Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
mikedoes

"But is it the truth...?"

Recommended Posts

sigh Thanks for posting this link. Pretty much what many of us have said here, but with further details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the link and a "good morning from the UK"!

 

I think it is an excellent summary and pulling together of what many of us has been saying here. It is truly dreadful. It arrives at the same unavoidable conclusions and that is that the practices are/were widesperead both in time and across ships. Their continued maintenance of the postion that this was (a) a one of isolated injcident and (b) was caused by a handful of low level kitchen crew entirely on their own initiative is just extraordinary. The summary has highlighted the same holes and perplexing inconstencies in the SS account of the issues. It highlights the unavoidable conclusionj that SS hold the low level staff responsible and therefore presumably it is those same low level staff that have been fired.

 

One has to assume therefore that the current corporate postion remains their position of choice for now and the foreseeable future. The longer you decide to continue with the deception the more impossible it becomes to admit to it.

 

Silverseas customers are faced with a very simply strategic choice. Whether they trust Silversea or not for the future. Is Silversea the sort of business that you wish to do business with. It is a binary choice. There isn't wriggle room for groundless hopes that an organisation that cannot admit candidly to it's faults will be putting right the faults it says it doesn't have.

 

Many customers are then faced with a tactical choice of whether to cancel or proceed in their own individual plans and sitations. No one can advise any other individual what they should do, but it is hard to visualise how Silversea will be the line of choice in the future for many.

Edited by UKCruiseJeff
ipaditis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a work of perspective. This is the posting of an attorney who makes a living suing cruise lines, both on behalf of passengers and crew. He has a vested interest.

I am not saying that this is true or false. Probably somewhere in the middle, which is where most all lawsuits end up. But as the wife of an attorney who litigates all the time, I would take the accusations with a grain of salt and pay more attention to the official report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a work of perspective. This is the posting of an attorney who makes a living suing cruise lines, both on behalf of passengers and crew. He has a vested interest.

I am not saying that this is true or false. Probably somewhere in the middle, which is where most all lawsuits end up. But as the wife of an attorney who litigates all the time, I would take the accusations with a grain of salt and pay more attention to the official report.

 

Hi,

 

but if you are casting doubt on his integrity because he is a lawyer specialising in this industry and stating that the the truth isn't what he has stated and is instead somewhere in the middle of Silversea's position and his - then you are stating that half of what he has said is not true?

 

I personally find that a little unlikely.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

but if you are casting doubt on his integrity because he is a lawyer specialising in this industry and stating that the the truth isn't what he has stated and is instead somewhere in the middle of Silversea's position and his - then you are stating that half of what he has said is not true?

 

I personally find that a little unlikely.:)

 

I totally agree with this attorney. He has not just brought light to Silversea, but many cruise lines. additionally CNN and all the other major news media did not make it up. The facks are the facts. It is sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has a vested interest in making the 'facts' look very bad. That is how lawyers (and remember, I am married to one so I know the drill) work. I am not saying he is lying. In fact, I am quite sure that he is very careful not to lie. I would place much more weight on the CDC report, which hopefully doesn't have an interest other than the safety of the public and definitely doesn't have any financial interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has a vested interest in making the 'facts' look very bad. That is how lawyers (and remember, I am married to one so I know the drill) work. I am not saying he is lying. In fact, I am quite sure that he is very careful not to lie. I would place much more weight on the CDC report, which hopefully doesn't have an interest other than the safety of the public and definitely doesn't have any financial interest.

 

Well, I think with respect we all place greater weight on the CDC report. The attorney is providing questions rather than answers and posting details of people who have made contact with him through his position.

 

I think the point you make about his integrity needs to be backed up a bit with specifics.

 

I am sorry that close proximity to your husband's practices has caused you to doubt this attorney, but can you please pick a single statement that this attorney has made that you know to be untrue or which you strongly believe to be untrue please.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not doubting his integrity, but he has a clear financial interest as he makes his money, as far as I can tell, from suing cruise lines. His job is to present his client in the best possible manner, win a settlement, and hopefully get other potential clients. The facts are what is in the CDC report.

(BTW, my husband is an extremely honest lawyer. It has cost him some money over the years.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steady on Girl ... I think you meant "facts" .....:D

 

You know these iPads are always auto correcting....glad you knew what I meant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has a vested interest in making the 'facts' look very bad. That is how lawyers (and remember, I am married to one so I know the drill) work. I am not saying he is lying. In fact, I am quite sure that he is very careful not to lie. I would place much more weight on the CDC report, which hopefully doesn't have an interest other than the safety of the public and definitely doesn't have any financial interest.

 

The facts are bad. I don't think he had anything to do with the CDC report. Frankly he seems like a very nice man. Most attorneys have an area of speciality, and his just happens to be cruise lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not doubting his integrity, but he has a clear financial interest as he makes his money, as far as I can tell, from suing cruise lines. His job is to present his client in the best possible manner, win a settlement, and hopefully get other potential clients. The facts are what is in the CDC report.

(BTW, my husband is an extremely honest lawyer. It has cost him some money over the years.)

 

Rachel,

 

I am not an attorney.

 

Have I misunderstood, but as the wife of an attorney, you have taken the trouble to defame a named and identifiable attorney by stating clearly that some of the statements he is making he knows to be untrue. But you will not say which ones, just "some of them must be".

 

Would you be content to read of the comments you have made if you had read them about your husband by name without any foundation whatsoever?

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, where are the Silversea attorneys ? It should would be nice if they had our best interests at heart. The whole issue is not of his making. I think we will all agree that Silversea did this to themselves. Those of you who write about how you have seen a decrease in quality over the years must be shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does make allegations that this was a deliberate and concerted, almost practiced, attempt at hiding things from the inspectors, and was a conspiracy that was approved by the company. See the last 3 paragraphs of his article. I don't know if that is true or not, but those are some very strong allegations which have not been proven. He has chosen to publish this on his website. I am not defaming him. He is making an allegation which is as of yet unproven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He does make allegations that this was a deliberate and concerted, almost practiced, attempt at hiding things from the inspectors, and was a conspiracy that was approved by the company. See the last 3 paragraphs of his article. I don't know if that is true or not, but those are some very strong allegations which have not been proven. He has chosen to publish this on his website. I am not defaming him. He is making an allegation which is as of yet unproven.

 

 

You posted earlier with the sole purpose of purposefully causing doubt about the integrity of the attorney. What has he said that he knows or believes to be untrue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not state that he said something he knows is untrue. I have reread what I wrote. I did not say that.

Any website sponsored or written by an attorney has a motive--to drum up business. It is not just to educate the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not state that he said something he knows is untrue. I have reread what I wrote. I did not say that.

Any website sponsored or written by an attorney has a motive--to drum up business. It is not just to educate the public.

 

Of course it is on his website. Why is that a problem. He did not take passenger's money and give them much less than what they deserved. He is trying to stand up for consumers and I have read much of his site, and the facts are the facts.

 

Again, Silversea did this to themselves......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness toRachel, I think her only point is that we should all always be careful about believing all we read - which is a fair opinion.

 

On the specifics of this one I think we have greater confidence than she has in the contents of his blog. I think the fact that he is an attorney is a red herring. I mean absolutely no disrespect at all but I do think she would probably feel the same whoever had made the comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not state that he said something he knows is untrue. I have reread what I wrote. I did not say that.

Any website sponsored or written by an attorney has a motive--to drum up business. It is not just to educate the public.

 

Out of interest Rachel, you have basically picked two points to justify causing doubt about the attorney and his site.

 

So it reasonable to ask Do you believe that if a judge was asked to decide on the information currently public, whether Silversea kitchen staff had been ordered to move this stuff to their cabins or instead did so without their knowledge and own their own initiative and that he would conclude that the management knew nothing about it? Do you also believe that if asked to decide whether on the balance of probabilities that it had never happened before and this was a "one off" ie Silversea's stated position all other versions being untrue?

Edited by UKCruiseJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been an interesting thread but it seems that the questions being asked of Rachel would be better asked of her husband.

 

While I personally believe that management on the Shadow knew that food was hidden in cabins at the time it happened, they did not necessarily make the call themselves. However, I also believe this has been done before and on other ships. This is based simply on rumors that I have heard in the past regarding Silversea.

 

Now, if you need a medical doctor, Rachel would be the one to ask:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right. And, the inspection happened as a result of a tip off that this was regular and routine and the date the inspectors picked to inspect - "bingo". Coincidence?

 

I just don't get why anyone harbours doubts about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question. Not enough information to decide. A judge and possibly jury would have to hear all facts from both sides and make a judgement. We only have part of the information. What we do know is the the ship failed the inspection and why. But we also know they had previously passed many times and that other silversea ships have passed recently.

 

I am not apologizing for silversea here at all. Keeping perishable food improperly heated or chilled is a real health issue, and there is no excuse for that. What we don't know is whether this is part of a corporate wide culture that is widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SAIL-AWAY GIVEAWAY - Enter for a chance to win a 7-day Caribbean cruise for two!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...