Male poses danger to children on Virgin Flight?

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

They actually cannot. You cannot make a rule supporting gender profiling I don't care how rich or powerful you are.

By law they may not be able to discriminate but I dont generally include mans arbitrary and inconsistent law when I form an opinion.

The gym in your example may not legally be able to say "no girls allowed" but there are countless ways to get around that with membership requirements, equipment on site, uncomfortable atmosphere, etc....

The law is powerless to affect discrimination as much as it and proponents of the law would like to believe otherwise and whenever it tries it usually makes the discrimination worse or goes so far as to legitimize discrimination toward a different class of people.

So on paper, sure Virgin can't. In practice however Virgin can do whatever it wants.

It's just one of those things, where really people shouldn't be so sensitive and just simply put the security and comfort of the child and parents first.

Maybe it hits a nerve because of an experience I had on a plane when I was 12, even if you are there with your family a lot of times you'll not be seated with them so me and my best friend at the time were seated next to this man my dad had came over and leaned against the wall while talking to me and my friend and looked down and saw that the man sitting next to us was looking at "barely legal" porn...My dad had to restrain from beating the living crap out of him and then went and told the flight attendant and she moved us immediately, but then we were sat next to a man who was a really sweat guy doing everything he could to get to his daughters soft ballgame, he let me and my friend sit next together instead of him in the middle...so it's just really situational, but you have to think is it really worth taking the risks? I don't think I'd really care about hurting anyone's feeling when it came to protecting my child in that way, because once something happens you can never take it back and that child is forever changed.

It would really suck if I were a male, I'd be so terrified to get close to a child.
A family friends son was telling me about the little kids he takes care of they are 5-7 years old and he is 13 he told me how one of the little girls looks up to him and always wants to sit in his lap, and It really sucks but I couldn't help but to feel a little awkward about it, I knew it was cute and sweat and innocent but I know how other people would look at him so I explained to him just to be very careful.

It sucks that it's this way, it shouldn't be no person should ever harm a child and it's just sad that molestation and rape is so rampant and almost borderline acceptable that we become so hypersensitive and look at everyone male as if they have ill intentions.

reply to post by pop_science


Thats the thing it is only a perceived threat. I totally understand keeping kids safe... But to what end? Do we immediately judge all men to be evil? I just think how I would feel. Of course I would oblige and move seats but that prejudgement in front of a crowd would hurt pretty bad. At the very least it would be offensive.

When I was a "minor" the airline provided a chaperone which was a member of the aircrew who kept a close eye on me and my siblings. When I investigated this a couple of years ago for my young family, I would have been charged more per ticket for unaccompanied children precisely because the airline (BA) would have had to devote personnel to their care and supervision on the ground nd in the air.

I wonder if there is more to this story that the report is missing and if we knew what that was we would all see that it was a non-story.

Regards

I get profiled as a pedofile all the time. I'm a rather grim looking fellow and add a camera to that and I'm automatically profiled. Thank god we don't have the terrorist hype here yet. I'd then be a terrorist or a pedo according to general public.
I wish I could sue someone...

I can't help but wonder whether the airline would have removed that male from his seat, had he been a Catholic priest, and not a firefighter.

I'm still at a loss, it sounds like those kids would have been safer sitting next to this guy. Oh and if you want to stick your kids on an airplane your butt should be in a seat very near them, or at least send them with a trusted chaperone.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Many factors come into play here, what did he look like? what was he wearing? were the children specifically requested to be seated not near women ( maybe the father was abusive and since has a court order against him )

Personally? Id rather my daughter to be seated next to a female, or even no one, instead of a man.

I mean, how would you feel if the male gardeer at school sat next to her for 3-4-5hrs ?

Sometimes you need to be careful and wary.. imagine what would have happened if this man abused her mid flight, think of the uproar?

Ridiculous, This attitude is why the problem and policy there exists!
You can't live life and make laws on the "What If " scenario.
"Maybe the father was abusive and had a court order against him"?!?!? where the hell did that come from?!?!
You can't just make up a way abstract scenario and make assumptions based on that and if you do it's just ridiculous.
"What if" the flight attendant "maybe" has a friend on the plane who "likes" little boys and just wanted to move he lady next to the boys so she could molest them during the flight....... See how stupid it sounds when I make crazy assumptions?

If the school (I assume you meant "gardener") sat next to my kids on a flight I wouldn't worry any more than if it was a fireman, banker, cop or school teacher.

If my kids were on a flight alone the thought of having a person sitting next to them that most likely would not lose their head in an emergency and is trained in first aid and as a first responder would be a big relief.


I work in a city park and often find small children who needs help but am terrified to offer any assistance because people like you are always watching and "assuming" that if I walk within 20' of the kid that I am trying to steal them away to a private place to have my way with them.
I had a small girl about 5-6 and her chain came off her bike and wanted me to fix it for her but I couldn't because of public perception. It's wrong, stupid and makes me sick. 30 years ago I would have put the chain on and sent her on her way a happy kid now I have to be careful somebody doesn't think I am a pervert.

reply to post by mwood


I know what you mean, I was once walking through the parking lot of a catholic church/school near my parents house and there had been some kids playing nearby and as I went past them I heard them shout 'pedophile!!' and I thought to myself, "Kids you are more likely to be molested by somebody in your church!" But it was somewhat bothersome because I would put my neck on the line to protect or assist any of those kids at any time.

reply to post by australianobserver


NOPE.

It may be mean and it may sound prejudicial, but no. if I were her, I would have done the same thing. I'm sorry, but no.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


Will you please explain why you feel this way, or why you feel the two young fellows would have been in danger?

Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

 

Will you please explain why you feel this way, or why you feel the two young fellows would have been in danger?

Okay. It kills me inside the number of little boys who have been molested repeatedly in the West while the pervs simply get "treatment" in the form of a vacation at a special little home instead of what really should be done to them. Or, they just get transferred to another Parrish if they are a man of the cloth. And in the wake of the Penn State Scandal, everyone is thinking about how to keep their babies safe and being more proactive about it. Embarrassed or not, this man should have understood that and not taken it personally. Why did it bother him so bad anyway ? Why would he want to stay seated with those two little boys for anyway ? Huh ?

There are other personal reasons, but to explain them, I would have to disclose the field I work in and who I am.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


I'm sorry, these boys were in danger of being molested in front of the entirety of passengers on an airplane? No. And I do agree that anyone caught molesting children has forfeited their right to life, I would never advocate locking them up and it's all but proven in my mind this type of person can't be 'rehabilitated'

reply to post by mwood


I work in a similar capacity where I am involved with the public all day. Families and children included.

Until a couple of years ago I would help kids who needed it. A lawyer for the job advised this stop unless there were multiple witnesses around.

So now before any of us can help anyone else we need to very literally call for backup.

It's not just kids either. It's anyone. Staff here have had lunatics accuse them of all sorts of things and these lunatics have been known to stalk staff outside of the work environment and make up accusations.

The problem is people. When you work with the public it isnt long before you realize a good 80% of them are quite simply insane.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Yup! I work for a bank branch and legal dept has notices for new employees about having multiple witnesses to any interaction with children.

Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

 

I'm sorry, these boys were in danger of being molested in front of the entirety of passengers on an airplane? No. And I do agree that anyone caught molesting children has forfeited their right to life, I would never advocate locking them up and it's all but proven in my mind this type of person can't be 'rehabilitated'

You think it starts with a child being sexually assaulted ? No. These guys hunt for children and plan out there crimes. Three to four hours is plenty of time to "case the joint" if you will. Get info about the boys , establish a relationship and then set up a time to meet them somewhere and snatch em up.

NO

NO

NO

She did the right thing by stopping THAT before it even had a chance to start.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher

You think it starts with a child being sexually assaulted ? No. These guys hunt for children and plan out there crimes. Three to four hours is plenty of time to "case the joint" if you will. Get info about the boys , establish a relationship and then set up a time to meet them somewhere and snatch em up.

NO

NO

NO

She did the right thing by stopping THAT before it even had a chance to start.

In that case she should have just removed those 2 boys from the aircraft because hey, airplanes crash sometimes and she would have been protecting the kids from THAT before it even had a chance to start.

Or what if the kids flew to their destination and nobody was waiting there to pick them up, so they accept a ride from a stranger and get driven to a warehouse where they get assaulted and mutilated!

If this is how you live your life it's a wonder you ever leave the house. There is so much what if danger everywhere!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Many factors come into play here, what did he look like? what was he wearing? were the children specifically requested to be seated not near women ( maybe the father was abusive and since has a court order against him )

Personally? Id rather my daughter to be seated next to a female, or even no one, instead of a man.

I mean, how would you feel if the male gardeer at school sat next to her for 3-4-5hrs ?

Sometimes you need to be careful and wary.. imagine what would have happened if this man abused her mid flight, think of the uproar?

You didn't read the article before posting? Why? How can you comment on something without even reading it first? It had nothing to do with what he looked like, what he was wearing, or if the children requested it. It's the policy of the airlines that any man cannot sit next to unaccompanied minors.

Please read the article you are commenting on first.

reply to post by jeantherapy


You asked a question, I answered it. You should have just came out and said you wanted to pick a fight.

The boys can't get released if there is no one there to pick them up. They stay at the air port. So, FAIL. As for the potential crash ? Those boys are 75 times more likely to get targeted by a perv than the plane crashing. Her focus was in the right place.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


But according to your logic, there could be a man in charge at the waiting airport who might be casing the joint, looking for parentless kids to abuse under the pretense that they are being kept there for their safety.