Should single men be able to sit next to unaccompanied kids on planes ?

[Jamie]

Someone also mentioned London Mayor Boris Johnson being asked to move from his seat on a BA flight, for the unimaginable and quite heinous crime of sitting next to his own children. He wrote a great article about the experience:

Come off it folks - how many paedophiles can there be

Eh? I said, by now baffled. "A man cannot sit with children," she said; and then I finally twigged. "But he's our FATHER", chimed the children. "Oh," said the stewardess, and then eyed me narrowly. "These are your children?" "Yes," I said, a bit testily. "Very sorry," she said, and wafted down the aisle — and in that single lunatic exchange you will see just about everything you need to know about our dementedly phobic and risk-averse society. In the institutionalised prejudice of that BA stewardess against an adult male, you see one of the prime causes of this country's tragic under-achievement in schools.

To all those who worry about the paedophile plague, I would say that they not only have a very imperfect understanding of probability; but also that they fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority.

 

[Peter 14.7]

For this to be a policy rooted in evidence rather than a reactionary knee-jerk to a perceived threat, each airline must have done research as to the frequency of males abusing children on airplanes, and found it happening often enough to warrant discriminating against men based solely on their gender.

For all those that are OK with this, and especially those that love statistics, my question is this - how many children have been abused by males on Virgin since they started flying, and how does this compare to abuse by females?

Jamie.

Yes the risk is very very , add vvvvvv very low but:

1. as a dad , when a kid is involved, no risk is too low.

2. as s business owner, when your in business you cannot afford any risk.

Hence policy like this are in place to state the bleeding obvious and protect the business from being sued.

That why McDonalds have "caution hot" on the coffee cups because they were sued by a woman who took a coffee, put it in her lap, drove off, and got 3 degree burns when it spoilt on her. He case was, they should have told me the coffee was hot. Err Doh? Unless you order and iced coffe it is not always hot. She still won.

Whilst not stated this approach also removes the reverse risk on claim from a child passenger that person touched me and I want $30k or I go to ACA.

Don't laugh. In todays world everything happens.

I work in security and we have had some amazing claims made that when the CCTV is viewed it is full bogus. Never this but very close.

He was racist to me, (always a white man to indian guard) he phsycially pushed me down ( not even close enough to reach when they "fell" over), he spat on me (usually the reverse), etc... We even get "they keep my credit card and did not give it back and the banks is charging me $300 so I want you to compensate me, cash now ( card clearly given back). I put my wallet down in a public area and someone took it and you are responsible to compensate me. Some time we find the perp meets them outside and they are best mates trying a scam.

Peter 14.7

 

[Truly Exotic]

so if david beckham, if he wasnt flying in his private jet, was sitting next to a unaccompanied minor, would he be asked to move??? or is there a rule that famous good looking people dont molest kids, just not famous and ugly ones (like the rest of us) only molest

 

[Peter 14.7]

On this topic and please hear me out and yes I am a man and agree it is dodgy and unfair that we me are all potential perps but

• almost nothing risk is still a risk
  
  AND
  
• can I make a comment on the fact that many person have put here, that most abusers to children are known: be the family, uncles, neighbours, instructors etc..

Well that is true, from what I find on the net 85% are known.

But this figure is to be expected as 99% of parents would never leave their child alone with someone they did not know or in position to find their child in a situation they don't know. Male or Female.

So on that basis I am surprised it is a high as 15%.

Saying most offenders are known therefore unknowns are safer is like saying swimming with sharks is safe because there are sharks are in the ocean and the amount of people who swim in the ocean each year is in milions and shark attacks are in the dozens. So it is safe. Yes

But using that I can safely go for dip with seals in SA and not expect a great white to take me. Statistics can be wrong.

Yes us men have it tough.

If your an older man 45 like me and you show interest in a young child you are questioned. If as a dad you want to contribute at the school fete as I am about to do you have to do the blokey stuff like BBQ not the money counting or working with the kids because hummm..

I was the only dad with 19 mums on my kinder committee. I bet some on the mums who didn't know me thought, why is wife not here? Well she does not like to volunteer and be in charge and I do. I brought skills and different mind set to the group. If more men did feel comfortable they would be involved and achieve the same....but it takes strong man to accept the side ways looks and earn the trust.

So to end on funny note here is a story re my Kinder duty.

I ended up Council Liaison Officer. My job was to get the kinder owners Council to make repairs which had been left for many years. Anyhow we needed 20 new taps for bathrooms, existing worn out. I called and left messages and contacted the works managers and was fobbed off etc so I went to see him and said this.

"Mate, i know you are busy and we are low priority but it is like this.... you can deal with me and agree to fitting 20 new standard taps now or ..... i go back and say you said no and then you deal with the 19 mums who most have no idea of construction and already saying we are going to call our local Councillor!

Oh and I can add some want green taps, motion activated water saver taps, and some even want the motion activated taps to be solar powered and they think these requests are reasonable. No BS mate"

Within a day, not one but two plumbers turned up and taps were changed. Go Men! We are useful and not all peodophiles.

Regards, Peter 14.7

 

[Aaron Sice]

all i can do is shake my head at this entire episode, and ensuing thread, and walk away.

 

[Jamie]

Go Men! We are useful and not all peodophiles

Yet, by standing idly by while these policies are enacted, that's exactly what we're teaching our sons they are.

 

[BayView]

Yet, by standing idly by while these policies are enacted, that's exactly what we're teaching our sons they are.

So, by saying that some people are pedophiles, or serial killers, or criminals or other forms..this means we will be one?

 

[AlmostBob]

If we replace man with any of the following

• African
• Albanian
• American
• American Indian
• Arab
• Armenian
• Asian
• Asian Indian
• Austrian
• Belgian
• Brazilian
• British
• Cambodian
• Canadian
• Chinese
• Colombian
• Croatian
• Cuban
• Czech
• Danish
• Dominican
• Dutch
• Ecuadorian
• Egyptian
• English
• European
• Filipino
• Finnish
• French
• French Canadian
• German
• Greek
• Guatemalan
• Guyanese
• Haitian
• Hawaiian
• Hispanic
• Hmong
• Honduran
• Hungarian
• Iranian
• Irish
• Israeli
• Italian
• Jamaican
• Japanese
• Korean
• Laotian
• Latin American
• Lebanese
• Lithuanian
• Mexican
• Nicaraguan
• Nigerian
• Northern European
• Norwegian
• Pakistani
• Panamanian
• Peruvian
• Polish
• Portuguese
• Puerto Rican
• Romanian
• Russian
• Salvadoran
• Scandinavian
• Scotch-Irish
• Scottish
• Serbian
• Slavic
• Slovak
• Slovene
• Spanish
• Swedish
• Swiss
• Syrian
• Taiwanese
• Thai
• Trinidadian and Tobagonian
• Turkish
• Ukrainian
• Vietnamese
• Welsh
• West Indian
• Western European
• Yugoslavian

• black
• white
• brown
• yellow
• red

• communist
• conservative
• labor
• liberal

• Bábist
• Christian
• Gnostic
• Islamic
• Jew
• Rastafarian
• Sabians
• Samaritan
• Ayyavazhi
• Bhakti
• Buddhist
• Din-i-Ilahi
• Hindu
• Jainist
• Meivazhi
• Sikh
• Manichaeist
• Mazdakist
• Mithraist
• Yazdânist
• Zoroastrianist
• Confucian
• Shinto

• Woman

and discover if offence is caused to a person by suggesting that any other minority group that the person may belong to be sequestered
the presumption of innocence, is not to be lightly dispensed with

prison camps for males?

 

[Aaron_C]

So, by saying that some people are pedophiles, or serial killers, or criminals or other forms..this means we will be one?

No, the point is that if you/we let others and society-at-large walk over us and accuse men (in general) as being this and that, then we are just allowing that damaging generalisation to occur to the detriment of everyone.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

OK, I heard the guy this happened to being interviewed on the radio a couple of nights ago.

The problem was not that he was asked to move, the problem was the way the situation was handled.

Apparently he was seated next to two children, and after everyone else had their seatbelts on and was seated one of the flights attendants walked briskly up and annouced that he had to move seats.

When asked why, the flight attendant replied "well you certainly can't be sitting next to these children!". Of course, many of the other passengers immediately assumed the worst and glared at the guy, who then had to walk right up the front.

If the situation had been handled with some tact, there wouldn't have been a problem.

The guy also wrote to Virgin, and received quite a blunt reply, which is what made him decide to take things further.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

No, the point is that if you we let others and society-at-large walk over us and accuse men (in general) as being this and that, then we are just allowing that damaging generalisation to occur to the detriment of everyone.

I agree. This is something that men need to take a stand on.

 

[lizzie]

Generalisation is just part of society - easier to pigeonhole people.

I am a stay a home mum ... but sheesh ... I wouldn't have time to go out to work! However, the assumption is that we sit at home all day watching Dr Phil type shows doing nothing.

It is what it is.

 

[Aaron_C]

Generalisation is just part of society - easier to pigeonhole people.

I am a stay a home mum ... but sheesh ... I wouldn't have time to go out to work! However, the assumption is that we sit at home all day watching Dr Phil type shows doing nothing.

It is what it is.

I don't accept that at all when the generalisation has such damaging connotations and misconceptions, and is implemented into company/government policy without a wimper from anyone. It is very different to saying that a stay at home mum watches afternoon TV - there is nothing negative about that compared to the implication that you are a pedophile.

 

[Dazz]

It is what it is.

.....I'm yet to encounter anything Lizzie, in the living world that "isn't what it is".....

It is an absolute linguistic tragedy that this retarded little teenage American saying.....similar to thousands of others.....has crept into the Australian vernacular.

 

[BayView]

No, the point is that if you/we let others and society-at-large walk over us and accuse men (in general) as being this and that, then we are just allowing that damaging generalisation to occur to the detriment of everyone.

No-one is directly accusing anyone when laws and rules are made.

They are put in place to protect the innocent (hopefully) and deter those few that ruin it for the majority who do the right thing.

Most people don't drive around under the influence of alcohol; does that mean we should crack the shoits when we get pulled over for a random breath test, bleating about how we've had our rights and privacy infringed and all that other victim garbage?

I still can't understand why everyone is getting so upset about a policy put in place to protect not only the children; but also the Airline company.

It's just a policy, and would hardly ever be acted on I'd wager; the whole issue here is how it was handled. Hopefully they learn and improve it for the next time if there is one.

In the USA, at every public swimming pool there is a rule that every child under the age of 6 must be within 3 feet of their carer at all times, and if you're not; the guards continually call you on it, blowing the whistle and calling out "Sir..." over the megaphone - it happened to us; our son was a fish by about aged 3... he was 5 at the time.

This was no doubt put in place because a few stupid/negligent parents let their kids drown/almost drown or whatever.

And so on.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Yet, by standing idly by while these policies are enacted, that's exactly what we're teaching our sons they are.

I see this differently, I see our role is to explain these policies to sons and daughters are because yes, there are bad people out there but that does no mean you are bad. What is means is you have a responsibly to set an example and to identify and stop this sort of action.

IMO sadly we have had to legislate what once was community action.

I.e. My mother is 81 and grow up in small Country town in VIC. She says these "things" happened back then but the community cared and acted. So if a man or woman was abusing their partner, child , the family (grandfather, brother and few other men or the local women, sisters, aunts) would step in and clear things up. If is did not stop then other action was taken.

I know my Mum raised my Auntie's Son and Daughter from 1 to 5 because she remarried and her new husband literally almost beat her Son to dead. It is only recently when I ask "why did Johnie spent all that time with you and dad on the farm" she (reluctantly) admitted the truth. I have not asked about the girl but I know the new husband was mentally unstable and was institutionalised before dying.

Growing up there we always were a men were we told not to bother with school sponsorship and to avoid. She were grumps or drunks but maybee other? But the majority of the men and neighbours I grew up with was the reverse. Gentlmen who loved kids and the more the merrier.

To illustrate this once my brother swapped bike parts for a slug gun (air rifle)!. Mum was not happy but ok, be good, she said. One Sunday, mum and dad out with little sister, Greg and I got bored with shooting at our fence so we aimed two houses away at some neighbours vent pipe. We chose not the immediate neighbor as we knew Ms Davies and she may dob on us. Some we had our fun and mum and dad came home and all as good, we thought. Until we were summoned to the front door and a gruff looking man who said "I think your booys have been shooting at my house". Greg and I we are going to get it!!!

But the man then said, "you like shooting?" , we said yes and he said ok, I shoot at the local gun club, kids are welcome every wednesday night, I will pick you up at 5pm. Mum and Dad agreed and we learny to shoot and "be boys" in a controlled safe environment.

This story may be reminiscing but I write to illustrate what would be the outcome nowadays?

Nowadays people woulds scream OMG. Children with guns! Parents leaving children with guns! Men taking kids to private clubs!!! Neighbors taking aciton instead of litigation!!!! MUm and Dad could probably be charged.

All stupid: dad came the first time and then it was all good. His was great bloke and his kids were all grow up so we we like trial Grandkids. My brother gave up, but me and my mates joined the club and went on to complete.

Fast forward into 2012 and we all live apart in urban society. The local copper who once would clip the ears of the bad egg teenagers is unable to even detain them lest the parents call in a QC.

So ON TOPIC of being treated as criminals, I agree this situation is not great so what can I do? .... complain and say it is a generalisation or prove it is one?

So I "be like that gun club man." I volunteer at school, kinder, i pick up my friends kids if they know me and approve. I do school reading, that is 1 hr looooong. In reverse I let my daughter cuddle men and women we trust and even spent time on her won with one friend who is childless, an "auntie" we would call them.

My daughter has pizza movie nights with 3 or so friend, every second Friday and they often come in PJS. I am in charge not my wife and I make that clear sometimes she is not there. Most are ok. Even glad to have the break.

By these actions I say, yes some men cannot be trusted but most of us can.

I invite others to take this approach.

Regards Peter 14.7

PS I apologise for length but I want ot move the deabate to fixing the problem not the problem itself, and I note: this post may be old news as I note many posts have come in since I started.

 

[Peter 14.7]

OK, I heard the guy this happened to being interviewed on the radio a couple of nights ago.

The problem was not that he was asked to move, the problem was the way the situation was handled.

Apparently he was seated next to two children, and after everyone else had their seatbelts on and was seated one of the flights attendants walked briskly up and annouced that he had to move seats.

When asked why, the flight attendant replied "well you certainly can't be sitting next to these children!". Of course, many of the other passengers immediately assumed the worst and glared at the guy, who then had to walk right up the front.

If the situation had been handled with some tact, there wouldn't have been a problem.

The guy also wrote to Virgin, and received quite a blunt reply, which is what made him decide to take things further.

Based on this report Virgin dropped the ball.

Sounds like Plane was on Taxi with no time and the attendant realised HER error and rushed the solution. I note he did not say "the tone" he wrote to Virgin. If he was threatening they are less likely to give a fair response as it could be construed as culpability.

I note Virgin is reviewing the procedure, so I read this as: they are taking seriously, the the staff member in question is probably in big trouble, and the man will get an apology. Remember Virgin cannot sack the staff as that would be unfair dismissal. She/he will be sent to some crap job for three months as punishments and given a warning.

FYI Peter 14.7

 

[Jamie]

In the USA, at every public swimming pool there is a rule that every child under the age of 6 must be within 3 feet of their carer at all times, and if you're not; the guards continually call you on it, blowing the whistle and calling out "Sir..." over the megaphone - it happened to us.

Did the lifeguard say that only female carers were permitted near the child, but that males were not?

If not, it's a false equivalency and of no relevance here.

 

[Peter 14.7]

No-one is directly accusing anyone when laws and rules are made.

They are put in place to protect the innocent (hopefully) and deter those few that ruin it for the majority who do the right thing.

Most people don't drive around under the influence of alcohol; does that mean we should crack the shoits when we get pulled over for a random breath test, bleating about how we've had our rights and privacy infringed and all that other victim garbage?

I still can't understand why everyone is getting so upset about a policy put in place to protect not only the children; but also the Airline company.

It's just a policy, and would hardly ever be acted on I'd wager; the whole issue here is how it was handled. Hopefully they learn and improve it for the next time if there is one.

And so on.

Excellant Post, canot kudo you again, Peter

 

[HiEquity]

Yes the risk may be small but the consequences would be horrendous! If it only saves one then it will be worth it... Just can't risk getting it wrong.

I'm convinced - I'm definitely going to stop crossing the road!