Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Tunisia Victims Not Properly Warned?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Tunisia Victims Not Properly Warned?

Old 1st Mar 2016, 16:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Tunisia Victims Not Properly Warned?

Before I go any further may I say that the Tunisia attack was an absolute tragedy. I sympathise with the victims and their families regardless of where they come from and I also sympathise with the many many victims who now continue to suffer as a legacy of the attack.

In the UK, the families of the victims are suing their tour operator for compensation based on the fact that they were not properly warned.

This is despite the Bardo museum attack on tourists in Tunisia just a few months previously in March 2015.

In April 2015, UK press widely reported the mass beheading of Christians on a beach in Libya on the very same coastline that Tunisian beaches are on.

FCO guidance at the time advised against all travel and all but essential travel to certain parts of the same country, just a few hour drive from the resorts.

Now today the press are reporting that victims are claiming they are not suitably warned. Is it just a sign if the times where nobody takes responsibility for anything and demanding compensation.

So, how should we move forward?

Last edited by HeartyMeatballs; 1st Mar 2016 at 17:02.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 16:57
  #2 (permalink)  
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 685
Who are the families suing ? (link ?)

Tourists need to do their own risk assessment before travelling.If something bad happens,beyond the control of service providers such as airlines and hotels,then that's life.And your home government isn't responsible when your holiday is ruined due to unforeseen circumstances either.They can't ban people from travelling.
TWT is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 17:01
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
They're planning on suing the tour operator Thomson/TUI.

Tunisia Attack: Families 'Likely' To Sue Thomson
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 17:46
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 536
Laughable. Just laughable.

(They'll probably still win something with a no win / no fee legal scam, mind.)
er340790 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 18:11
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,428
FCO guidance at the time advised against all travel and all but essential travel to certain parts of the same country, just a few hour drive from the resorts.
We've just been on holiday to places the FCO advise against, and we had a dialog with the tour operator first about the risks (they'd have moved that part of the holiday if they'd thought it really dodgy), but of course in the end it was our decision. We also checked the German equivalent of the FCO which said that where we were going was perfectly safe - surprise surprise we met lots of Germans and no Brits.

And if you believe all the places that Lonely Planet say are dangerous you'd never leave your bed of cotton wool.

So it is, of course, nowhere near that simple.

(We did decide not to go somewhere else in North Africa.)
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 18:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 61
Posts: 1,945
Irrespective of the info on the FCO website you have to make your own assessments as to whether its 'safe' to travel.

We have just decided not to join a pre organised 24 night tour of Morocco in our motorhome. The tour company have been running these trips for years and insist that it is totally safe but we think that the potential risks are not worth taking the chance on.

We have lost our 500 deposit but are content that we made a sensible and pragmatic decision, add to that where is the fun in spending the best part of 4 weeks wondering if today is our "Tunisia' day.....
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 18:51
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
My thinking is you need to take responsibility. That's something in the UK that we seek to have forgotten how to do. It's about about 'where there's blame there's a claim'.

I cruise, and if the ship is anywhere dodgy I stay onboard and get better aquatinted with cocktail menu. I did get off in Morocco but that was a good couple of years back. Now I wouldn't. I don't need the cruise line to warn me (well, they wouldn't would they otherwise they wouldn't sell any over priced shore excursions!) or the FCO.

Nor do I need some traffic light system or any other scale to warn me. I watch the news daily and I feel fairly clued up as to what's what. But if I did and thinks went wrong, I'm not sure I'd be blaming the cruise line. I think this is a similar situation.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 20:05
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 301
Not wanting to be caught out in a similar trap, the CYA US govt has a warning against any travel anywhere by anyone.

Nobody gonna sue THEM, lol.
finfly1 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 20:21
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,208
Is Paris Unsafe?

There were about 100 more killed during the Paris attack (including 89 at the Bataclan) than at Sousse.

What we really need is to induce potential perps to join up with IS at a location where Vlad or Barack can take care of them.

Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 2nd Mar 2016 at 02:44. Reason: Correction for misread details
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 20:46
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 67
Posts: 896
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying View Post
There were about 100 more killed at the Bataclan than at Sousse.

What we really need is to induce potential perps to join up with IS at a location where Vlad or Barack can take care of them.
The death toll at Sousse was 38. At the Bataclan it was 89.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2016, 21:09
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by HeartyMeatballs View Post

But if I did and thinks went wrong, I'm not sure I'd be blaming the cruise line. I think this is a similar situation.
Ah but would your surviving relatives take the same stance if during their initial grief they were approached by a certain type of lawyer?
Nervous SLF is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 02:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,208
Detailed toll of Paris Attack

According to Wikipedia
The attackers killed 130 people,[2] including 89 at the Bataclan theatre,[9] where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. Another 368 people were injured,[4] 8099 seriously
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 08:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 317
Perspective?

According to ROSPA 6,000 people died from accidents in their homes in the UK last year.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 11:02
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 49
Posts: 783
Visiting any Muslim country is a completely unsafe proposition if you have a modicum of sense.
flash8 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 11:09
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
In all fairness to the TAs, they're just providing a service people are prepared to pay for.

You wouldn't get me anywhere near Sharm. Even if the made their airport like Fort Knox, they're well over due an attack and it'll be sea launched. Mumbai style. People lull themselves into a false sense of security based on the fact that the SSH area is somewhat cut off from Sinai. It isn't.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 11:39
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,117
Originally Posted by HeartyMeatballs View Post
In all fairness to the TAs, they're just providing a service people are prepared to pay for.

You wouldn't get me anywhere near Sharm. Even if the made their airport like Fort Knox, they're well over due an attack and it'll be sea launched. Mumbai style. People lull themselves into a false sense of security based on the fact that the SSH area is somewhat cut off from Sinai. It isn't.
Just because you don't see the security it does not mean it is not there. Maybe the Egyptian navy is patrolling the coast in a discrete way. Although I guess Eilat is a much better choice.
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 11:58
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
I don't agree. With the confidence of tourists at rock bottom I'd expect lots of high visibility patrolling. I've not met anyone mad enough to go to SSH since MetroJet, but it would be interesting to see what has changed since.

It's great that you have enough confidence in the Egyptians to think the are at sea protecting SSH, but I don't think so some how.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 12:33
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,595
Did anyone warn them? If the Co made a profit out of what they were doing, but made no warning anywhere in its paperwork, then the solicitors/lawyers will want some money.
Daft, but that is how solicitors become rich.

I've been to Egypt 3 times in the last few years. I was there when that plane went down. I went to Cairo in between the various uprisings in Cairo.
It is a great country with mainly great people, but unsure about how to deal with its nutters.

I just research carefully when and where I can go.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 13:50
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 61
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer View Post
I just research carefully when and where I can go.
We did just that but it was our inability to predict where the 'nutters' might strike next that caused us to reconsider and cancel.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2016, 14:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
IMHO, absent any special knowledge on the part of Thomson (which of course they didn't have) then this claim has no hope of succeeding.

The difficulty for Thomson is that it's hassle to deal with, costs them management time and money on lawyers, so the temptation is to settle early in order to make it go away. Standing by their principles is costly and will keep the incident in the public eye.
Octopussy2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.