Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
babs135

Exaggerated or Not?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Well argued.  Not.

 

Careful.  The evidence of effectiveness of your “15 years of teaching” is showing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course parents leave their kids unsupervised on cruise ships because the cruise line told them they could. Most cruise line advertising is dependent on the idea that you can bring your whole family and they can all do separate things. The parents can do adult things and take a break from being parents while the kids will be looked after by the ship with activities provided. 

 

The cruise line encourages parents to separate from their kids (after all if you are busy looking after your kids you aren't paying for those extra activities). They create the expectation that the cruise ship is like a big daycare centre and the kids will be safe. 

 

As long as cruise lines keep running that narrative then absolutely they should be liable when that narrative unravels, otherwise don't create the expectation of safety in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

As long as cruise lines keep running that narrative then absolutely they should be liable when that narrative unravels,

Ugh!  If people take parenting lessons from advertising, it's not the advertising's fault......they should know that ADVERTISING is a sales pitch, nothing more.  I dislike an awful lot about advertising, but I'm still not about to blame them because someone was so out of touch with reality as to be gullible enough to believe the snake oil salesman. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

Ugh!  If people take parenting lessons from advertising, it's not the advertising's fault......they should know that ADVERTISING is a sales pitch, nothing more.  I dislike an awful lot about advertising, but I'm still not about to blame them because someone was so out of touch with reality as to be gullible enough to believe the snake oil salesman. 

 

 

They are not claiming to teach parenting but cruise line ads are claiming that you can leave your children in their care in the same way a daycare would advertise. It encourages parents that it is ok to leave your children in order to do something else with your time, you don't need to supervise because the cruise line will take over that job temporarily. If something happens to a child in a daycare then that daycare is liable. If cruise lines are going to advertise that they can take on the same responsibilities as a daycare then they should be just as liable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

 And sadly, in these days of outside babycare, childcare, after school care they quickly understand that parents put a higher priority on maintaining their lifestyle unabated than being a significant part of their lives.  

Oh dear.

 

Just when you think the (mis)direction of Cruise Critic posts no longer surprises you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

They are not claiming to teach parenting but cruise line ads are claiming that you can leave your children in their care in the same way a daycare would advertise. It encourages parents that it is ok to leave your children in order to do something else with your time, you don't need to supervise because the cruise line will take over that job temporarily. 

Can you please post a link to one of the ads you are referring to.

I know RCI encourage parents to enrol their kids in the kids clubs so that they can have some time to themselves. I cannot comment on other lines as I have not sailed on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

temporarily.

Yes - while they're in a specific and supervised program.....not just whenever they feel like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A couple of things come to mind.

 

Did the bar staff realize she was under age?  Many teens look older than they are.

 

Did the men know she was underage?

 

I remember a friend's wedding, an attractive young lady.  She looked about 20.  She was 12. 

 

A couple people commented that they manage to stop people without a DP from drinking drinks from someone with the package.  I have never seen this. And if they managed to do this, why is the policy on many lines that all adults in a cabin must purchase the package if one does?

 

 

Edited by SRF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Anywhere that alcohol is served, the employees should be on the look out for under aged drinking.  If a 15 year old goes into a bar, sits down with several men and those men start buying her drinks, you can bet the bar is responsible.  The ship should be no different in all public areas.

On my last cruise, which was on the Carnival Magic, they carded young people for the adult comedy show to make sure they were over 18.  If employees can do that for a comedy show, they can do it for drinking.

Edited by TNcruising02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Servers are not oblivious.  Neither are the passengers sitting in that location.  

 

At the very least the servers should have contacted Security to give them a heads up.

 

Take alcohol out of the equation.  Take age out of the equation.  You now have a young lady who has had a heinous crime committed against her.  

 

Whether she is underage or not; whether she is drunk or not; whether her parents are in the vicinity or not; the focus should be on the offenders; not the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, *Miss G* said:

Servers are not oblivious.  Neither are the passengers sitting in that location.  

 

At the very least the servers should have contacted Security to give them a heads up.

 

Take alcohol out of the equation.  Take age out of the equation.  You now have a young lady who has had a heinous crime committed against her.  

 

Whether she is underage or not; whether she is drunk or not; whether her parents are in the vicinity or not; the focus should be on the offenders; not the victim.

I agree with this 100% .

But victim blaming, or in this case, parent blaming, enables people to say "I'm a better parent so this would never happen to my child."

If you admit that it is not the fault of the child or her parents, then you admit that it can happen to anyone's child and that is just too scary for people to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just want to add what appear to be facts. I have no idea as to the credibility of the website. However,  in the link to the decision it states that:

1) the 15 yo girl (K.T.), there is a footnote stating that in her various filings her age changes. Therefore, she was somewhere "between 15 and 17 at the time of the cruise"

2) embarked with her two sisters and grandparents - Oasis of the Seas

3) beverages were purchased by others "in a public lounge and other public areas of the ship"'

Summarizing - The basis of the suit is that RCCL had a duty of care to 1) warn passengers that sexual assault is possible 2) that the staff should have done more to protect/intervene in the situation. The original court dismissed the suit against RCCL and this ruling from the Appellate Court allows the suit to proceed.

 

No criminal charges were brought against the alleged perpetrators because the assault was not reported until months later during a therapy session. - Raychel Lean

 

I am going to respectfully bow out of the "debate". It has been interesting to read/see the view points of others. I hope that if the discussion continues, it will be thoughtful and kind in nature.

Edited by JennyB1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JennyB1977 said:

I just want to add what appear to be facts. I have no idea as to the credibility of the website. However,  in the link to the decision it states that:

1) the 15 yo girl (K.T.), there is a footnote stating that in her various filings her age changes. Therefore, she was somewhere "between 15 and 17 at the time of the cruise"

2) embarked with her two sisters and grandparents - Oasis of the Seas

3) beverages were purchased by others "in a public lounge and other public areas of the ship"'

Summarizing - The basis of the suit is that RCCL had a duty of care to 1) warn passengers that sexual assault is possible 2) that the staff should have done more to protect/intervene in the situation. The original court dismissed the suit against RCCL and this ruling from the Appellate Court allows the suit to proceed.

 

No criminal charges were brought against the alleged perpetrators because the assault was not reported until months later during a therapy session. - Raychel Lean

 

I am going to respectfully bow out of the "debate". It has been interesting to read/see the view points of others. I hope that if the discussion continues, it will be thoughtful and kind in nature.

 

The cruiseline has a DUTY to warn passengers that sexual assault is possible?  When and where is there a situation where sexual assault is impossible?  Anywhere?  It happens in homes, schools, workplaces, social settings, etc., and none of those situations require any such warning.  Until you are dead sexual assault is ALWAYS possible.  That is why it is stupid for someone to put themself into situations where the risk is significantly higher than the everpresent risk level.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how long the cruise line saves the video footage of the public areas and hallways.  It seems like a claim several months later would need to be backed up by evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

I wonder how long the cruise line saves the video footage of the public areas and hallways.  It seems like a claim several months later would need to be backed up by evidence.

 

This is from 2013 but it gives you an idea of timelines.  Something more current may be out there if someone wanted to invest more time in a search.

 

B91F9075-FA38-4322-8997-7085D2248032.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 5:16 PM, JennyB1977 said:

I just want to add what appear to be facts. I have no idea as to the credibility of the website. However,  in the link to the decision it states that:

1) the 15 yo girl (K.T.), there is a footnote stating that in her various filings her age changes. Therefore, she was somewhere "between 15 and 17 at the time of the cruise"

2) embarked with her two sisters and grandparents - Oasis of the Seas

3) beverages were purchased by others "in a public lounge and other public areas of the ship"'

Summarizing - The basis of the suit is that RCCL had a duty of care to 1) warn passengers that sexual assault is possible 2) that the staff should have done more to protect/intervene in the situation. The original court dismissed the suit against RCCL and this ruling from the Appellate Court allows the suit to proceed.

 

No criminal charges were brought against the alleged perpetrators because the assault was not reported until months later during a therapy session. - Raychel Lean

 

I am going to respectfully bow out of the "debate". It has been interesting to read/see the view points of others. I hope that if the discussion continues, it will be thoughtful and kind in nature.

So this girl was gang raped by 12 men - and then what?  She went back to her cabin and neither grandparents nor sisters noticed anything was wrong?  Seems unlikely. 

 

(As does the idea that 12 passengers could be found in a random group to take advantage of any drunk female regardless of age, but that of course is possible.  But like all conspiracies, the first difficulty is finding the willing conspirators without ever finding someone who won't play; 12 random men in a bar seems to be a long shot.)

 

As for the idea that 15 year olds should be supervised at all times - it is surely nonsense.  I know that parents sit with toddlers in the cabin rather than leave them alone, but 15 year olds?  Do people really put their 15 year old daughter to bed and then sit in the cabin to ensure she doesn't sneak out?  Surely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dsrdsrdsr said:

She went back to her cabin and neither grandparents nor sisters noticed anything was wrong?  Seems unlikely. 

Actually, it is not unlikely at all -- most rape victims don't tell anybody, or even if they tell a medical professional, they often don't tell their family.  They will go to great lengths to hide what happened to them because they are ashamed.  I wish it weren't so, but that's often the case.

 

 

5 minutes ago, dsrdsrdsr said:

(As does the idea that 12 passengers could be found in a random group to take advantage of any drunk female regardless of age, but that of course is possible.  But like all conspiracies, the first difficulty is finding the willing conspirators without ever finding someone who won't play; 12 random men in a bar seems to be a long shot.)

Why do you assume they were a random group and not a group of men who already knew each other and maybe were travelling together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know the staff knew the men were buying the drinks for the girl? They go up to the bar get drinks and then give the drinks to the girl. If they were served at a table where the server could see that she was drinking how do we know she didn't look older? A lot of young girls have filled out and look older than they are. People seem to think RC should be a baby sitter. They aren't. If you didn't raise your kids to be responsible enough to not get in that situation then that's on you and the teen. She should have known better than to allow strangers to buy her drinks and then drink them. So many people these days always want to blame others. I do feel bad for the teen as she will probably be affected by this for the rest of her life, but it was because of her poor judgment that this happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 10:41 AM, fyree39 said:

I once sat as a juror on a civil case involving a sexual assault of a minor. I read the above USA Today story (an easier read, imo) and I agree that the cruise line should bear most of the responsibility.  Parents let their older kids explore the ship by themselves on every cruise. If the cruise line isn't willing to keep an eye out for nefarious behavior between teens and adults, which was certainly going on in this case, then they need to pay the price for this neglect.

Cruise lines aren't babysitters. If this would have happened in their hometown should the people there be responsible for keeping her safe? This can happen anywhere and it's still up to the teen to get herself in this position or not. I just can't believe how many people think it's the cruise ships responsiblity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ReneeFLL said:

Cruise lines aren't babysitters. If this would have happened in their hometown should the people there be responsible for keeping her safe? This can happen anywhere and it's still up to the teen to get herself in this position or not. I just can't believe how many people think it's the cruise ships responsiblity.

 

 

Cruise ships choose to have minors as customers. If they want them as customers then they are responsible for their well being. Any business that chooses to service children is expected to provided environments that are safer than normal standards. If they cannot to live up to those responsibilites they should run adult only cruises.

 

Cruise ships choose to serve alcohol. Alcohol is a known intoxicant. If you choose to serve alcohol you shoulder the resposibility to harm minimise. If you cannot create a safe environment with alcohol then you should not be serving alcohol.

 

A cruise ship is an isolated community. There is no independant law enforcement on the ship, the cruise ship is completely responsible for the security on the ship and it is their duty of care to create a safe enviroment by putting everything in place to make sure situations like this do not happen. There are technologies and protocols that could have stopped this situation from escalating so it is a valid question to ask why the cruise ship did not implement them.

 

On a side note what is wrong with a little community resposibility? To me everyone looking out for everyone's safety seems like a good thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Cruise ships choose to have minors as customers. If they want them as customers then they are responsible for their well being. Any business that chooses to service children is expected to provided environments that are safer than normal standards. If they cannot to live up to those responsibilites they should run adult only cruises.

 

Cruise ships choose to serve alcohol. Alcohol is a known intoxicant. If you choose to serve alcohol you shoulder the resposibility to harm minimise. If you cannot create a safe environment with alcohol then you should not be serving alcohol.

 

A cruise ship is an isolated community. There is no independant law enforcement on the ship, the cruise ship is completely responsible for the security on the ship and it is their duty of care to create a safe enviroment by putting everything in place to make sure situations like this do not happen. There are technologies and protocols that could have stopped this situation from escalating so it is a valid question to ask why the cruise ship did not implement them.

 

On a side note what is wrong with a little community resposibility? To me everyone looking out for everyone's safety seems like a good thing.

 

The parents chose to have those kids so where is their responsibility? People are always expecting others to do what they should be doing themselves. Businesses can't watch every child all the time. Parents should realise that a cruise ship can be just as bad of a place as other public places on land. If a child gets snatched off of a street and isn't in a business then who are you going to blame now? The streets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ReneeFLL said:

The parents chose to have those kids so where is their responsibility? People are always expecting others to do what they should be doing themselves. Businesses can't watch every child all the time. Parents should realise that a cruise ship can be just as bad of a place as other public places on land. If a child gets snatched off of a street and isn't in a business then who are you going to blame now? The streets? 

 

Businesses especially service businesses that want the patronage of children have to find a way to look after those children. That is simply the responsibility that comes with monetising minors. If you service disabled people you have to have disabled friendly facilities and minors are a specialised category of customers in which specialised treatment is expected in some countries even enforced under law. If those resposibilities are too much for the business than restrict customers to adults only.

 

When you have an industry that targets families and children as customers it does make people assume that industry is going the extra mile to ensure a safe environment. The term "family friendly" has become to many people especially parents synonymous with the idea of a safe environment. It's one of the reason advertisers love that phrase because so much goodness and innocents is implied with two very vague words. Unfortunately this does mean parents are lulled into a false sense of security regarding how safe that environment might be compared to the reality.

 

In saying that a cruise ship still bears the duty of care to create a safe environment, not just project an image of a safe environment. A cruise ship is not public land it is private property and while you are on the cruise ship they are responsible for your health, safety and security if for no other reason than lack of choice since when you are out at sea who else is there to turn to when you need help but cruise ship employees. To have the privilege to profit from your private property you have to make sure those paying you are in the safest environment you can provide for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/16/2019 at 11:38 PM, ReneeFLL said:

How do we know the staff knew the men were buying the drinks for the girl? They go up to the bar get drinks and then give the drinks to the girl. If they were served at a table where the server could see that she was drinking how do we know she didn't look older? A lot of young girls have filled out and look older than they are. People seem to think RC should be a baby sitter. They aren't. If you didn't raise your kids to be responsible enough to not get in that situation then that's on you and the teen. She should have known better than to allow strangers to buy her drinks and then drink them. So many people these days always want to blame others. I do feel bad for the teen as she will probably be affected by this for the rest of her life, but it was because of her poor judgment that this happened.


If the girl was really ganged raped, it was not because of anything the girl did.  Nobody deserves to be raped, even a girl who drinks when under the age of 21.  If this really happened, it is because horrible men did something criminal.  When a girl drinks, no matter when or where, it does not mean she is responsible for being raped.

Anywhere alcohol is served, it is up to the employees to make sure under aged kids aren't drinking.  

Edited by TNcruising02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 12:11 AM, TNcruising02 said:


If the girl was really ganged raped, it was not because of anything the girl did.  Nobody deserves to be raped, even a girl who drinks when under the age of 21.  If this really happened, it is because horrible men did something criminal.  When a girl drinks, no matter when or where, it does not mean she is responsible for being raped.

Anywhere alcohol is served, it is up to the employees to make sure under aged kids aren't drinking.  

I agree she nor anyone else for that matter should be raped or violated in any way. I was getting at that if she didn't get drunk with some strangers then there would have been a bigger chance of her not getting raped. Does it mean every girl/person who gets drunk with strangers will get raped? No, but the chances are higher if someone puts themselves in that position. 

 

I would never, ever want anyone to get raped no matter where they left their brain at. I can understand she had some drinks and her thinking capacity went out the window and it's sad that it happened.

 

Another thing, if the culprits are found guilty I think they probably won't be punished enough imo. Look at the college kid in California. He only got 3 months for raping someone. I think the judge was dismissed, but I hope he faces bigger consequences. Makes me wonder if he didn't get a kickback or something. It would also be nice if they could add more time or penalties to the kids sentence, but I know that won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 4:08 AM, ilikeanswers said:

 

Cruise ships choose to have minors as customers. If they want them as customers then they are responsible for their well being. Any business that chooses to service children is expected to provided environments that are safer than normal standards. If they cannot to live up to those responsibilites they should run adult only cruises.

 

Cruise ships choose to serve alcohol. Alcohol is a known intoxicant. If you choose to serve alcohol you shoulder the resposibility to harm minimise. If you cannot create a safe environment with alcohol then you should not be serving alcohol.

 

A cruise ship is an isolated community. There is no independant law enforcement on the ship, the cruise ship is completely responsible for the security on the ship and it is their duty of care to create a safe enviroment by putting everything in place to make sure situations like this do not happen. There are technologies and protocols that could have stopped this situation from escalating so it is a valid question to ask why the cruise ship did not implement them.

 

On a side note what is wrong with a little community resposibility? To me everyone looking out for everyone's safety seems like a good thing.

 

Again, where is the parents responsibility in this? The cruise line can only do so much. Security, curfews, etc. They can't watch them 24/7 and bad things happen and not only to kids. Unfortunately that's the world we live in. There is nothing wrong with community looking out for others, but when that community is full of strangers and they don't know if she is with strangers or not then they won't know that she could be in trouble.

 

What would you suggest that the cruise lines do to make the ships safer? If you have some VALID and REASONABLE ideas then you might want to contact them with those. I would think that they also don't want anyone hurt and have done what they can. Again, they aren't babysitters and can only do so much.

 

On 8/17/2019 at 5:19 AM, ilikeanswers said:

 

Businesses especially service businesses that want the patronage of children have to find a way to look after those children. That is simply the responsibility that comes with monetising minors. If you service disabled people you have to have disabled friendly facilities and minors are a specialised category of customers in which specialised treatment is expected in some countries even enforced under law. If those resposibilities are too much for the business than restrict customers to adults only.

 

When you have an industry that targets families and children as customers it does make people assume that industry is going the extra mile to ensure a safe environment. The term "family friendly" has become to many people especially parents synonymous with the idea of a safe environment. It's one of the reason advertisers love that phrase because so much goodness and innocents is implied with two very vague words. Unfortunately this does mean parents are lulled into a false sense of security regarding how safe that environment might be compared to the reality.

 

In saying that a cruise ship still bears the duty of care to create a safe environment, not just project an image of a safe environment. A cruise ship is not public land it is private property and while you are on the cruise ship they are responsible for your health, safety and security if for no other reason than lack of choice since when you are out at sea who else is there to turn to when you need help but cruise ship employees. To have the privilege to profit from your private property you have to make sure those paying you are in the safest environment you can provide for them.

Your analogy of the HC is not a good one because you are saying RC should be watching the kids better. The businesses with HC facilities don't watch them constantly. They have put in measures to make it easier for the HC, but that's about all they can do. They can assist when they see someone needs help, but it's much harder to see if someone (depending on the circumstances) needs help on the ship.

 

When you turn to ship employees for help they will gladly be happy to, but that's when you ask and then they know. The girl didn't ask so they didn't know. The bartenders can only do so much. They are busy making drinks and serving customers. Often we don't wait for waiters to come around to get drink orders because they can take to long. How would a bartender know if I'm taking my drinks and giving them to someone else that probably looks of age? I could also be going to different bartenders if I was wanting to hide what I'm doing. They just don't have enough eyes.

 

You say they are responsible for your health. Sure, but only to a certain degree. Let's say noro starts getting around because some passengers didn't wash their hands. Would that be the ships responsiblity for it getting started? No, but then they have taken measures to try to prevent it from starting in the first place and then spreading. They can't make passengers wash their hands all the time just like they can't watch every kid all the time either. They can only put measures in place to try to prevent such things.

 

They can try to provide the safest environment, but they won't know which passengers have horrible intentions so again they can only do so much.

 

You say parents are lulled into a false sense of security because they advertise as "family friendly". That's on the parents for allowing themselves to get into that mind set. Lets say a family goes to Disney and a child gets away from the parents and is then attacked. Is it the parents fault or is it Disney's? Disney would not have been able to prevent the attack unless they saw it happening. Same goes for cruise lines.

 

To many people out there who don't take responsibility for themselves/loved ones. They always want to put all the responsibility on others especially when they see $$$.

 

I would like to know what resonable measures you think that cruise lines can put in place to make them a safer place?

Edited by ReneeFLL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...