Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
but what are your thoughts on the financial aspects of it - do you think that Thomas Cook might have a moral obligation to the parents in respect of the amount of compensation paid to them, or do you think that as the company was cleared of any blame it has every right to regard the £3.5 million compensation it received as a purely business matter?
There are arguments both ways, but I wonder if its reputation might suffer more from its apparent ability to separate the two amounts in its corporate conscious than the damage caused in the first place by the media attention over the tragedy.
"I just think the family want Thomas Cook to except resposibility for it happening in the first place."
Have you read the details of the story?
**"Three people, including the manager of the Louis Corcyra Beach Hotel and two members of staff, were found guilty of manslaughter by negligence and sentenced to seven years. Eight other people were cleared, including two Thomas Cook travel reps. The trial cleared the firm of any responsibility."**
On Wednesday, an inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in the case, and concluded that Thomas Cook "breached its duty of care".
An excerpt from the link.
Whoever heard these days of a company realising a moral responsibility, far less discharging it?
*"The children's parents were responding to a Mail on Sunday report that suggested Thomas Cook received £3.5m in compensation for loss of profits and other expenses. The grieving family said they received around one tenth of that sum in compensation for the deaths."*
As with many events nowadays, financial settlements always seem to cause despair, but it is possible to calculate business losses quite accurately, I suppose, whereas how can one ever judge compensation for the loss of children? There can be no comparison.
In an adult case the loss can be quantified by how much the deceased's family might have lost by virtue of loss of income - but for children it's a much harder case.
Presumably if Thomas Cook had issued an apology, earlier, it might have had legal ramifications on settlements, perhaps. Maybe their insurers wouldn't allow it.
Who paid the compensation?
This sort of thing should never occur in the first place but we do not live in a perfect world and this kind of thing will no doubt happen again. It is right that those responsible are duly punished but the reason these things take so long is the "who else can we blame" aproach used by lawyers.
Of course there is no real concern for the bereaved parents just the argument about who picks up the bill. Society we now live in.
The compensation was against the foreign hotel's owners.
"...there is no real concern for the bereaved parents" - they had already received about £350 000 (one tenth of the £3.5m, they have said), albeit they had to struggle with the Greek legal system.
"...there is no real concern for the bereaved parents"
I think there's a great deal of concern and sympathy for them, but that's not what this discussion is about. It's about money - the parents have been paid around £350,000 compensation - although there's no suggestion that a sum of money can compensate them for losing two children. The Greek court ruled that Thomas Cook was in no way to blame for what happened.
I was interested to know how you felt about Thomas Cook - do you think the company has a moral obligation to make some kind of gesture in acknowledgement of the fact that these children died whilst on a Thomas Cook holiday. Forget the legalities for a minute and concentrate on the moralities.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.