I don't want my kids sitting next to a man on a plane

[alieninperth]

I'm really hacked off with this attitude.

Do you know what Tracey, I don't want to sit next to your annoying spoilt brat of a child (if they are anything like you).

If you don't want to run the risk of a man sitting next to your kid, pony the f*cking money up an buy a ticket for yourself.

When I have mums taking their kids away from the playground because I as a dad have the cheek to take my kids there on my own and my father in law is uncomfortable taking my daughter out to the shops for fear of being thought of as a devient, there is clearly something wrong in society. And it is only fuelled by bottom feeders like this 'journalist'.

 

[Moody]

As always, this topic will always through up some rebuttal.

Airline child seating policies: all men are not potential paedophiles | theage.com.au

The term "rebuttal" would infer there is some sort of intelligent debate therein. Alas, there was none!

It started badly with the headline "All men are not potential paedophiles." Do I have to point out how moronic that statement is? Really??

 

[mannej]

The term "rebuttal" would infer there is some sort of intelligent debate therein. Alas, there was none!

It started badly with the headline "All men are not potential paedophiles." Do I have to point out how moronic that statement is? Really??

Sorry, but it's hardly as moronic as the original article in question.

 

[alieninperth]

An intelligent rebuttal would in most instances require an intelligent first premis. This flow of words has neither the former, and most certainly not the latter.

In short, the click bait worked.

 

[Moody]

Sorry, but it's hardly as moronic as the original article in question.

OK - well I assume that next time you fly you will refuse to have your hand-luggage x-rayed because you're not a potential terrorist, and you reject being labelled as such. Good luck with that one, chum!

 

[mannej]

OK - well I assume that next time you fly you will refuse to have your hand-luggage x-rayed because you're not a potential terrorist, and you reject being labelled as such. Good luck with that one, chum!

Don't you dare call me Chum, no need for the condescending attitude.

I don't know how you can use the hand luggage example, as all passengers are subjected to it (i.e it doesn't discriminate). Quite different from Tracey Spicer's article don't you think?

 

[footy99]

I wouldn't be too concerned how stuff like this makes the paper. The goal is to be deliberately divisive to create debate. In a case like this, almost no-one will agree with her so it might end up just reflecting badly on the reporter. She would have had to really delve into the one case she had to back her up and try to generalise that all men are fundamentally pedophilic at their core and to be feared.

Fortunately, I think we can all agree there are very few more sexist people on our planet than Tracey Spicer! She has quite a bit of form in the arena. So that is all most readers will see here.

 

[Moody]

Don't you dare call me Chum, no need for the condescending attitude.

I don't know how you can use the hand luggage example, as all passengers are subjected to it (i.e it doesn't discriminate). Quite different from Tracey Spicer's article don't you think?

So we agree that all men (and all women for that matter) ARE potential terrorists. And do we also agree that all men (and all women for that matter) ARE potential paedophiles? Therefore the statement "All men are not potential paedophiles." fails the logic test, does it not???

It's a simple proposition, but seems to be beyond the author's grasp.

Anyway - the incidence of child sexual abuse on aeroplanes is very low as it is hardly the favourite stalking ground for paedophiles. But it is not zero and when it occurs it is nearly always a male perpetrator. Airlines don't like getting sued so they will take all reasonable steps to prove they were not to blame. Hence the policy.

 

[mannej]

So we agree that all men (and all women for that matter) ARE potential terrorists. And do we also agree that all men (and all women for that matter) ARE potential paedophiles? Therefore the statement "All men are not potential paedophiles." fails the logic test, does it not???

It's a simple proposition, but seems to be beyond the author's grasp.

Anyway - the incidence of child sexual abuse on aeroplanes is very low as it is hardly the favourite stalking ground for paedophiles. But it is not zero and when it occurs it is nearly always a male perpetrator. Airlines don't like getting sued so they will take all reasonable steps to prove they were not to blame. Hence the policy.

If you want to play the logic game, where do you stop? Logic such as that opens up policies based on ignorance. Is the risk statistically significant to enforce such blanket rules as the no males next to UM's on flights?

I pose a question based on your final comment. Should a female commit such an act on a flight, what will stop the airline being sued?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

From the article Tracey says:

Sure, not all men are paedophiles but offenders are predominantly male.

'not all' implies the majority are, with a few exceptions here and there?

open letter to Tracey:

Tracey... mental health issues are serious. but thankfully help is available. You should contact your doctor or one of the many counselling services to help with your paranoia.

 

[footy99]

That's a pretty revealing quote about her view of men generally.

 

[Melburnian1]

'The Age' and 'SMH" (Fairfax) ought to discontinue Tracey Spicer as a columnist.

She is at risk of becoming the person many Australians would least like to sit next to on any conveyance...plane, train, ferry or bus (although she's probably only ever likely to use plane in J or F and a limousine...)

I agree that journalistic standards have noticeably slipped in the past decade. Some reporters cannot use correct punctuation, while sub editors do not pick up such errors.

Most men are fine upstanding individuals, whether they are parent, priest or protector, just like most women are law abiding individuals and totally trustworthy with others irrespective of age.

 

[Moody]

I pose a question based on your final comment. Should a female commit such an act on a flight, what will stop the airline being sued?

Nothing stops a distressed parent from suing an airline if something untoward happens on a flight. This policy does not protect the airline or discharge it's obligations to any UM. IT IS SIMPLY AND PURELY ABOUT RISK MITIGATION. If you can reduce a slight (but known) risk by a factor of 10, you could argue that the airline is obliged to do so. Particularly when if handled properly (i.e. - not on board!) there is no impact to other passengers.

I have absolutely no problem with not being sat beside an UM, and have even been approached on-board about such a situation and was grateful for it.

 

[Moody]

Most men are fine upstanding individuals, whether they are parent, priest or protector, just like most women are law abiding individuals and totally trustworthy with others irrespective of age.

Most .... yes. All ..... no.

Teachers are, on the whole, fine upstanding individuals. But it is a foolhardy teacher who doesn't follow the policy of never being alone in a closed room with a student.

There is also a royal commission going on that reinforces the argument that all men are not paedophiles ... but there are exceptions.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Nothing stops a distressed parent from suing an airline if something untoward happens on a flight. This policy does not protect the airline or discharge it's obligations to any UM. IT IS SIMPLY AND PURELY ABOUT RISK MITIGATION. If you can reduce a slight (but known) risk by a factor of 10, you could argue that the airline is obliged to do so. Particularly when if handled properly (i.e. - not on board!) there is no impact to other passengers.

I have absolutely no problem with not being sat beside an UM, and have even been approached on-board about such a situation and was grateful for it.

pffft.

if the airline was obliged as you say, they shouldn't even hand the child over to the parent at the other end. far more likely the receiving parent will molest the child than a random stranger.

i wonder how Ms Spicer get her kids to the airport? clearly not by car.

 

[gaz0303]

pffft.

if the airline was obliged as you say, they shouldn't even hand the child over to the parent at the other end. far more likely the receiving parent will molest the child than a random stranger.

Totally agree....if we allow statistics to control all our judgments, as indeed appears to be Ms Spicer approach to her children flying.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I'm amazed that when some parents/guardians take their child to the airport to catch a flight as a UM, they'll often say "I don't have to stay until the flight departs do I"? as they're more concerned about the cost of parking at the airport than anything else. There have been cases where the parent has just taken the child to the boarding gate & left anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the people saying "I don't want my child sitting next to a man" are the same people as described above.

Reseating pax shouldn't have to happen onboard if ground staff pre-seat UM's accordingly. There have been cases though when parents make bookings for their kids as adults over the website so staff aren't aware they're UM's until the pax arrive at the airport.

 

[mannej]

Nothing stops a distressed parent from suing an airline if something untoward happens on a flight. This policy does not protect the airline or discharge it's obligations to any UM. IT IS SIMPLY AND PURELY ABOUT RISK MITIGATION. If you can reduce a slight (but known) risk by a factor of 10, you could argue that the airline is obliged to do so. Particularly when if handled properly (i.e. - not on board!) there is no impact to other passengers.

I have absolutely no problem with not being sat beside an UM, and have even been approached on-board about such a situation and was grateful for it.

Ok, lets pick a hole in the Risk Mitigation you talk of

Sure, almost 90 per cent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone in, or known to, the family, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

As quoted by Tracey Spicer herself. That alone shows that by your logic, a child should never sit next to a family member or someone known to the family.

As I have said, where do you draw the line?

Most .... yes. All ..... no.

Teachers are, on the whole, fine upstanding individuals. But it is a foolhardy teacher who doesn't follow the policy of never being alone in a closed room with a student.

There is also a royal commission going on that reinforces the argument that all men are not paedophiles ... but there are exceptions.

Lets not forget that there have been a number of female teachers who have committed indecent acts against students.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Reseating pax shouldn't have to happen onboard if ground staff pre-seat UM's accordingly. There have been cases though when parents make bookings for their kids as adults over the website so staff aren't aware they're UM's until the pax arrive at the airport.

I'd be interested in knowing how the pre-seating would work. If a passenger is named Kelly, or Jean, or Ali how would the staff know to seat the UM next to or not?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'd be interested in knowing how the pre-seating would work. If a passenger is named Kelly, or Jean, or Ali how would the staff know to seat the UM next to or not?

the 'Mr' (or Ms, Miss, Mrs) might be a giveaway.

more complicated if they are a doctor.