"But is it the truth...?"

[UKCruiseJeff]

Not enough to decide?:confused:

 

If he is told that the inspection took place as a result of a tip off and on he random day chosen they were "at it" - you think he would say that there was insufficient evidence that they had done it before as "tipped" and that every first line manager including those people on the bridge manning he cctv didn't notice anything?

 

This in your view would be insufficient for him / her to decide?

 

I mean this in a nice and loving way but this does seem a little bit of a serious denial disease perhaps caused by an excessive and blind love bug ..... :D

[chengkp75]

I tend to agree with Rachel. I use Mr. Walker's site for my daily chuckle. While in this case, in a brief reading I didn't see anything inaccurate, Mr. Walker is known for "bending the truth" and "making the facts fit". I have caught him out on several occasions making misleading statements. I tend to take anything he says with a couple grains of salt.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Fair enough .... but we were just specifically on this and our - or at least most of us are interested in this issue - and as you say it all appears in order!

 

We're all now just waiting for episode 3 of the SS soap ....

[RachelG]

Jeff, I am definitely NOT a Silversea apologist. (Might be accused of that with Regent, but not silversea .). I have been been critical on several issues with silversea, particularly regarding food in the past, though it hasn't been for hygiene reasons. Rather it was the running out of pretty basic items, like diet coke, bacon, fresh berries and produce. And for offering prosecco for champagne. Nothing that would make a person sick.

Now I have to worry about hygiene too. That is really disheartening, especially when you pay a premium fare. But I will have a sharp eye out when we sail in 4 weeks.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Fair enough. :)

 

Jeff

 

ps I have genuinely enjoyed the debate!

[chengkp75]

Fair enough .... but we were just specifically on this and our - or at least most of us are interested in this issue - and as you say it all appears in order!

 

We're all now just waiting for episode 3 of the SS soap ....

 

Jeff;

 

You know from my posts on the other threads what my views on the Shadow, Silversea management, and their corporate culture are. I am merely agreeing with Rachel that Walker is a bit of a joke around CC, and you shouldn't always accept what he writes. As an extreme example, look at the article about "flesh eating disease" and look at the photo that accompanies it; it is of some skinless human head that would be right at home in a zombie movie. He has just posted an article about the Carnival Sunshine's "buzzing of Venice", which has been refuted by the Venice pilot's association and the Italian Coast Guard. His article on the Grandeur fire speculated about arson, and why the fire was not "automatically extinguished" (the only spaces that have fire extinguishing systems are the engine rooms, all other spaces have fire suppression systems. I can go on and on.

[bogey]

Mr. Walker is a an excellent self-promoter. He advocates vigorously on behalf of his clients and he markets his services through his blog. There is nothing wrong with that. However, Rachel's warning that we should view his comments in the context of his anti-cruise line bias is valid.

 

I am not making excuses for the inexcusable inspection results on the Shadow. I am also not attacking the honesty or integrity of Mr. Walker. I am simply pointing out that he is doing what attorneys do -- presenting and interpreting the evidence in the light most favorable to his "side of the case." The point I'm trying to make may best be summarized by an instruction that judges routinely provide jurors before they close to deliberate on a case: "The arguments of counsel are not evidence......"

 

It seems to me that, in reality, we all take the comments he makes on his blog with a grain of salt. After all -- according to his various blog entries -- cruise lines routinely: poison people, provide unsafe and unsanitary living and working conditions, cheat their customers, hide crimes, treat their employees like slaves, cheat on inspections and regulations, etc.

 

If we actually accepted all of Mr. Walker's arguments as fact, we'd never set foot on a cruise ship.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thanks for repeating the comments in the previous post. I promise I understood the point first time.

 

I have absolutely no objection to anyone making adverse justified comments about the man in question in a wider forum on travel and travel lawyers - but in this particular forum on the SS issues my reply to it was purely against the context of many here finding reasons to trash messengers rather than message itself. I think we have agreed that he hasn't said anything that he believes to be incorrect with respect to this issue and in my view and many others nothing that seems biased or incredible.

 

I think the questions he posed about the inconsistencies in SS's position all seemed well reasoned to me, whatever people that know him well think of what he has said on other wider different topics.

 

.

[5waldos]

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.

 

I agree about the website but I think that the CDC report considered this a deliberate attempt to hide things. As far as it being company wide- no, they didn't go that far. So a part of what he said did rathe echo the report.