Are male passengers perverts?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paddy don't get all ar$$ey about something you weren't anything to do with. My discussion with the BA auditor was about the inference of the rule, not whether we would comply. As you correctly point out as a Handling Agent we do as we are bid unless it is in contravention of the law.
Thank you Jetset Lady my whole argument is of course nonsense thans to this pedantry. I now humbly accept henceforward all males should be viewed with great suspicion when in the vicinity of children in airports as anyone of them could be kiddy fiddlers or they are about to become kiddy fiddlers.
I am disappointed that so many on here think this is a reasonable viewpoint. How many thousands of UM's have travelled unmolested on aeroplanes versus any that have had a problem? A sense of proportion is sadly missing.
I am disappointed that so many on here think this is a reasonable viewpoint. How many thousands of UM's have travelled unmolested on aeroplanes versus any that have had a problem? A sense of proportion is sadly missing.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am disappointed that so many on here think this is a reasonable viewpoint. How many thousands of UM's have travelled unmolested on aeroplanes versus any that have had a problem? A sense of proportion is sadly missing.
How many more times do we have to say this! Most of us agree with you, which you will see if you actually read our posts. But rules is rules and onboard an aircraft, we have to stick to them.
We have tried to explain some of the reasoning behind the rule, regardless of whether we think it is fair or unfair, but you can't seem to get it. This is not just about protecting the kids!
If this gentleman wins his case, it's not just BA that will have to amend their policies. And it will open up the possibility of many more law suits of this kind, against an awful lot of airlines!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a bloody stupid rule, if it really exists.
If BA really wants to protect children, it should ban children sitting next to their parents. Studies show that 83.86% of abuse of children takes place within the family, 15% is by people known to the family, and 1.14% by strangers. I'm sure BA knows this, so why can't they get the priorities right?
Oddly enough, of all the risks faced by a child in an aircraft with or without its parents, the risk of abuse by a male stranger in the next seat during the flight is so low on the list it's invisible. (Is there a single case on record? Eh? Thought so.)
It's a risk that has been invented by one of those who make it their life's work to invent or exaggerate risks that must then be guarded against. The risk of being killed or injured in other ways at some point in the child's journey is greater by many orders of magnitude. Who was the reckless fool who allowed, even encouraged, the child to travel by air in the first place? Seize, try and execute that criminal, I say.
Another issue that BA should step up to the plate about within the time-scale of the here and now is the probability that the risk of encountering a person who might abuse vulnerable kiddies is probably greater among BA's male cabin staff than among BA's male passengers. Not many in either population, of course; it's the relative risk we're talking about. Is BA on to that little problem? Eh? Thought so.
And then, if a child is found next to a male passenger who might attempt to abuse it while the passengers in the same row suddenly have an attack of deafness and blindness (the problem only arises in full aircraft, as I understand it), it is the child who should be moved. But where to? Nowhere is safe in the fantasy world of lurking dangers inhabited by the morons who dream up this sort of idiocy, aided and abetted by the morons who try unprotestingly to enforce these "rules", probably chanting "More than my jobsworth, innit, pervert, to let you stay there; if you talk back to me and don't obey instantly I'll have you thrown off, because we can do that."
I hope that guy wins his case.
If BA really wants to protect children, it should ban children sitting next to their parents. Studies show that 83.86% of abuse of children takes place within the family, 15% is by people known to the family, and 1.14% by strangers. I'm sure BA knows this, so why can't they get the priorities right?
Oddly enough, of all the risks faced by a child in an aircraft with or without its parents, the risk of abuse by a male stranger in the next seat during the flight is so low on the list it's invisible. (Is there a single case on record? Eh? Thought so.)
It's a risk that has been invented by one of those who make it their life's work to invent or exaggerate risks that must then be guarded against. The risk of being killed or injured in other ways at some point in the child's journey is greater by many orders of magnitude. Who was the reckless fool who allowed, even encouraged, the child to travel by air in the first place? Seize, try and execute that criminal, I say.
Another issue that BA should step up to the plate about within the time-scale of the here and now is the probability that the risk of encountering a person who might abuse vulnerable kiddies is probably greater among BA's male cabin staff than among BA's male passengers. Not many in either population, of course; it's the relative risk we're talking about. Is BA on to that little problem? Eh? Thought so.
And then, if a child is found next to a male passenger who might attempt to abuse it while the passengers in the same row suddenly have an attack of deafness and blindness (the problem only arises in full aircraft, as I understand it), it is the child who should be moved. But where to? Nowhere is safe in the fantasy world of lurking dangers inhabited by the morons who dream up this sort of idiocy, aided and abetted by the morons who try unprotestingly to enforce these "rules", probably chanting "More than my jobsworth, innit, pervert, to let you stay there; if you talk back to me and don't obey instantly I'll have you thrown off, because we can do that."
I hope that guy wins his case.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paddy don't get all ar$$ey about something you weren't anything to do with. My discussion with the BA auditor was about the inference of the rule, not whether we would comply. As you correctly point out as a Handling Agent we do as we are bid unless it is in contravention of the law.
Most airlines allow discussion though as they recognise that some people in handling agents have also worked for airlines and are well qualified to make comment. You it seems, from your tone, think Handling Agents are all idiots.
Just because something is in the rule book doesn't make it right. Unquestioning compliance can be as dangerous as non compliance.
I have over 30 years in avaition and I can think of only one occassion where an Unmin was lost for a short while.
If a successful law suit against BA changes things to a more sensible solution then let it go ahead.
Most airlines allow discussion though as they recognise that some people in handling agents have also worked for airlines and are well qualified to make comment. You it seems, from your tone, think Handling Agents are all idiots.
Just because something is in the rule book doesn't make it right. Unquestioning compliance can be as dangerous as non compliance.
I have over 30 years in avaition and I can think of only one occassion where an Unmin was lost for a short while.
If a successful law suit against BA changes things to a more sensible solution then let it go ahead.
I am disappointed that so many on here think this is a reasonable viewpoint. How many thousands of UM's have travelled unmolested on aeroplanes versus any that have had a problem? A sense of proportion is sadly missing.
Not at all, and thats why precautions are taken with UMs cos people hold a very high value of their children and if anything happens to a child when in the care of someone else it is a big deal apparently. Airlines learn from the tombstone imperative therefore it leads me to assume that once upon a time a child was sat next to a molestor and it was a big deal hence the airlines have come to this procedure!
You have your views, but does not always mean they are flawless!
But ill say it again, I still think the rule is stupid!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another issue that BA should step up to the plate about within the time-scale of the here and now is the probability that the risk of encountering a person who might abuse vulnerable kiddies is probably greater among BA's male cabin staff than among BA's male passengers. Not many in either population, of course; it's the relative risk we're talking about. Is BA on to that little problem? Eh? Thought so.
And can I just reiterate...(im not shouting) THIS IS AN INDUSTRY WIDE POLICY...Its not just BA that enforce it!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by capot
What a bloody stupid rule, if it really exists.
If BA really wants to protect children, it should ban children sitting next to their parents. Studies show that 83.86% of abuse of children takes place within the family, 15% is by people known to the family, and 1.14% by strangers. I'm sure BA knows this, so why can't they get the priorities right?
If BA really wants to protect children, it should ban children sitting next to their parents. Studies show that 83.86% of abuse of children takes place within the family, 15% is by people known to the family, and 1.14% by strangers. I'm sure BA knows this, so why can't they get the priorities right?
Have you read any of the previous posts at all?
Maybe it's time to give up.....
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello, Jetset Lady,
Funnily enough I did read the thread, including your rather unhelpful lectures to everyone else without much original thought.
Your remark
triggered my comment along the lines that this action may well place the child in the most risky situation possible (..."most abuse is within the family"...OWTTE).
Your remark
triggered my comment about jobsworths; that general principle applies to aviation safety rules and not idiotic rules that are nothing to do with aviation safety.
And finally your remark
led indirectly to my comment about people who invent risks. What did you mean by "law suits of this kind"? If the gentleman wins his case and airlines abandon the policy as a result, cases "of this kind" will cease, won't they? If the gent wins and they don't abandon the policy, then they should be sued and sued again until they do.
If you meant that if he wins, airlines will be sued more often because the floodgates of abuse of children by adjacent male passengers will thereby have been opened, I wonder why you think that male passengers will suddenly start abusing minors in a next door seat? Did you observe a lot of that sort of thing going on, in the bad old days before male passengers found sitting next to a strange minor were accused of being potential abusers and told to move immediately?
Funnily enough I did read the thread, including your rather unhelpful lectures to everyone else without much original thought.
Your remark
I have to admit to also trying to rearrange families where possible, so that a child has at least one parent next to them.
Your remark
rules is rules and onboard an aircraft, we have to stick to them.
And finally your remark
And it will open up the possibility of many more law suits of this kind, against an awful lot of airlines!
If you meant that if he wins, airlines will be sued more often because the floodgates of abuse of children by adjacent male passengers will thereby have been opened, I wonder why you think that male passengers will suddenly start abusing minors in a next door seat? Did you observe a lot of that sort of thing going on, in the bad old days before male passengers found sitting next to a strange minor were accused of being potential abusers and told to move immediately?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capot,
If you can't take my comments in context, think I am "lecturing" just because I have a stab at trying to explain why these rules may exist and finally, imply that I am a jobsworth solely on the basis that I follow the rules that I have to follow, then I really can't be bothered to try anymore.
You're right. I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better?
If you can't take my comments in context, think I am "lecturing" just because I have a stab at trying to explain why these rules may exist and finally, imply that I am a jobsworth solely on the basis that I follow the rules that I have to follow, then I really can't be bothered to try anymore.
You're right. I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better?
BA Single Children Policy
Should not apply to me I hope as I continue to avoid BA at all costs. Furthermore, when you book with BA, are you advised of this rule / regulation at the time?
Last edited by kaikohe76; 17th Jan 2010 at 02:42.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSL, Yes, thanks.
I don't think anyone needed the rule explained to them, or why it exists; what's so difficult to understand about that?
The argument running in the thread is that it is a silly rule, and the reasons for it do not stack up.
My first post was meant to show just how ridiculous (meaning: "laughable") it, and the reasons for it, really are.
Simply telling us all that you agree that it's wrong, or something like that, but that you'll enforce it because your bosses tell you to doesn't move the argument forward much.
If you think that not allowing male passengers to be seated next to a child, and ordering the male passenger to move if that happens, is a sensible rule that responds to a quantifiable and real risk, then please tell us why you believe that and what the evidence is supporting your belief.
If you think that all that is plain daft, then stand up to your bosses and say that you will not allow yourself to be embarrassed by and mocked for enforcing it.
I don't think anyone needed the rule explained to them, or why it exists; what's so difficult to understand about that?
The argument running in the thread is that it is a silly rule, and the reasons for it do not stack up.
My first post was meant to show just how ridiculous (meaning: "laughable") it, and the reasons for it, really are.
Simply telling us all that you agree that it's wrong, or something like that, but that you'll enforce it because your bosses tell you to doesn't move the argument forward much.
If you think that not allowing male passengers to be seated next to a child, and ordering the male passenger to move if that happens, is a sensible rule that responds to a quantifiable and real risk, then please tell us why you believe that and what the evidence is supporting your belief.
If you think that all that is plain daft, then stand up to your bosses and say that you will not allow yourself to be embarrassed by and mocked for enforcing it.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 72
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been quite a few instances in the states over the past few years of females having affairs with or molesting minor children (I think we've had three over the past year in the NYC school system alone). So it ain't just men airlines should worry about. That Perfect, she's a school teacher, she can sit next to him's hand can creep under the blankie just as easily.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capot,
What's the point? You aren't interested in listening to my view/lecture, therefore, I would be wasting my time and your time by even attempting to answer any of your points.
One I will say though. The reason I asked if you had read the thread, was your opening statement...
(my bold)
This point had been covered pretty comprehensively, a few posts back.
kaikohe76
As explained more than once, it will depend on where you are flying and who with, but if it's within the UK, chances are, yes it will affect you, BA or no BA.
Jsl
What's the point? You aren't interested in listening to my view/lecture, therefore, I would be wasting my time and your time by even attempting to answer any of your points.
One I will say though. The reason I asked if you had read the thread, was your opening statement...
Originally Posted by capot
What a bloody stupid rule, if it really exists.
This point had been covered pretty comprehensively, a few posts back.
kaikohe76
As explained more than once, it will depend on where you are flying and who with, but if it's within the UK, chances are, yes it will affect you, BA or no BA.
Jsl
Last edited by jetset lady; 16th Jan 2010 at 19:27. Reason: I forgot a bit!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll all have to bear with me on this one...
The rule within a lot of airlines is that no single man (as in travelling alone) is allowed to sit immediately next to a UM (unaccompanied minor). The cabin crew have no choice in the matter, we must follow the rules set by our employer (unless we'd like a P45, of course).
The rule is mainly to protect the male passenger. Unfortunately, children sometimes lie. As an example: A few years back, I had a call from a manager asking what happened on a certain flight with a UM. I got a lot of questions. It turns out the child said my crew and I hadn't looked after the child and ignored him throughout the flight. This was (obviously) not true (I wouldn't be here otherwise). Basically, the child had wanted a teddy and sweets from the duty free trolley for free (as he was bored) and this was naturally declined. Therefore, he lied to his mother, who was the one complaining to the company. It got cleared up pretty quickly, thank goodness.
The above is one example as to how careful one must be when dealing with children. I would love for all kids to be little angels and all sweetness, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.
I know that there are female abusers out there, but traditionally (for the lack of a better word), abusers tend to be majority male. Remember, kids read so much on the internet these days, that they may get "inspired". This whole thing is such a minefield, unfortunately.
I have to say that although I wasn't on the flight described in the DM article, it sounds like the situation wasn't handled very well by the crew member. One has to be very discreet in such situations, especially when having to move someone. I suspect this crew member will have received a b
ing from their manager (or worse). This crew member (by the sounds of it) hasn't understood the ruling properly. The passenger shouldn't have to move as he was travelling with his wife. Then again, we don't actually know what happened that day.
Gg
The rule within a lot of airlines is that no single man (as in travelling alone) is allowed to sit immediately next to a UM (unaccompanied minor). The cabin crew have no choice in the matter, we must follow the rules set by our employer (unless we'd like a P45, of course).
The rule is mainly to protect the male passenger. Unfortunately, children sometimes lie. As an example: A few years back, I had a call from a manager asking what happened on a certain flight with a UM. I got a lot of questions. It turns out the child said my crew and I hadn't looked after the child and ignored him throughout the flight. This was (obviously) not true (I wouldn't be here otherwise). Basically, the child had wanted a teddy and sweets from the duty free trolley for free (as he was bored) and this was naturally declined. Therefore, he lied to his mother, who was the one complaining to the company. It got cleared up pretty quickly, thank goodness.
The above is one example as to how careful one must be when dealing with children. I would love for all kids to be little angels and all sweetness, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.
I know that there are female abusers out there, but traditionally (for the lack of a better word), abusers tend to be majority male. Remember, kids read so much on the internet these days, that they may get "inspired". This whole thing is such a minefield, unfortunately.
I have to say that although I wasn't on the flight described in the DM article, it sounds like the situation wasn't handled very well by the crew member. One has to be very discreet in such situations, especially when having to move someone. I suspect this crew member will have received a b
ing from their manager (or worse). This crew member (by the sounds of it) hasn't understood the ruling properly. The passenger shouldn't have to move as he was travelling with his wife. Then again, we don't actually know what happened that day.Gg
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside it is worth notiing that, even tthough CRB checked, national guidelines for statutory and voluntary organisations are that no adult should be alone with any young person at anytime, even if this is just in sight of another adult.
And yes it is for the protection of the adult more than anything
In some organisations this advice predates CRB?PC etc.
And yes it is for the protection of the adult more than anything
In some organisations this advice predates CRB?PC etc.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I posted in another thread currently running -
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.
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.
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.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As a newcomer to this topic, I can accept that the airline will have their 'rules' WRT seating of unaccompanied minors and single adult males.
I can see the advantage to the male passenger, but, as I understand it, the ruling is intended for 'male passengers travelling alone' rather than a male accompanied by his (pregnant) wife.
Had seating allocation been determined as on Easyjet, then there could be a case for asking the male passenger to find an alternative seat, but, as it was the airline's agent who agreed the seating, I believe it was up to the airline (ie cabin crew) to resolve the situation by moving the UM, or, by offering the male (and, in this case, his pregnant wife) alternative seating that was to their satisfaction.
If the UM could not be found a suitable seat, the married couple should have been offered equivalent (or superior) seating as an incentive rather than be instructed (on pain of delaying the flight) to move! The problem was the UM, not the male passenger.
Sounds to me like the steward was having a dose of 'authority'. Under the circumstances I, too, would have resisted being separated from my wife - pregnant or otherwise.
Extremely bad PR IMO.
I can see the advantage to the male passenger, but, as I understand it, the ruling is intended for 'male passengers travelling alone' rather than a male accompanied by his (pregnant) wife.
Had seating allocation been determined as on Easyjet, then there could be a case for asking the male passenger to find an alternative seat, but, as it was the airline's agent who agreed the seating, I believe it was up to the airline (ie cabin crew) to resolve the situation by moving the UM, or, by offering the male (and, in this case, his pregnant wife) alternative seating that was to their satisfaction.
If the UM could not be found a suitable seat, the married couple should have been offered equivalent (or superior) seating as an incentive rather than be instructed (on pain of delaying the flight) to move! The problem was the UM, not the male passenger.
Sounds to me like the steward was having a dose of 'authority'. Under the circumstances I, too, would have resisted being separated from my wife - pregnant or otherwise.
Extremely bad PR IMO.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the risk of a single chap sitting next to an UM is that great then why on earth don't the airlines try to leave the adjacent seat free?
And why do they introduce charges for seat selection (accompanied with a phrase like "ensure you sit together") to force parents to pay to make sure they are sitting next to their offspring when (according to the Daily Mail article posted by the OP) the rule applies not only to UMs but any child.
I find it difficult to reconcile the airlines' position here against an earlier thread relating to a parent claiming his legal right to sit next to his children.
And why do they introduce charges for seat selection (accompanied with a phrase like "ensure you sit together") to force parents to pay to make sure they are sitting next to their offspring when (according to the Daily Mail article posted by the OP) the rule applies not only to UMs but any child.
I find it difficult to reconcile the airlines' position here against an earlier thread relating to a parent claiming his legal right to sit next to his children.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UM and Men
I can think of a flight with BA (LHR - CDG) where I was a Unaccompanied Male and was placed besides a young (approximately nine years old) French boy. This was a number of years ago and the BA crew knew me (I flew that often with BA I knew them better than my partner).
The poor young chap had a bad cold and had blocked ears. He spent much of the flight in tears. I was able to assist by speaking French with the boy and to comfort him (with words) much of the flight. I was also able to convey to the cabin crew his troubles and what he was saying. I got the impression that some one who was flying first class (other legs of the journey) and whom was willing to assist was much appreciated. This left the crew to carry out their duties as per usual. I certainly know
To me this seems eminently sensible. Why the stupid rules now a days?
As an aside I refuse to fly BA these days. After too many strikes, cancelled flights, lost baggage, delayed flights, having to get a bus to a plane etc. I refuse to travel with them. Do I mind? Yes. I had a good rapport with the crew.
The poor young chap had a bad cold and had blocked ears. He spent much of the flight in tears. I was able to assist by speaking French with the boy and to comfort him (with words) much of the flight. I was also able to convey to the cabin crew his troubles and what he was saying. I got the impression that some one who was flying first class (other legs of the journey) and whom was willing to assist was much appreciated. This left the crew to carry out their duties as per usual. I certainly know
To me this seems eminently sensible. Why the stupid rules now a days?
As an aside I refuse to fly BA these days. After too many strikes, cancelled flights, lost baggage, delayed flights, having to get a bus to a plane etc. I refuse to travel with them. Do I mind? Yes. I had a good rapport with the crew.