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."**
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.
"...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.
No amount of money can compensate for the loss of 2 children. I cannot really see what Cook can achieve by paying more compensation other than good publicity if that is what is suggested. As I understand it Cook were compensated for PART of their financial losses. What kind of moral gesture do you think that they should make.
Spider, thanks for anwering my question as to who paid. Both parties were compensated presumably by an Insurance Company. I fail to see what Cook are expected to do on a matter of morals I mentioned earlier that from the OP link that they "failed in their duty of care" but this seems to have been ignored.