Jump to content

Consumer advocate article: "This is what happens when you're kicked off your cruise"


Recommended Posts

Oh, and one more comment.

 

I'm just speculating here, but I would be willing to bet this "incident" had to do with the cruise ship refusing to let passengers with private tours leave the ship in time to meet their tour guides.

 

 

In my forty plus years of cruising on multiple cruise lines, I don't know of any line that does not give preference to ship excursions for debarking the ship where there is some type of bottleneck, be it tenders, custom and visa control, or just the number of passengers that can be "dinged" out at the gangway.

 

Any experienced cruiser who books a private tour will know that this is the way the procedure works. Temper tantrums and verbal abuse by those who think they are special and beyond procedures set in place for an orderly debarkation will be dealt with by ship's security.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, not as told by "those who were involved" but by the wife of one of several people involved in the incident. She has no idea what happened, other that what she has been told.
Wait... you're actually saying the WIFE has no idea what happened to her HUSBAND? It didn't occur to you that they were probably together on this cruise? LOL! Okay then!

 

 

The author has also sensationalized the narrative rather than reporting objectively. For example, the written explanation provided to Mrs. Chan states "As a result, a staff member required medical attention." This medical attention could have been as simple as checking out a bump on the head or applying a Band-Aid to a minor cut, but the author chooses to employ a bit of hyperbole: "If Holland America believes that Chan’s husband injured a crew member so severely that he needed medical treatment..."
I believe it was the cruise line that stated that the staff member required medical attention, not the accused couple. Therefore if there's any hyperbole, it's on HAL's part, not the couple.

 

 

You clearly haven't read many of my posts, as I was also accused of being a HAL hater recently, when I criticized the cruise line. I simply call 'em as I see 'em, with no bias one way or the other.

 

I think we're all waiting to see any "evidence".

No, I haven't read every post in this thread. But I'm happy to hear that you have no bias. That's also in short supply around these parts, in my experience. So kudos to you! :)

 

 

Yet you concluded in your initial post that "their claim is quite believable" and chastise those who believe the ship's Captain.
As I stated, I'm basing my "OPINION" (which is all it is) on the evidence presented. I found it persuasive that the couple was begging to actually see the video that the cruise line refused to share. So, just using some of that common sense that I mentioned earlier - why is it that the couple wants to see it, but HAL won't share it? Seems to me that would indicate that they know they are innocent, and are asking to see something that HAL has, that will prove them innocent. And HAL won't deliver. And you find my conclusion to be surprising? Alrighty then!
Link to post
Share on other sites
In my forty plus years of cruising on multiple cruise lines, I don't know of any line that does not give preference to ship excursions for debarking the ship where there is some type of bottleneck, be it tenders, custom and visa control, or just the number of passengers that can be "dinged" out at the gangway.

 

Any experienced cruiser who books a private tour will know that this is the way the procedure works. Temper tantrums and verbal abuse by those who think they are special and beyond procedures set in place for an orderly debarkation will be dealt with by ship's security.

 

There's a major difference between "giving ship tour pax preference" and "not allowing private tour pax to walk off a ship for hours".

 

As you can see, I've been around these parts since 2004. I've been on more cruises than I can count, including a Baltics one. Yes, of COURSE I know that ships will often give preference to their own tour pax at a port, especially when debarking involved tenders.

 

But there is zero reason to prevent pax from just walking down the gangplank to an available checkpoint. And that's what I've heard of happening at St. Petersburg - ships that literally refuse to allow private-tour pax to even walk down to wide open checkpoints, for hours.

 

Did this happen on this particular cruise? I have no idea. And neither do you, unless you were on it. And I made that clear in my comment - that this was pure speculation. But I can think of no other reason for there to be such a tussle as described in the article. Can you? If so, hey I'm all ears, since we're just speculating here! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
My post makes perfect sense, for anyone who is willing and able to actually hear and recognize truth. Every sentence is grammatically correct, and the experiences I related did, in fact, occur exactly as I related them. (Although I do realize being willing to recognize and/or accept truth is a trait that is in short supply these days! LOL!)

 

 

 

I do, but thanks. ;)

 

Repeated anecdote is not lawful testimony. There, I just saved you three years in law school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Repeated anecdote is not lawful testimony. There, I just save you three years in law school.

Um...and that's relevant because...why?

 

Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm the passenger written about in the article? If so, then let me clarify that this was not me. I am not seeking legal recourse for anything.

 

My "anecdote" was simply relating an experience that actually did happen to me. I related it simply offering an OPINION (there's that word again!) as to what sparked the scuffle. That's all. I don't need to go to law school to offer, ya know, a story of something that happened to me, and an opinion as to what might have sparked the scuffle.

 

Seriously, this convo has gone some very interesting directions! Can y'all try to keep up? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it was the cruise line that stated that the staff member required medical attention, not the accused couple. Therefore if there's any hyperbole, it's on HAL's part, not the couple.

 

No, I haven't read every post in this thread.

Please does us all a favour and go back and reread the article. The hyperbole was the author's, not HAL's.

Reading all the posts might give you some additional perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is zero reason to prevent pax from just walking down the gangplank to an available checkpoint. And that's what I've heard of happening at St. Petersburg - ships that literally refuse to allow private-tour pax to even walk down to wide open checkpoints, for hours.

 

 

I have added the bolding. Is this also just speculation without any evidence?

 

By the way, do read the whole thread. You might find that some interesting points were raised that you have missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please does us all a favour and go back and reread the article. The hyperbole was the author's, not HAL's.

 

Reading all the posts might give you some additional perspective.

 

Um...sorry. You're wrong. In fact it's actually HAL's own email to the couple that was quoted in the article Here's a copy/paste from the actual article:

She begged the executives of Holland America to pull those videotapes. Instead, she received a written explanation of the accusations.

Your husband participated in a scene where staff members were verbally abused. This abuse became physical when he and another guest attempted to push their way off the ship in port at St. Petersburg. As a result, a staff member required medical attention. As stated by the Captain in your verbal interview and in our previous correspondence, this is a violation of Section 4 of the Cruise Contract, and so the decision was made to remove both parties from the ship at the next port of call (Helsinki).

That's what HAL said. HAL specifically said their staff member required medical attention. So I find it rather bizarre that you are accusing the reporter of hyperbole, when clearly she posted HAL's own words. From their email. Y'know, that HAL wrote. LOL!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Um...and that's relevant because...why?

 

Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm the passenger written about in the article? If so, then let me clarify that this was not me. I am not seeking legal recourse for anything.

 

My "anecdote" was simply relating an experience that actually did happen to me. I related it simply offering an OPINION (there's that word again!) as to what sparked the scuffle. That's all. I don't need to go to law school to offer, ya know, a story of something that happened to me, and an opinion as to what might have sparked the scuffle.

 

Seriously, this convo has gone some very interesting directions! Can y'all try to keep up? ;)

 

This is not all about you. It is about the quality of the evidence in play right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have added the bolding. Is this also just speculation without any evidence?

 

By the way, do read the whole thread. You might find that some interesting points were raised that you have missed.

 

I hear what you're saying. Speculation is the wrong term - more accurate would be to say I'm reporting what I have been told by people it happened to. In this case you would be correct that I am stating anecdotes that happened to other people...although if I had the time and inclination, I'm sure I could go back and find many Cruise Critic threads reporting this exact thing.

 

As I stated, I was lucky in that it didn't happen to me - at least, not the part about being detained on the ship. But I WAS lied to, and I WAS threatened with not being allowed off the ship for hours until their own tour pax were allowed off. I made a big enough stink in advance that, evidently, they decided not to do it to us. But I have been told many times that it's happened to others. And yes, those are second-hand anecdotes. Because obviously we're in a court of law here. ;)

 

You're right, if I went back and read this entire thread, I'm sure I would see that there are at least some people who didn't immediately jump to HAL's defense. I did see that already. But I saw more posts assuming HAL's correct and the couple was lying...which was what prompted me to comment to begin with!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait... you're actually saying the WIFE has no idea what happened to her HUSBAND? It didn't occur to you that they were probably together on this cruise? LOL! Okay then!

 

Do you know what happened, first hand, to your husband every minute of every day when you are cruising together. The woman admitted she was not present, so anything she says is hearsay.

 

 

I believe it was the cruise line that stated that the staff member required medical attention, not the accused couple. Therefore if there's any hyperbole, it's on HAL's part, not the couple.

 

Yes, HAL stated the crew member needed medical attention, but the author expanded this to be "so serious it required medical attention". Does this author, or the couple involved know the rules that HAL has in place for crew injuries, according to their ISM Code? Most require that any injury, no matter how small, be reported at the time it happened, for insurance purposes.

 

 

No, I haven't read every post in this thread. But I'm happy to hear that you have no bias. That's also in short supply around these parts, in my experience. So kudos to you! :)

 

Unfortunately, you seem to have some bias here, with a self-stated axe to grind. So, pot, meet kettle.

 

 

As I stated, I'm basing my "OPINION" (which is all it is) on the evidence presented. I found it persuasive that the couple was begging to actually see the video that the cruise line refused to share. So, just using some of that common sense that I mentioned earlier - why is it that the couple wants to see it, but HAL won't share it? Seems to me that would indicate that they know they are innocent, and are asking to see something that HAL has, that will prove them innocent. And HAL won't deliver. And you find my conclusion to be surprising? Alrighty then!

 

And as Paul (Aquahound), who has spent a life in maritime justice investigation for the USCG has stated, you are basing your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, on one side of the evidence, and being extremely vehement about it. You are the one who started calling folks "Cruise Line Die Hards", and attacking opinions that differed from yours. I have castigated cruise lines, several of them, for mistakes they've made regarding the safety and seaworthiness of their ships, but I have also fervently defended them when not all the evidence was in the public domain, and have been proven right almost all the time when I defended them, as well as when I criticized them. Why should HAL share evidence of something they already determined to be true? If this means so much to the couple, they need to seek legal advice and get a subpoena for the video. There are other legal issues with sharing a surveillance video outside of these people's desire to clear themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not all about you. It is about the quality of the evidence in play right now.

And yet again I'm not sure what point you are making. I never said any of this was "about me". As for the "quality of evidence" - all we have to go on to formulate our opinions is what's in the article. And, as I've stated, I find the evidence as presented in the article to be more persuasive towards the couple's innocence than guilt. But YMMV. That's the great thing about opinions...we all get to have them.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear what you're saying. Speculation is the wrong term - more accurate would be to say I'm reporting what I have been told by people it happened to. In this case you would be correct that I am stating anecdotes that happened to other people...although if I had the time and inclination, I'm sure I could go back and find many Cruise Critic threads reporting this exact thing.

 

As I stated, I was lucky in that it didn't happen to me - at least, not the part about being detained on the ship. But I WAS lied to, and I WAS threatened with not being allowed off the ship for hours until their own tour pax were allowed off. I made a big enough stink in advance that, evidently, they decided not to do it to us. But I have been told many times that it's happened to others. And yes, those are second-hand anecdotes. Because obviously we're in a court of law here. ;)

 

You're right, if I went back and read this entire thread, I'm sure I would see that there are at least some people who didn't immediately jump to HAL's defense. I did see that already. But I saw more posts assuming HAL's correct and the couple was lying...which was what prompted me to comment to begin with!

 

Obviously you are not in a court of law here. Stop the exaggerations. But you might want to consider going to law school, so you can bring more discipline to your arguments. You have a heightened sense of justice. Now learn to effectively build your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know what happened, first hand, to your husband every minute of every day when you are cruising together. The woman admitted she was not present, so anything she says is hearsay.
WHAT? Um, where are you seeing this? I just re-read the entire article, and nowhere does Mrs. Chan state she wasn't with her husband. On the contrary, she repeated stated THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED.

 

From the article:

Chan and her husband again asked that Holland America review the videotapes. The couple provided photos of themselves on the day of the incident. They hoped that company executives could compare those photos with any videos or photos the cruise line might have of the true perpetrator. Additionally, they agreed to take lie detector tests at their own cost.
Can you please show where you see Mrs. Chan stating that she wasn't with her husband during the time the incident occurred? If I missed that in the article, mea culpa...but I can't find it.

 

EDITING to add: I discovered a comment from the author of the article that makes it clear the wife WAS with her husband when the incident occurred:

 

Comment by Michelle Couch-Friedman, author of the article:

The comments that you are referencing are only speculation on this story. Ms. Chan was with her husband waiting to leave the ship when they witnessed an incident in front of them as a crowd was waiting to leave the ship in St. Petersburg. They both have said they were not involved in any way with the group of people that were disruptive. As I stated in the article, we can't vouch for this couple. I can only report their side of the story and that they agreed to take a lie detector test to to prove their innocence. HAL always responds to our advocacy team -- but their executives ignored this request ... We continue to welcome Holland America's side of this story. I sent multiple emails to our contacts at HAL about this case and alerted their team I was writing this article.

So you are wrong. The wife WAS with her husband. They both witnessed the scuffle, but claim they weren't involved. And they have repeatedly asked for the video tapes that they insist will prove it.

 

Yes, HAL stated the crew member needed medical attention, but the author expanded this to be "so serious it required medical attention". Does this author, or the couple involved know the rules that HAL has in place for crew injuries, according to their ISM Code? Most require that any injury, no matter how small, be reported at the time it happened, for insurance purposes.

Ah, so now you admit that it was HAL who said their crew member required medical attention. The journalist pointing out that the crew member required medical attention is not hyperbole. It was simply a fact. How you turn that into the journalist and/or Mrs. Chan being guilty of hyperbole is...well...baffling.

 

Unfortunately, you seem to have some bias here, with a self-stated axe to grind. So, pot, meet kettle.
Show me a human who doesn't have some level of bias, and I'll show you...a non-human. ;)

 

As for an ax to grind - no ax here, hon. Just some wry observations about the Cruise Critic culture as revealed in the comments in this thread! And this entire conversation since I joined it has done nothing to refute my original points.

Edited by Leejnd4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously you are not in a court of law here. Stop the exaggerations. But you might want to consider going to law school, so you can bring more discipline to your arguments.

 

And I would do that...why? So I can be more "disciplined" in my arguments...on a cruise message forum? LOL! Sorry, I gots me some bigger priorities. You don't like my arguments? Fine by me. You are a stranger on a message forum, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to go back to, ya know, school.

 

Besides, I already have a job, and I'm less than a year from retirement, so no...I really don't see a need to go to law school to hold conversations with other cruisers. But...as I said before...you do you. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I would do that...why? So I can be more "disciplined" in my arguments...on a cruise message forum? LOL! Sorry, I gots me some bigger priorities. You don't like my arguments? Fine by me. You are a stranger on a message forum, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to go back to, ya know, school.

 

Besides, I already have a job, and I'm less than a year from retirement, so no...I really don't see a need to go to law school to hold conversations with other cruisers. But...as I said before...you do you. :D

 

I think you would enjoy law school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you would enjoy law school.

If I wasn't so old already, and with too many other plans ahead of me for my golden years, perhaps I would!

 

I'm going to take this as a compliment. And with that, y'all can go back to your regularly scheduled program. I've got an upcoming cruise to plan in another forum, a retirement to prepare for, and, well, lots of other stuff to do. This was just a brief foray into the HAL forum to make some interesting observations. I'll bet I'm not the only one who thought this, too...I'm just someone who had some extra time today to share these thoughts.

 

Happy cruising, y'all!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Um...sorry. You're wrong. In fact it's actually HAL's own email to the couple that was quoted in the article Here's a copy/paste from the actual article:

That's what HAL said. HAL specifically said their staff member required medical attention. So I find it rather bizarre that you are accusing the reporter of hyperbole, when clearly she posted HAL's own words. From their email. Y'know, that HAL wrote. LOL!

You either failed to read the article in its entirety or you are having comprehension issues. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there are two different references to medical attention, the first which you have quoted and the second, written by the author of the article, which contains the hyperbole.

 

HAL:

 

Your husband participated in a scene where staff members were verbally abused. This abuse became physical when he and another guest attempted to push their way off the ship in port at St. Petersburg.
As a result, a staff member required medical attention.

AUTHOR:

 

If Holland America believes that Chan’s husband
injured a crew member so severely
that he needed medical treatment
, why would the cruise line hope this assaultive passenger would set sail with Holland America ever again?

When proffered, I'll accept your apology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
no one here knows what the requirements of Dutch law are regarding disclosing evidence in an investigation like this.

 

Neither do I. Bars in Holland can deny access to anyone for any reason, unless they are proven to discriminate based on age, sex, etnicity, etc. Probably the same holds for hotels, even if they float. In this case, HAL probably thought "better be safe than sorry", and acted accordingly.

 

First you'd need to make it reasonable that you were kicked of the ship for no reason. Then you'd need to make it probable that there's footage that was kept well after the voyage. Then you'd need to make the case that you need that footage to defend yourselves, and HAL could supply those easily. Only to show that your vacation was cut short, taking more time in a court room than the entire vacation. While the couple could be right, and there's no such thing as a judge throwing out a ridiculous claim in Dutch law, I'm convinced they'd lose and pay for court and HAL's lawyer. And that is when the case was put before a Dutch judge, where the cruise contract says you can't. (and I think that's true until criminal law applies on a Dutch ship, when you're robbed/killled/injured etc).

 

Bad PR could have been prevented by showing the video or not kicking the couple off the ship, but I'm absolutely sure the Dutch prosecution office has better cases to look at, and would put a potential report in the middle of a long stack of cases labeled "very unimportant".

Link to post
Share on other sites
You either failed to read the article in its entirety or you are having comprehension issues. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there are two different references to medical attention, the first which you have quoted and the second, written by the author of the article, which contains the hyperbole.

 

HAL:

 

Your husband participated in a scene where staff members were verbally abused. This abuse became physical when he and another guest attempted to push their way off the ship in port at St. Petersburg.
As a result, a staff member required medical attention.

AUTHOR:

If Holland America believes that Chan’s husband
injured a crew member so severely
that he needed medical treatment
, why would the cruise line hope this assaultive passenger would set sail with Holland America ever again?

When proffered, I'll accept your apology.

There will be none, because there is nothing in what the journalist wrote that could even remotely be construed as hyperbole.

 

HAL stated the crew member required medical attention. That means that the crew member was injured so severely that he needed medical treatment. That's...actually what HAL said. It's a fact, according to HAL. If someone physically tussles with someone so as to cause injury needing medical attention, that is the very definition of assault.

 

Webster's definition of "Hyperbole": extravagant exaggeration (such as "mile-high ice-cream cones")

 

Hmm...I'm not seeing anything extravagant, or even any exaggerations at all. Now if the journalist had made a comment like "The crew member must have suffered a broken arm or leg!" or some such nuttery, that would be hyperbole. But simply pointing out what HAL itself said is not.

 

So I will happily await your apology when proffered. :) LOL!

Edited by Leejnd4
Link to post
Share on other sites
There will be none, because there is nothing in what the journalist wrote that could even remotely be construed as hyperbole.

 

HAL stated the crew member required medical attention. That means that the crew member was injured so severely that he needed medical treatment. That's...actually what HAL said. It's a fact, according to HAL. If someone physically tussles with someone so as to cause injury needing medical attention, that is the very definition of assault.

 

Now if the journalist had made a comment like "The crew member must have suffered a broken arm or leg!" or some such nuttery, that would be hyperbole. But simply pointing out what HAL itself said is not.

 

So I will happily await your apology when proffered. :) LOL!

So, in the alternative universe that you inhabit, the only time that medical attention is required is when someone is severely injured? Interesting, but I'm quite sure that the ship's medical facility would say otherwise. Of course, you might view sea sickness as a severe injury, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There will be none, because there is nothing in what the journalist wrote that could even remotely be construed as hyperbole.

 

HAL stated the crew member required medical attention. That means that the crew member was injured so severely that he needed medical treatment. That's...actually what HAL said. It's a fact, according to HAL. If someone physically tussles with someone so as to cause injury needing medical attention, that is the very definition of assault.

 

Webster's definition of "Hyperbole": extravagant exaggeration (such as "mile-high ice-cream cones")

 

Hmm...I'm not seeing anything extravagant, or even any exaggerations at all. Now if the journalist had made a comment like "The crew member must have suffered a broken arm or leg!" or some such nuttery, that would be hyperbole. But simply pointing out what HAL itself said is not.

 

So I will happily await your apology when proffered. :) LOL!

 

Here is where your lack of discipline is working against you. You morphed "medical attention" into "medical treatment" and then it somehow became this "injured so severely" hyperbole. You got to learn to color within the lines. Not what you think things "mean".

 

Summary

1. Medical attention >>>

2. Medical treatment>>>

3. Injured so severely that he needed medical treatment

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, in the alternative universe that you inhabit, the only time that medical attention is required is when someone is severely injured? Interesting, but I'm quite sure that the ship's medical facility would say otherwise. Of course, you might view sea sickness as a severe injury, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

So in your alternate universe, pointing out that someone's injury was so severe as to require medical attention is the same as saying he was "severely injured"?

 

One is a fact. The other is not.

 

It's a FACT that his injury was so severe as to require medical attention (at least according to HAL). The actual degree of severity of the injury was not specified, or even commented on, by the journalist other than in the context of pointing out the FACT that HAL stated it was so severe that it required medical treatment. Which they did. It still might have been only a band-aid for a paper cut, but again, the specifics of the severity of the injury were not commented or even speculated upon by the journalist. Just the FACT that, whatever it was, was severe enough to require medical attention.

 

That is not the same thing as saying he was "severely injured".

 

I'm a writer, so I actually do grasp the difference here. If you don't, that's okay. I understand. These language nuances can be complicated. :D

Edited by Leejnd4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is where your lack of discipline is working against you. You morphed "medical attention" into "medical treatment" and then it somehow became this "injured so severely" hyperbole. You got to learn to color within the lines. Not what you think things "mean".

 

Summary

1. Medical attention >>>

2. Medical treatment>>>

3. Injured so severely that he needed medical treatment

 

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! OlsSalt I'm starting to really enjoy chatting with you. :)

 

I can kinda see your point...which, if you'll allow me to re-state it, is that medical "attention" is not the same as medical "treatment".

 

On the other hand, I think you are overly parsing words here. I think it's a reasonable assumption that someone who needs medical "attention" received medical "treatment". And making that leap is, well, such a TINY leap that it can't even remotely be considered "hyperbole". It certainly doesn't meet the metric of being an extravagant exaggeration! Wouldn't you agree?

 

Editing to add - are you, perhaps, a lawyer? Just curious! :)

 

Editing again to add: by the way, it wasn't I who did the "morphing". It was the author. She is the one who used the term "medical treatment" when HAL used the term "medical attention". But again, I fail to see this as anything that could be considered hyperbole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...