Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[MEL_Traveller]

For crying out loud. Attempted manslaughter? This has gone on enough.

Peanuts and any other nuts are not illegal. Neither are eggs. Neither are shellfish. Neither is pork. People should be able to consume anytime they wish without fear of persecution.

If you have an allergy problem then take the necessary precautions and stop expecting everyone else to take responsibility. Either that or don't travel.

I can just see this little girl growing up and becoming an adult and starting employment somewhere. Should everyone working with her refrain from eating nuts? Peanut butter sandwiches? Satays? And how about other allergies? I should not have to worry how my food is prepared or what it contains.

appreciate this may be your personal opinion, but it is unlikely the law will agree with your principles just because you don't think it is fair.

a deliberate action on your behalf which causes injury to another may land you in hot water.

How else would you propose to hold people accountable?

 

[Moody]

I'm assuming you are asking me that question? If so, I'd suggest you are the one taking everything at face value and not reading between the lines. I'm suggesting the mother may be telling the truth, or she may have fallen into that very human of behaviours, which is to blame someone else.

The police were doing what police hopefully always do, investigate to find the truth rather than blindly accept a frantic mothers (possibly exaggerated) conclusions. I think (from memory without going back and checking) the nut guy was also released without charge. Funny old thing, that presumption of innocence.

You seem incapable of answering a direct question, which always makes me wonder about motives. I will say it again in the forlorn hope of recieving an answer :-

Why did the police take the man away for questioning? [Hint - JP has the start of the answer, but there are more clues out there]

 

[Moody]

I didn't realise this was an argument. I assumed it was a thought provoking discussion, which in the absence of more information/confirmation cannot be "won" by either side as both angles are based on more assumption than fact.

The are assumptions and there are absurdities - there is a difference you know.

For example it is absurd and borders on the despicable to suggest the man was targeted for his race/complexion rather than his actions. Or do you have evidence of the former?

"Thought provoking discussion"??? Don't make me laugh!

 

[harvyk]

Some sharper legal mind may correct me here, but I think ¨attempted manslaughter¨ is an oxymoron

Whilst I am not a legal mind, attempted manslaughter makes perfect sense. Manslaughter is simply a death when death was not the objective. In attempted manslaughter all the person has to do is to continue to do something which puts a persons life in danger once they are made aware of the danger, but the objective of the action itself is not to kill the person.

I've been reading through this thread, I strongly suspect (as per usual) the real story sits somewhere between both extremes. I certainly know of people who have extreme allergic reactions to certain foods, so I certainly don't find it outside the realm of possibility that the person whom ate the nuts was the cause. Before everyone has a go at either the man or the mother, given it's Ryanair one could easily assume that the man simply assumed the no nuts thing was Ryanair attempting to prevent BYO food, and since the family was traveling back home, perhaps the mother had already used the EpiPen(s) which she had brought along, and Ryanair would not release another one to a "non-medically trained" person.

IMHO, the big problem rests with today's media and it's love of click bait. In this case they have provided a short sweet article which doesn't really contain very much information (even between the lines) which has all the right emotive words to encourage a person to click on it. "Selfish passenger" and "Girl stops breathing" in the title, enough to encourage most people to at least casually click (and thus earn the 0.2c for display of the ads)

 

[boomy]

Like I have been saying, it's Ryan Air, hardly an indication of guilt.

And why is that? Are they notorious for imposing bans on innocent customers?
I find it hard to believe the airline didn't check the incident and simply took ONLY the mother's word for what happened. The fact that no one else talked about the incident in the media doesn't mean they didn't talk to airline representatives and I'm sure that Ryanair own crew onboard gave their version of events as well.

 

[JohnK]

appreciate this may be your personal opinion, but it is unlikely the law will agree with your principles just because you don't think it is fair.

a deliberate action on your behalf which causes injury to another may land you in hot water.

How else would you propose to hold people accountable?

You are kidding right?

A deliberate action? You can't tell someone what to eat and what not to eat. Eating is not against the law! Is it?

Don't take accountability away from the person who should be responsible. If the little girl is that sick she shouldn't be travelling on public transport.

Where do you draw the line? Trains? Buses? Ferries?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You are kidding right?

A deliberate action? You can't tell someone what to eat and what not to eat. Eating is not against the law! Is it?

Don't take accountability away from the person who should be responsible. If the little girl is that sick she shouldn't be travelling on public transport.

Where do you draw the line? Trains? Buses? Ferries?

not kidding at all. 'passengers are requested not to eat nuts on this flight because we have someone with a severe peanut allergy on board' is sufficient to overrule your supposed right to eat what you want when you want it.

to accidentally eat peanuts after that warning might be excusable, but a DYKWIA attitude will certainly open up the potential for criminal charges. And rightly so.

what you don't seem to be able to distinguish is an explicit warning vs no warning. You are not required to modify your behaviour if you are walking down the street, or taking public transport. But an explicit request, to counter a known danger, is a different matter.

of course the person affected with the nut allergy should take all precautions as well. but why would anyone want to thwart those efforts by deliberately introducing a known danger?

 

[RAM]

The cabin crew made an announcement that there would be no nuts served onboard and that passengers shouldn't consume any nuts on-board due to a passenger with severe allergies. One of the passengers didn't comply with the crew instructions. Not complying with cabin crew instructions is something that needed to be looked into.

A passenger became ill on the flight who is allergic to nuts. She required treatment on-board and was taken to hospital upon landing where after a short period of assessment she was discharged.

I don't think that the first incident was the most likely cause of the second.

Not complying with a crew instruction that endangers the AIRCRAFT would be definitely actionable by law

Eg: Turn off your mobile phone before take-off.

They cannot physically come and take it from you (illegal) but they can declare you are no longer welcome on the flight and ask you to disembark. To speed the process up they normally call airport security (very rarely do they call the police).

Eg: Turn off your mobile phone while in the air.

Interesting issue - not certain especially given recent announcements of no adverse impact.


Not complying with a crew request about food consumption on the plane would not normally be actionable by law.

There is only circumstantial evidence that the man's actions led to the girls allergic reaction.

A good brief would rip this to shreds and it would not get to the hearing stage and that is why the police did not charge the man. If they had done so they would have most likely been internally disciplined for frivolous action.

 

[medhead]

You are kidding right?

A deliberate action? You can't tell someone what to eat and what not to eat. Eating is not against the law! Is it?

Don't take accountability away from the person who should be responsible. If the little girl is that sick she shouldn't be travelling on public transport.

Where do you draw the line? Trains? Buses? Ferries?

The only kidding around here is this completely irrelevant statement that eating isn't against the law. Taking an action that harms someone is illegal.

A specific warning was given against doing a specific action because a specific harm might happen

Someone took that action

Then the specific harm happened.

Regardless of whether or not that was the cause. That is a set of circumstances that puts one person clearly in the frame.

Let's repeat this clearly:

Don't open that packet you might harm person A. Open the packet. Person A gets exactly the harm that was warned against.

The guy was a complete imbecile for opening that packet to "enforce his rights". I hear lots of comments about lack of consideration in society. Where is the consideration for the risk to the girl? Seems it is all a one way street.

What if the girl died because of her reaction? Do you think they'd just let the guy go after a few questions or would he have ended up on the wrong side of a police investigation. The girl didn't die and that's why there was minimal investigation. But that doesn't mean that guy isn't a complete clown, especially if he was enforcing his right to eat whatever he wants.

What if the plane had to divert? Plenty in this thread defending the guy have whinged about idiots causing flights to divert.

Stop this trite BS about eating being legal. It is completely ignores the issues and the situation.

Not to mention it is ryanairs plane and they can tell you what to eat or not eat.

 

[medhead]

The true irony is all the complaints about MH not managing risk.

Here we have a case of a family managing the risk, by informing the airline, and the airline managing the risk by prohibiting nuts on the flight. Then specifically warning people not to open nuts because that might harm one passenger. Then one person ignored the warning and opened their packet of nuts. Then the harm happened afterwards.

In response to that we get eating isn't illegal. Don't bother that they were warned of the potential for harm. Don't bother that the guy put himself in the situation of being blamed once he opened the nuts. Don't bother that it is illegal to take actions that might harm someone. No instead we get eating is not illegal, it's his right and stuff anyone else. Don't bother with the girls rights - he has the right to eats his nuts!

Then there is the blame the parents for not managing the situation. They did manage the situation!!! That's why there was a prohibition on nuts for the flight. No instead it's the parents fault that one person ignored the warnings they were given. All the parents fault.

Certainly there is no way to know that guy caused the event. But as soon as he opened that packet he put a massive spotlight on himself. If the guy obey the direction and the girl had a reaction them there'd be zero comeback on him. Instead he put himself at risk by his actions. He didn't manage his risks. That lack of critical judgement should not be defended.

 

[RAM]

The true irony is all the complaints about MH not managing risk.


Certainly there is no way to know that guy caused the event. But as soon as he opened that packet he put a massive spotlight on himself. If the guy obey the direction and the girl had a reaction them there'd be zero comeback on him. Instead he put himself at risk by his actions. He didn't manage his risks. That lack of critical judgement should not be defended.

Could agree with you but one very important consideration:

Was the man's English comprehension skills high enough to understand the risk or perhaps was he educated (or high enough IQ) enough to understand potential risks.

Given that the majority multi-generation English speaking adults CANNOT fill out forms correctly suggests that above assumption may well be a trip too far.

BTW - I went through 5 different stories on the incident and the aircrew announcement was always referred to as a 'request' not an order or demand ie no prohibition stated. So basis of Westminster reasoning - what would a reasonable man do?

Given the comments through out the thread (as AFFers are always reasonable aren't we?) then he is innocent m'lord.

 

[opusman]

It's neither reasonable nor foreseeable to any reasonable person that simply eating a packet of nuts could have deleterious effects on anyone else.

And if you personally have ever eaten a packet of nuts on a plane without first checking if anyone on board has a severe nut allergy then I think this proves my point.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The true irony is all the complaints about MH not managing risk.

To be fair, I think I am the only person who thinks MH was in the wrong for being where they were.

 

[juddles]

....Then is we look at AustLii we see that attempted manslaughter is mentioned in South Australian criminal law.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s270ab.html...

Good find! It can conceivably exist then!

 

[juddles]

...a deliberate action on your behalf which causes injury to another may land you in hot water....

Surely the ¨deliberate action¨ of taking your daughter on a four hour confinement in a sealed tube where nuts are consumed in quantity every single day would amount to what some here suggest could be ¨attempted manslaughter¨ then?

 

[JohnK]

not kidding at all. 'passengers are requested not to eat nuts on this flight because we have someone with a severe peanut allergy on board' is sufficient to overrule your supposed right to eat what you want when you want it.

It's not a supposed right. The crew has no right to tell you what to eat and what not to eat. Eating nuts is not endangering the aircraft.

We can just keep this discussion going around in circles with our opinions on the matter.

 

[medhead]

Could agree with you but one very important consideration:

Was the man's English comprehension skills high enough to understand the risk or perhaps was he educated (or high enough IQ) enough to understand potential risks.

Given that the majority multi-generation English speaking adults CANNOT fill out forms correctly suggests that above assumption may well be a trip too far.

BTW - I went through 5 different stories on the incident and the aircrew announcement was always referred to as a 'request' not an order or demand ie no prohibition stated. So basis of Westminster reasoning - what would a reasonable man do?

Given the comments through out the thread (as AFFers are always reasonable aren't we?) then he is innocent m'lord.

I didn't want to get into race or culture. But my experience with a highly educated, multi-language person from the same culture as has been mentioned in thread opens the possibility of arrogantly doing whatever they want, regardless.

Prohibition was suppose to refer to the airline not serving nuts.

My comment is about the judgement of a person that puts them self into a bad situation. Not something that would be tested in court. A reasonable person wouldn't compromise them self, or risk potentially harming another, IMO.

It's neither reasonable nor foreseeable to any reasonable person that simply eating a packet of nuts could have deleterious effects on anyone else.

And if you personally have ever eaten a packet of nuts on a plane without first checking if anyone on board has a severe nut allergy then I think this proves my point.

Still missing the point. This is not just eating at random. A specific warning was given against the act. That makes it foreseeable and it is unreasonable to ignore the warning.

To be fair, I think I am the only person who thinks MH was in the wrong for being where they were.

There were others, here and more generally on social media/media.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's not a supposed right. The crew has no right to tell you what to eat and what not to eat. Eating nuts is not endangering the aircraft.

We can just keep this discussion going around in circles with our opinions on the matter.

yes, the crew does have the right to tell you to stop eating nuts on a plane. Crew can issue lawful instructions relating to the safety of those on board. A person with a severe nut allergy is entitled to have a direction made in those circumstances.

you have an opinion, but if that opinion is undoubtedly wrong, and not reflected in the law, it is important to correct it the event it might influence the behaviour of others.

 

[juddles]

.... Crew can issue lawful instructions relating to the safety of those on board.....

I totally agree. But in this case that direction should have been to not let the girl board.

Simply announcing that nuts will not be sold on that particular flight is ridiculous if the plane was not scrupulously decontaminated from the peanut parties that every single flight involved prior to the girl boarding.

As drron and others have already explained, airborne particles are extremely unlikely to have caused this incident.

Next time you get on a flight, pry a Little into the creases and nooks and crannies around your seat. You will find more than nut particles.

 

[medhead]

It's not a supposed right. The crew has no right to tell you what to eat and what not to eat. Eating nuts is not endangering the aircraft.

We can just keep this discussion going around in circles with our opinions on the matter.

It does endanger a person, who may become so ill that the aircraft has to divert. Adding a landing and a takeoff, increasing crew time. Landing and takeoff is the most dangerous part of a flight.

Then we get back to the question of consideration in society and consideration for another person in risking their well being.