Topic: Couple feeling feverish about P&O Cruises

QUOTE:

It's a damn good job you're not a Customer Relations Manager or a Magistrate Neil, you would quickly become comparable to 'hanging-judge Jeffries' and as immovable as the lady who said, No, No, No, the lady's not for turning.

In what quotation does the line, "The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle dew from Heaven upon the place beneath?'

Do you do mercy Neil?

The word is worth looking-up, and which identifies ideally that which inspires my particular input on this subject, merciful rather than merciless, probably a bit 'sloppy-sounding' to you, but that's how I was brought-up and taught.

Gordon Rhys-Williams

Which is why Gordon, with all due respect, Carol Marlow is MD of an international company and you aren't. This is business. P&O are perfectly within their rights to act as they did whether it is condemned by yourself and others or not. You may not like their business practice but it is what it is. If precidents are set which go against their usual codes, it may open the floodgates to all sorts of future problems.

Argolida is in Greece - North West Peloponnese.

QUOTE:

I still can't figure what you're saying, Gordon - are you actually of the opinion that the cruise line should have allowed someone who was not adequately immunised on to their ship? Or are you simply arguing for a refund? THAT is my real question.

Bosscat, where exactly is Argola?

The answer, to that which you seek, is contained in a comprehensive reply to another member who asked the same question and requested, politely, that I should start my message with, "This is what the cruise line should do."

And so I did.

My reply did, in no way, suggest that the cruise Company should change their policy in respect of the requirement for vaccinations in order for passengers to visit certain identifiable areas of risk, and I feel sure that we all agree on that.

My suggestion is, that P&O should adopt a more flexible and conciliatory attitude to mollify the effects of this unfortunate (for the paying passengers) incident, by dealing with it in a manner which would not set a precedent that may encourage other 'offenders' to follow suit.

It is within the gift of P&O to extend a conditional 'gesture of goodwill' which, by virtue of the wording, would not allow use other than that for which it was individually intended, could not lead to other additional claims and would not breach any item of policy by creating a precedent.

The circumstances, which ended in a last minute refusal to allow boarding, because the husband, for whatever reason, failed to obtain his yellow fever vaccination certificaate, may be interpreted as gross negligence but not, in my opinion, give rise to total condemnation and unsympathetic dismissal.

We are, after all, a civilised society that descended from the trees and gave up clubbing each other with stone weapons thousands of years ago.
Have the stone axes been replaced by the uuncompromising assaults of the written word?

You have your opinion and I have mine and, like Mrs T, i'm not for turning.

Gordon Rhys-Williams

Oh dear, it would appear I am lacking in sympathy and apparently also in mercy too.

P and O have not failed in their part of the contract. They even went so far as telling their passengers what the requirements were regarding vaccinations. If P and O had been at fault in any way then I would have expected them to have made some conciliatory gesture. However they have not been at fault at all.

P and O are running a business not a charity. I see no obligation whether legal or moral as to why they should make any gesture towards this couple at all.

As well as being mean and unsympathetic I am also pedantic - rain drops from heaven, not dew ;)

QUOTE:

Which is why Gordon, with all due respect, Carol Marlow is MD of an international company and you aren't. This is business. P&O are perfectly within their rights to act as they did whether it is condemned by yourself and others or not. You may not like their business practice but it is what it is. If precidents are set which go against their usual codes, it may open the floodgates to all sorts of future problems.

Moreton

The same answer that I gave to Bosscat, Argola today, also applies to you, it is relevent and not subject to change.

How can I answer a leading member of the Carol Marlow fan-club?

What your reason is for creating an analogy between myself and Ms Marlow mystifies me - that is unless you are assuming that the MD of P&O descended from a more priviledged background than I, or that she is imbued with a higher standard of education than I, or that her qualifications for the job are higher than mine, - all perfectly and possibly correct.

One of the qualification for such a senior position is, displaying toughness or hardness of heart and uncompromising - rather a conflicting personality requirement for a female of the human species.

If a business only, hard-hearted, approach to the job was required of me, then Yes, I'm unsuited for the job and I would, and have, sought other appointments that allowed me to exercise moderate style management without loss of authority.

But then, come on, your question and comparison between me and Ms Marlow was a gloved fist shielding a fist of iron, or wolf in sheep's clothing and really concealing personal points scoring at my expense, courtesy (or discourtesy) of your sarcastic 'wit.'

Sarcasm, being the lowest form of wit, forgive the repitition but if the cap fits, wear it.

QUOTE:

Oh dear, it would appear I am lacking in sympathy and apparently also in mercy too.

P and O have not failed in their part of the contract. They even went so far as telling their passengers what the requirements were regarding vaccinations. If P and O had been at fault in any way then I would have expected them to have made some conciliatory gesture. However they have not been at fault at all.

P and O are running a business not a charity. I see no obligation whether legal or moral as to why they should make any gesture towards this couple at all.

As well as being mean and unsympathetic I am also pedantic - rain drops from heaven, not dew ;)

Well you said it, not me, and to quote a similar answer given to another unsympathetic contributor (nothing personal, its just business syndrome) 'if the cap fits, wear it.'

One thing in your favour, your acquaintance with my 'misquoted' (dew for rain) reference, but hopefully you understand where MY sympathies lie.

Yes if you prefer to adopt your uncompromising attitude of 'rules are rules,' P&O have no obligation to take any further action over the incident, they, like yourself, can just display the customary two fingers of scorn, with a voiced 'hard luck,' and continue with 'normal' business as usual practices;
Whilst others of us (but not many) display a more charitable attitude which, although commendable, is no recompense for the small fortune which it has cost them just to learn a lesson of non-compliance.

I trust that you, and others of similar conclusions, are content with the collective stances taken, in total condemnation of the errant couple, in preferenc of your unwavering support of Company policy versus-humanity or sympathetic consideration.

Gordon, the hole you are digging is getting deeper and deeper. I admire your etymology but not necessarily what you say and you should take the advice of the old adage about excavation. ....Neil

Do you think their insurance company accepted a claim for loss of the cruise, or do you think they took the view that it was their own responsibility? I suspect the latter - and so see no reason why the cruise company should be any different.

QUOTE:

Do you think their insurance company accepted a claim for loss of the cruise, or do you think they took the view that it was their own responsibility? I suspect the latter - and so see no reason why the cruise company should be any different.

I feel the same, as part of most Insurance T & C's you are expected to exercise due dilligance in complying with the terms and conditions of your holiday company (namely getting the stated innoculations even if they were buried on page 3? of a 35 page document).

Clearly one half of this couple had not therefore I would presume their holiday insurance is void and also their contract with P&O.

Sorry if I seem hard hearted but chancers, scammers and ambulance chasers cost us all a lot of money every year. I would file this couple under chancers.

QUOTE:

With a policy like that I will overlook all the others and volunteer to be your campaign manager. ;)


Vote for Gordon Rhys


"Imagine" Crew members
How much can we make on those old vegetables down in the hold? :D

How much can we charge ? and does the charge attract VAT ?

Would some people in the stocks be worth more to bombard than others?