Thomas Cook abomination

Sliver · 18 May 2015 at 12:52

Muz333 said:
All this and the McCanns are at best guilty of serious neglect, at worst murderers.

I'll go along with the neglect part but not the murderers part. That's just asinine.

As for Thomas Cook. The way Manny Fontenla-Novoa acted in court was a disgrace. Just sitting there refusing to give answers to questions or an apology to the family. Made me sick reading about it.

Jokester · 18 May 2015 at 12:56

Sliver said:
I'll go along with the neglect part but not the murderers part. That's just asinine.

As for Thomas Cook. The way Manny Fontenla-Novoa acted in court was a disgrace. Just sitting there refusing to give answers to questions or an apology to the family. Made me sick reading about it.

To be honest the judge did tell him that any statements he made could be used in a criminal prosecution into Thomas Cook. Not particularly helpful if you're trying to establish the truth at a FAI.

Sliver · 18 May 2015 at 12:58

Jokester said:
To be honest the judge did tell him that any statements he made could be used in a criminal prosecution into Thomas Cook. Not particularly helpful if you're trying to establish the truth at a FAI.

I know. He was covering his ass. He should have shown empathy and just answered honestly. I hope TC lose a lot of business as a result of this. I certainly won't travel with them.

DampCat · 18 May 2015 at 12:58

Sometimes i wonder if OCUKers are the same people writing headlines for tabloids. Since i started posting here ive noticed here more than anywhere else I see vivid descriptors; especially "scum" which I literally never encounter in day to day life but on OCUK. Abomination is new at least, but still feels a bit sensationalist.

I have literally nothing to contribute to the story, though, sorry.

ubersonic · 18 May 2015 at 13:04

[TW]Fox;28053832 said:
Doubtless they do visit the hotels they offer but when you offer thousands of hotels you can hardly visit every single one every single month just to make sure you are not doing business with dishonest liars. The reps are hardly qualified to perform independent inspections of every aspect of a hotel's electrical and heating system so it'd need to be entirely separate staff.

You don't really need any special training to walk around a hotel and say to yourself "okay, according to the paperwork the hotel sent us they claim they have no gas appliances, well there's one, and it looks 600 years old".

Jokester · 18 May 2015 at 13:06

Sliver said:
I know. He was covering his ass. He should have shown empathy and just answered honestly. I hope TC lose a lot of business as a result of this. I certainly won't travel with them.

The whole point of FAI is to try and learn from past mistakes to ensure they don't happen again without recrimination. The judge has jeopardised this by putting him in the position that he could no longer feel he could be open and honest.

memyselfandi · 18 May 2015 at 13:08

Except even if they are visiting a hotel to inspect it they are hardly likely to visit every single room, of which there may be hundreds. More likely a random selection would be chosen.

[TW]Fox · 18 May 2015 at 13:15

ubersonic said:
You don't really need any special training to walk around a hotel and say to yourself "okay, according to the paperwork the hotel sent us they claim they have no gas appliances, well there's one, and it looks 600 years old".

Neither can you send people to inspect for the presence of gas appliances without an appropriate qualification no matter how much common sense might be involved.

[TW]Fox · 18 May 2015 at 13:16

Sliver said:
As for Thomas Cook. The way Manny Fontenla-Novoa acted in court was a disgrace. Just sitting there refusing to give answers to questions or an apology to the family. Made me sick reading about it.

So you'd just randomly chat away in a situation where you've been specifically informed anything you say may be used in a criminal trial? Even if you believe you've done nothing wrong speaking openly in those circumstances without a lawyer present is ill advised surely?

Hotwired · 18 May 2015 at 13:28

Stop looking at the facts in a rational way.

wesley · 18 May 2015 at 13:29

what about booking.com? are they responsible for every single hotels in the world?

no.

ubersonic · 18 May 2015 at 13:30

[TW]Fox;28053977 said:
Neither can you send people to inspect for the presence of gas appliances without an appropriate qualification no matter how much common sense might be involved.

Okay, ignoring the fact that you can actually send anybody to inspect for the presence of gas appliances as it is unqualified work and common sense based, you seem to be reading different things to what's being written.

I am not saying that they should send a Gas Safe certified engineer to every hotel they use to service every appliance. Just that they when they start doing business with a new hotel they should send a person there to look at the place before they start sending customers there.

If they had actually bothered to send anyone to look at the place they would have seen gas appliances in a hotel that claimed to have none which would have caused TC to demand service reports from the hotel (as they would have if the hotel had not lied to them).

Hotwired · 18 May 2015 at 14:05

If if if if if if....

And what if the hotel flat out deceived TC so they didn't have to do extra works replacing a gas appliance.

You don't know the facts and are speculating an improved scenario that has a happy ending using hindsight.

wordy · 18 May 2015 at 14:08

[TW]Fox;28053990 said:
So you'd just randomly chat away in a situation where you've been specifically informed anything you say may be used in a criminal trial? Even if you believe you've done nothing wrong speaking openly in those circumstances without a lawyer present is ill advised surely?

He should've acted with common decency and shown a bit of empathy towards the family. They are the most important thing here not TC & their reputation/money.

StriderX · 18 May 2015 at 14:10

wordy said:
He should've acted with common decency and shown a bit of empathy towards the family. They are the most important thing here not TC & their reputation/money.

TC has to think of 22000 people (not including their families) as well...

Xordium · 18 May 2015 at 14:12

[TW]Fox;28053990 said:
So you'd just randomly chat away in a situation where you've been specifically informed anything you say may be used in a criminal trial? Even if you believe you've done nothing wrong speaking openly in those circumstances without a lawyer present is ill advised surely?

But honest and the correct thing to do. There was always something he could have said and a person with his education could quite easily have said "well considering what you've just said your honour to give this procedure the inspection it warrants and to prevent such tragic events reoccuring then would like to take time to get legal advice". Except he didn't he sat there like a statue and that is what people have the problem with isn't not that TC got a payout for their loss but the shameful way they have handled themselves.

wordy · 18 May 2015 at 14:12

StriderX said:
TC has to think of 22000 people (not including their families) as well...

None of which died while on a TC holiday.

ubersonic · 18 May 2015 at 14:14

Hotwired said:
And what if the hotel flat out deceived TC so they didn't have to do extra works replacing a gas appliance.

That's basically what happened, read the articles on it.

Sudden · 18 May 2015 at 14:19

wordy said:
He should've acted with common decency and shown a bit of empathy towards the family. They are the most important thing here not TC & their reputation/money.

And no lawyer would ever advise their client to go ahead and say stuff which could be tantamount to admitting liability without committing malpractice and being in breach of his own code of conduct.

Hotwired · 18 May 2015 at 14:29

ubersonic said:
That's basically what happened, read the articles on it.

Kinda the point.

Hence why the hotel is getting legally screwed and TC isn't.

That's not a story though.

The story is dragging out how TC sued the hotel over the fallout they got from it and then pretending the money from that is relevant to the wrongful death compensation the family got.

And at the same time crucifying the CEO of TC for not being emotional or talking to the family but playing down that he could himself be in court and any suggestion of accepting blame be used against him and TC.

In that scenario what could you possibly say as the CEO to the family that would not go horribly wrong and be plastered over every filthy rag leeching off the story.