QANTAS accused of treating male nurse like "kiddie fiddler"

[casanovawa]

Just clicking ot this final page after probably last reading page 7 i have no idea how nuclear power came into the discussion!!!

And while the debate verges on the PB and ATA of not being able to meet common ground, the fact that this is highly offensive, if not outright discrimination, makes it a bit more serious than those other inconveniences...

And yes JohnK there is an element of the policy being a good idea in that it probably protects the male adult as much as the child from a stupid, spurious allegation, and yes it may mean we aren't woken up and vomited on, but if it has to stay i want it absolutely invisible to me so as not to offend my sensibilities and also doesn't impact me in terms of being moved from a seat i may have specifically chosen and that i may have paid full fare for, if they screw the process up, either move me to a suprior seat or live with it!

The problem is if you leave one little bit of discrimination it can set the precendent for all other sorts of rules in the future... Often time an argument for some sort of change/discrimination/decriminalisation etc can be based on the most excellent reason and argument, its the next change after that, and the one after that where the reasoning becomes more and more questionable until one day you wake up and ask how we got from point a to point z... I could probably come up with a couple such areas but they are usually pretty hot button, emotive ones which we don't need to get further off track with...

 

[medhead]

3 words - Women only gyms! If those get up, then there is no way this policy is discrimination.

 

[oz_mark]

3 words - Women only gyms! If those get up, then there is no way this policy is discrimination.

If they are a 'club' under the legislation, then single sex clubs are permitted.

 

[lovestotravel]

It lowers the risk and this policy has been going for years.

So be it

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It lowers the risk and this policy has been going for years.

So be it

errr... this makes me appreciate all the PC do-gooders sometimes. sexism in the workplace used to be common place for many years. so be it? homosexuality (the practice of) used to be illegal for years. so be it? slavery was common place for years. so be it? our first Australians weren't even recognised as humans for years. so be it??????

errr... no. incorrect to all of the above.

as we evolve and become smarter we learn better attitudes in life. and what is correct. and what is not.

discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation (etc) are illegal. so be it.

 

[lovestotravel]

So it's smarter to increase the risk of "something" happening ?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So it's smarter to increase the risk of "something" happening ?

it is smarter to recognise that when faced with an infantesimally small risk that the message to the child (that men can be trusted and should not all be seen as child molesters) outweight the blanket and discriminatory policy.

if the adult had moved from his assigned seat to sit next the the child (which we know happened in the reported cases of molestation on aircraft from US cases) then it would have been a different story. one might question the motive. but when there is no motive, no action on behalf of the adult, then they should be assumed innocent, and unflawed. which is what anti-discrimination legislation is about.

our laws are there to protect us from those who are uneducated and any prejudiced views those people may hold.

 

[lovestotravel]

The whole fact that some are jumping up and down about discrimination does make me laugh, yes I am aware that it may breach the discrimination act, but it's a seat on a plane...... Not really life changing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The whole fact that some are jumping up and down about discrimination does make me laugh, yes I am aware that it may breach the discrimination act, but it's a seat on a plane...... Not really life changing.

would you have said the same when educating your children about Rosa Parks?

 

[medhead]

If they are a 'club' under the legislation, then single sex clubs are permitted.

Maybe so. But I remember when this all went through the court process that I ticked the box for every reason the women put up as to why they should have there own club.

 

[Moody]

So no seating allocation should be allowed even though the risks (albeit small) exist and the statistics prove that the risk is far, far less if UM are seated away from single men?

If that is your story then you can really go to town on NRMA and all the other car insurance companies. They discriminate against under 25 males by making them pay far higher premiums and excesses, and for what???? Just because some measly statistics say that they are a far greater risk than their female equivalents.

I can't understand why one of you white knights don't sue the discriminatory coughs. No - actually I can. It has something to do with being laughed out of court.

What is it about risk mitigation that you people don't get? Why do most men go 'meh' when asked to move and a minority scream "they think I'm a kiddie fiddler!". We need some psychiatric advice here ....

 

[drron]

QUOTE=Moody;663263]So no seating allocation should be allowed even though the risks (albeit small) exist and the statistics prove that the risk is far, far less if UM are seated away from single men?

Haven't fo[und any evidence for this statement of yours in fact the reverse-most molestors move to the UM and are not assisned a seat by the aiirline next to UM.

If that is your story then you can really go to town on NRMA and all the other car insurance companies. They discriminate against under 25 males by making them pay far higher premiums and excesses, and for what???? Just because some measly statistics say that they are a far greater risk than their female equivalents.

Long time since you looked?It is for any driver under 25 now-http://www.nrma.com.au/car-insurance-young-drivers

I can't understand why one of you white knights don't sue the discriminatory coughs. No - actually I can. It has something to do with being laughed out of court.

So why do airlines in the USA not have this policy even though they operate in the most litigous society on this planet?

What is it about risk mitigation that you people don't get? Why do most men go 'meh' when asked to move and a minority scream "they think I'm a kiddie fiddler!". We need some psychiatric advice here ....

If someone sues me because I didn't warn them about a side effect that occurs once in ~ 10000000 users I would not expect to lose.There are limits to risk mitigation.The real argument in support of this policy is emotional and plenty have displayed it.That is why any change in the wording of the policy will have no effect,For example there was a change in the BA policy wording when they lost their case and it says an unrelated adult is not to sit next to UMs.In practice nothing has changed-the Boris Johnson story quoted by Danger shows that.
And just to be clear I would not campaign against the policy,just feel a little sad that this is what the world has come to.However I always like the proper facts to at least be available.

 

[harvyk]

So no seating allocation should be allowed even though the risks (albeit small) exist and the statistics prove that the risk is far, far less if UM are seated away from single men?

Ignoring that this is a completely wrong statement based on the currently available stats, lets also look at some other risky behavior which I expect you do without a second thought.

So given the risk of driving a car is much much higher than a UM being abused, do you still drive (or travel full stop) in a car? Given the risk of a young person been abused at school is much higher than a UM being abused, do you still allow your kids to go to school?

Quite frankly arguing this case in point based on stats alone makes very little sense from a risk management point of view (in a previous life, I was heavily involved in risk mitigation and disaster recovery), given the overall likelihood of such an event happening is extremely low. The problem is that this is one of those "Won't somebody think of the children" emotive issues. You yourself have assumed that any person who does not agree with you on this topic MUST be one of those people, based on no other evidence than "they do not agree with you".

I can't understand why one of you white knights don't sue the discriminatory coughs. No - actually I can. It has something to do with being laughed out of court.

Actually again wrong, to quote wikipedia -> Airline sex discrimination policy controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Airways ended its discriminatory policy in August, 2010 following successful legal action undertaken by Mirko Fischer, himself a victim of the policy.

The economist also has a published article on this case -> British Airways' seating policy: Mirko Fischer wins again | The Economist
So not only are such cases not been laughed out of court, the courts are finding in favour of the single males, and not the airlines.

 

[mannej]

Mirko Fischer was not laughed out of court - in fact they found in favour of him.

You talk about risk mitigation, the evidence I have seen so far suggests that it is too complex to suggest that moving a male will be good policy. Others have provided stats to highlight there are more risk factors than being male alone.

It is not about being white knights on the topic, we just feel that the policy is discrimination. I respect the fact that you don't agree, but I don't brush you with any smears because of that.

 

[The Rok]

I still think the policy is a load of cough. I think it is just a clever way of getting someone other than a FA to look after a UM free of charge. On the balance of scales, who is more likely to be more parental and supportive of someone else's kid, a man or a woman? I think airlines have cottoned onto that and use the child molester issue as a defence for doing so.

 

[Moody]

The economist also has a published article on this case -> British Airways' seating policy: Mirko Fischer wins again | The Economist
So not only are such cases not been laughed out of court, the courts are finding in favour of the single males, and not the airlines.

No - The Economist published a number of opinion pieces under the by-line of "Gulliver the Gormless Idiot". OK - it was just "Gulliver".

A more balanced piece of reporting can be found here :- BBC News - BA compensates man 'humiliated' over child seat policy

The reason that BA agreed to pay costs and 750 quid for the plaintiffs "anguish" was that the cabin crew failed to adhere to the airline's policy. As he was seated with his wife he should not have been subject to the single-male rule, and it is not clear from the article whether this was pointed out to the crew. He said there was a "brief discussion" and he returned to he original seat. Maybe they were suspicious because he had swapped seats. Whatever the full story, BA were not found guilty of discrimination. They reached a consent order in a county court. Whoop-de-do!

But subsequent histrionics has meant that a perfectly sensible policy has been driven underground by zealots who would rather protect their sensibilities than their own children. I just wish they were as energetic in tackling the root cause of the problem - child sexual abuse and the types of people who commit this crime. The sad truth is that they come in all parts of our society with only one common trait - they are predominantly male. And I'm not talking about the frankly unbelievable 60% figure (where is this from BTW?), as the generally reported figure is 90% or higher.

So back your side of this argument if you like .... but I can find no case where an airline has been found guilty of discrimination for their policy of seating UMs away from single adult male passengers. But maybe I'm not trying hard enough?

 

[drron]

Please Moody read the statistics that I have already posted-the one I have quoted from San francisco was conducted by a Child Protection group-and they could only find 10 cases of molestation on planes in the US in 20 years.As I have said the perprtrators were all male.Yet I did not have to search hard to find a female perpetrator where the Father sued SouthWest airlines-reports in many US papers so why wasn't that case picked up?
And again any reasonable search will come up with figures already quoted that the perpetrator in molestation of young boys in 14-40% of cases is a female.
And again virtually every study says the incidence of a stranger being the perpetrator is 10%.
You have no statistical case.But you do have the public's emotion onside and you will have this policy in one form or another for the foreseeable future.Please just be a grateful winner.

 

[opusman]

Unaccompanied minors are more likely to die in a plane crash (along with everyone else onboard) than to be molested while on that plane.

 

[straitman]

Whatever the full story, BA were not found guilty of discrimination.

BA were not found guilty of discrimination because they settled out of court and in doing so they did admit sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case.

IMHO you have an interesting take on risk management.

A significant part of risk management is perspective and IMHO that is what you have lost in this case. Quoting raw statistics and numbers has little relevance unless they are balanced against other situations. Using the presented logic and extrapolating it: If the statistics said there are more pro-rata crashed in Fords than Mercedes should we then all stop driving Fords (and even ban them from being driven). It is a relevant comparison as you are much more likely to have a car crash, in any make of car, than have a child molested on an aeroplane.

 

[Moody]

BA were not found guilty of discrimination because they settled out of court and in doing so they did admit sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case.

IMHO you have an interesting take on risk management.

A significant part of risk management is perspective and IMHO that is what you have lost in this case. Quoting raw statistics and numbers has little relevance unless they are balanced against other situations. Using the presented logic and extrapolating it: If the statistics said there are more pro-rata crashed in Fords than Mercedes should we then all stop driving Fords (and even ban them from being driven). It is a relevant comparison as you are much more likely to have a car crash, in any make of car, than have a child molested on an aeroplane.

Of course society is not perfect and you need to do a cost/benefit analysis in most facets of life. At the risk of going off at a tangent I will introduce another example. At my kids' school there has been recent concern from the parents about transportation to out-of-school events. It was revealed that the DET policy is to specify that buses equipped with seat-belts should be used when available. This is sensible as it encourages the take-up of seat-belt equipped buses (which the industry is moving towards) without saying the kids can't play sport because the company couldn't supply the right sort of bus. In other words, where it is possible (within reason) for the school to reduce the risk then it is obliged to do so.

It costs the airlines precisely NOTHING to seat UMs and single males apart, and if done properly (pre-boarding) it impacts NO-ONE. On all the sensible evidence it reduces an admittedly very small risk by a further 90%. My argument is that NOT doing so will expose the airlines to the potential for far more litigation than offending the odd touchy male who is clumsily moved on board.

If my daughter were ever to fly as a UM and a preventable incident of this nature occurred, then I would happily bankrupt them.