Cruise ship crime

[mum and son]

On 8/20/2019 at 3:58 PM, ilikeanswers said:

 

To me the difference is that a cruise ship isn't really public space. In my opinion it is private property that you need permission to access, permission people gain by paying a fee or being employed on the ship. I see it more like if you are invited to someones house for a get together I expect the host to create an environment that is safe for everyone. I expect the property to be safe, I expect the host to keep order of the party and I expect the host to keep the other guests and the staff catering the party in line. If the host cannot manage the group of people that they are bringing together and prevent them from hurting others then you have to question if that host should be allowed to continue bringing people together particularly if it is for profit.

In a perfect world I agree with you, but a security scanner or an invitation will not stop people from behaving badly (sometimes without any prior warning). The event host (or cruise line) can be appropriately proactive, and reactive, and something catastrophic could still happen in between, so at some point we have to take responsibility for protecting ourselves as best we can. 

 

It's not always "bad" people who are to blame when there is an issue, because, sometimes, "good" people do bad things, unexpectedly and for a variety of reasons. Nobody can predict what series of events, and what human intervention may cause an incident/issue/injury/disaster, whether it is at a party, on a cruise ship, in a hotel or at your workplace.  Like I said earlier in this thread, be alert but not alarmed!

 

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, mum and son said:

In a perfect world I agree with you, but a security scanner or an invitation will not stop people from behaving badly (sometimes without any prior warning). The event host (or cruise line) can be appropriately proactive, and reactive, and something catastrophic could still happen in between, so at some point we have to take responsibility for protecting ourselves as best we can. 

 

It's not always "bad" people who are to blame when there is an issue, because, sometimes, "good" people do bad things, unexpectedly and for a variety of reasons. Nobody can predict what series of events, and what human intervention may cause an incident/issue/injury/disaster, whether it is at a party, on a cruise ship, in a hotel or at your workplace.  Like I said earlier in this thread, be alert but not alarmed!

 

 

I agree with what you are saying. My point was more that you can't negate the responsibility of the cruise line to keep people safe just because these bad things could happen anywhere. It is an excuse that constantly comes up that if said crime could be commited in any venue or on the street the cruise line is therefore not responsible when it happens on one of their ships and that is something I disagree with. That is why I think it is important to have transparency regarding crime on cruise ships so we can see for ourselves if cruise ships are doing their utmost to keep people safe and create a safe environment or are they just doing the bear minimum required by law and then blaming the passengers for not protecting themselves.

[greykangaroo]

17 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

 If cruise ships are doing their utmost to keep people safe and create a safe environment or are they just doing the bear minimum required by law and then blaming the passengers for not protecting themselves.

 

 

One area where they are not doing all they can is the recruitment of security staff. Most of them would stay out of sight during a fight and are mostly inadequate to handle a situation. These are the guys and girls walking around in pairs in fabulous blue, beautifully ironed uniforms covered in badges. Most are nearly a foot shorter than myself and the girls I could blow over with a puff of wind. Is this doing the utmost to protect the passengers? After all they are supposed to be the ship's police force.

Edited August 22, 2019 by greykangaroo

[OzKiwiJJ]

1 hour ago, greykangaroo said:

 

 

Most are nearly a foot shorter than myself and the girls I could blow over with a puff of wind. Is this doing the utmost to protect the passengers? After all they are supposed to be the ship's police force.

Apologies to Mark Twain for the slight misquote but "It's not the size of the man in the fight but the size of the fight in the man". How do you know they aren't all martial arts experts? 😉😁

[chengkp75]

On 8/18/2019 at 11:01 PM, greykangaroo said:

 

Treated? 

One day when I was walking around the promenade deck at the stern a fellow passenger was looking over at the wake and he drew my attention to the brown part of the wake on the starboard side. A great continuous discharge as far as I could see. 

As I said, I know what it takes to treat the sewerage of a town of 7000 people. Huge settling ponds, tanks and pumps. Unlimited electricity.

There is no doubt that treatment is occurring on the ships but how much of the solids are the fish eating?

Were you in shallow water at the time of the brown wake?  Most likely this was a food waste discharge (food waste ground up to less than 1/2" size is allowed to be dumped overboard when outside of a few miles from shore (varies by country), but this is typically done at night.

 

As for sewage treatment, most cruise ships have "Advanced Waste Water Treatment" systems, that can treat all of the gray (sink, shower, galley, laundry) and black (toilet) water used onboard to near fresh drinking water quality.  The system uses tanks similar to septic tanks, but with aerobic bacteria instead of anaerobic (the ship pumps air bubbles into the tanks to assist the bacteria) to digest the waste.  The ship processes waste much faster than a municipal system does, but when the water leaves the bacteria tanks, 98% of organic waste is digested, and the only product left in the water is paper fibers.  Paper is why municipalities need retention ponds, as the bacteria take a long time to digest wood.  The ship will add a coagulant to the waste water to make the paper fibers clump together, and aerate the flow, to cause the coagulated paper to float, where it is skimmed off and the waste water proceeds to the UV sterilizer, which kills any bacteria that is carried over with the waste water.  This effluent is typically tested by third party testing labs for purity every month, and typically comes back near drinking water standards.  The paper solids that are skimmed off are either dried and incinerated onboard, or pumped overboard when outside 12 miles from land.  One of the major manufacturers of AWWTS is Scanship, and you can search for them and find descriptions of their systems.

 

Some older ships will only treat the black water (toilets), as required by law, using again a "septic tank" type treatment plant.  Gray water is legal to pump overboard without treatment when outside of "special areas" and when underway more than 25 miles from land.

[Porky55]

Thankyou chengkp75 - as always 👍

[greykangaroo]

It was at sea with the ship at full cruising speed.

Very informative explanation. Thank you.

I always drink the water from the taps on board which I am told is condensed sea water.

Hope they don't mix them up.

[mum and son]

20 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I agree with what you are saying. My point was more that you can't negate the responsibility of the cruise line to keep people safe just because these bad things could happen anywhere. It is an excuse that constantly comes up that if said crime could be commited in any venue or on the street the cruise line is therefore not responsible when it happens on one of their ships and that is something I disagree with. That is why I think it is important to have transparency regarding crime on cruise ships so we can see for ourselves if cruise ships are doing their utmost to keep people safe and create a safe environment or are they just doing the bear minimum required by law and then blaming the passengers for not protecting themselves.

I think we pretty much agree here 😁. I expect not to be shot on a cruise ship, because the cruiseline should have adequate security measures in place to prevent passengers from carrying a gun onboard, but I could be shot walking down the street to work one day. On a ship I would expect to be protected from that, thanks to the controlled environment.

If I think back to the horrific case of Diane Brimble... could that have happened anywhere? Yes. Should that have been able to happen on a cruise ship? Absolutely not. The cruise line should have, and could have, prevented that atrocity. They failed.

 

[Aus Traveller]

2 hours ago, mum and son said:

If I think back to the horrific case of Diane Brimble... could that have happened anywhere? Yes. Should that have been able to happen on a cruise ship? Absolutely not. The cruise line should have, and could have, prevented that atrocity. They failed.

 

Diane Brimble sadly died from an overdose of illegal drugs. In 2002 when that happened, and now, passengers can take these drugs onto a ship. Passengers' luggage isn't searched - and neither should it. The other passengers Ms Brimble was with treated her very badly, but she willingly went to the mens' cabin at 1.30am and knowingly took the drugs. This is according to the official Inquest. The men involved didn't call for medical assistance to the cabin when she lapsed into unconsciousness. By the time they did, it was too late.

 

It would have been very difficult for P&O to prevent this sad event occurring, but it was a very expensive lesson for them. After this tragic incident, P&O massively increased the number  of security staff on board and they changed their marketing strategy, not emphasising the party ship attitude that prevailed previously. 

 

[cme2c]

5 hours ago, greykangaroo said:

It was at sea with the ship at full cruising speed.

Very informative explanation. Thank you.

I always drink the water from the taps on board which I am told is condensed sea water.

Hope they don't mix them up.

 Or that you are sailing too close behind another ship!

 

[mum and son]

1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said:

Diane Brimble sadly died from an overdose of illegal drugs. In 2002 when that happened, and now, passengers can take these drugs onto a ship. Passengers' luggage isn't searched - and neither should it. The other passengers Ms Brimble was with treated her very badly, but she willingly went to the mens' cabin at 1.30am and knowingly took the drugs. This is according to the official Inquest. The men involved didn't call for medical assistance to the cabin when she lapsed into unconsciousness. By the time they did, it was too late.

 

It would have been very difficult for P&O to prevent this sad event occurring, but it was a very expensive lesson for them. After this tragic incident, P&O massively increased the number  of security staff on board and they changed their marketing strategy, not emphasising the party ship attitude that prevailed previously. 

 

 

I genuinely don't want to debate the facts/findings of this sad case, but I think one thing is very important. Both the Coroner and the Inquest agreed that Ms Brimble did not knowingly ingest the drugs that killed her. The Inquest also showed that the security staff in the disco reported that Ms Brimble's rapid state of decline over the course of an hour from appearing tipsy and happy to being unable to walk properly was not consistent with the amount of alcohol she consumed in that time, and that she had likely been affected by another substance, which turned out to be a date rate drug, which then would have seen her go to the men's room unwittingly.

 

Complaints were made about these men from the moment they boarded the ship, but no action was taken by P&O - even when they abused and swore at security directly. P&O's behaviour surrounding the security on the ship, their inability to secure the crime scene after being directly instructed to do so (the Purser allowed the men involved to clean the room), and then providing one of the men a private room where he started a sexual relationship with another woman after Ms Brimble's death did not demonstrate suitable duty of care, not now and not in 2002. 

 

I agree that P&O have vastly improved their security, and worked very hard to remove the "party ship" tag. I have done numerous P&O cruises and never encountered security issues and I have always felt safe - and I hope this continues to be the case. 

[Aus Traveller]

You and I obviously have a different understanding of the Inquest documents. 🙂 I stand by what I said.

 

BTW, the men did not 'clean the room', they were allowed to pick up a few personal belongings including shaving gear while a security officer stood in the room.

 

I won't start on the mismanagement by the NSW Police. That was worse than the mismanagement of the situation by P&O.

[greykangaroo]

Quote: In 2002 when that happened, and now, passengers can take these drugs onto a ship. Passengers' luggage isn't searched - and neither should it. 

 

Firstly how do we keep firearms off ships if the luggage isn't searched let alone drugs and anything else?

 

Secondly, on our last cruise on the first night, we were at the dinner table with some people and they said that their luggage was late being delivered to their stateroom. They then got a phone call telling them that if they wanted their luggage they must go to some place on the lower deck and retrieve it. During the search by security it was found that they had a bottle of wine in each bag. Subsequently they were told that the wine was impounded until the disembarked.

Imagine the outrage that they had two bottles of wine. Gasp! Horror!.

 

[Aus Traveller]

4 minutes ago, greykangaroo said:

Quote: In 2002 when that happened, and now, passengers can take these drugs onto a ship. Passengers' luggage isn't searched - and neither should it. 

 

Firstly how do we keep firearms off ships if the luggage isn't searched let alone drugs and anything else?

 

Secondly, on our last cruise on the first night, we were at the dinner table with some people and they said that their luggage was late being delivered to their stateroom. They then got a phone call telling them that if they wanted their luggage they must go to some place on the lower deck and retrieve it. During the search by security it was found that they had a bottle of wine in each bag. Subsequently they were told that the wine was impounded until the disembarked.

Imagine the outrage that they had two bottles of wine. Gasp! Horror!.

 

Luggage is x-rayed, not searched. Firearms would probably be detected in the x-ray, but x-rays would not detect drugs. Maybe if they used sniffer dogs they might find drugs, but not only would luggage and handbags have to be exhaustively searched, but body searches would have to be carried out. Not on.

[OzKiwiJJ]

As I understand it all luggage is scanned, in a similar manner to hand luggage. If something looks suspicious the passenger is requested to go to the "naughty room", as it's often called here on CC, to open the bag so it can be checked.

[Aus Traveller]

1 hour ago, mum and son said:

 

I genuinely don't want to debate the facts/findings of this sad case, but I think one thing is very important. Both the Coroner and the Inquest agreed that Ms Brimble did not knowingly ingest the drugs that killed her. The Inquest also showed that the security staff in the disco reported that Ms Brimble's rapid state of decline over the course of an hour from appearing tipsy and happy to being unable to walk properly was not consistent with the amount of alcohol she consumed in that time, and that she had likely been affected by another substance, which turned out to be a date rate drug, which then would have seen her go to the men's room unwittingly.

 

Complaints were made about these men from the moment they boarded the ship, but no action was taken by P&O - even when they abused and swore at security directly. P&O's behaviour surrounding the security on the ship, their inability to secure the crime scene after being directly instructed to do so (the Purser allowed the men involved to clean the room), and then providing one of the men a private room where he started a sexual relationship with another woman after Ms Brimble's death did not demonstrate suitable duty of care, not now and not in 2002. 

 

I agree that P&O have vastly improved their security, and worked very hard to remove the "party ship" tag. I have done numerous P&O cruises and never encountered security issues and I have always felt safe - and I hope this continues to be the case. 

BTW, Ms Brimble was not given the date rate drug (GHB or rhypnol). She had fantasy, and it was still in her body after her death, proving she had ingested the drug after she went to the cabin shared by four male passengers.

 

Here is a 'cut and paste'. Brimble, a 42-year-old mother of three from Brisbane, died within 24 hours of boarding the P&O Cruises cruise ship Pacific Sky on 23 September 2002, apparently due to ingesting a combination of alcohol and an overdose of the drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, otherwise known as "GHB" or "fantasy". According to news reports, security staff on the cruise ship were initially told Brimble had died of a heart attack, but there were suspicious circumstances.

[greykangaroo]

Here we go splitting hairs again. Searched, scanned, xrayed, sniffed at by dogs or opened, it is all searched.

The people were rudely told to go to some place and get their luggage because of two bottles of wine.

 

Now the best part. They had walked on with the mandatory allowable two bottles and somehow it was found that these people had  [gasp!] four bottles. [They were trying to do what I want to do.]

Anyone know how the book keeping is kept? Is it cameras? 

Edited August 23, 2019 by greykangaroo

[Aus Traveller]

24 minutes ago, greykangaroo said:

Here we go splitting hairs again. Searched, scanned, xrayed, sniffed at by dogs or opened, it is all searched.

The people were rudely told to go to some place and get their luggage because of two bottles of wine.

 

Now the best part. They had walked on with the mandatory allowable two bottles and somehow it was found that these people had  [gasp!] four bottles. [They were trying to do what I want to do.]

Anyone know how the book keeping is kept? Is it cameras? 

It isn't splitting hairs. We were discussing drugs taken onto a ship. X-rays will detect particular items in luggage, but it cannot detect drugs, unless there is an enormous quantity that would draw alarm.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, greykangaroo said:

It was at sea with the ship at full cruising speed.

Very informative explanation. Thank you.

I always drink the water from the taps on board which I am told is condensed sea water.

Hope they don't mix them up.

Class societies have very strict rules about potable water systems when constructing any ship.  There can be no connection to any other piping system on the ship.  Even the connection between the evaporators, where the fresh water is made, and the potable water system is not a direct connection, but must have a "back flow prevention" device, to prevent any accidental contamination of the potable water system.  On cruise ships, every single toilet (since they don't have tanks and float valves (which is a back flow preventer), like land toilets, and every shower head has a back flow preventer on it.  Each and every one of the thousands of back flow preventers on a cruise ship must be tested yearly.

[OzKiwiJJ]

1 hour ago, greykangaroo said:

Here we go splitting hairs again. Searched, scanned, xrayed, sniffed at by dogs or opened, it is all searched.

The people were rudely told to go to some place and get their luggage because of two bottles of wine.

 

Now the best part. They had walked on with the mandatory allowable two bottles and somehow it was found that these people had  [gasp!] four bottles. [They were trying to do what I want to do.]

Anyone know how the book keeping is kept? Is it cameras? 

At the time those people were summoned to the naughty room all that was probably known is that there were unidentified liquids in their luggage, in a quantity that indicated it was probably alcohol. When they presented their two permitted bottles during boarding their cabin number or folio number (from their cruise card) would have been noted. After discovering that the two bottles in the luggage were also wine a cross-check would have been made against the cabin/folio number to determine whether they had already brought on wine. 

 

Cruise lines need to check large quantities of any liquid in checked luggage. Some people try to smuggle spirits onboard, and there is always the risk that the liquid could be something that could be used to make bombs or used in some other equally dangerous manner.

 

As well as checking for liquids they also check for other prohibited items so don't try to bring an iron, or candles, or a gun onboard.

 

Since the people you were referring to had placed wine in their carry-ons and in their other luggage one assumes they knew what they were doing and were trying to either get away without paying the $15 corkage (if it was aPrincess cruise) or trying to bring more wine than was permitted on other cruise lines. Break the rules? Suffer the consequences!

 

Also I very much doubt that a phone call asking them to come and identify the contents of their luggage would be considered rude.

 

You seemed concerned by the levels of crime and security on cruise ships yet seem to have little understanding of what is permitted to be brought onboard and what isn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by OzKiwiJJ

[OzKiwiJJ]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Class societies have very strict rules about potable water systems when constructing any ship.  There can be no connection to any other piping system on the ship.  Even the connection between the evaporators, where the fresh water is made, and the potable water system is not a direct connection, but must have a "back flow prevention" device, to prevent any accidental contamination of the potable water system.  On cruise ships, every single toilet (since they don't have tanks and float valves (which is a back flow preventer), like land toilets, and every shower head has a back flow preventer on it.  Each and every one of the thousands of back flow preventers on a cruise ship must be tested yearly.

Chengkp75, have you ever considered turning all the interesting and useful information that you post here into a book? I'd buy it and I'm sure a lot of other CC regulars would also.  Every time you post something like this I learn something new. Thank you.

[mum and son]

4 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

BTW, Ms Brimble was not given the date rate drug (GHB or rhypnol). She had fantasy, and it was still in her body after her death, proving she had ingested the drug after she went to the cabin shared by four male passengers.

 

Here is a 'cut and paste'. Brimble, a 42-year-old mother of three from Brisbane, died within 24 hours of boarding the P&O Cruises cruise ship Pacific Sky on 23 September 2002, apparently due to ingesting a combination of alcohol and an overdose of the drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, otherwise known as "GHB" or "fantasy". According to news reports, security staff on the cruise ship were initially told Brimble had died of a heart attack, but there were suspicious circumstances.

I must say, I have enjoyed our discussion here, so I thank you for that. And it has made me do a lot of reading and delving through pages of information, which is something I enjoy (sadly!). While this one has not been a pleasant case to become more acquainted with, it has been eye opening and educational.

 

You are correct, Ms Brimble was given Fantasy, but it is also known as GHB or liquid ecstasy. I found the quote you provided that came from Wikipedia, which is probably not the greatest source of truth on the internet. If you're interested in reading detail about the findings of the inquest, you can find them here: http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/17_brimble,dianne-findings-only.pdf. 

 

In short, former deputy state coroner Jacqueline Milledge ruled that Ms Brimble had been given the drug. The actual wording from the court document finding was:

"Dianne Brimble was unknowingly drugged by unscrupulous individuals who were intent on denigrating her for their own sexual gratification."

 

The court finding above makes for difficult reading, but I'm glad I ploughed through it. Next I'm moving onto reading about the recommendations made to the cruise ship industry following the inquest. 👍

 

 

 

 

[mum and son]

5 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

 

whoops... double post

Edited August 23, 2019 by mum and son

[greykangaroo]

Quote: 

Since the people you were referring to had placed wine in their carry-ons and in their other luggage one assumes they knew what they were doing and were trying to either get away without paying the $15 corkage (if it was aPrincess cruise) or trying to bring more wine than was permitted on other cruise lines. Break the rules? Suffer the consequences!

 

Also I very much doubt that a phone call asking them to come and identify the contents of their luggage would be considered rude.

 

You seemed concerned by the levels of crime and security on cruise ships yet seem to have little understanding of what is permitted to be brought onboard and what isn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

Hahahahah! You are now free to say any negative comment as this is the last time I will lower myself to answer.

Firstly Princess does not charge corkage anymore; that ceased about three years ago. These days we fill our glasses from our hidden bottles and carry them to the dining table. The head waiter always has a waiter take them on a tray to our table.

Most people that sail would do anything to bring good wine on board and dream up ways of doing it.

As for crime on board, one of the biggest crimes is perpetrated by Princess themselves against the passengers when they charge $14 a half glass of Hunter Valley, raspberry cordial wine pumped from metal kegs.

I hope that you don't really look like your avatar like they say.

 

[Aus Traveller]

2 hours ago, greykangaroo said:

Firstly Princess does not charge corkage anymore; that ceased about three years ago. These days we fill our glasses from our hidden bottles and carry them to the dining table. The head waiter always has a waiter take them on a tray to our table.

Most people that sail would do anything to bring good wine on board and dream up ways of doing it.

As for crime on board, one of the biggest crimes is perpetrated by Princess themselves against the passengers when they charge $14 a half glass of Hunter Valley, raspberry cordial wine pumped from metal kegs.

I hope that you don't really look like your avatar like they say.

 

Princess do still charge the $15 corkage on wine brought on board in addition to the one bottle each that is permitted free of charge.