Netflix's terrifying Amy Bradley documentary has made me think twice about cruises
My inaugural cruise experience was at the tender age of nine, and I had the joy of ringing in my 10th birthday whilst sailing around the Caribbean. It was a dreamy holiday that ignited a lifelong passion in me for maritime adventures.
This memorable holiday took place just a few years after the mysterious disappearance of Amy Bradley in 1998, a fact unbeknownst to me at the time. The 23-year-old vanished without leaving any trace while on a family holiday aboard Royal Caribbean's Rhapsody of the Seas, and she remains missing to this day.
A fresh Netflix documentary released this month, titled Amy Bradley Is Missing, delves into the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the ongoing search efforts that persist.
There's no shortage of theories about what transpired, with TikTok also awash with speculation. The two predominant hypotheses suggest that she either fell overboard following a night of heavy drinking and never washed ashore, or she fell prey to sex trafficking and was clandestinely whisked off the ship.
Both theories present compelling evidence but also glaring inconsistencies, as detailed in the Netflix documentary, reports the Mirror US.
The official synopsis states: "On March 23, 1998, 23-year-old Amy Bradley disappears without a trace from the cruise ship she and her family were vacationing on.
"Despite thorough searches of the ship, Amy is nowhere to be found and the cruise has already docked in their next port, Curaçao, opening the door for 2,400 passengers to explore the island and allowing Amy to potentially disappear into the crowd.
"As the years pass by, possible sightings of Amy pop up in various locations from multiple people. Is it really her? Was this a tragic accident or a crime? - anything is possible. But for Amy's family - only one thing matters: bringing their daughter home alive."
Now at 30, with four cruise holidays to my name, I've always been struck by the sense that a cruise ship is a world unto itself, blissfully detached from the pressures and problems that loom onshore.
What had never crossed my mind was the potential peril of this, especially how a floating metropolis in international waters can be somewhat of a lawless realm until docking. As one individual in a documentary put it: "If you ever want to kill somebody, take them on a cruise."
The three-part series about Amy Bradley's vanishing act opened my eyes to my own naivety. To me, a cruise was a sanctuary, a haven populated by fellow holidaymakers with good intentions.
In my youth, my parents shared this belief, comfortable with letting me roam the vessel solo. But what if there was someone with ill intent aboard? What if, as an adult, I overindulged and accidentally tumbled into the ocean unnoticed?
While the truth behind Amy Bradley's fate remains a mystery – and may always be – the various theories that have surfaced underscore the genuine dangers travellers face. Will I set foot on a cruise liner again? I'm beginning to question if I will.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What I learned from running my own Squid Game
You know how this story goes. The cameras are rolling. The audience is cruel. You're trapped in the game and the game is death and the game is going out live from the heart of the state of nature where empathy is weakness and you kill each other off until there's only one left. What will you do to survive? Who will you become if you do? This is the plot of Squid Game, Netflix's Korean mega-hit that just drew to its gory conclusion. It is also the plot of The Hunger Games, Battle Royale, The Running Man, Chain-Gang All-Stars and The Long Walk. We have spent several decades watching desperate people slaughter each other for survival to entertain the rich and stupid. Future generations will probably have thoughts about why we kept returning to this particular trope with the bloodthirsty voyeurism we associate with Ancient Rome. Obviously, these stories are meant to say something about human nature, and the depraved things desperate people can be made to do to each other; they're meant to say something about exploitation, and how easy it is to derive pleasure from someone else's pain. Squid Game says these things while shovelling its doomed characters through a lurid nightmare playground where they die in cruel and creative ways. After each deadly game, blood-spattered contestants are offered a chance to vote on whether to carry on playing. It's a simple referendum: if a majority votes to stay, they're all trapped in the death-match murder circus with only themselves to blame. If they object, a masked guard will accuse them of interrupting the free and fair elections and shoot them in the face. This is everything Squid Game has to say about representative democracy. 'I wanted to write a story that was an allegory or fable about modern capitalist society,' said director Hwang Dong-hyuk, just in case you didn't get the message. The whole thing is as subtle as a shopping-mall shooter. I'm reliably informed that the English-language translations strip away a degree of nuance, which probably helps audiences in parts of the Anglosphere where irony is an unaffordable foreign luxury and the experience of everyday economic humiliation feels a lot like being hit over the head with a huge blunt analogy. Squid Game does not want you confused about who the baddies are. There's a bored cabal of cartoon billionaires drinking scotch and throwing tantrums while they watch our heroes shove each other off cliffs. They smoke cigars and say things like 'I am a very hard man to please'. We never get to find out who they are or what their plan is, because it doesn't matter. How could it possibly matter? How could anything matter in a fake hotel lobby where all the furniture is naked ladies? This is how people who want to be rich think people who are rich ought to talk: like insurance salesmen cosplaying sexual villainy in a kink club for tourists. Nobody is supposed to be able to relate to the Squid Game villains. As it turns out, though, I can. There's an innocent explanation for how I came to run my own Reality Show of Death Game. Well, mostly innocent. I happen to have a secret other life as an immersive game designer. It's what I did instead of drugs during my divorce, after discovering that here, finally, was a hobby that would let me be a pretentious art wanker and a huge nerd at the same time. The games are intense – like escape rooms you have to solve with emotions. Many of them revolve around some species of social experiment – the kind that actual researchers can't do any more because it's inhumane. Famously, the 1971 Stanford prison experiment had to be shut down early after students who were cast as guards got far too excited about abusing their prisoners. The sort of people who pay actual money to play this kind of game are expecting to be made to feel things. They're expecting high stakes and horrible choices and wildly dramatic twists. The Death Game trope is an easy way to deliver all of that. Mine forced players to pick one of their friends to 'murder on live television'. It's a five-hour nightmare about social scapegoating with a pounding techno soundtrack. I had a lot going on at the time. I swotted up on Hobbes and Hayek. I took notes on Squid Game and its infinite derivatives. I gave the players character archetypes to choose from – the Diva, the Flirt, the Party Animal – and got them to imagine themselves in Big Brother if it were produced by actual George Orwell. I wrote and rewrote the script to make sure players wouldn't be able to opt out of picking one person to bully to death. I thought that it would be easy. Instead, I learned two surprising things. The first was that it's harder than you'd think to design a scenario where ordinary people plausibly hunt each other to death. Every time, my players tried their very hardest not to hurt each other, even when given every alibi to be evil. I created a whole rule system to punish acts of altruism, spent ages greasing the hinges on the beautiful hellbox I'd built for them, and still the ungrateful bastards kept trying to sacrifice themselves for one another. Even the ones who were explicitly cast as villains. Even when it was against the rules. It takes a lot of fiddly world-building to make violent self-interest feel reasonable. It takes a baroque notional dystopia and a guaranteed protection from social punishment. What you get is a manicured, hothouse-grown garden masquerading as a human jungle – an astroturfed Hobbesian state of nature where the cruelty is cultivated to make viewers feel comfortable in complicity. The story of these games scrapes the same nerves as the ritual reporting about shopping-mall riots on Black Friday – the ones that lasciviously describe working-class people walloping each other for a £100 discount on a dishwasher. The message is that people who have little are worse than people who have more. This is a wealthy person's nightmare of how poor people behave. The rich, of course, are rarely subject to this sort of moral voyeurism. But that story isn't true. In the real-life Lord of the Flies, the children actually worked together very successfully. In the real-life Stanford prison experiment, the guards had to be coached into cruelty. Real poverty, as sociologists like Rutger Bregman keep on telling us, is actually an inverse predictor of selfish behaviour. Not because poor people are more virtuous than anyone else, but because the rich and powerful can afford not to be. The rest of us, eventually, have to trust each other. The fantasy of these games is about freedom from social responsibility. In the Death Games, nobody has to make complex and demeaning ethical choices as an adult person in an inhumane economy. In the Death Games, it makes sense to light your integrity on fire to survive. But if we did, actually, live in a perfectly ruthless market economy where competition was the essence of survival, none of us would survive past puberty. The Death Games don't actually tell us anything about how life is. They show us how life feels. The second surprising thing I learned while running my own Squid Game is that nothing feels better than running Squid Game. If you need a rush, I highly recommend building a complicated social machine to make other people hurt each other, picking out a fun hyperpop soundtrack and then standing behind a production desk for five hours jerking their strings and cackling until they cry. People apparently like my game. It has run in multiple countries. And every time, it took me days to come down from the filthy dopamine high. It turns out that I love power. This was an ugly thing to discover, and there's an ugly feeling about watching a show like Squid Game – which is, to be clear, wildly entertaining. Voyeurism is participation, and the compulsive thrill of watching human beings hurt each other for money creates its own complicity. The audience is not innocent. Sit too close to the barrier at the beast show and you risk getting splashed with moral hazard.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
DIY expert names viral painting hacks actually work this summer
Painting your home can be a messy mistake-filled nightmare - luckily, a DIY expert reveals which viral painting tips to follow and which ones you might be better giving a miss Summer is prime time to try and cover up all of the stains and cracks in your paint – but an expert warns not all painting hacks are worth following. Painting can be a difficult chore, particularly given that it can make a massive mess of your home if done incorrectly. For less experienced painters, social media is a popular resource for learning new DIY tips and tricks – the only problem? Not all of these suggestions are as effective as they seem. Luckily, DIY expert and Ronseal brand manager Jimmy Englezos has given his verdict on five of the most popular viral painting trends, so you know which to follow and which to ignore. UK households warned over common hosepipe mistake that costs you money 1. Placing a piece of paper over a hole in the wall to hide it With 25.8M views on TikTok, this hack aims to address the problem of painting a wall with a hole or a dent in the plaster by hiding the area with a sheet of paper. You simply paint over the area while holding the paper in place so that it dries, covering the hole. Jimmy advises: 'While this may look like an ideal solution for a quick cover-up, leaving the damaged area unrepaired for a time may lead to more problems down the line.' He adds: 'The best way to repair a hole or any wall damage is to use a quality filler. With Ronseal 5 Minute Filler, you can cover the damaged area, and within five minutes it will be touch dry. After a further ten minutes, it's ready to be painted over.' 2. Using a credit card to cut in to a wall It can be hard to paint with precision. According to one TikTok user, you can make things easier by applying paint to a bank card and using it to paint clean lines around door frames and other edges. But Jimmy warns that this trick isn't quite as simple as it may appear. He says: 'The paint tends to slide off the smooth surface of the card, which can cause drips or smudges and you'll also end up covering your card in paint. Also, only being able to paint the length of a credit card in one stroke each time is going to get quite tedious, which could see attention to detail diminish as you spend more time on the process. 'Instead, I recommend investing in a high-quality brush and applying paint lightly. You can also use decorators' tape to mask off edges and ensure crisp lines.' 3. Applying paint with a tanning mitt One TikTok user demonstrated how she uses a tanning mitt to paint a door instead of a brush. She used the mitt to first apply a base layer and then add the topcoat, and while the result looks great, should home decorator's consider using a tanning mitt instead of a paint brush? Jimmy says that while you can certainly use a tanning mitt while painting, it's better used for specific jobs. He recommends: 'They can be used in tight spaces, like stair railings and bannisters, where their flexibility can help those with less experience achieve better control.' Although, he adds that you will always get 'a better finish' with a brush. If you can encounter awkward hard-to-reach areas, there are specialist brushes that you can pick up to help. 4. Mixing water into paint to help cover a larger area Looking to increase your paint's longevity? This TikTok hack suggests adding a small amount of water to your paint and mixing it to increase the paint's coverage. However, Jimmy suggests that this is often unnecessary. It also could have a negative impact on the end result. He explains: 'Most modern paints are formulated to offer maximum coverage without the need to add water. I would advise against adding water to any paint product unless expressly instructed to do so on the tin itself. 'Adding water to paint will not only result in making the paint thinner, but it can also impact durability and the number of coats required to get a nice-looking finish.' 5. Using a sheet of acetate or paper to paint skirting boards An Instagram user has suggested placing a piece of paper under the area that you are painting in order to help stop any paint from splattering on the floor. Jimmy says that this a great idea for those painting indoors. He said: 'This is a simple and cost-effective trick to avoid a mess when painting skirting boards. These can be tricky due to them running flush to carpet, or hard flooring , and protective sheets can often get in the way, or smudge paint, as they typically won't be able to neatly tuck under skirting boards to protect flooring. 'Using a sheet of paper to tuck nicely under the gap between the skirting board and flooring allows you to paint with a faster pace as the paper will catch any excess paint in the process. Painters should exercise caution when removing the paper as any considerable drips of paint will weigh the paper down and could undo this hack in seconds.' He also advises that for carpeted rooms, it might be better to use a more structured material like card or acetate.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Beloved ITV detective show slapped with 'trigger warning' for crime scenes in 'woke' move
ITV 's Inspector Morse has been slapped with a 'trigger warning' in a move that has been branded ' woke '. The popular series now features a pre-warning for crime scenes throughout the show, which seems to have caused a stir with people online. The streaming giant also advises there are 'satanic images' in one episode of the drama. It then has a parental lock on the episode, titled Day of the Devil. Inspector Morse first aired from 1987 to 2000, with a total of eight series. Other episodes also feature a warning over crime and violence. The popular series now features a pre-warning for crime scenes throughout the show, which seems to have caused a stir with people online Speaking about the update, Senior MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke slammed: 'This is another example of soft-touch Britain seeping into everything. 'We're just going to be laughed at as a country if things like this continue, because nobody's prepared for the real world where there are no.' Daily Mail has contacted ITV for comment. In the past, it has said about general alerts: 'Programming that contains politically sensitive or distressing themes, content, or language has carried appropriate warnings since our launch.' Just a few weeks ago, Netflix bosses axed an iconic moment from Pride and Prejudice to avoid 'objectifying men'. The unforgettable scene of Mr Darcy - played by Colin Firth - emerging from a lake was all the rage in 1995. But show bosses have confirmed it will not resurface in the forthcoming version of the rom-com. According to reports, many fans will be disappointed as the famous BBC scene is said to have 'got millions of women hot under the collar'. A source told The Sun: 'It is also credited for sparking subsequent moments of male objectification on screen - likes Aidan Turner's famous topless scything scene in Poldark.' It's claimed that Netflix bosses 'don't want a repeat'. The saucy scene soon became one of the most favourite TV scenes, however it didn't actually feature in Jane Austen's original 1813 story. Arguably the most iconic wet shirt ever worn sold at auction for £25,000 - double its estimated sale price.
