Nuts on board - a serious issue!

[mannej]

Since never. That is why the passenger asked the airline to inform other passengers of the issue. If you were on the aircraft you would have been made aware in accordance with the responsibilities of the parent.

However, is informing the airline sufficient? Is it not reasonably forseeable that there may be traces of nuts still on board?
What about PPE? I don't think it is unreasonable to make the girl wear a facial mask if the allergy was that bad.

I am no fan of this trial by media in absentia.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I am no fan of this trial by media in absentia.

Except of the parents.....???

Could the parents have done more. Yes most likely.
Could the passenger have done more (or in this case less!). Yes most likely
Could the airline done more. Maybe

We can all learn from unfortunate situations.

 

[mannej]

Except of the parents.....???.

Well no, the mother is the most vocal in the media. There is a difference.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

What we do know (based on the articles) is that .......

What we do know (based on the articles) is what the mother has told a reporter. I don't for one minute believe it's the whole truth and there is evidence there that confirms that (life ban? or 2 year ban?). I discount the other pax telling the miscreant not to eat his nuts as the mother could not possibly have heard that conversation, or she wouldn't have waited 20 minutes to do something about it and other than hearing it, is just hearsay. I also doubt the crew specifically told the guy not to open the nuts. Did they go right through the whole cabin interrogating each person individually, to ascertain who did and who did not have a concealed pack of nuts? For that matter, are we all convinced the lady two rows behind her wasn't happily snacking on some nuts?

I also think, perhaps incorrectly, that a duty of care is only owed to others with regard to reasonably anticipatable or foreseeable hazards. If the nut man didn't understand the instruction than I'd be assuming this particular hazard and risk was not reasonably foreseeable. In fact, I tend to think the nut man may have a genuine action against the airline.

I do say though, I'm a fence sitter on this issue. I am glad the little girl is OK (or is she)? Someone mentioned earlier there may be a risk of a brain injury for the amount of time she was oxygen starved. I've got no idea but I hope not.

 

[Moody]

What we do know (based on the articles) is what the mother has told a reporter. I don't for one minute believe it's the whole truth and there is evidence there that confirms that (life ban? or 2 year ban?). I discount the other pax telling the miscreant not to eat his nuts as the mother could not possibly have heard that conversation, or she wouldn't have waited 20 minutes to do something about it and other than hearing it, is just hearsay. I also doubt the crew specifically told the guy not to open the nuts. Did they go right through the whole cabin interrogating each person individually, to ascertain who did and who did not have a concealed pack of nuts? For that matter, are we all convinced the lady two rows behind her wasn't happily snacking on some nuts?

I also think, perhaps incorrectly, that a duty of care is only owed to others with regard to reasonably anticipatable or foreseeable hazards. If the nut man didn't understand the instruction than I'd be assuming this particular hazard and risk was not reasonably foreseeable. In fact, I tend to think the nut man may have a genuine action against the airline.

I do say though, I'm a fence sitter on this issue. I am glad the little girl is OK (or is she)? Someone mentioned earlier there may be a risk of a brain injury for the amount of time she was oxygen starved. I've got no idea but I hope not.

Is it just me or is reading between the lines a disappearing skill? Could you answer this question - Why do you think that the police met the plane and took this man away for questioning?

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Well no, the mother is the most vocal in the media. There is a difference.

Well I guess it would highly unusual that the aggrieved party would be vocal, while someone at fault might try and keep a low profile.

Was the mother's stated action to:

A/ Warn others
B/ Sue Ryanair
C/ Seek punishment of the other passenger

If A/, which do you think may achieve A/ better:

D/ Seek publicity on the matter
E/ Stay silent

 

[juddles]

The article quoted in post #51 doesn't name the mother as the source. I'm simply filling the gaps based on what I read and based on the action taken by the airline. There is nothing so far to suggest that man was innocent in his actions.

¨Nothing to suggest that man was innocent¨?????? OMG, we have here the exact opposite of innocent until proven guilty!!

As is usual in these types of stories, a very small versión, told by one side, with no backing, and very little detail, is seized upon by people who want to hate someone. The media are very good at designing the content of these stories specifically for that purpose - the shock/horror reaction. In this one we all get to hate a nasty black man who sadistically ate his peanuts and almost killed a poor little white girl. In modern day England this is perfect for tabloid readership.

 

[juddles]

.... Attempted manslaughter, for example. It is not correct to say he hasn't broken the law....

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

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

you can have attempted manslaughter.

 

[Moody]

¨Nothing to suggest that man was innocent¨?????? OMG, we have here the exact opposite of innocent until proven guilty!!

As is usual in these types of stories, a very small versión, told by one side, with no backing, and very little detail, is seized upon by people who want to hate someone. The media are very good at designing the content of these stories specifically for that purpose - the shock/horror reaction. In this one we all get to hate a nasty black man who sadistically ate his peanuts and almost killed a poor little white girl. In modern day England this is perfect for tabloid readership.

Ah - the race card! How appropriate to use it when you have comprehensively lost the argument and are looking to cover your retreat. Nice try but it didn't work this time.

Perhaps you can answer the question - Why do you think that the police met the plane and took this man away for questioning?

 

[JohnPhelan]

Is it just me or is reading between the lines a disappearing skill? Could you answer this question - Why do you think that the police met the plane and took this man away for questioning?

Because he disobeyed a direction from the crew.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Is it just me or is reading between the lines a disappearing skill? Could you answer this question - Why do you think that the police met the plane and took this man away for questioning?

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.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

you have comprehensively lost the argument

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.

 

[Pushka]

Manslaughter is accidental death. You don't intend to kill someone but your actions result in a death. Eg you push someone hard and they fall. They hit their heads on the kerb and die from that. Your actions could be reckless or even just stupid.

There isn't a crime called attempted manslaughter. If your intent is to kill someone but fail then that is attempted murder.

 

[medhead]

Manslaughter is accidental death. You don't intend to kill someone but your actions result in a death. Eg you push someone hard and they fall. They hit their heads on the kerb and die from that. Your actions could be reckless or even just stupid.

There isn't a crime called attempted manslaughter. If your intent is to kill someone but fail then that is attempted murder.

The point remains that intention may not be a requirement for someone whose actions result in harm.

However, Checking out this definition of manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter that is stopped might be considered attempted manslaughter. That is deliberate actions to harm/kill someone undertaken without intention to harm/kill that are stopped before the person is killed. We also see that perfectly legal actions, like eating nuts, undertaken without due care seem to fit in as manslaughter.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=manslaughter

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

 

[boomy]

¨Nothing to suggest that man was innocent¨?????? OMG, we have here the exact opposite of innocent until proven guilty!!

Well it looks like the airline prove him guilty.

 

[mannej]

Well it looks like the airline prove him guilty.

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

 

[medhead]

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

It would seem the law disagrees with you, give it is a specific item in some legislation. Googling provides the example of an action that would be manslaughter being stopped by a third party. A hypothetical person is enraged by another and attacks them, beating them such that they will die (manslaughter) but then a third party steps in and stops them before the person dies.

It is only something on the internet. But I'm sure the concept is understandable.

Oh and this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It is a comment about the uninspired position the eating nuts isn't illegal.

 

[JohnK]

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.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The cabin crew made an announcement that there would be no nuts served onboard and that passengers shouldn't consume any nuts onboard 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 onboard 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.