The letter says he is barred from all Carnival Cruise Lines vessels, (not corp)and it is signed by the captain of the ship - which means this didn't come from the corporate office. They may have known about it and been in on it, but they don't appear to have made up the document.
It appears to have been newly composed on the spot, not a form letter, since it says 'this is to confirm the conversation".
I am guessing this was another troublemaker and we are not getting the full story, just his side of the story.
The question is whether he was banned for life for something else that happened not at all related to this incident, or whether he was provoked into reacting by the room stewards accusations along the lines of Dean?
If he is a trouble-maker in general then I say good, ban him. But if cruise lines are to just start to become like bullies with a "you're banned" or even "you're off the ship" as the result then that is not good.
Now granted, I don't want to scare the less experienced cruisers that this is becoming a normal case, not at all, we've only had a few cases out of millions of cruisers. It is just that the stories we have heard are puzzling and unusual from our experience.
Now let me ask you - if he was banned simply because he DID damage the desk - would you think that is justified? Or if he was accused of marring the desk and he adamnatly swore he did not - and that is why he was banned, if you were the cruise line and you were sure he had marred the desk, is that alone still enough to ban someone?
To me, I have to believe there was a pattern of completely different things going on the whole time leading up to this. Maybe, as a note on the the other thread about this case pointed out, that there were some devil kids on that cruise throwing ice cream at the musicians, etc. I'm beginning to believe it is all related...