Chuck & Chris wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:04:12 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:
>>Tom is right. There is no more crime per se in the Caribbean than in NYC or
>>San Francisco, the two most popular tourism destinations in America.
>
>We are not out to avoid the Caribbean because of the
>general/background level of crime there. Hardly! We are only seeking
>to avoid those very few islands and locations where we have
>specifically been told or read of (or personally observed) elevated
>crime rates specifically targeting tourists. With so many other good
>choices, why would we want to go to an island or location where crimes
>against tourists are not being properly controlled?
>
>And let me be clear... there are plenty of locations within the USA
>where we do not go and certainly would not choose to go on vacation.
>The fact that a particular Caribbean island or location has "no more
>crime per se than New York City" is not, to us, a very impressive
>selling point. But we are comparing apples with oranges here. Crime
>or not, there is only one NYC and folks understand and accept that
>when they choose to travel there. If they don't, they will become
>victims rather quickly! On the other hand, there are dozens of great
>Caribbean islands and locations offering friendly, safe vacationing...
>so why not choose one with a good reputation for safety?
>
Because often the perceptions are wrong, and you might go to somewhere
with a good reputation and be robbed and you can go to somewhere with
a poor reputation and have a wonderful time.
Not that you need to ignore the possible problems. Just take it with
a bit of skepticism.
AFAIAC, the high prices in the Virgins would be more of a problem than
the supposed crime rate for your scenario.
If you wanted white sand beaches, the Gulf Coast of FL around Ft.
Walton Beach would be perfect, especially as March would be off season
and there wouldn't be a lot of people around. Of course it wouldn't
be as warm as the Caribbean.
|
