QANTAS accused of treating male nurse like "kiddie fiddler"

[ashleyn]

So if I have a "working with children" permit issued by the WA Govt is it OK for me to sit next to an unaccompanied minor ?

Pretty sure I've done it a hundred times on the bus to work as well. Unfortunately Political correctness (or the perception of it) has replaced common sense in so many areas of our lives.

 

[JessicaTam]

Definite un-like, samh004!

 

[medhead]

Actually - no. Women are not asked to sit next to a UM to supervise them - they are asked to sit next to a UM to avoid the UM being abused by an alleged pedophile.

Might pay to have another read of my post. I didn't say anything about being asked to do anything. Implicit expectation! That does not mean explicit request.

 

[ashleyn]

Some chill pills are required. Maybe we should start talking about PB again, that's always good for a few thousand posts.

 

[lovestotravel]

Nothing wrong with this policy which has existed for years. It reduces the risk and that's a good thing

 

[anat0l]

Nothing wrong with this policy which has existed for years. It reduces the risk and that's a good thing

Reduces a risk - as in the risk being reduced was previously at an unacceptable level?

It should also be noted that all of this talk almost means nothing unless the matter is taken to court.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using AustFreqFly

 

[samh004]

Definite un-like, samh004!

No offence was intended, at least not to you. Just using your comment to point out the absurdity of other comments. Apologies.

Nothing wrong with this policy which has existed for years. It reduces the risk and that's a good thing

If we go by the stats, that show overnights, and people moving to sit next to UM's after departure, then surely it's not reducing anything. Perhaps a perceived risk? But not a confirmed risk!



 

[amaroo]

Thinking about this - I think I like the policy!

Back in 2007 I was traveling with my family HKG-SYD. I was paged in the lounge and offered an OPUP into J. The lounge agent knew I was traveling with family (same booking) and actually said we know you are with your family however, we would like to offer you an upgrade.

Since I was suffering the effects of travel belly & 5mins early had lost an argument with SWMBO - I put my hand out, smiled & accepted!

SWMBO new travel companion was a 6 year old boy. The boy was not traveling alone however, was separated from his family - school holidays, very full & from memory over-booked flight.

I'm starting to think that they shifted me (WP at the time) to shift the boy next to a another 6 year child (my daughter) & a female.

If this is the case I say - great policy, may it stay in place forever!

 

[lovestotravel]

Any report that I can find shows that males are the majority of kiddie fiddlers, as in 90% or more...

 

[NM]

I wonder what would happen if I was asked to move away from a UM and produced my Qld Government issued Blue Card (Positive Notice blue card for Child Related Employment). The issue of the card requires both state and federal police checks and is required to be held by anyone working aid or voluntary) with children.

http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/bluecard/index.html

I would suggest that a male passenger who holds a Blue Card would be just as appropriate to be seated next to UM as any female passenger selected at random.

While I do not believe I would feel humiliated at being asked to move, I would follow the cabin crew's direction and after the flight I would be asking the airline's management and the government's Blue Card issuing authority to explain why my Blue Card was not recognised as proof that I should not be considered an unacceptable risk for being seated next to a UM.

 

[anat0l]

Any report that I can find shows that males are the majority of kiddie fiddlers, as in 90% or more...

You mean 90% of those "kiddie fiddlers" are males, right? Not that 90% of males are "kiddie fiddlers", right?

If it was the latter then perhaps the policy is well and truly justified, since a 1 in 10 chance of a UM being abused by a male is more than likely in anyone's books an unacceptable risk that must be controlled.

That said, if the risk is 90% of a male abusing a child, I probably wouldn't be able leave home without risking arrest at almost every step:!:

 

[lovestotravel]

Yes more than 90% of convicted pedophiles are males

Psychopathology and Personality Traits of Pedophiles - Psychiatric Times

"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders"

 

[anat0l]

Yes more than 90% of convicted pedophiles are males

www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331+Dr+Cohen+is+associate+professor+of+clinical+psychiatry+and+Dr+Galynker&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]Psychopathology and Personality Traits of Pedophiles - Psychiatric Times[/url]

"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders"

That's fine - all that says, statistically, is that given a "kiddie fiddler", there is a 90% chance it will be male.

It doesn't mean that for any given male, there is a 90% chance that he will be a "kiddie fiddler". That probability is given by 90% of "Probability of any adult being a 'kiddie fiddler'".

Now if that latter probability was large enough, the policy may be justified as it addresses an unacceptable risk.

 

[lovestotravel]

Males are a greater risk than females by a 10 to 1 ratio

Policy make sense to me

 

[anat0l]

Males are a greater risk than females by a 10 to 1 ratio

Policy make sense to me

Let's try to guess this.

Say the probability that an adult is a "kiddie fiddler" is 1 in 100,000. (For an Australian population of 22,000,000 and assuming 80% are adults over 18 years, that means 176 adults in Australia are child abusers). To put that in some perspective, if we flat assume there are 170 pax per flight, in 588 flights, we expect one of those pax to be a "kiddie fiddler" (within all of those 588 flights).

Now that 1 person we pinpoint is 90% likely to be a male (if we take the statistical conclusion from the analysis you linked to). So, by extension, 0.9 pax in 588 flights, which (using whole numbers is easier ) translates to the likelihood of a male "kiddie fiddler" being on board is 1 in 654 fully loaded flights. (For reference, 1 in 654 is about 0.15%). For a female "kiddie fiddler" this translates to 1 in 5882 flights.

There are a number of assumptions which actually make this estimate quite conservative. And yes the stats is not quite perfect - this is just back of envelope, over-a-coffee/over-a-beer talk stuff, but I'm trying to illustrate a point here.


The question is then, if this is the risk of actually having a male "kiddie fiddler" on board who may have the potential to abuse a UM (if a UM is on board that particular flight), is this risk significant enough to deem it unacceptable, and thus this policy is absolutely necessary? Yes, the odds are higher for men than women, but the overall risk - is that unacceptable? A risk of 9 in 10 flights having a male "kiddie fiddler" on board is more than likely unacceptable......

Note that you can't have zero risk - the only way to do this is to remove all males on board a flight which has a UM (i.e. the risk is eliminated completely) - this also means if the crew are male, they go too!

Note that the statistical approach above also completely disregards the moral, practical and legal implications.

 

[oz_mark]

Males are a greater risk than females by a 10 to 1 ratio

Policy make sense to me

The question, though, is it legal?

 

[lovestotravel]

anat0l - Interesting calculations!

However it seems that about 5% of the population can be classed as pedophiles so that makes the risk far far higher than your quick calculation unfortunately

Can't have zero risk, but anything that reduces the risk, like this, doesn't worry me.

 

[anat0l]

However it seems that about 5% of the population can be classed as pedophiles so that makes the risk far far higher than your quick calculation unfortunately

5%! That would mean approximately 900,000 pedophiles in Australia. That's basically the populations of the Gold and Sunshine Coasts combined. (No jokes, please, people - this is just to give a perspective on the numbers ).

I find that a bit hard to believe. That sex offenders register would be kicked into high gear and beyond by now (even if all those people have not been caught).

And frankly at 5% risk, that would be a good case to shield adult males from any minors in almost any situation. It would also probably mean a lot, lot, lot more stricter procedures for males applying to work in jobs that interact with children, and then some.

Can't have zero risk, but anything that reduces the risk, like this, doesn't worry me.

But equally so, one can "eliminate" the risk by mandating that no flight with a UM on it shall have any males whatsoever on board.

That is not to say that is a good solution, however, despite it eliminating the risk.

 

[lovestotravel]

It's the same argument/thought process that having a 10km/h speed limit makes more sense than 60km/h

You can't reduce all risk, but you can reduce it, hence the policy

 

[samh004]

It's the same argument/thought process that having a 10km/h speed limit makes more sense than 60km/h

You can't reduce all risk, but you can reduce it, hence the policy

But the people that have accidents in a 10km/h zone are generally the ones breaking the law and speeding, and by the same logic the vast majority of incidents on flights were by seat swappers after departure, so it seems in both cases the policy is misguided. It looks good to those that don't read between the lines, but isn't actually all that beneficial. IMO.


