British Airways thinks all men are pedophiles

[Palo Verde]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

"A businessman is suing British Airways over a policy that bans male passengers from sitting next to children they don't know - even if the child's parents are on the same flight"

So this man was seated next to an unaccompanied minor and was forced to change seats before the plane would take off because of this stupid policy. Because we all know any man seated next to a child will just automatically start molesting them.

I normally hate lawsuits, but in this case I hope he sues their pants off and makes them change this stupid, sexist policy!

[Chimera]

The policy is stupid and worse. I hope they lose big and I would hope, but unfortunately don't have much hope for, the British public and lawmakers to step in and force a change.

The real stupid on the individual decision making level was that they moved the man away from his pregnant wife and didn't just move the unrelated kid sitting on the other side of him.

The person who made that decision and made the scene deserves to be fired.

[Palo Verde]

I don't think they made him move away from his wife, they just made him and his wife switch seats, so she was next to the kid and the man wasn't. It's still stupid.

I flew home from Europe this summer with my 4 children. We couldn’t all get seats together, so my 7 year old daughter was seated in the row in from of me. A wonderful man sat next to her and was so sweet and helpful to her the whole long way. He helped her get her headphones to work and unpack those plastic utensils.

Being male doesn’t make you a pedophile!

[Indistinguishable]

They fear molestation on the plane? I mean, it's a pretty public space...

[aceplace57]

Claude Knights, of the children's charity Kidscape said: 'The airline should have procedures in place to avoid this sort of situation.

'If the airline is that concerned they should sit unaccompanied children with cabin crew who have no doubt been thoroughly vetted.

That policy would make sense.

Making every adult man, setting next to a unaccompanied child, change seats is asinine.

[Palo Verde]

That policy would not make sense. I completely doubt that there has been a rash on men molesting children on planes. Just let the unaccompanied children sit where there is an empty seat.

[thirdname]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

They fear molestation on the plane? I mean, it's a pretty public space...

They're tired of these motherfuckin' molesters on their motherfuckin' planes.

[Skylark]

Originally Posted by Palo Verde

I normally hate lawsuits, but in this case I hope he sues their pants off and makes them change this stupid, sexist policy!

Tee hee.

[Palo Verde]

They think he's a pedophile, so he gets into their pants. Makes sense.

[Zebra]

I'm sure this policy came about after some hysterical mother had her kid sat next to some strange man and although nothing happened, she went ballistic on BA till they coughed up this little policy to make her shut up.

[Ponch8]

I'm all for this policy, as long as it means I never have to sit near a baby again.

[Cunctator]

'If the airline is that concerned they should sit unaccompanied children with cabin crew who have no doubt been thoroughly vetted'.

But aren't the crew supposed to be looking after the passengers? Or having a break? Why should they have to run a child minding service as well?

If there really is a need to address this risk, and I doubt there is, BA ought to require those travelling with children, or children travelling on their own, to buy a whole row of seats in order to provide a "buffer zone".

[aceplace57]

Traditionally, mass transit has always gave special attention to children traveling alone. They usually assign someone to help them check in, get seated etc. I traveled quite a lot to see my grandparents after I turned 10.

Normally the flight attendant would try and look after the child. Reassure them and so on. I never had any problems during my travels 40 years ago.

It's pretty sad we've reached a point where every adult male is viewed with suspicion and distrust. Not just on airplanes. The days of innocently offering aid to a child that wants to cross the street, find a bathroom or whatever are long gone.

[Slow Moving Vehicle]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

It's pretty sad we've reached a point where every adult male is viewed with suspicion and distrust. Not just on airplanes. The days of innocently offering aid to a child that wants to cross the street, find a bathroom or whatever are long gone.

Too true, and very sad. I have no kids of my own, but I do enjoy playing with my friends' children. (Some of them, anyway). I'll read to them or play hangman, or (in two cases, anyway) have very exciting and painful lightsaber battles. I am indulging my own desires for fatherhood, but I always hear a little voice that says "Be careful, don't show too much interest." It's a little better now that I'm married, but still....

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Palo Verde

I normally hate lawsuits, but in this case I hope he sues their pants off and makes them change this stupid, sexist policy!

I agree it's a stupid policy, but the lawsuit is even stupider. What's the grounds? What tort was committed? What harm did he suffer? Merely feeling humiliated is not sufficient grounds.

[Palo Verde]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

I agree it's a stupid policy, but the lawsuit is even stupider. What's the grounds? What tort was committed? What harm did he suffer? Merely feeling humiliated is not sufficient grounds.

Sexual discrimination. "Gender discrimination, or sex discrimination, may be characterized as the unequal treatment of a person based solely on that person's sex." "The essence (of sexual discrimination) is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex."

It fits.

[Peter Morris]

No. UK Tort law almost always requires some damage done to the plaintiff, with exceptions in only a few very specialized circumstances. Claiming sexual discrimination is not one of them. You have to show some actual damage as a result. Being paid less, or denied a promotion due to discrimination is valid grounds for a suit. Being asked to change your seat not so much.

[Palo Verde]

Then assuming this policy of BA's is illegal, how would one sue in order to have the policy changed? I can't imagine how that could work. If a restaurant had a policy that only allowed Pakistanis to sit in the back of the restaurant, are you saying a Pakistani man who was asked to leave his seat at the front and move to the back could not sue the restaurant? After all, he's just being asked to move his seat and has suffered no 'damage' more than the man on the plane.

[fuzzypickles]

Remember, this is the same country where vigilantes burned down a doctor's office because they thought "paediatrician" meant "paedophile."

Originally Posted by Ponch8

I'm all for this policy, as long as it means I never have to sit near a baby again.

I agree, except they should force the loud, smelly children to sit elsewhere. Like the cargo hold.

[Peter Morris]

In that case, the restaurant owners or staff would probably be prosecuted under criminal law. I'm not sure if the customer has grounds for a civil suit.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by fuzzypickles

Remember, this is the same country where vigilantes burned down a doctor's office because they thought "paediatrician" meant "paedophile."

Urban myth, or at least distorted. It was the acxt of one unknown person, who just wrote a little graffiti. No angry mob, no arson, no attack. And the confusion over the words is unproven speculation, the motive is not known for certain.

[Cat Fight]

Originally Posted by Ponch8

I'm all for this policy, as long as it means I never have to sit near a baby again.

NAMBLA could make a killing selling branded shirts for just this reason.

[SciFiSam]

This is a Daily Mail story. Don't take it seriously.

[Rayne Man]

Originally Posted by scifisam2009

This is a Daily Mail story. Don't take it seriously.

Yes, this is the "newspaper" that recently claimed that the recent earthquake in Haiti was caused by the movement of two "Teutonic plates" :-

Mail Article (in the box headed "DEVASTATING BUT PREDICTED")

[picunurse]

Originally Posted by fuzzypickles

Remember, this is the same country where vigilantes burned down a doctor's office because they thought "paediatrician" meant "paedophile."


I agree, except they should force the loud, smelly children to sit elsewhere. Like the cargo hold.

Or simply have planes that carry no one but children. I'd like that. A screaming tot 20 rows away is still annoying.

[needscoffee]

Actually, I remember reading not that long ago about children who had been molested on airplanes by pedophiles. Apparently it happens, though not that often. In general, the man will switch seats in order to be next to the kid. It isn't just some accident of random seat assignment.

[needscoffee]

Originally Posted by Rayne Man

Yes, this is the "newspaper" that recently claimed that the recent earthquake in Haiti was caused by the movement of two "Teutonic plates" :-

Mail Article (in the box headed "DEVASTATING BUT PREDICTED")

The Germans are at it again?!!

[Richard Pearse]

Originally Posted by needscoffee

Actually, I remember reading not that long ago about children who had been molested on airplanes by pedophiles. Apparently it happens, though not that often. In general, the man will switch seats in order to be next to the kid. It isn't just some accident of random seat assignment.

There was a Qantas Flight Attendant who had sex with Ralph Fiennes (sp?) in the toilet of an airliner, so it is possible to get up to mischief. Moving every man away from every child is not the answer though.

Edit: Sorry but I've just looked up Ralph Fiennes to make sure I got the spelling right, his full name is Ralph Nathaniel Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes! How very English.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

It's pretty sad we've reached a point where every adult male is viewed with suspicion and distrust. Not just on airplanes. The days of innocently offering aid to a child that wants to cross the street, find a bathroom or whatever are long gone.

And the occasional female; there's starting to be cases where a woman helps a lost kid (just take him to the lifeguard station on the beach, or to customer support in a supermarket) and the mother goes ballistic and pretty much accuses the helper of trying to kidnap her baby. Yeah, that makes sense: any kidnapper will, as the first step in her heinous plan, take your kid to the place where someone can use the sound system to call for you Oooof course.

I don't know about whomever caused BA to come up with the now-being-challenged stupid policy, but these other cases sound to me like the mothers involved are feeling guilty they lost their kid from sight (something that's happened to pretty much every mother of a toddler, kids are slippery!) and trying to hide/transfer that guilt.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

'If the airline is that concerned they should sit unaccompanied children with cabin crew who have no doubt been thoroughly vetted'.

"Tell me Billy . . . you ever like to watch old gladiator movies?"

[chela]

I don't fly that often but I have noticed on the two flights I made last year I was not able to select my own seat. And on every flight connection there and back I was seated next to a woman. And I noticed that the flight was pretty much segregated that way. Not entirely, but damn close. This was on Delta.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by 1920s Style "Death Ray"

Edit: Sorry but I've just looked up Ralph Fiennes to make sure I got the spelling right, his full name is Ralph Nathaniel Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes! How very English.

Wrong again: it's Ranulph.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by picunurse

Or simply have planes that carry no one but children. I'd like that. A screaming tot 20 rows away is still annoying.

Yeah- brat free flights! I'm for that.

[WotNot]

Originally Posted by jjimm

Wrong again: it's Ranulph.

No, Ralph Fiennes the actor. Ranulph the explorer is his cousin.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

They fear molestation on the plane? I mean, it's a pretty public space...

I heard there was a movie about that -- Snakes on a plane.

[Richard Pearse]

Originally Posted by jjimm

Wrong again: it's Ranulph.

Yeah, that's Ran Fiennes, different guy, same family.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Originally Posted by Rayne Man

Yes, this is the "newspaper" that recently claimed that the recent earthquake in Haiti was caused by the movement of two "Teutonic plates" :-

Mail Article (in the box headed "DEVASTATING BUT PREDICTED")

But it has some great pictures. Like this one of Gordon Brown (second picture)

[Sattua]

Originally Posted by 1920s Style "Death Ray"

There was a Qantas Flight Attendant who had sex with Ralph Fiennes (sp?) in the toilet of an airliner

I'll... be... in my bunk.

[Richard Pearse]

Originally Posted by Sattua

I'll... be... in my bunk.

Do the extra names help or hinder the fantasy?

[Richard Pearse]

Originally Posted by jjimm

Wrong again: it's Ranulph.

...and come on man, do you not think I'd get it right after Googling it?

[Rayne Man]

Originally Posted by Tapioca Dextrin

But it has some great pictures. Like this one of Gordon Brown (second picture)

But as you see it's been Photo-shopped - something the Mail is well known for, and sometimes not very successfully.

Example 1 Example 2
Example 3

[Markxxx]

Well you don't have to molest a child to cause problems. A man could open his zipper, play with himself, put his hands down his pants, make suggestive or lewed comments.

I'm a 45 year old male, and all my life, kids just love me. They come over and start talking to me.

It astonishes me the amount of kids that must be lonely for some sort of male attention. Even when I was younger, I got it.

I was on a plane once and I had the window seat and the little kid (about 5) she says "I wanted to sit next to the window so I can see." The mother said "no, you can't." So I offered to change places with the little girl. The mother said, "thanks," and somehow I wound up in the middle between the two. I hate the middle seat.

I"m always shocked by the number of parents that will thank me for talking to their kids. There was a kid on the bus doing his "times tables," and he asked me to help. After about 20 minutes I got up to get off and his mother says, "Thank you so much for helping, he just never shuts up does he?"

[RTFirefly]

The ad I'm seeing at the bottom of the thread says:

Registered Sex Offenders
Protect your child. Find out now if a sex offender lives in your area.

Sheesh.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

I agree it's a stupid policy, but the lawsuit is even stupider. What's the grounds? What tort was committed? What harm did he suffer? Merely feeling humiliated is not sufficient grounds.

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

No. UK Tort law almost always requires some damage done to the plaintiff, with exceptions in only a few very specialized circumstances. Claiming sexual discrimination is not one of them. You have to show some actual damage as a result. Being paid less, or denied a promotion due to discrimination is valid grounds for a suit. Being asked to change your seat not so much.

Except sex discrimination suits in the UK aren't based on common law torts; they're based on the The Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Section 29 of the Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services offered to the public. Sub-section 29(2)(f) states that includes the provision of "facilities for transport or travel", which would seem to apply to this case.

Section 66 of the Act provides that a claim for sexual discrimination contrary to the Act may be brought in the County Courts (of England & Wales) or the Sheriff's Court (in Scotland). It also provides that damages can be given for injury to feelings, even without any other claim for damages:

Originally Posted by Parliament of the United Kingdom

66(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that damages in respect of an unlawful act of discrimination may include compensation for injury to feelings whether or not they include compensation under any other head.

Now, whether the passenger can prove his case to the extent required by the statute is another matter, and something I know nothing about. But on the face of it, his claim looks like it comes within the scope of the Act.

(Oh, and although the various provisions of the Act refer to discrimination against women, s. 2 of the Act provides that all of the provisions also apply to men.)

As usual, this post is not intended as legal advice, but simply to comment on a matter of public interest.

[Palo Verde]

Thanks for this information.

I figured there had to be a way for a normal person to sue alleging sex discrimination.

[ratatoskK]

So all of the lucky female passengers get to sit next to little kids. Gee, thanks!

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by ratatoskK

So all of the lucky female passengers get to sit next to little kids. Gee, thanks!

Well, if you talked dirty and flashed 'em the old "Mrs. Sloacum", this wouldn't happen, now would it?

[carter6]

Yes, this is the "newspaper" that recently claimed that the recent earthquake in Haiti was caused by the movement of two "Teutonic plates" :-

Mail Article (in the box headed "DEVASTATING BUT PREDICTED")

Ha! I skipped ahead to that single sentence and found that it contains three massive typos besides "teutonic plates." "Domican Republic," "betwen," and "suspceptibile."

Bravo.

[MitzeKatze]

Originally Posted by Cunctator

But aren't the crew supposed to be looking after the passengers? Or having a break? Why should they have to run a child minding service as well?

I just wanted to clarify a small point here about unaccompanied minors. My children flew as unaccompanied minors back and forth between Guam and Kansas and Kansas and South Carolina for many years, the last of which was 2006 so policies may have changed slightly since then.

When a child is flying unaccompanied up to a certain age there is a crew member "assigned" to them who sits with them (or very near them) and checks on them throughout the flight. After a certain age, I am not certain maybe 7 or 8? Their assigned crew member meets them at the gate (or at security since 2001 when non-ticketed individuals were no longer allowed through security to get to the gate) gets them settled in, then escorts them off the flight and through the gate to meet whoever is picking them up. They don't release the kids until id of whoever is picking them up has been verified.

In a sense they are running a child-minding service as far as unaccompanied minors goes, but for that service we parents (or whoever is paying for the tickets) pay a significant fee. I think the last time it was around $95 each way in addition to the full-fare ticket prices (no discounts allowed for unaccompanied minors on the airlines we used). So yes, I do expect child-minding when the parent (or whoever) contracts and pays for that aspect.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Great. Just when I get a nice buffer between me and the kid, they make us switch spaces because as a woman I'm supposed to just love children?
This sucks for women, men, and children.