This could have been "thomas cook is a piece of shit company run by shills", instead no, it's capitalism at fault.

Thomas Cook
The Hotel
Money
the banking system used to transfer these vast sums
the legal and finance teams that for years advised between the companies but ignored the families
the example this shows for how this capitalist system operates

Stop taking every one example as just one example and see the bigger picture.

It does seem weird that Thomas Cook would get a larger payout than the families of the children, but I can't see how a British travel agent is responsible for a boiler in a Greek hotel and I think the more the Greek hotel has to pay the better.

I would say capitalism is about as responsible as carbon monoxide though (and about as pointless to rail against)

"I would say capitalism is about as responsible as carbon monoxide though (and about as pointless to rail against)"

I agree with the former and, perhaps unsurprisingly, disagree entirely with the latter : )

But you're right, it's abhorrent that a travel company was prioritised over the families of the children. Prioritised secret. 2 years ago. Before the family were offered even an apology. Before the family themselves had their case listened to because it was taken to court.

The British travel agent is responsible based on British and EU law that puts a duty of care and responsibility on travel companies that provide packaged holidays to customers. Thomas Cook had representatives at this hotel. This family should not have been put in this situation.

I read this as Thomas Cook receiving a partial compensation for the larger sum of money he has to pay to the family. Am I reading this wrong?

Which costs are partially compensated here?

I am confused by the outrage. A tragic and preventable accident occurred, an investigation was carried out, and compensation has been given to ease some of the hardship of those at minimal fault who have suffered and to punish those at greatest fault.

What outcome would you have preferred? Should the children's guardians be thrown in jail for failing to carry out the basic safety checks that could have saved them? Would you rather Thomas Cook have the book thrown at it, forcing it out of business and making its staff jobless?

"Should the children's guardians be thrown in jail for failing to carry out the basic safety checks that could have saved them? Would you rather Thomas Cook have the book thrown at it, forcing it out of business and making its staff jobless?"

Literally nobody here has been suggesting that.

Which is why I asked the question of what people actually wanted to happen differently. I would like to see a system in which such events are extremely rare (which they are), in which such accidents are thoroughly investigated to learn the lessons of them (which they are), and in which those who suffer are given compensation from those at fault to help them through the crisis (which is what happened). What is the issue?

I for one applaud the mercy granted Thomas Cook. JECE and both believe that punishment for the death of children is barbaric.

@Octavious.

"in which those who suffer are given compensation from those at fault to help them through the crisis (which is what happened)"

Either you've completely misunderstood here, or your views on "suffering" here are incompatible with mine (if you think that Thomas Cook suffering profit loss is more important than a family whose two children were killed).

Thomas Cook, a travel company, have been compensated £3.5 million for loss of profits and legal costs in a separate tribunal that took place 2 years ago.

The family whose 2 children died 9 years ago because of Thomas Cook's (at least partial) negligence have not received any compensation and have not even been given an apology.

I gather the family received roughly a tenth of 3.5m so not nothing, but I still see how that's pretty bad.

I guess it depends on who has what responsibility to begin with though. Is it your own responsibility to do a few safety checks when arriving at your holiday destination?

Also, the very first paragraph tells us that the family has been given an apology.

Still bad, but facts shouldn't be ignored.

@steephie22

The article was updated 5 hours ago...after I posted it here. Please don't insinuate I ignored the facts, when you ignored the fact that the page has been updated.

That said, the family have since said this afternoon that they have not received that apology.

At any rate, it's taken 9 years for the company to acknowledge that they even need to issue an apology. And only after a UK inquest ruled the company was (at least partially) at fault.

@ Jessop

Where exactly have I claimed that one set of suffering is any more important than another? Still, if you want to play the "argue against something the other guy never actually said" game, I'll join in. How dare you suggest that this is more important than the thousands of immigrant deaths in the Med!

@wjessop: I was unaware, sorry. Thanks for pointing this out in a hostile way though, it's much appreciated.

@Steephie You're misreading me if it seems hostile. I'm not meaning it in that way at all, it's just written live communication over the internet.

@Octavious

Again, like other posters have mentioned about your other posts here, you're talking nonsense in that last post. I quoted your own words.

And I just can't agree that the financial suffering of Thomas Cook weighs more importantly than the needless loss of this family's 2 children.

Again, where are you getting this order of importance from? I have made no attempt at any stage to rank them.

@wjessop I love how a company acting in a shitty way means capitalism is bad : D It almost sounds as if there is an alternative. I would love to hear - what alternative do you think there is to capitalism? And I do not mean an answer like "companies would be more sincere", because that would still be capitalism, with just sincere companies. Tell me please, if capitalism is so vile, what would you prefer?

@yassem: We could probably have a whole other separate thread on that topic for everyone to tear themselves apart over : )

Ok, so start one. Because I'm sick of people saying "capitalism is soooo bad" and then that's it. Nothing to follow that argument. No solution. No alternative. I often think people who say that kind of stuff, including you, don't really know what capitalism is.

Ok, well that's your opinion. I don't really have the time to start on that now but I can do later if you want to have a meaningful discussion about capitalism. (even though it's a little rude to suggest I don't know what it is)

That said, I'd only really want to start if it was indeed a meaningful debate and discussion, rather than the way most anti-establishment views on this Diplomacy site end up being brought down to the level of insults and personal attacks, like the disgusting way Leinad was personally attacked yesterday for his views against the death penalty.

Well, please. Just tell me the highlights of what you think capitalism is.
And if you don't have time to talk about economics it's weird to assume you have time to talk about children's death... AND saying capitalism is vile. Maybe you should wait with posting that kind of shit, you know, until you have more time.

Wow. Back down, yassem.

I'm almost sorry that I have offended you so much by insulting your capitalism.