QANTAS accused of treating male nurse like "kiddie fiddler"

[MEL_Traveller]

for the avoidance of doubt - it is NOT a normal human response to assume anyone who doesn't like a policy (or complains too much) has something to hide.

There are some policies so abhorrent everyone is right to question them. Assuming all men are child abusers is one of them, as would assuming any muslim is a terrorist, (or according to one of the views expressed above, that any muslim complaining of racial profiling was guilty and had something to hide).

Assumptions such as these are flawed in fact, reason, law, and human decency and are based, like all prejudice, on a lack of education.

 

[medhead]

for the avoidance of doubt - it is NOT a normal human response to assume anyone who doesn't like a policy (or complains too much) has something to hide.

There are some policies so abhorrent everyone is right to question them. Assuming all men are child abusers is one of them, as would assuming any muslim is a terrorist, (or according to one of the views expressed above, that any muslim complaining of racial profiling was guilty and had something to hide).

Assumptions such as these are flawed in fact, reason, law, and human decency and are based, like all prejudice, on a lack of education.

By the same token it is flawed assumption to suggest the policy assumes all men are pedos.

As for all the comments about no mitigation when there is a very low risk, I'd love to have a beer with you all sometime and talk about radiation risk and nuclear power. How many screaming about this policy would also be protesting when I build a nuclear power plant somewhere near Sydney?


Sent from the Throne

 

[TonyHancock]

How many screaming about this policy would also be protesting when I build a nuclear power plant somewhere near Sydney?

...another one? We already have one at Lucas Heights

 

[mannej]

Flame me if you like, but I will explicitly state that I don't trust any male (particularly fathers) who have a problem with this policy

Why is that? What are you suggesting?

One of the most underlying things that I have found from both the two threads is that what you are getting at is very abstract. Can you prove to me that moving a male significantly reduces that risk. You can't because it is close to impossible.

If the airlines are going to move passengers. Do it before they even step on the plane. Atleast that way it is discreet, and no one will know about the reasons why.

I find it bordering on offensive that you are labeling me as a potential pedophile just because I don't agree with a policy, and the application of it in the last threads.

 

[Ansett]

...another one? We already have one at Lucas Heights

Lucas is NOT a power plant it is a research facility

 

[drron]

By the same token it is flawed assumption to suggest the policy assumes all men are pedos.

As for all the comments about no mitigation when there is a very low risk, I'd love to have a beer with you all sometime and talk about radiation risk and nuclear power. How many screaming about this policy would also be protesting when I build a nuclear power plant somewhere near Sydney?


Sent from the Throne

Not me.....

 

[TheEmu]

Makes more sense than most of the tripe posted here. Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Sexual Abuse Statistics.

Flame me if you like, but I will explicitly state that I don't trust any male (particularly fathers) who have a problem with this policy. The risks of abuse are not zero, and seating UMs away from single males significantly reduces that risk. And as pointed out, where a female is asked to swap in for a male passenger it is the former who probably has the most to complain about.

And finally (because I am bored with this) the pax in the Qantas case was discretely asked to move and then later on asked the cabin crew what it was about and was informed of the policy. His reaction in going to the media screaming "Qantas labelled me a kiddie fiddler" is very, very suspect and I can't imagine any reason for it. Actually - I can think of a couple .....

Consider yourself flamed. Lowest common denominator policy-making at its very worst and symptomatic of the politically correct stupidity that pervades society today: guilty by virtue of gender, never to be proven innocent.Sorry to bore you further but I nearly agree with you here (kind of): very suspect motives given the manner in which it appeared to be handled...

 

[medhead]

a nuclear power plant somewhere near Sydney?


Sent from the Throne

...another one? We already have one at Lucas Heights

That one's not a power plant, unfortunately.

 

[Ansett]

At the end of the day the majority of sexual abuse of females and children has been perpatrated by males so I can understand airlines positions. For me if I was and have been sat next to an UM i have always asked to be moved for 2 reasons

1) I just want to sit back and relax and not listen to children chatting to each other
2) It is a sad thing that witin society we have people looking at how can I Take advantage and get something for me for nothing. So why put one self in a posiiton where one could be taken advantage of?

 

[simongr]

I have no issue with a nuke plant in SYD. In fact I would advocate above to nuke power over coal.

 

[TonyHancock]

Lucas is NOT a power plant it is a research facility

....and there was me thinking it was a 20 MW reactor using low enriched uranium fuel. Obviously no need to worry about safety if it is not supplying electricity to the grid.:?:

 

[Ansett]

....and there was me thinking it was a 20 MW reactor using low enriched uranium fuel. Obviously no need to worry about safety if it is not supplying electricity to the grid.:?:

Now now dont be silly we all know 22 MW is when they become suspect LOL

 

[Ansett]

Thinking we are getting off of topic and the topic is worthy of a good discussion and yes so is Nuclear power but perhaps another thread for that if people want

 

[medhead]

On topic: I have just realised that the policy doesn't actually explicitly state it is about pedophiles, does it? That's simply an assumption by the person in the story. As the nurse admits - It was his paranoia that caused the problem.

....and there was me thinking it was a 20 MW reactor using low enriched uranium fuel. Obviously no need to worry about safety if it is not supplying electricity to the grid.:?:

Now now dont be silly we all know 22 MW is when they become suspect LOL

The power capacity quoted for reactors is actually the heat generating capacity not electrical. Hence they all have a power output even if they don't produce electricity (umm did I just say the same thing twice )

Oh and no need to worry about safety because the risk is less than the risk of getting molested on an aircraft.

 

[simongr]

Thinking we are getting off of topic and the topic is worthy of a good discussion and yes so is Nuclear power but perhaps another thread for that if people want

I think that is a fair cal - however I also think this is something that can't be debated - both sides have very entrenched views and all we are doing now is repeating the same arguments back and forth. It is priority board and any time access all over again.

 

[JohnK]

On the one hand I do believe it is discrimination on the other I consider the policy a good idea.

Personally I do not want to sit next to unaccompanied minors and I do not believe it is too difficult to not allow the last couple of rows in economy to be pre-allocated by any traveller and use these seats for unaccompanied minors.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

On the one hand I do believe it is discrimination on the other I consider the policy a good idea.

Personally I do not want to sit next to unaccompanied minors and I do not believe it is too difficult to not allow the last couple of rows in economy to be pre-allocated by any traveller and use these seats for unaccompanied minors.

which part of the policy is good? that adults (in general) don't have to sit next to unaccompanied minors, or that men can't sit next to unaccompanied minors?

or that children not being able to sit next to any adult is probably more of a relief for them than sitting next to their father or uncle who is the most likely to abuse them if anyone is?

 

[lovestotravel]

Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can look up the references.

Yep did that, and then I clicked on Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which then brings me to my previous stats of:

"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters.""

THANKS

 

[drron]

Yep did that, and then I clicked on Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which then brings me to my previous stats of:

"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters.""

THANKS

Selective quoting.

studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls.[SUP][[/SUP]

 

[Danger]

Who Can Sit Next to Children on Flights? - Forbes