As I posted in another thread currently running -
I have just opened today's incoming mail and received my enhanced CRB check which is clear. However, if it was explained to me discretely that the policy existed I would have asked that a solution be found which is acceptable to myself and my wife. As Matt101 states the stats uphold this but I would argue that the stats are wrong as has been recognised by at least one national broadsheet (Guardian). Maternal and female physical of children has been with us for ages, nuns spring to mind, female sexual abuse of kids was not seen as being as widespread as it is now presently feared. Until the situation becomes clearer I think this policy will remain in place and the court case will fail.
Kaikohe - I am sure that if you phoned BA to specifically book a seat next to an UM you would have been informed of this as would pax involved. I similarly doubt that when booking with any airline that you are informed that you must not throw food or drinks around onboard or of any other normal societal norm.
In this case the fault does not lie with the policy but its implementation if all is it seems. However it could be that the CC involved acted properly and this has been an over-reaction or that the seats were allocated with the intention of the wife being seated next to the UM (was her pregnancy disclosed and asked to be considered at booking?). So many variables we are unaware of.