PDA

View Full Version : Would you jail this passenger?


crewmeal
28th May 2014, 06:00
It will be interesting to see whether Magistrates jail this character for slapping a stdss on a flight from ALC. What do you think? Should he get 6 months?

Groom-to-be ?who slapped Ryanair stewardess on the bottom? could be jailed (From Bournemouth Echo) (http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11235586.Groom_to_be____who_slapped_Ryanair_stewardess_on_th e_bottom____could_be_jailed/)

sitigeltfel
28th May 2014, 06:11
was then sold a discounted alcoholic drink by the air stewardess I think that is where his story falls apart.

500N
28th May 2014, 06:15
Not sure I'd jail him for that considering what they let others off for.

mixture
28th May 2014, 06:26
Jail no.

Fine heavily and ban from flying for a period of time, yes.

Bronx
28th May 2014, 06:40
No.

Should he get 6 months?
http://img.mylot.com/350x350/2241869.gif


Lee Turner, prosecuting read a statement from the air stewardess in which she said Thompson told her she was very pretty and that he loved her. “As she walked past he smacked her bottom with his open right hand,” said Mr Turner. “She pushed his hand away and said: ‘Don’t do that again’.”
“He wasn’t aggressive, she thinks he was trying to be funny but was actually very disrespectful.”

No criminal record and he works.
Ģ500 fine for being drunk on the airplane.
Ģ100 fine for being stupid + Ģ100 compensation to the stewardess for being disrespectful.
Maximum.

Anything more would be completely OTT.
Ryanair can always ban him from flying with them if they think it's necessary.


(Ģ500 fine for being drunk based on nothing being mentioned in the link about any other bad behavior on the flight except for the slap on the bottom.)

chuks
28th May 2014, 06:54
Err, he looked at the stewardess as if she were a piece of meat, did he? Why does that remind me of the racist policeman sketch from "Not the 9 O'clock News," arresting that black man for "looking at me funny,"?

Excuse me for asking, but is this not the airline that tried to peddle a calendar in its insanely cheesy inflight magazine with the promise that I might get to see our own flight attendants wearing bathing suits? Ryanair, yep, that's the one! Of course, MOL was in there too, in his own bathing suit, a certain anti-aphrodisiac, verging on an emetic, just to provide a counter-balance.

Do this drunken fool of a passenger for something or other, common assault or whatever you call that, since, no, one cannot be having the cabin staff being smacked on their tushies, but making this out to be some sort of heavy sex attack might be taking it too far. MOL clearly uses the principle of "sex sells" in his own marketing, thus degrading his cabin staff himself, instead of treating them as the professionals they should be seen as. When things go too far, as here, well, he started it!

acbus1
28th May 2014, 07:07
Her greatest mistake is not waiting 40 years before reporting this incident.

DevX
28th May 2014, 07:24
QUOTE: Err, he looked at the stewardess as if she were a piece of meat, did he?

Isn't that what makes the human race tick? Man ogles woman (suitable bed partner), woman ogles man (suitable meal ticket), plentiful fornication until all offspring are created. :E

acbus1
28th May 2014, 07:47
...then they divorce and she gets all the loot.

chuks
28th May 2014, 07:57
We are expected to look at others as more than just sex partners. It's "modern times," old boy! You are no longer expected to be sat there in front of your cave on the look-out for random bints down to shag; that's just so ... yesterday! Life was simpler then, I grant you, but "times change and we must change with them."

Nowadays one must make a decent pretense, at least, of being interested in the other "as a person." I know that's difficult, but that's just how it is. Just a quick glance at the tits is okay, you might get away with that, but then you have to think, "Eye contact! Must ... maintain ... eye contact!" It's difficult to do this at first, but you can learn to do it, and after a while you may even come to think of others as more than just "suitable bed partners."

That's my problem with MOL's stupid attempt at peddling his calendars using "sex sells," actually, that it puts Ryanair flight attendants onto the level of Page Three girls, when they are trained professionals with a role to play in the safety of flight; it's degrading.

You cannot hope to get away with smacking a flight attendant on the butt by pleading that you were drunk and she was overpoweringly sexy. That's just stupid behavior that means the judge should whack you on your tiny pee-pee, if only as a warning to others.

There are still parts of the world where women are viewed by most men as just "suitable bed partners," but the UK is not one of them.

You can still "ogle" women (and men too if you are that way inclined), but that's usually not acceptable by "community standards." You may expect problems to follow from that unless you are in some singles bar, gay bar, or discotheque, someplace where that's expected behavior; a passenger aircraft is not one of those places.

In this case, it's not the looking but the touching that has led to the prosecution, though; "ogling" is a side-issue.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th May 2014, 08:17
You can still "ogle" women (and men too if you are that way inclined), but that's usually not acceptable by "community standards." You may expect problems to follow from that unless you are in some singles bar, gay bar, or discotheque, someplace where that's expected behavior; a passenger aircraft is not one of those places.

Why, as long as you don't touch why is looking wrong?

Lord Spandex Masher
28th May 2014, 08:23
Chunks, I think the Ryanair Page 3 Stunnahs volunteered;)

Alloa Akbar
28th May 2014, 08:26
Chaps Chaps Chaps.. I am surprised by your lack of planning, this is an aviation forum is it not? So.. A decent pair of Ray Ban Aviators will offer more than adequate eye coverage, and a decent amount of light reflection to facilitate said oggling of bed meat without incurring detection and therefore penalty.

Come on chaps, switch on!! :cool:

:ok:

chuks
28th May 2014, 08:34
It's "wrong" in somewhat the same way that eating with your hands, once the norm, is wrong; the general community has set a different standard of behavior. You may get lucky if you find some, well, bint who takes being ogled as a compliment, a "Vicky Pollard," say.

I once made the mistake of showing up in an up-scale sandwich restaurant (a contradiction in terms) in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. in my leathers since I was riding my Norton Commando 850 Mark II. Then the waiter, screamingly gay as many Georgetown waiters are, took me for some sort of sex object, some kind of slightly aged "leather boy," I guess.

You know that "eyes on the back of your neck" feeling? Well, dinner was like that, plus much flitting around our table, asking me if there were to be perhaps "anything else" that Sir would be needing? What, a back massage?

Unwanted ogling usually is creepy, in other words! It's burdensome to the person you are looking at when you do your looking in the wrong way.

Showing interest in the other as a person is usually okay. Showing interest in the other merely as a sex object is usually not okay. What's so hard about that to understand? Ogle if you must, but be prepared for rejection, at least.

acbus1
28th May 2014, 08:47
http://www.crazywheelies.com/media/caveman%20pull%20by%20hair%20clobber.jpg

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th May 2014, 08:51
It's "wrong" in somewhat the same way that eating with your hands, once the norm, is wrong; the general community has set a different standard of behavior. You may get lucky if you find some, well, bint who takes being ogled as a compliment, a "Vicky Pollard," say.


Looking at a woman is neither wrong nor inappropriate yet some PC befuddled folk would try to tell us it is.

Most women will dress in a manner that they feel comfy in and will have looked at themselves countless times in a mirror prior to going going out in public. If she dresses in a manner likely to catch men's attention which she will know by her reflected image and achievies that aim I really do fail to see what the problem is provided it remains at look no touch.

onetrack
28th May 2014, 09:13
Lemme see. What would be the response of the posters - who reckon its perfectly O.K. to leer at, and smack a strange woman on the bum - if that woman just happened to be their own daughter? - and she complained to Dad about it?

I reckon those same blokes would promptly turn into outraged males looking to punch the offenders lights out. :rolleyes:

A jail sentence for the offender mentioned by the OP, is unnecessary - but a fine and some training in how to behave like a gentleman, should be part of his course of correction.

MagnusP
28th May 2014, 09:14
acbus1, you owe me a keyboard. I'm stealing that cartoon. :ok:

DevX
28th May 2014, 09:26
Chuks, I agree with most of what you're saying, but some times it's hard to ignore nature's cruel calling, especially when women deliberately dress provocatively. However, in my book it's most definitely out of order to touch or stare/ogle unnecessarily. As an aside, when I was a much younger 30 something I had my bottom pinched quite hard in a bar by one of a group of girls that passed through. Was I offended? Not at all, I was most flattered. :cool:

crewmeal
28th May 2014, 09:32
but a fine and some training in how to behave like a gentleman, should be part of his course of correction.

And whose going to pay for such training. I don't know of any courses available to 'naughty' boys beyond parenting skills.

I'm surprised the 'hang 'em high' brigade haven't come down firmly on t***s like this.

onetrack
28th May 2014, 09:59
crewmeal:And whose going to pay for such training.Well, I would think it was obvious he'd have to pay for it himself as part of his "correctional" treatment.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find someone who does etiquette and "civil behaviour in public" courses.

Worrals in the wilds
28th May 2014, 10:10
In Australia we have a constant stream of passengers who board drunk and/or drugged, make complete d:mad:cks of themselves, assault and threaten the crew and their fellow passengers and generally scare everyone on board witless. They get arrested on arrival then front court, only to be let off because they had a lousy childhood, personality problems or a bad hair day. :*
Here's just one of the many incidents; $1000 fine per man for threatening to stab passengers. :mad:
Abusive plane rampage lands three Lismore men with a fine | Northern Star (http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/abusive-plane-rampage-lands-three-lismore-men-with/2267161/)

So if he's in Australia he may as well go for it. All the other ferals are getting away with behaving like chimpanzees on board aircraft; slapping a flight attendant is barely worth a mention.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th May 2014, 10:16
Lemme see. What would be the response of the posters - who reckon its perfectly O.K. to leer at, - if that woman just happened to be their own daughter? - and she complained to Dad about it?

I reckon those same blokes would promptly turn to their daughters and explain to them if they go out dressed to impress and achieve that aim what actually is the problem. :rolleyes:



There, it reads a little better like that :ok:


As regards the jailing of the offender in question, what he did was assault the woman and not taking hard action really sends a bad message to others.


Shame for the guy as it was almost certainly all done in good natured jest but live by the sword and die by the sword in current times.

angels
28th May 2014, 10:26
Times change. You are no longer allowed to assault women because you have the idea that because they are attractive to you, they must want to **** you.

Good thing too.

Linedog
28th May 2014, 11:14
Was a time when women knew how to accept a compliment. ;)

cockney steve
28th May 2014, 12:27
Agree with the "re-write that SFFP posted 2 up...
Told daughter that if she thought low-cut top, push-up bra, hipster-skirt showing thong, was a good look, she must expect attention and, having "the goods" on public display, she couldn't be selective as to who ogled or attempted a more overt token of interest.
She has always dressed modestly, AFAIK never been the subject of unwanted molestation.

A Stewardess , as with a waitress, is in a social environment and where food and alcohol are served, standards of decorum can degenerate. I think, had the "assailant" been remonstrated with, and desisted from further "assault" that wouls/should close the " incident".
A lot of people are jumping on the "victim" bandwagon....these precious, wilting flowers need to get a life.
Like Dev X I consider myself fortunate to have had one unsolicited "encounter" with a member of the opposite sex, upon which I can look back with fondness...(no, I rebuffed her politely, no offence given or taken)

onetrack
28th May 2014, 12:37
Steve - You rebuffed her?? :eek: :rolleyes: It's obvious you hadn't had enough to drink by that stage, then?? :)


http://oi58.tinypic.com/149w7c6.jpg

west lakes
28th May 2014, 12:39
A couple of points (or more)

He was prosecuted for being drunk on board an aircraft which is a specific separate offence as well as assault on the cabin crew member.

Whilst the second charge is debatable he has admitted to the first and pleaded guilty to the second. But perhaps the evidence of the contact was also part of showing his state of intoxication.

The report does mention he was served a drink on-board but not if it was before or after the incident.



I doubt anyone could suggest that the Ryanair CC uniform is provocative so I really doubt this is relevant to the original case.

Evanelpus
28th May 2014, 15:26
Err, he looked at the stewardess as if she were a piece of meat, did he? Why does that remind me of the racist policeman sketch from "Not the 9 O'clock News," arresting that black man for "looking at me funny,"?

I thought it was because he was wearing a flowered shirt and in possession of an offensive wife....oh and rubbery lips!:ok:

419
28th May 2014, 21:24
Why does that remind me of the racist policeman sketch from "Not the 9 O'clock News," arresting that black man for "looking at me funny,"?

BO8EpfyCG2Y

TomJoad
28th May 2014, 21:37
Was a time when women knew how to accept a compliment. ;)

Was a time when a gentleman knew how to provide one;)

Lonewolf_50
28th May 2014, 21:39
No criminal record and he works.
Ģ500 fine for being drunk on the airplane.
Ģ100 fine for being stupid + Ģ100 compensation to the stewardess for being disrespectful.
Maximum.

Anything more would be completely OTT.
Ryanair can always ban him from flying with them if they think it's necessary.
Seems reasonable, therefore, not likely to be what happens. :p

@ Tom Joad: indeed. But then, how often does on find an actual gentleman anymore?

pigboat
28th May 2014, 22:36
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/Siddley-Hawker/somenuts_zps9868494b.gif

ExSp33db1rd
29th May 2014, 00:09
.......unsolicited "encounter" with a member of the opposite sex,

Going through the pre-start checks one day, the flight deck door opened and a voice said " what winks, whistles, and fcuks like a Tiger "

We turned around to see one of the hosties stood there, whistling and winking.

Works both ways, only one way seems to be illegal tho'.

(my lips are sealed)

500N
29th May 2014, 00:23
Ex

The question is, did you find out if the third part was true ????? :O

ChrisVJ
29th May 2014, 04:50
Originally Posted by onetrack
"Lemme see. What would be the response of the posters - who reckon its perfectly O.K. to leer at, - if that woman just happened to be their own daughter? - and she complained to Dad about it?

I reckon those same blokes would promptly turn to their daughters and explain to them if they go out dressed to impress and achieve that aim what actually is the problem. "

I would have, (and have) suggested that she surely had enough wit to put down and suitably embarrass the guy, nowadays sadly lacking in a young lady's education.

Sad place this world is coming to.

ExSp33db1rd
29th May 2014, 04:55
The question is, did you find out if the third part was true ?????


(my lips are sealed)!!

MagnusP
29th May 2014, 07:39
But were hers? :E

Bronx
29th May 2014, 07:41
Sad place this world is coming to.


Completely unaccaptable behavior but sad the cops were brought into it.
Even sadder that it got taken to court.

Juud
29th May 2014, 12:33
Seldomfitforpurpose, cockney steve and DevX; briliant reasoning.

Lets summarize your argument shall we?

It is up to a woman to avoid any and all unwanted attention, from crude compliments via bottom slapping to rape.
This she can accomplish by dressing modestly.
So how does she know what modest dress is?
Easy of course. Modest dress is what does not provoke a defenceless, red blooded male into thoughts of a sexual nature.
Quite so.

Modesty is in the eyes of the beholder. And since a woman never knows who will behold her, she needs to make sure that her dress is modest enough to fit the standard of any male she might meet in the course of her (working) day.

How does a woman do that?
Again, easy.
Following your reasoning gentlemen, womenīs foolproof dress:

http://files-cdn.formspring.me/photos/20120805/n501efc50cc252_large.jpg


Oh and chaps, to live a happy life, make sure that reality never enters your universe. Please never inform yourself of the truth about unwanted sexual attention. Do not let your thinking be influenced by the kind if dumb science and stupid statistics that show how dress/age/looks are irrelevant to who gets sexually assaulted and raped.
No point in letting the truth into your happy little worlds; if your daughters and wives get molested and raped, itīs their own fault and let nobody tell you differently!

MagnusP
29th May 2014, 13:38
Juud, you make some excellent points there. Neither man, woman nor seagull can do a damn thing about the photons once they've reflected off you, so looking is unavoidable; however, an oppressive manner or unwanted contact is a step too far. Frankly, I think a proportionate response to the arse-slapper would have been a slap in the face, but that probably goes against some company policy. Sad, isn't it?

vulcanised
29th May 2014, 14:22
Not exactly 'Coffee, tea or me' outfits there. Juud.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th May 2014, 14:30
Seldomfitforpurpose, cockney steve and DevX; briliant reasoning.

Lets summarize your argument shall we?

It is up to a woman to avoid any and all unwanted attention.

This she can accomplish by dressing modestly.
So how does she know what modest dress is?
Easy of course. Modest dress is what does not provoke a defenceless, red blooded male into thoughts of a sexual nature.
Quite so.

Modesty is in the eyes of the beholder. And since a woman never knows who will behold her, she needs to make sure that her dress is modest enough to fit the standard of any male she might meet in the course of her (working) day.

How does a woman do that?
Again, easy.
Following your reasoning gentlemen, womenīs foolproof dress:

http://files-cdn.formspring.me/photos/20120805/n501efc50cc252_large.jpg


Oh and chaps, to live a happy life, make sure that reality never enters your universe. Please never inform yourself of the truth about unwanted sexual attention. Do not let your thinking be influenced by the kind if dumb science and stupid statistics that show how dress/age/looks are irrelevant to who gets sexually assaulted and raped.
No point in letting the truth into your happy little worlds;




There to add a little maturity to the debate I have removed the rather silly bits of your post, after all none of those you so ridiculously accuse actually reasoned molestation or rape as part of their arguement :=

Juud
29th May 2014, 15:32
Seldomfitforpurpose, whatīs with the altering of posts you quote?

Second time on this thread you deploy what is a very shady debating strategy at best.

And how does removing my definition of any and all unwanted attention as: from crude compliments via bottom slapping to rapecompute an argument? Mature or otherwise?

Calling my post silly and adding a := is not exactly a robust rebuttal of my position either, is it?

If you are unable or unwilling to argue your position, why post at all?
Not saying that making a post without meaning is not allowed, just wondering why you bother.

****

Piggers, great cartoon. :ok:

MagnusP, employed your 'proposed strategy' once. Reacted to a slap on the rump from a young Business Class pax by turning around and slapping his face. It was an instinctive and immediate reaction. Worked too. Both the young man himself and his very respectable parents were totally mortified.
But for the next six months, I was petrified every time I emptied my mail slot at work. Fearing instant dismissal for assault on a passenger.
I was very lucky that the family did not complain, which they would have had every right to do. Even if the result was both satisfying and immediate, I had no more call slapping that young manīs face than he had slapping my backside.
And yes, while my 'solution' was far easier on everybody than a court case would have been, FWIW I do believe that civilised society partly depends on people keeping their hands to themselves unless in danger.
And having done it once and lived in fear for half a year, I donīt think my retaliatory instincts will ever get the better of me at work again. :)

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th May 2014, 15:38
If you are unable or unwilling to argue your position, why post at all?
Not saying that making a post without meaning is not allowed, just wondering why you bother.





If you want to point out to us all on here where I have committed the crime you initially accuse me off please do :ok:

acbus1
29th May 2014, 18:51
Best solution to this problem is to employ cabin crew based upon adequate physical strength and IQ (necessary attributes during, for example, some potential emergencies) and dress them unattractively for their own protection. Sexual equality demands 50% men, 50% women.

The current discriminatory bias favouring the recruitment of young women of attractive physical appearance and of less than a strictly defined body mass index will thereby be corrected.

Unless someone can demonstrate that the current recruitment criteria are not discriminatory and biased.

Lord Spandex Masher
29th May 2014, 19:26
Yes, but most punters would rather be served by a tasty bit of eye candy than a well educated shirt or weight lifter.

So, not discriminatory but consumer preference.

west lakes
29th May 2014, 19:40
Strange thing is that the female cabin crew members I'm privelaged to be friends with all certainly meet the high IQ requirement mentioned.
So I would suggest those that are implying that they are "bimbos" or similar are far from being truthful (if they work in the industry)

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th May 2014, 20:26
Strange thing is that the female cabin crew members I'm privelaged to be friends with all certainly meet the high IQ requirement mentioned.
So I would suggest those that are implying that they are "bimbos" or similar are far from being truthful (if they work in the industry)

It's one of those oft jested about subjects but my experiences are similar to yours in that those I have met are certainly not daft :ok:

500N
29th May 2014, 20:29
I agree.

And I dated a blonde QF for a few years. She was no dummy, that's for sure.

ExSp33db1rd
29th May 2014, 23:19
Heterosexual males don't go around ogling and openly admiring other males, nor look for it in return, and women profess to wanting "equality" with men, yet still want the results of their feminine traits of eyelash fluttering and "come hither" looks to be acknowledged, yet then complain of "harrassment" when they get it in a way that they might not have envisaged. Seems they want it both ways. Funny that.

I've never "assaulted" anyone, male or female, in my life, and agree that one shouldn't but don't I now - in this enlightened "equal" World - have the ability (not right) to treat both sexes the same, if the need arises ?

Just sayin', back to my cave.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th May 2014, 23:33
Heterosexual males don't go around ogling and openly admiring other males, nor look for it in return, and women profess to wanting "equality" with men, yet still want the results of their feminine traits of eyelash fluttering and "come hither" looks to be acknowledged, yet then complain of "harrassment" when they get it in a way that they might not have envisaged. Seems they want it both ways. Funny that.

I've never "assaulted" anyone, male or female, in my life, and agree that one shouldn't but don't I now - in this enlightened "equal" World - have the ability (not right) to treat both sexes the same, if the need arises ?

Just sayin', back to my cave.

Lot of common sense in that post, may not sit well with some but it's spot on :ok:

acbus1
30th May 2014, 07:22
Heterosexual males don't go around ogling and openly admiring other males, nor look for it in return, and women profess to wanting "equality" with men, yet still want the results of their feminine traits of eyelash fluttering and "come hither" looks to be acknowledged, yet then complain of "harrassment" when they get it in a way that they might not have envisaged. Seems they want it both ways. Funny that.
:ok: A difficult observation to express without ambiguity. I've tried many times and failed. Must keep the above for future use (though I've no doubt some around here will apply their unique brands of 'logic' to attempt distortions).

Strange thing is that the female cabin crew members I'm privelaged to be friends with all certainly meet the high IQ requirement mentioned.
So I would suggest those that are implying that they are "bimbos" or similar are far from being truthful (if they work in the industry)
In that case, I must have and must still be working for the wrong airlines. My experience is of a spread of IQ similar to the normal walk of life.

BTW, I didn't mention a 'high IQ requirement'. I wrote:
...adequate physical strength and IQ...

Juud
30th May 2014, 08:49
If you want to point out to us all on here where I have committed the crime you initially accuse me off please do :ok:
Seldom, yet another complete non sequitur. What accusation? Of what crime?
Unless you make a minimal effort at the back and forth that is called a discussion, as in considering points made and reacting to them by explaining why you think those points are valid or not valid, what is the point of your continued contributions?
Apart from page filling and dragging the thread back to the top of course, there is that. ;)

Exp33dbird, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, as I had to read your post quite a few times. But are you saying that the FA on this flight employed eye-lashf luttering and come hither looks? And should therefore not complain when she was smacked on the bum by an inebriated passenger?
IF that is your argument, I think perhaps your memories of working life are a tad rosy. In todayīs airline cabin, most certainly in the airline we are talking about, the sheer physical amount of work demanded from cabin crew leaves little or no energy or inclination to engage in fluttering and come hithering. Trying to feed and water the masses with the Minimum Required Cabin Crew employed by western airlines, plus selling all the tat and the scratch cards and what not, on rosters that would have Health and Safety in shock if they were applied for workers on Terra Firma; believe me, you donīt flutter! :O
FAs nowadays are mainly tough as nails, with an amazing capacity for hard physical labour and the ability to deal effectively with punters from all walks of life in a way that mainly forestalls physical altercations.
And anyway, do you honestly feel that if a woman flutters, she should accept getting her bum smacked?
If I did misunderstand you, I do apologise.

acbus1 Iīd say you are correct. Of course it does depend on what you call normal, which educational entry qualifications the particular airline requires and how strict they are when it comes to the Flight Safety training and exams.
It doesnīt take a larger than normal IQ to be an FA.
To be a good FA, it takes a specific combination of IQ and EQ. Plus the willingness to work hard for extended periods of time without breaks or sit down meals. A liking of people in all their different manifestations and a large dose of humour to deal with all the weirdness encountered on a daily basis.
The ability to forgive and forget, start each flight with enthusiasm and to remember that passengers are not herds of cattle in transport, but individuals who need a bit of TLC in a to them stressful environment.
A good FA knows how to be compassionate with the family whose dead Dad is in a coffin in the belly, firm with the Russian drinking from his own bottle and jolly with the oil workers just off a platform. Deal with vomit and blocked lavatories, remove a splinter from a childīs thumb and competently perform the occasional bout of CPR.
All that, while slinging the food and drink (and making sure nobody gets drunk), keeping an eye out for safety and remain looking fresh and well groomed.
And relentlessly, twice a year, pass your written Flight Safety and Security exams. Once a year every year demonstrate in the cabin simulator that you are able to evacuate your screaming panicky pax from a smoke filled cabin in record time, getting them down a slide mucho pronto. And once every three show that you are able to don a smoke hood and extinguish different types of fire with the correct extinguishing agent while you canīt see sh!t for all the artificial smoke pumped into the fire cabin sim. And in the afternoon demonstrate in the role play with a scary actor that you know how to act appropriately and effectively in case of hijack/psychotic passenger/aggressive drunk.
Not rocket science by any means, but it takes a certain type of personality. :)

And yes, as long as certain airlines advertise the sexiness of their FAs as a reason to fly with them, the public perception will remain accordingly.

DevX
30th May 2014, 11:41
QUOTE: .........the sheer physical amount of work demanded from cabin crew leaves little or no energy or inclination to engage in fluttering and come hithering.

Bullshine! I was on a return flight from HAJ with a well know regional airline earlier this year and every time one of the FA passed my seat she brushed her (very nice) bum against my shoulder. In the first instance I thought it was purely an accident, but as she did it repeatedly during the flight and was making occasional eye contact too, she was obviously feeling flirty. Now some might construe that as being offensive and not very professional, but I found it rather enjoyable and felt flattered. It certainly pepped up an otherwise dull commute.

BTW, I take it that you are a true professional and that you never eye up the occasional fit Pax you might come across during your working day? :hmm:

vulcanised
30th May 2014, 11:53
When are folk going to accept that females can be just as randy (if not more so) than males?

It's just when you get a mismatch that trouble occurs.

Juud
30th May 2014, 12:36
And yet another misleading quote employed. Youīd almost be tempted to think that making an argument based on what I actually said was beyond some of the learned gentlemen here.... ;)
Hereīs what I actually wrote:
... most certainly in the airline we are talking about, the sheer physical amount of work demanded from cabin crew leaves little or no energy or inclination to engage in fluttering and come hithering. Trying to feed and water the masses with the Minimum Required Cabin Crew employed by western airlines, plus selling all the tat and the scratch cards and what not, on rosters that would have Health and Safety in shock if they were applied for workers on Terra Firma; believe me, you donīt flutter! :O

DevX let me spell it out for you;
* The airline we are talking about on this thread = Ryanair. Irish no frills LoCo, employing the minimum number of CC required by law.
* The airline you are talking about: unnamed Middle East airline. Where salaries are a lot lower and there is a good possibility of the state sponsoring the airline with large sums of oil money. As a result of both these factors, the ratio of CC per cabin section is a lot higher. Which in NO shape or form equals the 'western airlines employing Minimum Required Cabin Crew' that I mentioned in my post.

Your story, entertaining as it may have been for you, has no bearing on my post. Did you think it did? Or did you not actually bother to think?

As for me eyeing up the occasional fit pax; none of your business really. But for argumentīs sake; of course I note the occasional attractive passenger. Or the occasional attractive colleague whatever side of the door. They are rare, but an enjoyable aspect of the job.
Then again, what has looking at an attractive man got to do with this thread? :confused:

Vulcanised, very true :ok:

DevX
30th May 2014, 13:35
Judd, as you seem to be in agreement with Vulcanised's last post and admit to eying up colleagues/passengers, can we take it that you're actually not opposed to the odd arse slapping if there's no 'mismatch' scenario? :E

Time for my medication methinks..........

MagnusP
30th May 2014, 13:52
It's not straight from admiring glances to arse-slapping, surely? A degree of "testing the waters" and leading to a relaxed familiarity must be more appropriate. For example, a young lady of my acquaintance with whom I'd joked and become relaxed with over time (nothing more) turned and said, when I commented on her backless dress, "Yes, that's the view you'd get if you were f:mad:g me". We both knew the boundaries. Not the case in this situation, sadly.

DevX
30th May 2014, 14:03
QUOTE: "Yes, that's the view you'd get if you were fg me".

I take it subtleness wasn't her strong point? :}

MagnusP
30th May 2014, 14:08
Strong drink had been taken . . . .

603DX
30th May 2014, 14:13
Congratulations Juud, for so deftly dealing with the usual crowd of MCP's in this thread. My assessment from the touchlines so far can be expressed as:

Misogynists United (including at least one clearly deluded fantasist) ... NIL

Worldly-wise senior cabin crew member ... 10


It seems unlikely, even after possible extra time for injuries and severely bruised egos, that this comfortable lead could be overcome ... ;)

Checkboard
30th May 2014, 14:14
As the lady has complained, to the extent that the 'gentleman' is in court - I think that we can assume that his attentions were unwelcome.

Jude is NOT putting forward an argument against consensual contact. Jude is putting forward a counter-argument against comments like:
but some times it's hard to ignore nature's cruel calling, especially when women deliberately dress provocatively., and
I reckon those same blokes would promptly turn to their daughters and explain to them if they go out dressed to impress and achieve that aim what actually is the problem. :rolleyes:
There, it reads a little better like that :ok:
... in which it is implied that the victim of an attack is to blame (based on what they were wearing).

Consider - A man walks up to another and punches him in the face. When asked why he says "He was wearing a Manchester football shirt - and you don't do that in here."

The crime was committed by:
a. The guy wearing the shirt, or
b. The guy who made the attack.

This is the same as - A woman puts on a nice dress. It's a dress she thinks is nice, her date thinks is tame and her daughter thinks is scandalous - all irrelevant. A man sees her in the dress, and reaches his hand up to grab her bottom. (This is an assault).

The crime was committed by:
a. The woman, for wearing the dress.
b. The man for assaulting her.

In short - comments about what a woman chooses to wear or not wear are ALWAYS irrelevant in an assault.

Octopussy2
30th May 2014, 16:00
Thanks Checkers for that - it's so clear that hopefully even the VERY hard-of-thinking should get it now. But based on some of the posts above, I'm not confident of it.

vulcanised
30th May 2014, 16:33
Since we're in the general area, can someone explain this 'Invasion of personal space' thing for me?

I would have guessed it meant insertion of fingers, but apparently not??

redsnail
30th May 2014, 18:00
vulcanised Seriously, you think that's what "invasion of personal space" means?
While personal space has different dimensions in different cultures, I can assure you "insertion of fingers" has gone way beyond the personal space boundary. :ooh:

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th May 2014, 18:04
Seldom, yet another complete non sequitur. What accusation? Of what crime?
Unless you make a minimal effort at the back and forth that is called a discussion, as in considering points made and reacting to them by explaining why you think those points are valid or not valid, what is the point of your continued contributions?
Apart from page filling and dragging the thread back to the top of course, there is that. ;)





Go back and read post #40, the one where you falsely accuse me of suggesting rape and molestation are directly linked to eye catching dress and that I reside in an alternative reality.


Then take yourself back to post #23 and feast your blinkers on what I actually said with respect to the thread subject and see if you can spot where I suggest anything of the sort.


Then feel free to come back and offer your humble apologies for your rather bizarre misinterpretation :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th May 2014, 18:06
In short - comments about what a woman chooses to wear or not wear are ALWAYS irrelevant in an assault.


Absolutely :ok:

Checkboard
30th May 2014, 20:22
There may be some locations/circumstances in which in might be unwise to wear a Manchester football shirt because, much as we wish it were otherwise, and much as we consider people are entitled to wear what they want when they want, the fact is that there are mindless violent people in society. Indeed.

Consider - a pub is known for football violence against Manchester (note - I know less than nothing about football, and have no pro or anti stance to Manchester!). You advise your friend not to enter that pub, because it is full of violent hooligans.

- an area in North East Afghanistan is in a state of war, particularly against westerners. You advise your friend not to enter that area on a walking holiday.

- a nightclub area is known for assaults on women, you tell your female friend not to be alone in that area (or not to go).

All of these scenarios are warnings against the people in an area being nasty - you are not telling the person involved they are at fault. You are not telling they are in some way "wrong" for supporting a football team, or not being an Afghan.


Telling a woman not to wear a particular item of clothing, because it "is provocative" is completely different - it is blaming the actions of others on the woman.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th May 2014, 20:40
Telling a woman not to wear a particular item of clothing, because it "is provocative" is completely different - it is blaming the actions of others on the woman.



Absolutely, women should feel free to dress as they please at all times without fear of physical abuse :ok:

ExSp33db1rd
30th May 2014, 23:40
Judd

And anyway, do you honestly feel that if a woman flutters, she should accept getting her bum smacked?First of all let's differentiate "smacked" from "patted", and in the context of your above statement maybe she would be flattered to be "patted" ? (as opposed to "groped") "Smacked" suggests "assaulted" ?

I once had a USA pax demanding of me, as Captain, the name of a stewardess - in the days before dangling ID cards - as he wanted to sue her for assault. It seems that he was so obese and gross, and sat in an aisle seat next to the galley, so that as she turned the service cart out of the galley she had no option but to "caress" (!) his foot - which he steadfastly refused to move - with the wheel of the cart.

I refused the name, indicating that we knew who she was and would investigate his complaint and gave him my card, telling him to sue me as the Senior representative of the airline on board, and continued to advise him that in my language "assault" was a very serious charge, and that to accuse a young girl of assaulting a man as large as himself was ludicrous, and if he was to drag us to Court then maybe he should reconsider his words ? I conceded that "maybe" she was just "careless" and that perhaps he should think carefully about what he would accuse her of ?

Later, her words to describe him are unrepeatable ! Heard no more about it, Collapse of Stout Party.

My point here ? I think the word "assault" is used far too frequently, and all encompassing, when in fact a lesser description might fit the bill and have less serious consequences - sometimes ?

Neither of us was on the subject flight, and as has been mentioned, the fact that the matter has gone to Court suggests a degree of severity that we were not witness to. QED.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st May 2014, 08:22
Exsp,

I understand your sentiment but I am in the camp that firmly believes looking is not only acceptable but is and always has been and always will be perfectly natural.

However un asked for touching is totally unacceptable in any shape or form and should be dealt with in the strongest fashion and if that means an assault charge then so be it.

acbus1
31st May 2014, 09:52
Congratulations Juud, for so deftly dealing with the usual crowd of MCP's in this thread.
Give me strength. :rolleyes:

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st May 2014, 10:08
Give me strength. :rolleyes:

Because it had missed the thrust of the thread by a country mile I had simply dismissed that particular offering :p

Checkboard
31st May 2014, 10:42
and in the context of your above statement maybe she would be flattered to be "patted" ?
Really? :eek::confused:

I don't know of a single woman (even one I was in a relationship with, allowing all sorts of body contact in private) that would not be other than mightily pissed off at being touched in public on any out-of-bounds area (think anything covered by underwear) while she was working.

Flying Lawyer
31st May 2014, 11:03
ExSp33db1rdthe fact that the matter has gone to Court suggests a degree of severity that we were not witness to.
It would be a mistake to make any such assumption.

My point here ? I think the word "assault" is used far too frequently, and all encompassing
The word 'assault' in the offence of Sexual Assault often, and understandably, causes confusion because in ordinary usage people think of an assault as hitting, punching, kicking, causing physical harm/pain etc.
A person (the Defendant) commits a Sexual Assault if —
he (or she) intentionally touches another person (the Complainant),
the touching is sexual,
the Complainant does not consent to the touching, and
the Defendant does not reasonably believe that the Complainant consents.
Touching is widely defined. It includes touching with any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing.


________________


It's a pity that what started as an interesting exchange of views has been spoilt by personal attacks upon contributors because of views they express in discussion.
Play the ball not the player?

Worrals in the wilds
31st May 2014, 12:19
I don't know of a single woman (even one I was in a relationship with, allowing all sorts of body contact in private) that would not be other than mightily pissed off at being touched in public on any out-of-bounds area (think anything covered by underwear) while she was working. Agreed. FWIW the same thing applies to men. Let's say it's a young man being 'patted' by an older man who is influential within the organization. Let's say you are/were that younger man. Is it different?

This is not a rhetorical question. I worked in the entertainment industry, an industry that was rife with 'touchy' men. Some of them were 'touchy' towards women, some of them were 'touchy' towards men. Generally all were influential within their organizations and not people any young employee (whatever their gender) would want to complain about, certainly not if they ever wanted to be employed again. Maybe some of those touchy men assumed that their attentions were always welcome. Sometimes their attentions were welcome. This is where it gets messy, and where consent needs to be defined.

Without getting all legal, IMO there are various grades of consent that sit somewhere between 'this is called pepper spray, glad you've enjoyed it' and 'come on, big boy/girl'. It's a grey area, particularly within the workplace scenario where some people are more important than others. Consent can be free, grudging or a mixture of both. However, assuming that someone has consented to your action without asking them first is a big assumption. Get it wrong, and it's the sort of assumption that can lead to you needing professionals who charge by the minute :ouch:. They're good at patting too; particularly when it comes to patting your wallet and assessing how sexy it is. :E

So, hypothetical male JBer... step back to when you'd just gotten your first job (how ever many weeks, years or decades :}). Some older, big-shot bloke walks up and grabs your arse and tells you it's cute without you sending any conscious flirting or 'come hither' signals. You were just trying to look sharp and be a great new asset to the company.

Would you be flattered? Glad of the attention? Were you asking for it?
Just asking. :hmm:

acbus1
31st May 2014, 13:45
Because it had missed the thrust of the thread by a country mile I had simply dismissed that particular offering
I've read that several times and the meaning still eludes me.

While I'm here:

This person is on your ignore list : 603DX

Feels better. :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st May 2014, 17:11
I've read that several times and the meaning still eludes me.



Apologies, I was referring to the quote you used that had caused you to post in exasperation. I was merely agreeing that the person you quoted had missed the threads thrust by a country mile 😃

Flying Lawyer
31st May 2014, 18:42
Worrals in the wildsGet it wrong, and it's the sort of assumption that can lead to you needing professionals who charge by the minute :ouch: . They're good at patting too; particularly when it comes to patting your wallet and assessing how sexy it is. :E

That may be so in Australia (I don't know) but the overwhelming majority of defendants in criminal cases in the UK are represented by lawyers paid from public funds (Legal Aid) and the payment is certainly not generous. Far from it.


Meanwhile, back to the discussion ......

owen meaney
31st May 2014, 22:12
Scantily clad women arouse young men.
Woman demand the right to wear scanty clothing.
I see a dichotomy here.

Nothing to do with this young woman getting slapped on the bum, when I was a schooboy I did the same to a girl, she gave me the hardest face slap I have ever felt.

ExSp33db1rd
31st May 2014, 22:42
......The word 'assault' in the offence of Sexual Assault often, and understandably, causes confusion...........

Which only confirms my oft quoted remark about The Law. ( something to do with the progeny of a horse and a donkey, or is that a Mule ? )

cockney steve
31st May 2014, 23:09
^^^^^ That is an indication of what i was attempting to express earlier.(Owen Meaney)

Women are well aware of what men find attractive, what is overtly titillating or sexually provocative. - i was quite taken aback when a lady explained that red, high heeled shoes were "fxxk -me" shoes (later confirmed as true by another female aquaintance.)
So, JUUD, I think you are not being quite truthful here!
I am not saying the attentions of the drunken passenger were warranted, FAR FROM IT, but Iam saying, that, IMO, the prosecution was a total over-reaction.
I'm also of the opinion that , as with female cabin-staff's normal work -attire, modest dress does NOT mean a burka. - neither does it mean plunging necklines, that extra button left undone (and, yes, i have seen that done quite deliberately)..a skirt that the wearer knows will ride up just a little bit higher than is appropriate.....Unnecessary, but accepted as part of the male-female interaction. Same goes with perfume and makeup....What's wrong with a clean ,fresh-washed face and hands? why do women really wear makeup?- are they all secretly insecure? is it because it's "custom"....NO, It's to enhance their attractiveness! (by implication, to a mate, wether same-or opposite sex.)
I fear this may be slipping into the realms of Freudian psychology and subconcious conditioning, but nevertheless, to suggest that men should be totally oblivious to womens overt attempts to be attractive, is to deny the whole purpose of wearing anything other than chairman Mao's utilitarian boiler-suit and a beret.
Having been on the receiving-end of an unwanted and unwarranted advance, you, JUUD reacted instinctively. You had nothing to feel guilty about, in fact, as you observed, the young man had not observed the proprieties, yourebuffed him, he was mortified. There was absolutely no fair or reasonable way your employer could have dismissed you for that......What, as a matter of interest, may have been your reaction, had you had the interest, attraction and inclination toward the pax concerned ?...just curious.

Worrals in the wilds
31st May 2014, 23:16
That may be so in Australia (I don't know) but the overwhelming majority of defendants in criminal cases in the UK are represented by lawyers paid from public funds (Legal Aid) and the payment is certainly not generous. Far from it.Fair enough. We have Legal Aid but only for people who can't afford it. In Queensland you're not eligible if you earn over about $50K a year (minimum wage is 32K) and I believe they're talking about winding it back even further. :8
Can I get legal aid? (http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/publications/Factsheets-and-guides/Factsheets/Pages/Can-I-get-legal-aid.aspx#table1)
(Sorry for the drift).

owen meaney
1st Jun 2014, 00:17
Steve.
as a matter of interest, may have been your reaction, had you had the interest, attraction and inclination toward the pax concerned ?This is probably an important consideration, for the "slappee" that is, how good looking is the "slapper" and how high on the fckability scale he/she/they rate. Sexual harassment is only perpetrated by ugly people.

ExSp33db1rd
1st Jun 2014, 03:08
...........Same goes with perfume and makeup.

Cockney Steve, well said, agree with it all - does that make me one of acbus 1's MCP's ? Shouldn't do, I'm very comfortable with equality, but sadly some are more equal than others purely because they are female, e.g. friend of a friend was recently accused of sexual misconduct some 40 years ago, and INSTANTLY he was assumed to be guilty purely because he was the male, fortunately the evidence proved otherwise, and eventually the female admitted that she had been put up to it in order to be awarded some sort of compensation, but still, she wasn't vilified for making a false accusation, but if it had been the other way around ....... ! The girls are entitled to equality, no problem, but let them fully understand the word and the consequences, I'm not prepared to be on the back foot ONLY because I happen to be male.

I often wonder why Mrs. ExS spends so much money and time on make-up, I'm not complaining about the "natural look" , so who is she "making up" for? And should I worry !

On the other hand - if it is the equivalent of my going flying and thoroughly enjoying myself whilst doing so, what's the harm ? She can't understand why I "need" to fly, and I can't understand why she "needs" to use make-up - so I guess we're equal?

QED

Worrals in the wilds
1st Jun 2014, 03:21
Sexual harassment is only perpetrated by ugly people. That's not the case at all. The entertainment and fashion industries (among others) are full of attractive people who are rampant harassers. TV is particularly bad for it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html

Lord Spandex Masher
1st Jun 2014, 07:35
why do women really wear makeup?- are they all secretly insecure? is it because it's "custom"....NO, It's to enhance their attractiveness!

Sex sells and no one wants to buy a soggy sandwich off a bit of a minger.

DevX
1st Jun 2014, 09:05
QUOTE: That's not the case at all. The entertainment and fashion industries (among others) are full of attractive people who are rampant harassers. TV is particularly bad for it.


I think you're missing the point, beauty is only in the eye of the beholder.

Bravo Mike
1st Jun 2014, 09:43
I think this thread reflects modern sexual politics well. Perhaps we can't control our thoughts or emotions (should we?), but we can control our behaviour. At the risk of detracting from the discussion:

Sexual Harassment and You - Saturday Night Live - YouTube (http://youtu.be/PxuUkYiaUc8?t=9s)

Flying Lawyer
1st Jun 2014, 12:24
owen meaneySexual harassment is only perpetrated by ugly people.
Based upon my experience of sexual offence cases in the courts, that is not correct.


Perhaps you are overlooking the sort of men who regard themselves as God's gift to women, and have a successful track record which boosts their egos, who can't or won't accept that not all women are attracted to them and harass those who reject their advances on the arrogant assumption that 'she wants it really'.


FL

crewmeal
1st Jun 2014, 12:25
Is it still true that most female cabin crew immediately go to the bathroom when the seat belt sign goes off to apply their makeup?

There was a story going round some time ago when a 747 BA crew were called out to do an LHR - CDG - LHR. After take off instead of whipping out the trays most females disappeared into the loos. By the time they came out the service was abandoned as there was no time left.

acbus1
1st Jun 2014, 13:41
the service was abandoned
At least it avoided any risk of a slap up meal.

bubbers44
1st Jun 2014, 13:55
Overkill by the FA. I had that situation in a 727 back when you could leave the cockpit. Since the flight was not full moved a few people up and put him in the back window seat. Since he still had a silly grin on his face I said do you know what I will do if you do that one more time? He said what. I said we will land at the nearest airport which is Havana and tomorrow Castro will have you killed. He shut up, mission accomplished, and no one else heard me make the threat.

Solid Rust Twotter
1st Jun 2014, 15:37
This is probably an important consideration, for the "slappee" that is, how good looking is the "slapper" and how high on the fckability scale he/she/they rate. Sexual harassment is only perpetrated by ugly people.


One would have to agree with this premise to a large extent. Being somewhat in the Lurch mould, even a primly worded invitation to someone of the fairer sex to partake of dinner and/or a show is more often than not rejected, mostly with horror.

By the same token, one is left gobsmacked at the manner in which other potential suitors deliver the same invitation, on the whole greeted with simpering and eyelash fluttering. Should one deliver the invitation in a like manner, contact between the recipients knee and one's dangly bits would be inevitable.

One's propensity to loom at people is not shared by the successful petitioners, and leads one to believe that there is a certain amount of leeway afforded some people in these situations.

ExSp33db1rd
1st Jun 2014, 22:59
...........and leads one to believe that there is a certain amount of leeway afforded some people in these situations.The size of .... err.... their wallet perhaps ?

.....back when you could leave the cockpit.Had a similar situation when as a spare crew member - spare in the sense that pilots could actually find their way from Nassau to Miami without the services of an Astro Navigator - the Captain told me to wear his gold braided hat and jacket and go sort it out, as he was about to start taxying to the runway for take-off.

Secure in my new found promotion of four gold rings, I was still remonstrating with the passenger when we heard the power being applied for take-off, so I asked said pax. if he would rather I stayed arguing with him, or help the co-pilot fly the thing ? Collapse of Stout Party. I actually ran back to the cockpit to prove my point !

david1300
2nd Jun 2014, 03:59
To answer the original question, if the passenger is guilty as charged, I would not jail him but an enforceable sentence involving some community work involving service to others (no specific preference) would be my call.

I think that anyone who physically infringes on another's person in any way without invitation should learn that's not OK. I have seen face-to-face flirtatious situations where either party, thinking they've read the mutual signals correctly, has initiated physical touch on an arm or shoulder. I've seen the touch reciprocated and developed further, and also seen the offending hand gently removed and 'returned to its rightful owner'. No harm, no foul, just misunderstood the signals.

On the broader question of women dressing provocatively and men's reactions - I wouldn't want to define provocative, but looking/appreciating/perving happens and always will (and as we've noted, the gender role can be the other way round). If you're the recipient of my unwanted looking, and feeling uncomfortable, try and take it as a compliment; but I'm not quite sure how I would handle it never knowingly having been the recipient of an appreciative stare.

For me, it's about respect, and the action that prompted this thread is certainly disrespectful.