Female Passenger, 25, 'groped airline steward after drinking pint of whisky'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Female Passenger, 25, 'groped airline steward after drinking pint of whisky'
Has this been discussed here yet? ------------
Katherine Goldberg, 25, 'groped Virgin Atlantic steward after drinking pint of whisky' | Mail Online
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess there should be a huge caveat here....newspapers - though not the Daily Mail of course
- tend to slant stories to make them more 'interesting' while retaining, apparently, the facts. What's the consensus?
Katherine Goldberg, 25, 'groped Virgin Atlantic steward after drinking pint of whisky' | Mail Online
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess there should be a huge caveat here....newspapers - though not the Daily Mail of course
- tend to slant stories to make them more 'interesting' while retaining, apparently, the facts. What's the consensus?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The poor lady was probably attempting to steady herself. Her head must have been spinning. Had I been that steward I would have felt it my duty to check on her at indecently regular intervals.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 39
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exact same thing happened to me flying UK to Spain. Was embarassing a bit, but certainly didn't think it was worth calling the cops over. Just laughed it off and got on with it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exact same thing happened to me flying UK to Spain. Was embarassing a bit, but certainly didn't think it was worth calling the cops over. Just laughed it off and got on with it!
Not everyone will agree, but I think there is a difference between young lady groping able-bodied man and able-bodied man groping (any) female. I wonder how many people, male and female, would agree with that? I don't think that the law makes such a distinction; should it?
Like you say we probably don't know all the facts and, even as a young gay guy, having a woman grope me wouldn't bother me in the slightest. However, some gay lads would and I think they have the right to be bothered. So whilst I wouldn't have complained in that situation, I wouldn't blame anyone who did.
That's going down a very slippery slope. I think everyone should be protected under the law and not just women. Why should a Woman get away with it if she gropes a guy but yet the guy faces the full wrath of the law (and the social stigma) if he does the same to a woman? I'm in no way anti feminist but women already get away with a lot, particularly when out drinking. Hen's and groups of women in general do tend to think they can grope who they like and, even in straight bars, it's not always wanted.
But if we go down the road you suggest.... what happens if a guy gropes a guy? Is that ok? In effect, the guy isn't groping a woman so it's ok to grope a man if we stick to your view. Ironically however, as a straight guy, (i'm assuming) your view on that scenario is probably very different as you're straight. So why shouldn't the (gay) male crew member feel uncomfortable/offended if he is groped by a (straight) woman?
Just playing devils advocate.
Incidentally, as a crew member myself I have been groped many more times by guys on stag parties. Obviously it's a piss take but i don't look/act gay it's just the usual cabin crew stereotype taking over.
Not everyone will agree, but I think there is a difference between young lady groping able-bodied man and able-bodied man groping (any) female. I wonder how many people, male and female, would agree with that? I don't think that the law makes such a distinction; should it?
But if we go down the road you suggest.... what happens if a guy gropes a guy? Is that ok? In effect, the guy isn't groping a woman so it's ok to grope a man if we stick to your view. Ironically however, as a straight guy, (i'm assuming) your view on that scenario is probably very different as you're straight. So why shouldn't the (gay) male crew member feel uncomfortable/offended if he is groped by a (straight) woman?
Just playing devils advocate.
Incidentally, as a crew member myself I have been groped many more times by guys on stag parties. Obviously it's a piss take but i don't look/act gay it's just the usual cabin crew stereotype taking over.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easyflyer -- That's a good input. No, I don't think you're playing devil's advocate but you're opening up the discussion.
May I select one sentence from your thoughtful post?
"....the full wrath of the law"
Have we really got to the stage in these politically correct times of applying the full wrath of the law on otherwise law-abiding folk who do something silly - and pretty harmless? A criminal conviction hangs over someone for the whole of their lives. If it is 'sexual' then they might even be required to sign a register as they move around. The way airlines work, I wouldn't be surprised if the young lady was not banned from air travel. It's said that she's South African. How can she visit her family if she's banned from airlines?
Blimey. Where is our collective sense of proportion? Please, please please, don't pass cases onto the Gestapo without thinking it through; what would you feel if it was your son/daughter? Or you, or your partner?
Evil people need to be 'taken out'. As we all know, people -- normally nice people -- do silly things when travelling. Please cut lots of slack
)
May I select one sentence from your thoughtful post?
"....the full wrath of the law"
Have we really got to the stage in these politically correct times of applying the full wrath of the law on otherwise law-abiding folk who do something silly - and pretty harmless? A criminal conviction hangs over someone for the whole of their lives. If it is 'sexual' then they might even be required to sign a register as they move around. The way airlines work, I wouldn't be surprised if the young lady was not banned from air travel. It's said that she's South African. How can she visit her family if she's banned from airlines?
Blimey. Where is our collective sense of proportion? Please, please please, don't pass cases onto the Gestapo without thinking it through; what would you feel if it was your son/daughter? Or you, or your partner?
Evil people need to be 'taken out'. As we all know, people -- normally nice people -- do silly things when travelling. Please cut lots of slack
)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we really got to the stage in these politically correct times of applying the full wrath of the law on otherwise law-abiding folk who do something silly - and pretty harmless?
As we all know, people -- normally nice people -- do silly things when travelling
what would you feel if it was your son/daughter?
BTW, such a parental failure wouldn't surprise me if the parent was "a normally nice person" who is capable of such an immature view of sexual molestation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi. It was more a figure of speech. I just basically meant they'd get into trouble with the law.....for want of a better term.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That I've dramatically failed as a parent, and that the brat will have to learn to pay the consequences of "being silly when travelling"
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lemain, you say that -demanding to have sex with someone and grabbing his penis and crotch area- is not invading someone´s bodily integrity, is not meting out degrading treatment, but is merely 'silly behaviour and pretty harmless'.
You also say that grabbing someone´s genitals and demanding sex needs to be seen in proportion, and warrants the cutting of slack.
In other words, according to you, being grabbed in the crotch is part and parcel of being a flight attendant, and a flight attendant therefore should not report it to the police.
Your logic is that if a passenger gets a criminal conviction for sexual assault, and suffers the consequences of such a conviction, the blame for those consequences lies with the flight attendant and not with the person who did the grabbing.
According to you, the flight attendant, after having his genitals grabbed by a passenger, has to think of the consequences for the grabber and not report.
The grabber does not have to think of the consequences of her own action, and should therefore not be made suffer the legal consequences of her behaviour.
Your position strikes me as neither logical nor tenable Lemain.
In fact, both from a legal and moral perspective, your position is indefensible.
You are just plain wrong.
The Universal Declaration of Human rights applies to all humans, and that includes flight attendants of both genders.
I direct your attention to articles 3, 5, 7 and 8.
You may also benefit from reading the the following, an excerpt of a paper called "The human right of bodily integrity and the challenge of intercultural dialogue" written by junior Professor Sybille Kalupner:
No function of the modern legal system is as familiar to the citizens of western democracies as the protection of their bodily integrity. Should we come to suffer bodily injury at the hands of someone else, we can be sure that the responsible party will be made accountable in the court of law. The physician who commits malpractice, the motorist who mistakenly takes our right of way, and the drunk who could not control his emotions: All are held responsible for the harm they cause our body to suffer and all must face the sanctions accorded to them by the gravity of their actions and the pertaining rule of law.
... On both levels of society, on the level of interaction between society members as well as on the level of the relationship between the state and its citizens, the inviolability of the person is a type of cultural premise, a key concept in the moral self-image of western democracies.
The significance of the inviolability of the person in current human rights debates can be understood in much the same way.
The inviolability of the person consistently ranks, along with the right to life, at the top of the list of importance in both classical and modern human rights declarations. According to a differentiation common since Georg Jellinek, the inviolability of the person is a fundamental right of the status negativus, applying even before the other negative liberty rights, including the right to freedom and political participation. In the UN Declaration of 1948, which is still the central reference text in the debate concerning the universality of human rights, the inviolability of the person is formulated in Article 3 with the words, "Everyone has the right to life, freedom and safety of person"...
You also say that grabbing someone´s genitals and demanding sex needs to be seen in proportion, and warrants the cutting of slack.
In other words, according to you, being grabbed in the crotch is part and parcel of being a flight attendant, and a flight attendant therefore should not report it to the police.
Your logic is that if a passenger gets a criminal conviction for sexual assault, and suffers the consequences of such a conviction, the blame for those consequences lies with the flight attendant and not with the person who did the grabbing.
According to you, the flight attendant, after having his genitals grabbed by a passenger, has to think of the consequences for the grabber and not report.
The grabber does not have to think of the consequences of her own action, and should therefore not be made suffer the legal consequences of her behaviour.
Your position strikes me as neither logical nor tenable Lemain.
In fact, both from a legal and moral perspective, your position is indefensible.
You are just plain wrong.
The Universal Declaration of Human rights applies to all humans, and that includes flight attendants of both genders.
I direct your attention to articles 3, 5, 7 and 8.
You may also benefit from reading the the following, an excerpt of a paper called "The human right of bodily integrity and the challenge of intercultural dialogue" written by junior Professor Sybille Kalupner:
No function of the modern legal system is as familiar to the citizens of western democracies as the protection of their bodily integrity. Should we come to suffer bodily injury at the hands of someone else, we can be sure that the responsible party will be made accountable in the court of law. The physician who commits malpractice, the motorist who mistakenly takes our right of way, and the drunk who could not control his emotions: All are held responsible for the harm they cause our body to suffer and all must face the sanctions accorded to them by the gravity of their actions and the pertaining rule of law.
... On both levels of society, on the level of interaction between society members as well as on the level of the relationship between the state and its citizens, the inviolability of the person is a type of cultural premise, a key concept in the moral self-image of western democracies.
The significance of the inviolability of the person in current human rights debates can be understood in much the same way.
The inviolability of the person consistently ranks, along with the right to life, at the top of the list of importance in both classical and modern human rights declarations. According to a differentiation common since Georg Jellinek, the inviolability of the person is a fundamental right of the status negativus, applying even before the other negative liberty rights, including the right to freedom and political participation. In the UN Declaration of 1948, which is still the central reference text in the debate concerning the universality of human rights, the inviolability of the person is formulated in Article 3 with the words, "Everyone has the right to life, freedom and safety of person"...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....I direct your attention to articles 3, 5, 7 and 8......etc....
Are there any UK, EU or UN rules on how loud you can scream "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek"?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juud, Lemain, flyblue,
with all due respect to your professionality and experience, and though I would not normally venture to post in this forum, let me kindly suggest that the discussion is touching a very sensitive area at this point, but still one where people from different cultural backgrounds will have rather different points of view.
Universal declaration notwhithstanding, the breaching of private sphere, and with a sexual intent at that, will be considered a very serious matter in some places and times like e.g. in the workplace by a modern-day American, and rather less serious in others. That's not voicing an opinion or stance either way, it is just stating a fact. An extreme example of a different stance might be if the same had happened during Carnival in Venice in, say, 1620. You get my point I'm sure. So yes, the person who did it will and should be prosecuted according to the laws and rules in force on the aircraft. That still leaves it perfectly acceptable that some people would not consider her behaviour criminal, but just silly, though. And that does not mean those people are in any way "wrong" or bad; they simply apply a different moral yardstick; and of course, in many jurisdictions, if the victim does not feel victimised, and does not sue, the perpetrator may not be prosecuted.
Please forgive me for this this somewhat theoretical intrusion in the discussion.
with all due respect to your professionality and experience, and though I would not normally venture to post in this forum, let me kindly suggest that the discussion is touching a very sensitive area at this point, but still one where people from different cultural backgrounds will have rather different points of view.
Universal declaration notwhithstanding, the breaching of private sphere, and with a sexual intent at that, will be considered a very serious matter in some places and times like e.g. in the workplace by a modern-day American, and rather less serious in others. That's not voicing an opinion or stance either way, it is just stating a fact. An extreme example of a different stance might be if the same had happened during Carnival in Venice in, say, 1620. You get my point I'm sure. So yes, the person who did it will and should be prosecuted according to the laws and rules in force on the aircraft. That still leaves it perfectly acceptable that some people would not consider her behaviour criminal, but just silly, though. And that does not mean those people are in any way "wrong" or bad; they simply apply a different moral yardstick; and of course, in many jurisdictions, if the victim does not feel victimised, and does not sue, the perpetrator may not be prosecuted.
Please forgive me for this this somewhat theoretical intrusion in the discussion.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lemain while the written equivalent of 
might lead some to wonder about the strength of your arguments, I am not one of those.
You clearly are done even trying to make sense; that´s fine by me.
Rengineer, of course you are welcome to contribute here. More so with such a well thought out post.
If I read you correctly, we agree for the most part, and somewhat disagree on one point:
The right to bodily integrity is universal and inalienable vs it is acceptable to view the right to bodily integrity as being subject to cultural context.
might lead some to wonder about the strength of your arguments, I am not one of those.You clearly are done even trying to make sense; that´s fine by me.
Rengineer, of course you are welcome to contribute here. More so with such a well thought out post.
If I read you correctly, we agree for the most part, and somewhat disagree on one point:
The right to bodily integrity is universal and inalienable vs it is acceptable to view the right to bodily integrity as being subject to cultural context.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the culture, our borders are shrinking. Which means that if we intend to travel to other countries and meet other cultures, we better learn fast that ignorance is not an excuse. The fastest way to teach those who are not smart enough to get informed is through experience, or example. Grope a CC or shout "BOMB" (ah-ah! Funny!) at the airport at your own risks.
Lemain, once the "brats" are big enough to travel on their own and legally responsible, they better learn fast what "legally responsible" means. I don't think that "my parents didn't teach me well" is considered a valid excuse in any legal system.
Lemain, once the "brats" are big enough to travel on their own and legally responsible, they better learn fast what "legally responsible" means. I don't think that "my parents didn't teach me well" is considered a valid excuse in any legal system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The right to bodily integrity is universal and inalienable vs it is acceptable to view the right to bodily integrity as being subject to cultural context.
Judging from the media and advertisements, most people spend a great deal of time and effort trying to achieve the opposite..... but whatever; we are all entitled to our cultural contexts and we can certainly agree on that
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As as cc who has experienced the opposite of this situation in that I have been on a flight where a female passenger "interfered" with the gentleman sitting next to her who incidentally was travelling with his wife and 2 kids in full view of said gropping, there is no difference in my mind as to how this situation should be dealt with. If we worked as bouncers at a club then it somewhat goes with the territory but as "safety officers" onboard an aircraft we are entitled to go about our duties with out these incidents occuring. it is after all an offence to be intoxcxicated onboard an aircraft under UK air navigation laws.