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

[Jamie]

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?

If it's random breath test, not at all. But how about if every man had to pass a breath test through a device fitted to the ignition before he could drive his car, every time he wanted to drive it, but women didn't - after all, men make up the majority of drink driving arrests.

Would you consent to those sort of gender based restrictions, because men drink drive more often than women?

 

[Dazz]

I'm reading this whilst wrapped up in cotton wool tucked up in bed.

I've re-inforced the roof, and not moving until someone guarantees my safety.

 

[BayView]

If it's random breath test, not at all. But how about if every man had to pass a breath test through a device fitted to the ignition before he could drive his car, every time he wanted to drive it, but women didn't - after all, men make up the majority of drink driving arrests.

Would you consent to those sort of gender based restrictions, because men drink drive more often than women?

If blokes continue to be stupid and form the majority of the problem (and they do it seems) then yes.

What about the totally sensible 20 year old who buys a Corolla as his first car, but has to cop it up the blurter for comprehensive insurance just because a zillion other same-aged bogans and hoons drive like they are Pete Brock in hoon mobile Conformadores to feel tough??

It doesn't really worry me; there are bigger issues in life to worry about.

I think everyone needs to get thicker skin.

I mean; look at the AFL now; big, tough alpha males who go crying to the ref when someone talks about their mother.

Back in the day; the other bloke would sling one back, and we'd all have a good laugh or a punch-up.

You can give examples forever on all this in-equality, but until everyone stops doing dumb things, then we need these ridiculous rules and regs.

 

[Ideo]

I live my life by adopting the mantra of bad stuff sometimes happen. You try and minimise the impacts of it, and the risk of it occurring, but things do sometimes go wrong. Life is not going to be one ongoing field of flowers with lovely streams and rainbows and bambi bouncing along. Things will come unstuck.

And you cannot protect kids from that either. You just set them up with unrealistic expectations.

I had to fire a admin assistant recently for being unprofessional in the extreme. Tried getting her to improve.

She brought her mother back the next day, who told me "things like that don't happen to my daughter. And I'm here to make sure of it". Well, love, maybe if you taught your daughter that actions have consequences you wouldn't have to come into the (former) workplace of your 24 year old daughter.

Simply wrapping up your kids in cotton wool and protecting them from any "harm", which is usually just trying to prevent them from any results of their actions, causes more social problems than anything else.

I'm not talking about leaving your kids overnight with dodgy Larry down the road. I'm talking about trying to stop kids from being kids. And stop any form of community interaction.

In the words of Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip in Thou Shalt Always Kill, "Thou shalt not think any male over the age of 30 that plays with a child that is not their own is a peadophile, some people are just nice."

 

[Fifth]

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

I can't help but wonder if this incident had anything whatsoever to do with child safety or if it was purely another example of how hideously litigious our society has become.

I'm inclined to sum up the situation as:

Virgin implemented this policy so they wouldn't be sued by the parents of unaccompanied children. An incompetent stewardess with horrid customer service skills led a plane full of people to believe a man was a paedophile, but she can't be fired because she'll sue. Virgin won't apologise to the man who they discriminated against under a policy designed to reduce the chance of being sued because he might sue, probably making him want to sue even more.

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!

You still go outside? There are tigers and rapists out there. And the air quality...

 

[depreciator]

Lots of unaccompanied minors on my train to work this morning. I wasn't game to sit near any of them.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Lots of unaccompanied minors on my train to work this morning. I wasn't game to sit near any of them.

Scott, whilst (I suspect) you are being flippant you have nailed the issue like Fifth.

Because an airline allocates the seat they have a duty of care. In a train child can sit anywhere thus the duty is reduced.

Too much litigation and not enough common sense.

Peter

 

[BayView]

I've re-inforced the roof, and not moving until someone guarantees my safety.

Don't start me.

Oh; alright.

Every bloody day, we get someone asking us "Is my car safe?" after we look at some minor issue they have, and give it the all-clear.

As soon as you back the thing out of the driveway it's not safe.

 

[Dazz]

I'm inclined to sum up the situation as:

Virgin implemented this policy so they wouldn't be sued by the parents of unaccompanied children. An incompetent stewardess with horrid customer service skills led a plane full of people to believe a man was a paedophile, but she can't be fired because she'll sue. Virgin won't apologise to the man who they discriminated against under a policy designed to reduce the chance of being sued because he might sue, probably making him want to sue even more.

Hole in one - you win the prize.

Lawyers threatening to sue, and others scared absolutely witless over lawyers threatening to sue has brought society to it's knees. It'll be further crippled in a few years.

Intakes for law degrees is on the up.....and all parent's are ever so proud when their child graduates with law.

Get used to it, it's only going to get worse, much worse.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Hole in one - you win the prize.

Lawyers threatening to sue, and others scared absolutely witless over lawyers threatening to sue has brought society to it's knees. It'll be further crippled in a few years.

Intakes for law degrees is on the up.....and all parent's are ever so proud when their child graduates with law.

Get used to it, it's only going to get worse, much worse.

Agree Dazs and perhaps we should end the debate on this point of common sense.

In the end this is what a happened. Standard Policy + Badly Handled = Issue + Poor Response = Big Issue x Media = Aus Wide Discussion now taken up by Shock Jocks.

Peter

 

[pully]

what happens if the plane is full and there are no other seats to place the minors?

perhaps the airlines need to restrict allocation to ums per flight?

i think this already happens with other passengers with special needs.

in some ways this seems to be a storm in a tea cup? especially if it was a short flight. if a longhaul overnight one it would make a little more sense.

i can vaguely recall another case reported sometime ago, it was alleged a crew member had sought and contacted a young passenger via facebook??

the parent reported it as a breach of privacy etc the staff member was disciplined?

supervising other peoples children is a big responsibility. the airlines may decide ums cannot fly without an escort??

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

what happens if the plane is full and there are no other seats to place the minors?

That's exactly what happened. They made the guy change seats with a young woman.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Hi Pully,

Our opinions ( for and against) on most of what you ask is in the previous pages. It is a long read.

Peter

 

[lizzie]

Agree Dazs and perhaps we should end the debate on this point of common sense.

In the end this is what a happened. Standard Policy + Badly Handled = Issue + Poor Response = Big Issue x Media = Aus Wide Discussion now taken up by Shock Jocks.

Peter

amen to that

 

[Jamie]

In the end this is what a happened. Standard Policy + Badly Handled = Issue + Poor Response = Big Issue x Media = Aus Wide Discussion now taken up by Shock Jocks.

Except that the "standard policy" is discriminatory, is based not on hard science but on paranoia, and every time it's been challenged, the plaintiff has won and the airline has changed its policy.

 

[BayView]

Because an airline allocates the seat they have a duty of care. In a train child can sit anywhere thus the duty is reduced.

Wait until some kid is indecently assaulted on the train gong to school, and the parent (or the kid) sues the train company for not providing adequate security.

Yep; it'll happen..

 

[Jake D]

Pretty sure that quote wasn't by Thomas S Monson. If he did say it. He was quoting some other dude's poem.

 

[Jamie]

Pretty sure that quote wasn't by Thomas S Monson. If he did say it. He was quoting some other dude's poem.

Thanks - I haven't posted for about 5 years so hadn't thought to check it. Will update.

 

[FormerLurker]

Make parents sending a minor on a flight solo buy 2 tickets so that no one is next to the child = problem solved. How often are kids flying solo anyway? Better yet install CCTV everywhere in a plane like on public transport so we can all feel safer as some anonymous stranger watches us sleep on a plane.....wait they might see sleeping kids scrap that idea.

I don't like this policy it is discriminatory - the parents of the child should pay extra for safety provisions rather than society (or men in society) being discriminated against. I would be very interested to see if the option for a child safe flight was available at extra cost if parents would take it up or think normal is cheaper and go that way - I suspect the $ would win in 90% of cases and if the parents aren’t that concerned why should everyone else stress about it?

If airlines feel they need to keep this policy then sort out pre-flight seating such as no one needs to be publicly embarrassed or made to feel like a deviant.

Try being a male at a public playground with your kids sometime - if you are not right next to them i.e. on a bench nearby see the dirty looks you get for extra points text your partner/mum/friends about that night’s dinner and watch the looks get dirtier because you have a phone out and thus must be filming everyone’s kids for some sick reason.

I loathe paedophiles and think them the lowest form of scum that should get the death sentence – which is why I so strongly resent being treated or suspected of being one.

Rant over have a nice day

 

[Truly Exotic]

im thinking of suing my parents for damages for borning me so ugly........