Robbed in Jamaica on CCL excursion, story for sale on Ebay???

[bunting]

 

Just so everyone knows, Sgt. Shultz and Machoman were on the other thread (17 robbed on Carnival Shore Excursion). It is under the Jamaica port threads. It had over 38k views, until it was closed. So far that was the only thread that I saw on there that was closed. I don't think they should have closed it, and I guess Sgt. Shultz didn't think so neither.

 

Please ask any questions that you like. I can post the story here if you would like to see it.

 

Hi kwilliams, but I give CC some due, since despite closing the previous thread it is still up there for people to see and read....rather than some of those threads that just go poof and are never seen again......

[nrdsb4]

You said that our Jamaican thread was not the only one that was closed...You are right the last one closed was June 23rd 2006 and it was also a thread that shed negative light on Jamaica...Isn't that weird. It appears that if a thread sheds negative light on this port, it gets closed. Why do you think that is? Could it be the negative impact it may have on the advertisement here?

 

I'm sure this one will be closed before too long.

 

 

I just wanted to point out to you that many threads here are not only closed, but they are deleted entirely. Usually this is because the exchanges get ugly. Name calling and other types of angry communications are against the rules of this board, so when threads get out of hand, they quite often completely disappear. One that I was following recently about whether or not sharing soda cards constitutes "stealing" was deleted, not because of the subject matter, but because some posters began insulting each other, name calling, and repeatedly baiting each other.

 

As I recall, your thread got rather heated; additionally, people kept repeating themselves without adding anything new to the subject, so I'm not surprised it was closed and I really don't ascribe any dubious motives to the CC board hosts for doing so.

[crystalblue0610]

Wow, I'm on ebay right now buying something. LMAO, it's really funny...what CAN'T you sell on ebay...

 

Is it just me or does the dad in that picture look familiar:confused: I don't forget faces and I KNOW I saw all of them on Channel 11 the day after

[scapino]

Thought this was funny at first,but now I don't.

http://cgi.ebay.com/CARNIVAL-CRUISE-SHORE-EXCURSION-ROBBERY-JAMAICA-STORY_W0QQitemZ330154744495QQihZ014QQcategoryZ2228QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem[/url

 

 

 

 

Item number: 330154744495

 

He's not selling it. You can read the entire story right there. It's just a way to get the story out

[Sargent_Schultz]

If this is the case, then they should NEVER allow their cruise directors the ability to stand in front of the passengers and tout the safety of their tours. Unless of course, after giving the "we have wonderful SAFE tours here" talk they should then add, "but read your contract folks, if you take our 'safe' tours and anything happens to you then you are SOL. Do not, I repeat DO NOT come crying to us. We just carry you to these wonderful ports so you can take these wonderful, safe tours."

 

FWIW, I've heard many here defend Carnival to the end but when something happens to those same people then they are the very ones crying "about the rules" (a "famous" suitcase incident comes to mind). I've come to see that on this board there are Carnival loyalists galore. UNTIL something happens to them. I just pray Shultz, that nothing ever happens to you. Of course, given your stance here, I would expect nothing less than a post from you blaming NOT the cruiselines (or airlines, or whomever) but a rant about how incredibly stupid you were for believing anything you were told by a "clearly uninformed" cruise director. Anything less would be, well, hypocritical. :rolleyes:

 

A little dramatic, I think. If the CD made the statement as alleged, then I think he was a little over the top, but if you were negligent in doing your homework, you share the blame as well.

 

Do you think he is still making such statements (if he made them at all)? Until Carnival (and insurance companies) can make a fair (and not a one-sided) appraisal of the situation, do you think they are still selling that tour? I bet the answer to both is no.

[Sargent_Schultz]

The gentleman in the picture does not look scary to me. He looks like a deer caught in the headlights. Why did you say he was scary? Did the workers not help the police look for the perpetrators and did the police not shoot and kill one of the robbers?

 

I find the following to be a misleading statement as well - what are the odds of there being any proceeds and why mention it twice? That sale is over - how much did you send?

 

 

 

"I AM SENDING ALL PROCEEDS FOR THIS SALE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRUISE VICTIMS ORGANIZATION. "

 

 

[Vanessa L]

A little dramatic, I think. If the CD made the statement as alleged, then I think he was a little over the top, but if you were negligent in doing your homework, you share the blame as well.

 

Do you think he is still making such statements (if he made them at all)? Until Carnival (and insurance companies) can make a fair (and not a one-sided) appraisal of the situation, do you think they are still selling that tour? I bet the answer to both is no.

 

Dude, how many cruises have you been on??? (26 for me, before you ask). Every single cruise I have been on (not just Carnival) had the CD giving his "port talk" the day before (and played over and over ad nauseum on the TV) and every single time the CD has gone on and on about the "fabulous" tours, "safe" tours, [insert "selling" adjective here] tours. I suspect that it is part of his job to "talk up" the tours to get them sold. In fact, as I recall, on every single cruise I've been on the CD will come on and start ranting about the tour desk being open "right now ladies and gentlemen" within a few hours of being on board. And not one, repeat not one, of the cruises I have ever been on has a cruise director, his staff, or anyone else on the payroll of the cruiselines, said, offered, or otherwise inferred that there was inherent danger on any of the tours. Again, imagine you are a first time cruiser and don't know what questions to ask. Yes, you read the forms but go anyway, trusting that the information the CD and his/her staff offered you about the safety of the tour is believeable. This is no different than reading a "side effect" label on a medicine bottle and taking it anyway. We read that stuff but never believe that it is going to happen to us. That is just human nature. However, if my doctor says (over and above all the scary stuff on the side effect label), "You specifically should be very careful, this is not safest drug you can take," (in cruise jargon, "you CAN take this tour but beware that the risks are much higher than inferred on the cruise docs"), then yes, I'm listening to that and taking his advice. That is the OP's point, they were not given an INFORMED piece of information about the tour so they could make an INFORMED decision about whether or not to take it.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Dudette,

 

I think I've been on more cruises (not just Carnival) than you - but not sure why that is really significant? I am willing to accept the stipulation that neither of us are (cruise) virgins.

 

I long ago stopped going to port lectures - how about you?

 

It is not "selling" it is marketing, Do you believe every word on every infomercial you watch? Other than entertainment value, I don't think I ever watched one.

 

Ever hear {or something to the effect} - If you take a ship tour

we guarantee the ship will wait for you? Whether or not the ship waits, and not just for ship tours, is up to the Captain, not the CD.

 

It is extremely rare that a cruise line will abandon passengers on "their" tours, but it can and has happened. Note to the nervous - I would expect the cruise line to get me to next stop (first class, if you please) in the truly rare cases where that occurs. Safety of the ship, passengers, and crew would be an example of where justified.

[BlueJacketsFan1]

A lot of the island you visit while on a cruise are third world countries. Have a lot of people forgotten this fact. Is there no crime where most of you live. Turn on the TV to the news sometime. The same stuff is happening in the U.S.A each and everyday. Most people seem to forget that until it happens to them. What if they would of been robbed on the way to the port here in the U.S. Don't blame that country for what happened and say boycott them. When we have probably just as much crime here in this country. There are millions of people locked up here in prisons and jails here in the U.S., but a lot of people are quick to point fingers at some other country.

[kwilliams6045]

Blue jacket,

 

Your way back in the game. You are right...Crime happens everywhere..in the US..Canada..Italy..etc....BUT crime happens MORE OFTEN in high crime areas. Jamaica is the MURDER CAPITOL OF THE WORLD...So would you not say, that you would more likely be murdered in the MURDER CAPITOL OF THE WORLD...or say, Lineville, Alabama??? No one is trying to boycot any country. As I have said in other threads...Anyone who wants to go to Jamaica..GO...I just want people that are not informed of the travel risk, to have the information. If you know the risk of traveling to Jamaica or any other crime infested country and you elect to go...More power to you...If you don't go, the robbers won't have anyone to violate.

 

 

Now...Old Buddy, Sgt. Shultze,

 

 

You do know that the excursion meeting is video taped? Do you really think that I would go out and say that the CD made the guaranteed safe remark without being sure that he said it? I promise you, it is on tape and he said it. It does not matter what you hear, you do not have the same reality or "general" morals as I do. I believe that it is the RIGHT thing for the cruise lines to give information (Like high Crime Areas) in order for people to be safe. You feel like it is OK for them to leave the information out and expect the passenger to research the tours. You feel it is OK for the cruise line to say that they are researching the tour, but in reality they are not, or they are with holding their findings. Whether it is a liability or they should be held accountable is not the point...The point is, IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WITH HOLDING IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS WRONG AND POOR BUSINESS. I don't care what any fine printed contract says..it does not change the FACT that it IS WRONG...

 

A few questions for you, Sgt. Shultze: If you were the CD and had all the informtaion (highest murder rate in Jamaica..Increasingly high numbers of rape and robberies in the tour area), and you sent the travelers into the area without providing that information, how would you feel for the victims? Would you regret not telling them? Would you say..Oh well, they should have researched it themselves. Would you say...They should look at the contract. They shouldn't believe me, they should know that I am just saying "It is guaranteed safe and extensively researched. If it happen to you on your first trip..would it make a difference? Would it make a difference if the robbers killed someone on the tour? If the CD did make the statements, do you think he should be held responsible? If he was going by a Carnival script, should they be responsible?

 

One last question: Sgt. Shultze, if I stopped you and found that you were drunk, then let you go, you and I both knowing you are drunk..What do you think would happen to me if you wrecked and killed youself or someone else? Who do you think would be held responsible? I will tell you..Me and my department. Even though, you and I know the dangers of driving drunk, I allowed you to go. By me allowing you to proceed on your journey, knowing the dangers...I have now become responsible along with my department. Even though, I could not predict that you would wreck, causing death or injury, I knew it was more likely to happen because of the conditions. Carnival and CD could not predict that we would be robbed, but they knew it was more likely due to the conditions (high crime tour area). This is a proven fact and has been held up in court. Now why is it OK to hold me responsible for something like that, but not Carnival or their CD? They had information of danger, but allowed us to go. They could not say that I knew the dangers. They have know idea. They should have at least told us the dangers. They are responsible.

 

I await you answers..Thanks

[Vanessa L]

Dudette,

 

I think I've been on more cruises (not just Carnival) than you - but not sure why that is really significant? I am willing to accept the stipulation that neither of us are (cruise) virgins.

 

I long ago stopped going to port lectures - how about you?

 

Heck no I don't go anymore--HOWEVER, when I was a first time cruiser you bet I was at the port talks, debarkation talks, shopping talks, and any other talk listed in the Capers (first cruise was on Carnival). Back then I thought everything the CD said was gospel and took it VERY seriously. Today, I know to ignore about 80% of what a CD says as kitsch, but that did not happen on cruise one. Or even cruise 2 or 3 for that matter.

 

I will agree that we don't agree on this issue. I just think that I am in the majority of people, who, on their very first cruise ever, attend all the talks and take what is said seriously. I don't think first time cruisers know to ignore most of what a cruise director says. And I know for a fact that a first time cruiser would definitely not know to "read between the lines" during supposed "you must be there" port talks, debarkation talks, etc. On my first cruise I took those so seriously that I genuinely believed that I would be put off the ship if I didn't go and LISTEN. Of course, I had not found any cruise boards by then (said tongue in cheek, this was 1984) so I didn't know what I could and couldn't do. Also back then the port/debarkation talks were not taped and piped into the TV a zillion other times either. You got one shot.

 

Regardless, I think that in this case I can remember what it felt like to be a newbie, how seriously I took everything and how much I TRUSTED the information that I was being given. Today, I know better. I'm just very thankful that I didn't have to learn that lesson like the Williams' did. And hope that their family heals from this horrible ordeal.

[halos]

Don't blame that country for what happened and say boycott them. When we have probably just as much crime here in this country. .

 

I disagree with this. We do have crime in this country, BUT in the areas where tourism is a vital part of the economic development, the government will step in and clean things up.

When crime goes up in a certain vacation-type areas here, tourism goes down...then the mayors of cities and the governors sometimes step in and crack down to get the crime rate lowered and get the tourists back.

I know where I live tourism is the #1 money maker in the state (because this dang state is totally not business friendly:rolleyes: ) Anything that would deter people from visiting would be dealt with IMMEDIATELY.

Don't you think the main focus of officials in NOLA right now is to clean up everything..including the crime to get the tourists back??????

The governments on islands like Jamaica need to be held accoutable.

[douglinc@msn.com]

I agree with most of the posters, Jamacia is a beautiful country but I have no desire to go back. We are on a cruise 8-19 that will stop in Jamacia but we probably won't get off the ship. I wish all the cruise lines would drop them until things improve.

 

Doug

[bunting]

Regardless, I think that in this case I can remember what it felt like to be a newbie, how seriously I took everything and how much I TRUSTED the information that I was being given. Today, I know better.

 

Too true Vanessa that´s why these boards are so popular because people are looking for as much information from experienced sources and then make their evaluations and, again, I have followed this thread and previous and constantly see that this is what kwilliams wants to do. Bring forward the reality and let people then make their own decisions.........but not believe all the infomercials....

 

Sargent, maybe its me but I found your comment about how much did the gentleman send to ICV uncalled for....I personally believe he is not doing this for money. I am fairly sure that he explained in a previous thread why he put a price on the ebay posting (to comply with their rules and that´s why its priced so low) and I am sure that money is not the point....I think he is too polite to respond to that comment but also I think the CC guidelines do not expect us to ask such type of personal (and potentially inflamatory) questions.....

[Luanne21]

I am proud of Mr. Williams. He didn't have to come forward and spread the word. It is after all, embarrassing to admit that someone could threaten your family, and not be able to do anything about it.

 

I also like Jamaica, but know that it is not only sad looking at times, but can be very dangerous.

 

Thank you Mr. Williams for your service to all cruisers, and to the bullies on here, shame on you.

[bunting]

Carnival is in the cruise business, not intelligence gathering. It is not their job to provide such information, nor are they liable if something goes wrong on an excursion..

 

Here´s a quote in response. I have bolded some part.....

 

Lastly, ask your cruise director or shore excursion manager if they are aware of any crime risks for the areas you plan to explore ashore. It is a little-known fact that the courts have ruled (in Carlisle vs. Ulysses Line Ltd.) that cruise lines are legally obligated to inform their passengers of any known dangers "that are associated with places that passengers are reasonably expected to visit."

 

Source Cruise Critic

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/features/articles.cfm?ID=148

 

This is only one of the many options that are listed for vefication in what I think is a fairly good piece from CC....and they recommend various sources. IMHO, the problem here is that the cruise line employee on official business might be hesitant to say something negative about the port. I believe that other passengers on that same cruise made comments that little of the crew actually went ashore in that port....another source from employees but fairly annonymous.

 

Sargent you mention they are in the cruise business and not intelligence gathering but according to this quote they are legally obligated to inform passengers of any known dangers...... and I am sure that Carnival might not be in the intelligence gathering business but that they attend the ICCL Security Committee and discuss emerging trends, risks, threats etc the reason I feel certain is that Michael Crye mentioned the same at a US Congress Hearing into cruise ship security....Carnival is a member of the ICCL (which of course has been almagamated into CLIA)....so the cruise lines do work behind the scenes to conduct risk analysis, the question is does it filter all the way down to the port safety part of talks? We all know ports have been cancelled because of unrest, crime onshore so surely that is as a result of a risk analysis based on intelligence?

[kwilliams6045]

Sgt. Shultz,

 

You have followed me to a couple of other threads to try and insert some doubt into my story. That is fine. I do make a second request that you answer the questions from my post #60. I am interested in hearing what you think. You speak as though you have some knowledge of civil law. I would like to see what your take is on those questions.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

 

P.S. I want CC to know I am in know way upset about any of the comments made here on CC, so please do not feel obligated to close this thread.

[Sargent_Schultz]

First, I haven't followed you anywhere. I keep tripping over your posts on numerous boards. Perhaps if your posts were less controversial I wouldn't trip over them so often?

 

Having never been to Lineville, Alabama, I do not know that I would be safer than I was in Jamaica. I do know the top two reasons for murder in Jamaica are drugs and political related gangs. I participate in neither so no, the statistics are not applicable. Now if I was a political activist drug running SOB, the statistics you like to quote could be of interest.

 

I find a comparison between Compton and Jamaica to not be valid. Compton is essentially an inner city area with a population of under 100,000 and Jamaica is a beautiful island nation of something over 2.7 million. The statistics are not scalable nor comparable as in the comparison is not valid.

 

Let me see if you will understand this...

 

Let's assume Podunk City is the AIDS capital of the world - 100% infected with HIV. Now, if I visit Podunk City and don't engage in anything that would allow transmission of the virus, what are my odds of contracting the virus. 0 is the correct answer.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Carnival's contract is crystal clear. They even TELL you where you can obtain up to date travel information.

 

"The United States Department of State, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other governmental and tourist organizations regularly issue advisories and warnings to travelers and Carnival strongly recommends Guests obtain and consider such information when making travel decisions."

 

No, I do not expect Carnival to have more up to date information than the US Department of State. Not all tourists to Jamaica arrive on cruise ships. Why would a cruise ship be held to a higher standard?

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

When there are known inherent risks, cruise lines do inform you and even have you sign a waiver. Snorkel and Scuba excursions are examples of this.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

I don't drink and drive, so if you stopped me and found that I was drunk I would have to say you were being less than truthful. If you stopped someone else and found them drunk, they were breaking the law and I would say that you are required to do is your job.

 

I don't know know of any laws that Carnival violated, so this example is yet another stretch.

 

Hope this helps! :)

[nrdsb4]

I think a lesson one could learn from this situation (one among many) is that you should never believe anyone can guarantee your safety. I could invite you to my house for dinner, which is in a nice neighborhood with very little crime, but if I guarantee your safety you should be skeptical. There have been home invasions in beautiful neighborhoods that see very little crime (think the recent horrific home invasion in an affluent Connecticut neighborhood which resulted in multiple murders), airplanes have recently fallen out of the sky onto homes, killing innocent bystanders. It happens, rarely, but it happens.

 

No one can EVER guarantee your safety, anywhere, anytime. If a Carnival employee said this, at minimum he should probably receive extra training. But adults listening to this should also have called him to the carpet on just exactly how they were going to "guarantee" this safety. I'm not the most cynical person on the planet, but I would have found this claim to be a little over the top. That said, I'm not assigning any blame to the victims. In my view, the blame pretty much belongs to the criminals. Just MHO.

[Vanessa L]

Mr. Williams,

 

I appreciate what you are trying to do but some people JUST DON'T GET IT. In this case, rather than trying to prove a point to someone who clearly is NEVER going to get it, why not just back down and know that the majority of people here (and on other boards where you've posted this) DO get it.

 

What typically happens with these type of people is that they will continue to live with their head in the sand until something happens to them. Then we see the true colors come out. I have found that trying to negotiate with someone who's head is so far in the sand that they can't hear me (AKA "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up) is futile and causes me way more stress than it's worth.

 

Just my $.02

[halos]

edited

 

I agree with Vanessa. The people that don't understand your point aren't going to be persuaded. You've helped people who aren't aware of the situation in Jamaica and we thank you for that.

[standby 06.30]

Dudette,

 

I think I've been on more cruises (not just Carnival) than you - but not sure why that is really significant? I am willing to accept the stipulation that neither of us are (cruise) virgins.

 

I long ago stopped going to port lectures - how about you?

 

It is not "selling" it is marketing, Do you believe every word on every infomercial you watch? Other than entertainment value, I don't think I ever watched one.

 

Ever hear {or something to the effect} - If you take a ship tour

we guarantee the ship will wait for you? Whether or not the ship waits, and not just for ship tours, is up to the Captain, not the CD.

 

It is extremely rare that a cruise line will abandon passengers on "their" tours, but it can and has happened. Note to the nervous - I would expect the cruise line to get me to next stop (first class, if you please) in the truly rare cases where that occurs. Safety of the ship, passengers, and crew would be an example of where justified.

Remember me, I asked you 4 times on the previous thread, ARE YOU A CARNIVAL SHAREHOLDER, the above is the usual dross

[Vanessa L]

Remember me, I asked you 4 times on the previous thread, ARE YOU A CARNIVAL SHAREHOLDER, the above is the usual dross

 

Interesting question (yes I know you were addressing that question to Shultz). My DH and I are shareholders (125 to date, more to be added) but I feel the opposite of what I believe you are inferring here, and that is, as a share holder I expect to hold the corporation to honest standards, not defend what are clearly wrong standards. I know that it is every company's policy to make money (and that is not always based on what is morally or ethically right--which often has nothing to do with what is legally right) and on virtually every decision passed down by Carnival so far (that I've read here and on other boards) I've agreed with Carnival's decision. I mean, to ask for a free cruise because one bad thing happened is ridiculous. So, overall I think they do a great job. This was the one exception I've seen so far. I believe that Carnival not only owed this gentleman and his family the counseling he requested, but reimbursement of the tour costs and a public apology and acknowledgement that they made a huge error in judgement. I also think that as a result of this incident that Carnival needs to change their policy about advising their passengers about the inherent risks of ANY tour taken. For most tours they offer, the "warning" on the forms is enough because the odds of anything happening are very low, but in the case of Jamaica those odds are MUCH higher. Those are the cases where I believe that they need to verbally warn any prospective passengers of the INCREASED danger (over and above the fine print on the forms).

 

As a stock holder I will certainly monitor these situations and write, write, write if I see something unjust happening. If things don't change then I have the option to sell the stock if I see the company acting in a MORALLY unjust way (sometimes it truly isn't about the bottom line, but doing what is morally right). I don't want to be a part of that type of company. So far though, as I've said, I think they're doing a good job of incident vs. retribution.

[bunting]

Those are the cases where I believe that they need to verbally warn any prospective passengers of the INCREASED danger (over and above the fine print on the forms).

quote]

 

Vanessa L, I totally agree with you about holding companies to high standards and more if you can influence their operating processes e.g. as a share holder and as you said, write to initiate change....I am sure the lines are also following these various threads from kwilliams....

 

I also think your thoughts on the risks etc are very logical and would just like to add that they also have to consider the people that book excursions before they embark and also the people that dont go to the talks, but may have already bought the tickets......so in addition to the verbal warning that you suggest, perhaps they need some warning link to be displayed for an electronic booking or perhaps the wording again that Sargent quoted from the ticket......or perhaps Carnival could put a link to the State Department Site..why not?..I am sure there are many options to educate and assist the purchaser.......

 

Sargent you wrote Quote I do not expect Carnival to have more up to date information than the US Department of State. Not all tourists to Jamaica arrive on cruise ships. Why would a cruise ship be held to a higher standard? Unquote

 

Sorry but have to disagree in part (or maybe in whole), I believe that Carnival does have, on many occasions, as much if not more up to date local information than the DoS e.g. I suspect that the ship/Corporate office knew about kwilliams and his group´s incident long before the embassy was informed (and the message sent back to the DoS by the embassy). Also ships have local agents, from experience, they provide fairly good briefings to the lines and the ships before, on arrival and during the visit, and the good ones (and there are many of those) include up to date recent local occurences that might impact the visit, including on one occasion that I know, local taxi disaffection with regulations set up in Ocho Rios................and, finally, to me, as a cruiser and as a person, if there is a higher standard and it keeps me and the family safer, fine by me...the arguement ¨airlines etc (other tourist means of travel) ¨don´t do that so why should we?¨ (paraphrasing)...........does not sell it to me......

[standby 06.30]

Interesting question (yes I know you were addressing that question to Shultz). My DH and I are shareholders (125 to date, more to be added) but I feel the opposite of what I believe you are inferring here, and that is, as a share holder I expect to hold the corporation to honest standards, not defend what are clearly wrong standards. I know that it is every company's policy to make money (and that is not always based on what is morally or ethically right--which often has nothing to do with what is legally right) and on virtually every decision passed down by Carnival so far (that I've read here and on other boards) I've agreed with Carnival's decision. I mean, to ask for a free cruise because one bad thing happened is ridiculous. So, overall I think they do a great job. This was the one exception I've seen so far. I believe that Carnival not only owed this gentleman and his family the counseling he requested, but reimbursement of the tour costs and a public apology and acknowledgement that they made a huge error in judgement. I also think that as a result of this incident that Carnival needs to change their policy about advising their passengers about the inherent risks of ANY tour taken. For most tours they offer, the "warning" on the forms is enough because the odds of anything happening are very low, but in the case of Jamaica those odds are MUCH higher. Those are the cases where I believe that they need to verbally warn any prospective passengers of the INCREASED danger (over and above the fine print on the forms).

 

As a stock holder I will certainly monitor these situations and write, write, write if I see something unjust happening. If things don't change then I have the option to sell the stock if I see the company acting in a MORALLY unjust way (sometimes it truly isn't about the bottom line, but doing what is morally right). I don't want to be a part of that type of company. So far though, as I've said, I think they're doing a good job of incident vs. retribution.

The reason I asked the question of the Sarge, was not to question the ethics of all shareholders, my brokers knows my values and advices accordingly, the reason this came up was because in the previous thread there were some pos with more obvious vested interests who withdrew,I do realise there will be some people who show a slave like loyalty to there chosen cruise lines, I find that strange, others have a vested interest, because of the benefits that they gain from holding shares in that company, discounts off cruises, dividend payments etc, most people when they choose a cruise have a lot of reasons for that choice,one is cost, it is that choice that makes it at present very competative the hard margins are tight, the add ons, the soft margins, insurance tours etc are by there nature impulse buys not as well scrutinised by a lot of cruisers, and contribute a large amount to the bottom line, the C D who I will presume benefit in some way, from the add ons, from a base point that he keeps his job,it is his ethics and the companies,that I would question, after the safety statement he made, I do not want anyone to withdraw from this thread, most of all Shultz, this thread will remain alive because of Shultz and like minded pos, so they help in creating the oxygen of publicity, which aids Mr Williams in his quest, to return to the previous thread Shulz caved on my points about the CD responsibilty as the companies officer and the influence he has on the cruiser, that would overide the contract, he went to bloviate about appeals, ambulance chasers who pick on cruise lines because of the deep pockets they have etc, Shultz keep on bloviating the thread needs you,regards isnt social intercourse great it is so illuminating