British Airways sued over 'humiliating' policy

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,037
2,573
✟231,147.00
Faith
Christian
Quoted from the above source:

Fair point - but think of it this way. How many children are killed crossing the road every year? How many more and injured? Do we, under the same “think of the children” ideal – ban kids from crossing the road unaccompanied? Do we require all car drivers to come to a full stop if a child is on the footpath?

With the policy in the OP - why stop at airlines? How far do we go? Do we require male passengers on buses and trains to move aside if a lone child sits near them? What about in the library? What about a swimming pool – do lone children get their own lanes and washrooms?

You see how ridiculous it is? And part of the blame goes to the airline. A child is molested – so the airline is at risk of being sued. Rather than arrange for better supervision (costs money) or charge parents more for a chaperone (might lose business) they take the easy option out, and in the best spirit of over-zealous risk management, ban male passengers from sitting next to lone children.

So yes - I hope BA gets sued. We need to nip this in the bud.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,890
6,562
71
✟321,556.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is an article in the San Francsico weekly that can answer some of these questions.
San Francisco News - Predators are free to move about the cabin - page 1

I bothered to read the article. One thing really stood out. The typical case was one where the man involved MOVED to sit next to the child. The British Airways policy of having any man who is sitting next to a child before takeoff would seem to actually increase the risk to the child by opening up a seat. Instead of the risk of one random man it is replaced with teh risk that any man on the plane might be a molester.

Oops!

I've got to wonder about some of the parents involved. One of the cases cited was where a child was sent in pajamas for a filght that involved changing planes. What idiots.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
Well since most molestation is due to family, we can't have the child riding anywhere near family...

...since we live in a society where everyone is guilty until proven innocent and a potential pedophile, the children can't ride near them...

...of course nothing is stopping the crew from being pedophiles either, so the children can't be near them either.

The only real answer is to have children ride in special compartments in cargo.

We have to have an individual compartment for each child though, with no ability for the children to interact with another person.

Of course, one may want to weigh the known dangers of isolating a human, especially a young child who may very well not be accustom to flying, with the risk of being molested.
 
Upvote 0

TerranceL

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
Jul 3, 2009
18,940
4,661
✟105,808.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
As a mother of eight, I have to agree of this policy. I'm sorry the man was humiliated, but the welfare of that child (or any child) is far more important than his ego being bruised. The situation he found himself in could have been handled differently perhaps, like he could have compiled and made arrangements for his wife to move also. Nevertheless, this policy is a safety precaution for children, and as a mother, I'm all for it. How can the flight attendants detect people who are sexual offenders from those who are not? This is just the world we live in. There are child predators out there and children need to be protected from them.

Women molest children too.

Where should we put the kids now?

On the wing?
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
As a mother of eight, I have to agree of this policy. I'm sorry the man was humiliated, but the welfare of that child (or any child) is far more important than his ego being bruised. The situation he found himself in could have been handled differently perhaps, like he could have compiled and made arrangements for his wife to move also. Nevertheless, this policy is a safety precaution for children, and as a mother, I'm all for it. How can the flight attendants detect people who are sexual offenders from those who are not? This is just the world we live in. There are child predators out there and children need to be protected from them.
Since when does an adult man automatically represent a threat to the welfare of children?
 
Upvote 0

ArnautDaniel

Veteran
Aug 28, 2006
5,295
328
The Village
✟22,153.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We have to have an individual compartment for each child though, with no ability for the children to interact with another person.

Of course, one may want to weigh the known dangers of isolating a human, especially a young child who may very well not be accustom to flying, with the risk of being molested.

Well of course the children can't interact.

We've already established that a large number of child molesters are other children.

In fact, any parent that sends a child to school should be taken before a court for child endangerment!
 
Upvote 0

TerranceL

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
Jul 3, 2009
18,940
4,661
✟105,808.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

TerranceL

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
Jul 3, 2009
18,940
4,661
✟105,808.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well since most molestation is due to family, we can't have the child riding anywhere near family...

...since we live in a society where everyone is guilty until proven innocent and a potential pedophile, the children can't ride near them...

...of course nothing is stopping the crew from being pedophiles either, so the children can't be near them either.

The only real answer is to have children ride in special compartments in cargo.

What about the cargo handlers?

WONDER SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!??
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well since most molestation is due to family, we can't have the child riding anywhere near family...

...since we live in a society where everyone is guilty until proven innocent and a potential pedophile, the children can't ride near them...

...of course nothing is stopping the crew from being pedophiles either, so the children can't be near them either.

The only real answer is to have children ride in special compartments in cargo.
Except then they are susceptible to abuse from baggage handlers, and each other.

If only one could keep children sealed in airtight boxes, THEN they'd be safe!
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,890
6,562
71
✟321,556.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Since when does an adult man automatically represent a threat to the welfare of children?

Yes, we must remove all adult interaction! It is well known that British Schoolboys are perfectly capable of interacting in humane and civilized ways if we just remove the adult influences!

(Bonus points to anyone who figures out the reference)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,890
6,562
71
✟321,556.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Except then they are susceptible to abuse from baggage handlers, and each other.

If only one could keep children sealed in airtight boxes, THEN they'd be safe!

You Pervert! I know your plan. You want to get the children locked into individual boxes and then get a device to open the box which you will trade with other perverts. It is a perverts paradice. Once you get in the box with the child no one can interrupt you and the seduction is so much easier since the child will view you as a rescuer and will think think of your acts as comforting them, at least to start!!!

<The above is grossly satirical, as was the comment I was responding to. I am confident EnemyPartyII is bright enough to get that. I'm not so sure about many other posters>
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnemyPartyII
Upvote 0

Hisbygrace

Carried On The Wings Of An Eagle
Sep 22, 2004
120,384
6,418
73
California
✟158,418.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Politics
US-Democrat
Well of course the children can't interact.

We've already established that a large number of child molesters are other children.

In fact, any parent that sends a child to school should be taken before a court for child endangerment!

Can I ask where it was established that a large number of child molesters
are other children? I can't seem to find any source here stating that other than the post of two individuals.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
Can I ask where it was established that a large number of child molesters
are other children? I can't seem to find any source here stating that other than the post of two individuals.
That was never said. What was said is that the largest single age group of sex offenders is children (there is a difference).

To be exact, more people BECOME a sex offender at age 14 than ANY OTHER AGE. I'll get you the paper...

...

...

Wow that paper was a pain to track down. The Department of Justice use to host it, and almost everyone linked to the DoJ, but they are no longer hosting it. But I found it.

The source is:

Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident,
and Offender Characteristics, Washington, DC: National Center for Juvenile Justice, July 2000


Here is a .gov link which host the pdf (it is a pdf, may take some time to load):

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/c7/e4.pdf


On that pdf, the table showing the data is on page 13.
 
Upvote 0

Hisbygrace

Carried On The Wings Of An Eagle
Sep 22, 2004
120,384
6,418
73
California
✟158,418.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Politics
US-Democrat
Actually, the largest single age of child molesters are children (14 year olds to be exact).

Actually it was said and yes there is a difference between child molestors and sex offenders.

I'm not saying that this policy is the best solution to an age old problem, only that it brings to light that there is a problem and that it's a serious one and that everyone you, me and Johny down the street should all be
concerned with the welfare of all children. There seems to be the consensus that it's ridiculous to consider that molestation could happen
on an airplane. Nothing is ridiculous or inconceivable in this day and time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟18,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This policy must be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Here is a horrible bit of news: there are also female child predators!

So I suggest that from now on, women also shouldn't be allowed to sit next to children.

Wait. Children also often inappropriatly touch each other. Children also shouldn't be allowed to sit next to other children.

But why stop at seating arrangements on planes? Maybe all people should be banned from ever getting within 10 meters of a child?
After all, children should be protected from child predators at ANY cost. -_-

I think we should shoot everyone near a child on sight. Y'know, just in case.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
Actually it was said and yes there is a difference between child molestors and sex offenders.
Well, if I said that then I misspoke and apologize. I'll let the article speak for itself.
I'm not saying that this policy is the best solution to an age old problem, only that it brings to light that there is a problem and that it's a serious one and that everyone you, me and Johny down the street should all be
concerned with the welfare of all children. There seems to be the consensus that it's ridiculous to consider that molestation could happen
on an airplane. Nothing is ridiculous or inconceivable in this day and time.

Ridiculous? You want to know what is ridiculous? By the time they are 18, 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys have been sexually abused in some fashion. Yet, our laws have proven time and time again, to be more concerned with giving an appearance of safety, not actual safety, and with punishing anyone who appears even remotely like a pedophile instead of actually protecting children. Two teenagers whom can legally have sex caught with them videotaping it? They are now, for their own protection, sex offenders guilty of producing child inappropriate content. Therapy method which reduces re-offense rate to under 2%, no telling how well it could help those who have not yet offended, not ever advertised at large (so as to get it to those who may be in need of it, thus saving a child before they were ever harmed). Teaching young children about good touch and bad touch at public school? No way, that is sexualizing children, and the parents are supposed to teach them that. Not as if some parent might be molesting their child and not wanting to teach their child that what they are doing to the child is wrong. And societies reaction. To many abused children begin to see themselves as damaged goods.

We are getting better at it; less than 150 years ago a lawyer was arguing a little girl named Mary Ellen was an animal. You know why? Because, there were better laws to protect the treatement of farm animales than children back then. Little Mary Ellen was being abused, and no laws were able to protect her as a human child, so a lawyer argued that she was the same as a dog, as a cow, as a pig, in order to help protect her.

Yes, we have come a long way since then. We have come along way since the days of Frued, where he received countless reports of women who were sexually abused as childrens by relatives, but when he spoke of his findings, he was so shunned by the still Victorian-esque society that he created his theories of false memories, which only served to help child molesters get away under claims of false memories for years. And then came the time when we finally realized that false memories, while not like Frued had spoke of, do exist.

Yes, we have come a long way in protecting children. Yet, for as far as we have come, we still see the stranger as the primary danger to a child, when it is family, or someone as close as family who is almost 9 times more likely to sexually abuse them. We see the pedophile as the, only the, and nothing but the only threat to children, yet there are many whom never harm a child, and there are many non-pedophiles who, for, if you mind can even believe, darker reasons that pedophiles themselves, harm children. We have, in our quest to protect it, criminalized child sexuality, to the point where teachers are affraid to hug a kid less it even appear sexual, even though science and nature have shown touch is an essential need of children; where two teenagers who are caught in a unwise situation are no longer punished by their parents, but instead labeled child molesters, for their own safety no less.

Yes, we have come a long way in protecting children, but we have a far far ways to go. And lest you think we are getting close, remind yourself I have not even mentioned the epidemic of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect that sweeps first world countries, much less how much children living in the poorer 75% of the world are suffering.


'It was the best of times' for never before had we gotten so far in helping the little ones.
'It was the worst of times' for never before had we seen how much pain and suffering we are still unable to ease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnemyPartyII
Upvote 0

Mystman

Atheist with a Reason
Jun 24, 2005
4,245
295
✟22,286.00
Faith
Atheist
...teachers are affraid to hug a kid less it even appear sexual, even though science and nature have shown touch is an essential need of children..

I tried to write a post yesterday to this effect but kinda failed.

To protect the children, they're banning almost all adult-child interaction, or creating an environment where adults are afraid of being seen near or alone with a child. This lack of adult-child interaction (that happens to almost every child now) is harmful.

To protect 1 out of every million children being inappropriatly touched, they're harming the other million children by never letting them be touched at all.

I for one am not touching any child that's not my own. I don't care if it's crying and needs comfort. I don't care if it wants to play / be thrown into a pool /etc. All I know is that some hyperprotective government/parent is liable to brand any contact that the child wants as SEXUAL ASSUALT!!!1!!! and brand me as a pedophile for the rest of my life. -_-

I'm not even going to be alone in a room with a child that's not my own. Want help with your homework? Go bother your mother or something. Want to see me play a computergame (I've been in this situation with a niece-of-a-niece)? Though luck: go downstairs.

This attitude is not healthy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums