complete falsehood.

 

I didnt say that at all.... and Ive posted exactly what it said. Did you have trouble understanding it?

 

 

For one. if you wish to claim what Ive said is wrong, then post you're proof. Why is it for me to prove something and not you? Stop keep posting "its a fact" when it is far from being that.

 

And secondly, I didnt expect you to apologise. Only grown ups can admit when they get it wrong. I guess "I'll admit and I concede" must have hurt enough, so I'll just have a chuckle at being right and knowing humble pie was too hard for you to swallow.

 

Do you not feel a bit of a fool for your snarky comment?

 

 

 

To answer you. It's not hard to understand at all and never once said I wasn't aware that was the case. Maybe it might have been better to explain why you believed only the parent company was responsible for anything the sibling company did and think Australian citizens have to go to the court in the US if they have complaints! Common, even you can see how ridiculous that would be?

 

Don’t admit when you’re wrong very well, huh?

 

After going back through the thread, I am more than prepared to admit I was wrong on a bunch of things. After Les37b clarified what he meant, I can see how I was reading his earlier posts wrong. I do apologize. I also apologize for the snarky tone of my responses. I would tell you what a bad day I was having, but that's no excuse. I sunk to the level of those that usually annoy me, and I'm sorry for that.

 

In the very beginning of this thread, I also thought the man in the teal shirt was UC security. However, while reading other posts, I came around to believing he was a passenger and that they were trying to get him off of the guy on the ground. It appears my first impression was correct, and I was easily swayed. Based on that, he had the guy in a well trained headlock, and there was really no reason for the other guards to be kicking the guy. It would have been just a matter of a minute before the guy in the orange shorts was rendered unconscious. Not that any of that makes any difference in ANYTHING, but I found it interesting to see how other posts changed my initial impression.