Thomas Cook abomination

[TW]Fox · 18 May 2015 at 17:43

jamief said:
It might allow them time to grieve without having to worry about paying bills? It might allow them an appropriate amount of time off work to try and rebuild their lives? Etc etc.

That might have applied at the time but it was almost 10 years ago?

Janesy B · 18 May 2015 at 17:44

Money is known to bring back dead children, heal all wounds and cure all ailments.

dowie · 18 May 2015 at 17:45

Hikari Kisugi said:
They did something wrong, they placed a family who paid them money for a holiday, in a room which ultimately killed their children.
Are they wholly responsible? Certainly not.
Should they apologise for their part in what happened? Yes.
Should their CEO hide behind a wall of silence? No.
Should they refer to it as an accident? No!

CEO certainly demonstrated he was missing a backbone and had no concept of moral courage when he just decided to essentially 'plead the 5th' at that hearing.

Surfer · 18 May 2015 at 17:46

Surfer said:
As i understand it TC won their case against the hotel and received an amount around 3.5 million right? Is that on top of that their legal costs as well?

What was the 3.5 million for? The damage to their reputation?

hrmm ok

The Mail On Sunday has revealed legal documents show Thomas Cook went to the high court to apply for compensation from the owner of the bungalow, Louis Hotels, where it had sent its guests to stay.
It applied for the costs of media advisers to help limit the damage to its reputation, refunds and compensation it paid to guests and loss of profits

Cosimo · 18 May 2015 at 17:49

Jokester said:
The parents aren't worrying about bills, they've already received £700k.

OP said it was £350k compensation, so which is it?

Jokester · 18 May 2015 at 17:50

Cosimo said:
OP said it was £350k compensation, so which is it?

Per parent. The parents are separated, it was the father and his gf that were in the hotel.

Sliver · 18 May 2015 at 18:43

[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?

Don't be stupid. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm advocating giving honest answers to honest questions and not denying this in order to avoid recriminations which in this case are warranted.

[TW]Fox · 18 May 2015 at 19:11

Sliver said:
Don't be stupid. That's not what I'm saying at all.

It might not be but that is the situation - he was informed by the judge that anything he said could be used in a criminal trial.

I'm advocating giving honest answers to honest questions and not denying this in order to avoid recriminations which in this case are warranted.

If you could share with us the extra evidence you've obviously got that demonstrates that recriminations are warranted, that'd be great. How can we possibly know that recriminations are 'warranted'?!

Jokester · 18 May 2015 at 19:14

Sliver said:
Don't be stupid. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm advocating giving honest answers to honest questions and not denying this in order to avoid recriminations which in this case are warranted.

It's highly unlikely that the HSE or even the police are going to prosecute given the length of time and the fact a Greek court has already found the hotel to be at blame. All the judge/coroner has done has put the wind up somebody and as a result probably impacted the quality of his findings with a knock on effect of lessons not being learned to prevent future tragedy.

Sliver · 18 May 2015 at 19:15

[TW]Fox;28055562 said:
If you could share with us the extra evidence you've obviously got that demonstrates that recriminations are warranted, that'd be great. How can we possibly know that recriminations are 'warranted'?!

Tour operator breached duty of care when two young children died through carbon monoxide poisoning on holiday, an inquest jury has concluded

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/thomas-cook-shame-over-deaths-children-in-corfu

I think that shows strongly that recriminations are warranted.

[TW]Fox · 18 May 2015 at 19:27

Sliver said:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/thomas-cook-shame-over-deaths-children-in-corfu

I think that shows strongly that recriminations are warranted.

The CPS didn't think so, though - wonder what they knew that we don't?

The entire issue is a horrible tragedy but I don't understand this demonisation of Thomas Cook as if they were some sort of nasty, scheming company who killed two children in the pursuit of profit before all else. This doesn't seem to have been what happened at all - they were lied to and deceived. Could they have done more? Perhaps, the jury believes so, but there is an enormous difference between having been able, with the benefit of hindsight, to do things differently and being responsible for the tragedy.

Sliver · 18 May 2015 at 19:37

[TW]Fox;28055636 said:
The entire issue is a horrible tragedy but I don't understand this demonisation of Thomas Cook as if they were some sort of nasty, scheming company who killed two children in the pursuit of profit before all else. This doesn't seem to have been what happened at all - they were lied to and deceived. Could they have done more? Perhaps, the jury believes so, but there is an enormous difference between having been able, with the benefit of hindsight, to do things differently and being responsible for the tragedy.

Well I'm not on a mission to tear down TC. However, people who book with them trust that the organisations they deal with are up to to a certain standard. This starts from boarding your plane at the start of your holiday, accommodation whilst there in this case, and leaving your plane at home in the UK. You wouldn't want to board a plane that was never serviced would you ? So why sleep in accommodation with an un-serviced boiler ? Thomas Cook are at least partly responsible for failing this family who had trust in them that their holiday would be safe. Hence TC are justifiably responsible in some part for failing the family in the worst way possible, the deaths of their children.

SexyGreyFox · 18 May 2015 at 20:26

Sliver said:
Thomas Cook are at least partly responsible for failing this family who had trust in them that their holiday would be safe.

And the dozens of Tour Operators from all over the world that also put people into that hotel.
Anybody would think that TC owned that room going by the posts on here.

ubersonic · 19 May 2015 at 09:25

Dimple said:
And the dozens of Tour Operators from all over the world that also put people into that hotel.
Anybody would think that TC owned that room going by the posts on here.

I understand the argument, but none of their customers died did they, also some other operators may actually have sent somebody to look at the hotel before sending customers there, we don't know. Have any of the articles said anything about other operators refusing to use the hotel after seeing it?

*EDIT*

For what it's worth TC have updated their H&S procedures to avoid making this mistake again, so I guess some good has come out of it all at least.