Shadow --- i'll wait for the facts

[commodoredave]

C'mon guys, lets back off from the personal attacks, and not let this degenerate to a Carnival hater thread. If someone is firm in their beliefs, that is fine with me, and I will continue to present my firmly held beliefs. No problem.

 

Your comments are well documented and are very credible. They are supported by facts. In contrast, the cheerleaders constantly avoid the fact that Silversea intentionally tried to mislead inspectors, that a crew member had reported past instances of this to the CDC, and that a chef on board the Shadow was quoted in several media reports saying this behavior had been going on for some time.

 

When the cheerleaders and Silversea acknowledge these facts, I will be ready to put it in the past and consider cruising with Silversea again. But if you don't acknowledge a problem, you can't fix it.

[UKCruiseJeff]

 

When the cheerleaders and Silversea acknowledge these facts, I will be ready to put it in the past and consider cruising with Silversea again. But if you don't acknowledge a problem, you can't fix it.

 

 

On a tangential point .... I don't know whether others have noticed ... but the unanswered question from Narita a few threads down has had over 150 hits. Not a mind-numbing number but it does seem that the nmber of people reading the threads has trebled in the last few days. Or people are choosing to go back and read the same unanswered post over and over ......

 

I think that greater interest of what is being said here is great! I would like to welcome the lurkers and invite them to join in! The majority of us don't bite ....:)

 

Looking forward to hearing the views and observations of some new people whether they have different views or not!

[Nigella]

Your comments are well documented and are very credible. They are supported by facts. In contrast, the cheerleaders constantly avoid the fact that Silversea intentionally tried to mislead inspectors, that a crew member had reported past instances of this to the CDC, and that a chef on board the Shadow was quoted in several media reports saying this behavior had been going on for some time.

 

When the cheerleaders and Silversea acknowledge these facts, I will be ready to put it in the past and consider cruising with Silversea again. But if you don't acknowledge a problem, you can't fix it.

 

Why would you be influenced by the cheerleaders acknowledgment? I'm probably an SS 'cheerleader' but my opinion on this matter shouldn't influence your decision to consider SS in the future, surely?

All that any of us should care about is that SS deals with this appropriately and that nothing similar is allowed to happen in the future.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Why would you be influenced by the cheerleaders acknowledgment? I'm probably an SS 'cheerleader' but my opinion on this matter shouldn't influence your decision to consider SS in the future, surely?

 

 

.

 

He didn't say that though did he. You have demanded he justify a position he hasn't taken.

 

.

[dusababy]

Why would you be influenced by the cheerleaders acknowledgment? I'm probably an SS 'cheerleader' but my opinion on this matter shouldn't influence your decision to consider SS in the future, surely?

All that any of us should care about is that SS deals with this appropriately and that nothing similar is allowed to happen in the future.

 

Nigella - there are the cheerleaders like me who are saddened and deeply disappointed by the inept handling of a terrible situation thus far. Yet why does the word schadenfreude keep coming to mind in reading some posts?

[UKCruiseJeff]

Nigella - there are the cheerleaders like me who are saddened and deeply disappointed by the inept handling of a terrible situation thus far. Yet why does the word schadenfreude keep coming to mind in reading some posts?

 

How - and indeed why - you choose to interpret the integrity of posters is your call. But you don't really need to do so. You could focus on what they say rather than constantly on them.

 

This is how I read the plight of the cheerleaders.

 

Possibly because they are so keen to defend SS and have so little raw material to work with all that is left is to take a poke at the posters and try to rubbish them by making unwarranted and unfounded accusations about their motives and/ or integrity. There also seems to be a constant and angry twisting of what is said in order to convert it into something to be rude at. What characterises many of the cheerleaders posts is the constant attention to the posters rather than their posts. They are simply permanently trying to shout people down.

 

This approach just makes some of the cheerleaders seem a bit angry and over emotional and rude. It really needn't be like that at all. There is more in common in terms of aspiration than there are differences. No one need attack anyone here except SS's managements incompetence.

 

:)

[cruiseerf]

I know other cruiselines have "social media specialists" who monitor and at times post on various boards around the world.....The question becomes, Does Silversea have people working the board? I wouldn't be surprised....as it is impossible to detect...and any of the cheerleaders can help a conversation to end by posting contrary opinions......

 

I am on a cruise with Silversea shortly......I am more concerned then I have even been before cruising. This situation is just SHOCKING...and the fact that they created and knew about this for some time and did nothing is unacceptable.....

 

Safe and Healthy travels to all!

[Merriem]

I know they are on there Facebok page

[commodoredave]

Why would you be influenced by the cheerleaders acknowledgment? I'm probably an SS 'cheerleader' but my opinion on this matter shouldn't influence your decision to consider SS in the future, surely?

All that any of us should care about is that SS deals with this appropriately and that nothing similar is allowed to happen in the future.

 

Why is it that cheerleaders try to deflect attention away from the FACTS. Silversea needs to acknowledge that this hide and seek game has happened before and that it was not an isolated incident. Their own crew members have stated so. One again, Silversea cannot fix what they don't acknowledge. And cheerleaders are only enabling this deceitful behaviour by making excuses for it.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I know other cruiselines have "social media specialists" who monitor and at times post on various boards around the world.....The question becomes, Does Silversea have people working the board? I wouldn't be surprised....as it is impossible to detect...and any of the cheerleaders can help a conversation to end by posting contrary opinions....

 

In one of Ellen's interviews she talked extensively about the expanding importance and role of social media - particularly with respect to expeditions - and it would be inconceivable - or incompetent - if no effort is being made to monitor and influence opinion here.

 

At the very least there will be people here who don't wish to upset her ......

 

.

[chengkp75]

Very well said. I have been shocked the way some posters have reacted on here. It is akin to the way society is going. No one can make a mistake without getting sacked or sued. I am fairly confident some of the posters on here who are unable to look at the situation objectively are working for other cruise lines.

 

I have made some relevant points but no one ever answers them. I am then called a “cheerleader” even though I have made it clear I am disappointed with what has happened. In my opinion you have to deal with facts. The fact is this has been proven to have happened once. It may well have happened at other times but there is no proof of that. If there is any evidence of something happening like this again in the future I will be seriously considering sailing Silversea again, but you know what, the press statement they made has as much chance of being correct as being wrong. It could be a one off incident and no one can prove otherwise.

 

As previously posted there are numerous incidents of low scores on other ships but this seems to go past very quietly without comment.

 

If you don’t want to sail with Silversea again that is fine, please stop cluttering up this forum and let the rest of us enjoy what we save our money up for without trying to bully people into cancelling their holidays.

 

I believe that I have answered many, if not all, of your questions. And again, a raw score is meaningless, when you understand the USPH inspection protocol. You need to look at the types of violations, and the number as to whether there are many minor violations or a few gross violations. What CommodoreDave posted about Silversea using V-ships is news to me, but it makes a lot of sense, and strengthens my conviction that this is probably endemic.

 

I acknowledge that your view differs significantly from mine, and neither one of us is likely to budge, unless further details become available. However, I for one, am not trying to bully anyone into cancelling anything, and resent your attempt to control the forum. If you don't like the thread, ignore it.

 

I have posted negatively on forums for various lines, and positively as well, as needed. My areas of concern are ship safety, ship sanitation, and crew welfare, and I will post on any forum at any time. My personal position is to try to bring a professional mariner's experience in the cruise industry to educate the cruising public about how ships operate and a technical viewpoint of cruise ship incidents like the Splendor, Triumph, Grandeur, and Concordia.

[connlach]

I believe that I have answered many, if not all, of your questions. And again, a raw score is meaningless, when you understand the USPH inspection protocol. You need to look at the types of violations, and the number as to whether there are many minor violations or a few gross violations. What CommodoreDave posted about Silversea using V-ships is news to me, but it makes a lot of sense, and strengthens my conviction that this is probably endemic.

 

I acknowledge that your view differs significantly from mine, and neither one of us is likely to budge, unless further details become available. However, I for one, am not trying to bully anyone into cancelling anything, and resent your attempt to control the forum. If you don't like the thread, ignore it.

 

I have posted negatively on forums for various lines, and positively as well, as needed. My areas of concern are ship safety, ship sanitation, and crew welfare, and I will post on any forum at any time. My personal position is to try to bring a professional mariner's experience in the cruise industry to educate the cruising public about how ships operate and a technical viewpoint of cruise ship incidents like the Splendor, Triumph, Grandeur, and Concordia.

 

At what stage did you think I was referring to you. Up till now I think your posts are well thought out and reasonable unlike others and you have responded in a reasonable manner. A very odd comment to suggest I am trying to control the forum because I have a different view to you. I should just ignore it because I am not agreeing with you? Is that not what a forum is for? Now that could be seen as bullying.

[chengkp75]

At what stage did you think I was referring to you. Up till now I think your posts are well thought out and reasonable unlike others and you have responded in a reasonable manner. A very odd comment to suggest I am trying to control the forum because I have a different view to you. I should just ignore it because I am not agreeing with you? Is that not what a forum is for? Now that could be seen as bullying.

 

Forgive me, if I misunderstood, but your comment: "If you don’t want to sail with Silversea again that is fine, please stop cluttering up this forum and let the rest of us enjoy what we save our money up for without trying to bully people into cancelling their holidays." struck me as an attempt to get this thread to go away, not because you have a different view. Again, I find that my fingers and others' tend to portray a different tenor to communication than face to face verbal.

[connlach]

Forgive me, if I misunderstood, but your comment: "If you don’t want to sail with Silversea again that is fine, please stop cluttering up this forum and let the rest of us enjoy what we save our money up for without trying to bully people into cancelling their holidays." struck me as an attempt to get this thread to go away, not because you have a different view. Again, I find that my fingers and others' tend to portray a different tenor to communication than face to face verbal.

 

No problem. I hope we can get back to enjoying some threads about better things but appreciate this issue is unlikely to go away quickly and the most important thing is customers start seeing some improvements and no repeats.

[Merriem]

No problem. I hope we can get back to enjoying some threads about better things but appreciate this issue is unlikely to go away quickly and the most important thing is customers start seeing some improvements and no repeats.

 

I frankly think you overlook the seriousness of this discussion. People have been cheated, spent their hard earned money, and you think we should get back to cruising. Well, the important thing is Silversea has let all of us down, and they should be ashamed.

[connlach]

I frankly think you overlook the seriousness of this discussion. People have been cheated, spent their hard earned money, and you think we should get back to cruising. Well, the important thing is Silversea has let all of us down, and they should be ashamed.

 

Yep thats right, we should keep talking it down so nothing can get better. Its strange that the same few posters keep ganging up against anyone who is trying to be positive. You have good reason to be disappointed but why not try and deal with things in a more positive way.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I frankly think you overlook the seriousness of this discussion. People have been cheated, spent their hard earned money, and you think we should get back to cruising. Well, the important thing is Silversea has let all of us down, and they should be ashamed.

 

 

If ever you find yourself in the next two or three weeks or so - in need of a late night satay and a frozen beer in Singapore .... you and I .... with 'er indoors (and with your better 'arf) ... I will promise you a time to remember ... I think you are fun though I'm not as you know making light. I am not doing "light" in this situation. And I'll include a bowl of pho.

 

Let us be clear. We've lost this one. :( At least for the time being ...

 

An entrepreneur will "get" you and I and people like us and pick up the decent bits of SS after it has been terminally trashed by its management - and will restaff it with long-termers who also "get it" and we will have what we want back again. I do entirely get this and I know my flippant post doesn't appear or does address your immediate issue. I fear nothing is going to.

 

Your man on the ground currently in Hampshire but very soon in Bugis.

 

You and me against the world. :)

[PaulaJK]

Chengkp75,

 

I have very much appreciated the information and clarifications inherent in your posts. Thank you.

 

Although topics such as this stir many passions, there actually has been a fair amount of factual information presented.

 

Clearly, SS needs to change some of its practices and I think that all fans of SS will expect this and look forward to it. Paula

[machotspur]

Interested in how other cruise lines fared with CDC inspections I spent a little time looking at the various scores on the CDC site. The reason wasn't to in any way excuse what Silversea have been up to, but to gather more facts that I feel have been missing from this 'debate'.

 

Sadly I feel that very few people will actually see this info. As this thread has become so hefty, I suspect many are now choosing to ignore it.

 

Below are the number of occasions each cruise company has 'failed' a CDC inspection, together with the lowest score they achieved. No consideration is given to the scale of the operator, how long ago the inspections were carried out, or which section they lost points for - just how many times they have failed.

 

The first figure against each company is the number of times they have failed, the second figure in brackets their low score.

 

Carnival 13 (71)

Celebrity 4 (78)

Princess 3 (79)

Holl. Am. 5 (81)

Roy.Car. 3 (82)

Linblad 4 (77)

 

Cunard 1 (84)

Seabourn 1 (74)

SeaDream 3 (81)

Regent 2 (76)

Silversea 1 (82)

 

Crystal 0

Oceania 0

P&O 0

 

You can see that with the exception of Crystal, Oceania & P&O, every cruise company has failed at least once in the past, many on numerous occasions, some with horrendously low scores.

 

I do not excuse what Silversea have been caught doing - two wrongs don't make a right - but merely wish to put their failings in the context of the sector. After all - it would only have taken a disgruntled crew member for one of the other lines to contact a legal office and it would have been them on CNN sometime in the past. As it turns out the others are probably letting out a sigh of relief.

 

Oh and by the way - I am most certainly not a cheerleader or apologist for Silversea - the opposite in fact. My TA will tell you how dismayed my wife and I are at the slide in quality that appears to be taking place with Silversea.

 

I hope this is of some interest.

[chengkp75]

Interested in how other cruise lines fared with CDC inspections I spent a little time looking at the various scores on the CDC site. The reason wasn't to in any way excuse what Silversea have been up to, but to gather more facts that I feel have been missing from this 'debate'.

 

Sadly I feel that very few people will actually see this info. As this thread has become so hefty, I suspect many are now choosing to ignore it.

 

Below are the number of occasions each cruise company has 'failed' a CDC inspection, together with the lowest score they achieved. No consideration is given to the scale of the operator, how long ago the inspections were carried out, or which section they lost points for - just how many times they have failed.

 

The first figure against each company is the number of times they have failed, the second figure in brackets their low score.

 

Carnival 13 (71)

Celebrity 4 (78)

Princess 3 (79)

Holl. Am. 5 (81)

Roy.Car. 3 (82)

Linblad 4 (77)

 

Cunard 1 (84)

Seabourn 1 (74)

SeaDream 3 (81)

Regent 2 (76)

Silversea 1 (82)

 

Crystal 0

Oceania 0

P&O 0

 

You can see that with the exception of Crystal, Oceania & P&O, every cruise company has failed at least once in the past, many on numerous occasions, some with horrendously low scores.

 

I do not excuse what Silversea have been caught doing - two wrongs don't make a right - but merely wish to put their failings in the context of the sector. After all - it would only have taken a disgruntled crew member for one of the other lines to contact a legal office and it would have been them on CNN sometime in the past. As it turns out the others are probably letting out a sigh of relief.

 

Oh and by the way - I am most certainly not a cheerleader or apologist for Silversea - the opposite in fact. My TA will tell you how dismayed my wife and I are at the slide in quality that appears to be taking place with Silversea.

 

I hope this is of some interest.

 

Again, not in the interest of any line, but in fairness, you forgot to mention one mainstream cruise line in your list; NCL does not have a failing score, and a considerable fleet size.

 

As I've said, the raw score is important, but not really a mark of how bad the sanitation onboard is. If the inspectors found one cup of yogurt out of temperature on a ship, it would be a 3-4 point deduction, but if on another ship they found 30 different refrigerators with dairy in them, not at temperature, this would only be a 4-5 point deduction. This is why the USPH publish the green sheet reports, so that the severity of the violations can be viewed. As I've said, yes all companies and all ships can fail at some time, and as you show, many have. This report on the Shadow is the first that I have seen where the inspectors were so outraged at what they saw that not only did they destroy the food, they mentioned it in the report. To me, as a USPH trained former cruise ship officer, this is the single most damning aspect of the whole sorry saga.

[machotspur]

Again, not in the interest of any line, but in fairness, you forgot to mention one mainstream cruise line in your list; NCL does not have a failing score, and a considerable fleet size.

 

As I've said, the raw score is important, but not really a mark of how bad the sanitation onboard is. If the inspectors found one cup of yogurt out of temperature on a ship, it would be a 3-4 point deduction, but if on another ship they found 30 different refrigerators with dairy in them, not at temperature, this would only be a 4-5 point deduction. This is why the USPH publish the green sheet reports, so that the severity of the violations can be viewed. As I've said, yes all companies and all ships can fail at some time, and as you show, many have. This report on the Shadow is the first that I have seen where the inspectors were so outraged at what they saw that not only did they destroy the food, they mentioned it in the report. To me, as a USPH trained former cruise ship officer, this is the single most damning aspect of the whole sorry saga.

 

Thank you very much for your professional insight on this issue. I certainly wouldn't have the skill or knowledge to look at a large number of reports and pass judgment on the relative seriousness of each.

 

I have just quickly looked at one more report - the one at the top of the list - Carnival, which scored just 71.

To an untrained eye it seems that the inspectors have noted a significant volume of food that was stored at the incorrect temperature, and felt fit to destroy it.

I would value it if you could take a look at the report and give your judgement on the seriousness of this.

 

I repeat that I am not seeking to defend Silversea - I just like to gather as many facts as I can before I make my own decision on our future cruise plans.

 

Thank you.

[Nigella]

Interested in how other cruise lines fared with CDC inspections I spent a little time looking at the various scores on the CDC site. The reason wasn't to in any way excuse what Silversea have been up to, but to gather more facts that I feel have been missing from this 'debate'.

 

Sadly I feel that very few people will actually see this info. As this thread has become so hefty, I suspect many are now choosing to ignore it.

 

Below are the number of occasions each cruise company has 'failed' a CDC inspection, together with the lowest score they achieved. No consideration is given to the scale of the operator, how long ago the inspections were carried out, or which section they lost points for - just how many times they have failed.

 

The first figure against each company is the number of times they have failed, the second figure in brackets their low score.

 

Carnival 13 (71)

Celebrity 4 (78)

Princess 3 (79)

Holl. Am. 5 (81)

Roy.Car. 3 (82)

Linblad 4 (77)

 

Cunard 1 (84)

Seabourn 1 (74)

SeaDream 3 (81)

Regent 2 (76)

Silversea 1 (82)

 

Crystal 0

Oceania 0

P&O 0

 

You can see that with the exception of Crystal, Oceania & P&O, every cruise company has failed at least once in the past, many on numerous occasions, some with horrendously low scores.

 

I do not excuse what Silversea have been caught doing - two wrongs don't make a right - but merely wish to put their failings in the context of the sector. After all - it would only have taken a disgruntled crew member for one of the other lines to contact a legal office and it would have been them on CNN sometime in the past. As it turns out the others are probably letting out a sigh of relief.

 

Oh and by the way - I am most certainly not a cheerleader or apologist for Silversea - the opposite in fact. My TA will tell you how dismayed my wife and I are at the slide in quality that appears to be taking place with Silversea.

 

I hope this is of some interest.

 

I found your post interesting, thanks for taking the time to post.

[connlach]

Thank you very much for your professional insight on this issue. I certainly wouldn't have the skill or knowledge to look at a large number of reports and pass judgment on the relative seriousness of each.

 

I have just quickly looked at one more report - the one at the top of the list - Carnival, which scored just 71.

To an untrained eye it seems that the inspectors have noted a significant volume of food that was stored at the incorrect temperature, and felt fit to destroy it.

I would value it if you could take a look at the report and give your judgement on the seriousness of this.

 

I repeat that I am not seeking to defend Silversea - I just like to gather as many facts as I can before I make my own decision on our future cruise plans.

 

Thank you.

 

Thanks for the excellent post. It is exactly the point I was trying to make. As chengkp75 correctly points out as you do, it does not excuse Silversea, however this is good information and those rushing to cancel should consider this before looking at other cruise companies.

[chengkp75]

Thank you very much for your professional insight on this issue. I certainly wouldn't have the skill or knowledge to look at a large number of reports and pass judgment on the relative seriousness of each.

 

I have just quickly looked at one more report - the one at the top of the list - Carnival, which scored just 71.

To an untrained eye it seems that the inspectors have noted a significant volume of food that was stored at the incorrect temperature, and felt fit to destroy it.

I would value it if you could take a look at the report and give your judgement on the seriousness of this.

 

I repeat that I am not seeking to defend Silversea - I just like to gather as many facts as I can before I make my own decision on our future cruise plans.

 

Thank you.

 

Thanks;

 

The Carnival Legend report was from 2006 (not that this changes anything), and is a very poor report. My feeling is that the ship was generally dirty, and sanitation and documentation measures were generally not being followed. The food safety items you mention, if you will notice, are in two locations (pastry galley and the galley salad/appetizer stations), yet are one item, therefore only one deduction for all of them. The hidden food item on the Shadow is also only one item, so only one deduction. The main difference is that all of the items on the Legend were in refrigeration, and while not within the allowable temperature range, they were at least refrigerated, which the food found on the Shadow was not.

 

The notation "these items were discarded during inspection" is a standard USPH comment, and means that the crew discarded the food in the presence of the inspectors. When the inspectors report that "The lead VSP inspector poured concentrated chlorine liquid over all the discarded foods as they were dumped into garbage bags to ensure they would not be used again." shows that the inspectors onsite had received the impression from the ship's management's attitude that there was a possibility that the food would be returned to service.

 

If you look at the 69 scored by the Columbus 2 from Nov 2012, while this score is even lower than the Legend, I would personally prefer to sail on the Columbus 2, as most of the violations were documentation and calibration of equipment. The Legend would be my second choice as there were no real food safety issues, but cleanliness issues (bad enough), and the Shadow would be my last choice due to the severity of the food safety violation.

 

You really need to look at sets of scores for ships and companies to get a truly accurate indication of the company's corporate culture. For instance, the Legend has scored above 94 since that poor score in 2006. This is why the Shadow score comes as a shock to me, when you see all the scores in the high 90's, and then you see an egregious violation such as this inspection. I won't go into Silversea's PR system, but they knew about the score for a month before the report came out (prelim report is given to the Captain before the inspectors leave), and if they felt it was important (I guess they did not understand the gravity of the inspectors remarks regarding the food), they should have gotten out front of it, and had someone from corporate onboard within a couple of days. From their corrective action report, there is no indication that anyone from corporate (I would have expected their corporate Executive Chef, the Hotel Operations manager, and Food & Beverage Operations managers to jump on a plane) showed up until the outside sanitation consultant showed up a month later (after the report came out).

 

Hope I've shed some light on the complex and intricate USPH inspection process. Again, these are just my opinions, everyone is free to interpret things their own way.

[machotspur]

Thanks;

 

The Carnival Legend report was from 2006 (not that this changes anything), and is a very poor report. My feeling is that the ship was generally dirty, and sanitation and documentation measures were generally not being followed. The food safety items you mention, if you will notice, are in two locations (pastry galley and the galley salad/appetizer stations), yet are one item, therefore only one deduction for all of them. The hidden food item on the Shadow is also only one item, so only one deduction. The main difference is that all of the items on the Legend were in refrigeration, and while not within the allowable temperature range, they were at least refrigerated, which the food found on the Shadow was not.

 

The notation "these items were discarded during inspection" is a standard USPH comment, and means that the crew discarded the food in the presence of the inspectors. When the inspectors report that "The lead VSP inspector poured concentrated chlorine liquid over all the discarded foods as they were dumped into garbage bags to ensure they would not be used again." shows that the inspectors onsite had received the impression from the ship's management's attitude that there was a possibility that the food would be returned to service.

 

If you look at the 69 scored by the Columbus 2 from Nov 2012, while this score is even lower than the Legend, I would personally prefer to sail on the Columbus 2, as most of the violations were documentation and calibration of equipment. The Legend would be my second choice as there were no real food safety issues, but cleanliness issues (bad enough), and the Shadow would be my last choice due to the severity of the food safety violation.

 

You really need to look at sets of scores for ships and companies to get a truly accurate indication of the company's corporate culture. For instance, the Legend has scored above 94 since that poor score in 2006. This is why the Shadow score comes as a shock to me, when you see all the scores in the high 90's, and then you see an egregious violation such as this inspection. I won't go into Silversea's PR system, but they knew about the score for a month before the report came out (prelim report is given to the Captain before the inspectors leave), and if they felt it was important (I guess they did not understand the gravity of the inspectors remarks regarding the food), they should have gotten out front of it, and had someone from corporate onboard within a couple of days. From their corrective action report, there is no indication that anyone from corporate (I would have expected their corporate Executive Chef, the Hotel Operations manager, and Food & Beverage Operations managers to jump on a plane) showed up until the outside sanitation consultant showed up a month later (after the report came out).

 

Hope I've shed some light on the complex and intricate USPH inspection process. Again, these are just my opinions, everyone is free to interpret things their own way.

 

Thank you very much for your prompt opinions - much appreciated.

 

I respectfully advise that I have extracted some quite different facts from the Carnival report to yourself which lead me to some different conclusions.

 

I am sure that people on this board would not welcome further lengthy exchanges on 'The Case of The Silver Shadow' and it is for this reason I believe an 'agree to disagree' moment is appropriate.

 

Readers of this thread may wish to look at the 'scores' I have posted and the related communication and make of it what they wish.

 

Thank you again for your very considered responses.

 

Kind regards.