First Time Cruise Problem

[jib614]

From the OP's first post: "I told them that I hadn't even been in the spa the entire time I was on the ship". As I said, I have no reason not to believe his account of the story. The seapass has a record of pretty much everything you do while you are on board and the cameras should show who was and wasn't in the Spa at the time of the alleged incident.

Why would he need his seapass card unless he was purchasing something in the spa such as a massage otherwise he'd have no reason to use it. He doesn't need it for the gym. Once he's onboard, unless hes actively gambling or purchasing something at that exact moment on his seapass, i don't see how they would track him. He fit the description, he may of even looked like the guy from a camera angle. To me this is probable cause to question him.

[dcgrumpy]

From the OP's first post: "I told them that I hadn't even been in the spa the entire time I was on the ship". As I said, I have no reason not to believe his account of the story. The seapass has a record of pretty much everything you do while you are on board and the cameras should show who was and wasn't in the Spa at the time of the alleged incident.

Only if you're charging something. Maybe they did look at the cameras and then looked for people that looked like that person. Maybe the OP looked very similar to the guy in the video and called down everyone similar to rule them out.

[Cruise or Lose!]

Scottee25, I'm terribly sorry that that happened to you. I urge all of you who believe my reaction to this incident is hysterical to read his post. At the end of the day, his name was cleared. He knows what he was accused of and has been cleared of that specific offence. Doesn't OP deserve the same peace of mind? The knowledge that this won't come back to haunt him? The ability to review any file RCL might have kept of the incident? Without identifying the child or his/her parents, of course.

 

Or is OP just supposed to endure being falsely accused because hey, that's the way it goes? If so, what a sad world this has become.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jib614]

Interesting read for sure.

 

I don't think RCI security acted properly. The first thing that security should have done was to pull up each person who 'might match the description' and eliminate men who weren't in the spa at the time of the alleged incident. Assuming the OP is telling the truth, and I have no reason not to believe him, then he would have been eliminated and wouldn't have encountered any problems. Detaining suspects for a 'talk' before finding out if they were even there at the time is backwards and what caused the trouble in the first place.

One question that I don't think was answered yet... On RCI, are children allowed to be unaccompanied by adults in the Spa? If the answer is no, then the original problem resulted from RCI not enforcing their own rules.

If this child was in the spa by himself, whether he or she was allowed to be or not, is not revelant in this case. Alone or not someone acted inappropriately towards this child. He/she may of just been walking through quickly and this happened. I only see RCL at fault if they did nothing!

[jib614]

Scottee25, I'm terribly sorry that that happened to you. I urge all of you who believe my reaction to this incident is hysterical to read his post. At the end of the day, his name was cleared. He knows what he was accused of and has been cleared of that specific offence. Doesn't OP deserve the same peace of mind? The knowledge that this won't come back to haunt him? The ability to review any file RCL might have kept of the incident? Without identifying the child or his/her parents, of course.

 

Or is OP just supposed to endure being falsely accused because hey, that's the way it goes? If so, what a sad world this has become.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He looked like the guy, they asked him a few questions and let him go. Then he was free to continue his cruise.

 

I'm not understanding why some people think asking questions is the same as avvusing, detaining or arresting him

[Cruise or Lose!]

Because when they call him over, he has no choice but to go, and once in the room, he has no choice but to comply with their instructions. He has been detained :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CRZR58]

I'm sure that RCI's security wouldn't sit on any inappropriate conduct towards a child. That leaves 2 possibilities. Either the kid didn't report the alleged incident until way after it happened or the more likely option that the alleged incident happened on the same day as the OP was detained. If the more likely option is true, the seacard may have proven he was off the ship at the time of the incident or the cameras may have proven he was in his cabin.

 

If we assume that security went through the video before detaining anyone and found a picture of a person of interest from around the time of the alleged incident and the OP looked like a guy who looked into a camera, it's most likely that they would have shown him the video at some time during their interrogation. As they didn't, I assume that they brought folks in for questioning before eliminating them, rather than the other way around.

 

As we weren't there and don't know the actual outcome of the investigation, we can't know if anyone acted inappropriately towards a child or not. All we have is security telling the OP that a child made a complaint. If RCI doesn't enforce it's own rules, which are in part to protect children, they could be held partially responsible.

 

IMO every complaint should be investigated thoroughly and every effort should be made to eliminate suspects before detaining them. If you detain the wrong person and you didn't have any evidence to detain them in the first place, a simple sorry isn't good enough.

[Scottee25]

Scottee25, I'm terribly sorry that that happened to you. I urge all of you who believe my reaction to this incident is hysterical to read his post. At the end of the day, his name was cleared. He knows what he was accused of and has been cleared of that specific offence. Doesn't OP deserve the same peace of mind? The knowledge that this won't come back to haunt him? The ability to review any file RCL might have kept of the incident? Without identifying the child or his/her parents, of course.

 

Or is OP just supposed to endure being falsely accused because hey, that's the way it goes? If so, what a sad world this has become.

 

Thank you. It was not a pleasant time, that is for sure. However, I would argue that the OP was not accused of anything. He fit the description as given to security. They confronted him at Guest Services and took him someplace to be questioned. We can all argue till days end whether or not that meets the definition of "detained". I agree with you here. He was detained as he was probably not free to go if he chose not to answer their questions. However, his detainment was not very long and was during a pending investigation.

 

Another area I would argue is that the OP doesn't have any right to see any file RCL may have kept of the incident. This doesn't fall under a Freedom of Information Act request as RCL is a private company. However, even if they were a government entity, law enforcement is not bound to release all records. I am sure my name is in a file somewhere with the FBI since they did make an appearance at my home though I doubt I could ever get my hands on what they have in it.

 

As far as you feeling the world has become a sad place... we have many more rights now than we did in years past. During the inception of the FBI, Public Enemies were often stalked and executed by agents rather than attempting to arrest them. They were never tried for murder or any other crime. Not to say there are not abuses in today's world, they were more egregious a couple generations ago.

[Cruise or Lose!]

Thank you. It was not a pleasant time, that is for sure. However, I would argue that the OP was not accused of anything. He fit the description as given to security. They confronted him at Guest Services and took him someplace to be questioned. We can all argue till days end whether or not that meets the definition of "detained". I agree with you here. He was detained as he was probably not free to go if he chose not to answer their questions. However, his detainment was not very long and was during a pending investigation.

 

 

 

Another area I would argue is that the OP doesn't have any right to see any file RCL may have kept of the incident. This doesn't fall under a Freedom of Information Act request as RCL is a private company. However, even if they were a government entity, law enforcement is not bound to release all records. I am sure my name is in a file somewhere with the FBI since they did make an appearance at my home though I doubt I could ever get my hands on what they have in it.

 

 

 

As far as you feeling the world has become a sad place... we have many more rights now than we did in years past. During the inception of the FBI, Public Enemies were often stalked and executed by agents rather than attempting to arrest them. They were never tried for murder or any other crime. Not to say there are not abuses in today's world, they were more egregious a couple generations ago.

 

 

 

Thank you for your gracious response. I wish you well.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jetta8300]

Scottee25, I'm terribly sorry that that happened to you. I urge all of you who believe my reaction to this incident is hysterical to read his post. At the end of the day, his name was cleared. He knows what he was accused of and has been cleared of that specific offence. Doesn't OP deserve the same peace of mind? The knowledge that this won't come back to haunt him? The ability to review any file RCL might have kept of the incident? Without identifying the child or his/her parents, of course.

 

Or is OP just supposed to endure being falsely accused because hey, that's the way it goes? If so, what a sad world this has become.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

He should have received the piece of mind when the issue WAS clearly resolved. They asked him a question or two, and actually apologized to him, and told him to go. It WAS resolved. And again, he was never accused! Sheesh. And what a sad world it has become when you cannot even question suspects without someone of course feeling extremely offended and taking action. That's what's sad. In my opinion it's none of his business what happened to the child if he wasn't involved. They let him go and apologized.

 

I will say again I do believe some sort of voucher for specialty dining or onboard credit was in order. To make him feel like they were really sorry for the trouble and it wouldn't have cost RCI much. But still not 100% necessary.

Edited April 18, 2017 by jetta8300

[jetta8300]

Interesting read for sure.

 

I don't think RCI security acted properly. The first thing that security should have done was to pull up each person who 'might match the description' and eliminate men who weren't in the spa at the time of the alleged incident. Assuming the OP is telling the truth, and I have no reason not to believe him, then he would have been eliminated and wouldn't have encountered any problems. Detaining suspects for a 'talk' before finding out if they were even there at the time is backwards and what caused the trouble in the first place.

One question that I don't think was answered yet... On RCI, are children allowed to be unaccompanied by adults in the Spa? If the answer is no, then the original problem resulted from RCI not enforcing their own rules.

 

To answer part of the question, on a few ships I have been on, "children" are allowed in the spa if they are 16 and over. So this quite possibly could have been a 16 or 17 year old girl/boy. Also they may have just been passing through.

 

Second, I cannot even imagine what a task it would be to "Pull up each person who might match the description to eliminate men who weren't in the spa." How many thousands of people are on the ship? You can't tell who is who from comparing a security video to 4000 sea pass cards when people look alike. And going through the entire ship's security photos to track each and every one of those people to see where they are? That would take months. It's just not realistic with the time frame they were looking at on a cruise ship.

 

I would be curious why they thought he matched the description. And how they chose the people they chose to question. It must have been a pretty detailed description. But well never know.

Edited April 18, 2017 by jetta8300

[dcgrumpy]

He should have received the piece of mind when the issue WAS clearly resolved. They asked him a question or two, and actually apologized to him, and told him to go. It WAS resolved. And again, he was never accused!!! Sheesh. And what a sad world it has become when you cannot even question suspects without someone of course feeling offended and taking action. That's what's sad.

 

 

Exactly. He was not accused of anything. He was questioned, which is not the same as being accused.

[jetta8300]

IMO every complaint should be investigated thoroughly and every effort should be made to eliminate suspects before detaining them. If you detain the wrong person and you didn't have any evidence to detain them in the first place, a simple sorry isn't good enough.

 

If you're dealing with the outside world, yes they can try and eliminate suspects. Cruise ship? No. People are getting off in the next few days and you don't have an unlimited amount of time to catch this person and prevent them from doing this again. It might take weeks or months to do what you're suggesting. If they've got some sort of creeper propositioning, or making vulgar passes at children they're going to want to take care of that quickly. Even if it "offends" some people in the process. I bet that's the price they're willing to pay to possibly prevent an assault.

Edited April 18, 2017 by jetta8300

[CRZR58]

To answer part of the question, on a few ships I have been on, "children" are allowed in the spa if they are 16 and over. So this quite possibly could have been a 16 or 17 year old girl/boy. Also they may have just been passing through.

 

Second, I cannot even imagine what a task it would be to "Pull up each person who might match the description to eliminate men who weren't in the spa." How many thousands of people are on the ship? You can't tell who is who from comparing a security video to 4000 sea pass cards when people look alike. And going through the entire ship's security photos to track each and every one of those people to see where they are? That would take months. It's just not realistic with the time frame they were looking at on a cruise ship.

 

I would be curious why they thought he matched the description. And how they chose the people they chose to question. It must have been a pretty detailed description. But well never know.

 

I think you are vastly overstating the problem of pulling up each person who matches the description. Off the top of my head, you can instantly eliminate, Women, Kids, Wrong age group, Wrong ethnicity, everyone who wasn't on board or was using their card in a different part of the ship during the incident. The more detailed the description, the more passengers you could easily and quickly eliminate.

 

 

The OP heard of 1 other passenger who was detained and questioned. Surely it wouldn't take much time for Security to figure out where 2 or 3 people were during the time frame before bringing them in.

Edited April 18, 2017 by CRZR58
Adding info

[jetta8300]

I think you are vastly overstating the problem of pulling up each person who matches the description. Off the top of my head, you can instantly eliminate, Women, Kids, Wrong age group, Wrong ethnicity, everyone who wasn't on board or was using their card in a different part of the ship during the incident. The more detailed the description, the more passengers you could easily and quickly eliminate.

 

Again, how do you know they didn't eliminate many suspects? If they narrowed it down to 10 men on that ship that's pretty darn good. You have every reason to believe the OP's story (and I do as well of course) but RCI does not. He obviously looked very much like the alleged perpetrator. Probably his clothing. Seapass cards are not going to tell them where he is every moment.

 

He said he was taking a nap in his room after a day in port. He could have been back on the boat for a few hours at that point along with another 1000 men. Which is possibly when it happened and once he was back on the boat they have no clue where he was... so they asked him. And let him go.

Edited April 18, 2017 by jetta8300

[CRZR58]

Again, how do you know they didn't eliminate many suspects? If they narrowed it down to 10 men on that ship that's pretty darn good. You have every reason to believe the OP's story (and I do as well of course) but RCI does not. He obviously looked very much like the alleged perpetrator. Probably his clothing. Seapass cards are not going to tell them where he is every moment.

 

He said he was taking a nap in his room after a day in port. He could have been back on the boat for a few hours at that point along with another 1000 men. Which is possibly when it happened and once he was back on the boat they have no clue where he was... so they asked him. And let him go.

 

I'm sure they eliminated most of the passengers. We only 'know' of 2 cruisers who were pulled in for questioning. For me, it's a question of what's reasonable. If the description was a black man with dark hair, would it be reasonable for security to round up all the black men with dark hair and question them? I don't think so, even if there are only 2 or 3 black men on board. (Note that I'm a 60 year old white guy)

 

I'm amazed at how people have no problem with security simply rounding up folks who may look like a kids description of someone who may or may not have said/done something inappropriate. I've never been detained, but if I was, I'd expect that they had a reasonable reason to detain me and just looking like a description isn't enough especially when you have a finite number of people on board, tons of cameras, and a pass to show if you were even on board at the time of the incident. Other people may have no problem as long as the description doesn't match themselves.

[Scottee25]

I'm amazed at how people have no problem with security simply rounding up folks who may look like a kids description of someone who may or may not have said/done something inappropriate.

 

What criteria, in your opinion, would justify them rounding up people and questioning them? If you look like someone on a security camera that is a person of interest in an investigation, do you not feel that is justification to question that individual? I guess I am trying to find out from you where you feel that line is? There has to be some point when it is acceptable for security to investigate a complaint.

 

...and a pass to show if you were even on board at the time of the incident.

 

You do understand that the sea pass is not infallible? I have been on cruises where they had to page passengers because it was past all aboard and there was no record of them returning to the ship. However, they were on board, but due to a technical issue, the scanning of their sea pass was not logged properly.

[LA_CA_GAL]

[CRZR58]

What criteria, in your opinion, would justify them rounding up people and questioning them? If you look like someone on a security camera that is a person of interest in an investigation, do you not feel that is justification to question that individual? I guess I am trying to find out from you where you feel that line is? There has to be some point when it is acceptable for security to investigate a complaint.

 

 

 

You do understand that the sea pass is not infallible? I have been on cruises where they had to page passengers because it was past all aboard and there was no record of them returning to the ship. However, they were on board, but due to a technical issue, the scanning of their sea pass was not logged properly.

 

As I stated before. Security should investigate every complaint. That's not the same as saying Security should round up folks who look like a complainants description and interrogate them before doing some or even a lot of investigation.

 

Nothing is infallible and security not being able to do their job in checking people back on board is not a good reason to round folks up and interrogate them.

 

Lets try another route... I doubt that either of us believe that the security folks simply listened to the OP then let him go on because they believed his story. If they had anything tying him to the incident, they would have used it. I suspect that they listened to his story, checked it out, then let him go. All I'm saying is that's the wrong order.

 

It's obvious we won't change each others minds, so lets agree to disagree on this and move on. :cool:

[dcgrumpy]

As I stated before. Security should investigate every complaint. That's not the same as saying Security should round up folks who look like a complainants description and interrogate them before doing some or even a lot of investigation.

 

Nothing is infallible and security not being able to do their job in checking people back on board is not a good reason to round folks up and interrogate them.

 

Lets try another route... I doubt that either of us believe that the security folks simply listened to the OP then let him go on because they believed his story. If they had anything tying him to the incident, they would have used it. I suspect that they listened to his story, checked it out, then let him go. All I'm saying is that's the wrong order.

 

It's obvious we won't change each others minds, so lets agree to disagree on this and move on. :cool:

 

You have no idea how much investigating they did before calling him down to Guest Services. It may have taken them a day or two to narrow it down to 2 or 3 people.

 

You're really making this sound much more dramatic than what the OP posted.

[emdia43]

Isn't there a fee or some registration required to use the Spa facilities? How could they not know exactly who was in there? Really there should be CC TV on every inch of this ship!

[LA_CA_GAL]

...... Alone or not someone acted inappropriately towards this child.......

 

And you know this how?

 

Oh, yeah, children are always truthful, never make things up. I forgot.

 

Disregard.

[dcgrumpy]

Isn't there a fee or some registration required to use the Spa facilities? How could they not know exactly who was in there? Really there should be CC TV on every inch of this ship!

 

 

There is a fee for spa services. Anyone can walk into the spa/fitness center.

[jib614]

And you know this how?

 

Oh, yeah, children are always truthful, never make things up. I forgot.

 

Disregard.

Actually we have no idea if the child was telling the truth or not. That is why they investigated. Should they honestly of just ignore the allegation? I think not!

[LA_CA_GAL]

Actually we have no idea if the child was telling the truth or not. That is why they investigated. Should they honestly of just ignore the allegation? I think not!

 

That was my point, because you said, and I quote:

 

"Alone or not someone acted inappropriately towards this child"