worried about DD/DS being molested on plane? plane has more chance of crashing!

[ManfredMann]

www.theotherglassceiling.com/2014/05/sexism-paternalism-flying-high-what-are.html

give the blokes a break !

[Delphiniumsblue]

Sadly while men are viewed with such suspicion we do not get them working in early years education and places where they are desperately needed, with children . ( or not many - luckily there are some)

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Sorry, I put that badly. I should have used probability not risk.

I mean, if people think a probability can be controlled, controlling it takes on a disproportionate importance and any downside of controlling it is ignored.

Out of 100000 men and 100000 women, there will be more child abusers amongst the men. But out of 100000 men and 100000 women there will be many more men than women who started a pub fight, say.

So it's true to say that if a UM sits next to a man, she has a greater probability of sitting next to someone who has started a pub fight than if the UM sits next to a woman.

But the risk of the person sitting next to the UM starting a fight on a plane cannot be quantified by their "group" probability of having previously started a fight.

Not to mention that if you grouped the probabilities I. Other ways (under 60s and over 60s, for example) you could come up with a different seating plan that would also not be "risk related"

I may or may not be making myself clearer here...

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

But it's only because it seems like a possibility that people want to be able to act on it. Actually the same DD might be in a taxi or on a train or bus or in the airport waiting area or at a cafe next to a man they don't know. They are probably more likely to encounter a "lone" man in those situations (prob more than half men on planes travelling with partners or business colleagues or friends)

I mean, there's clearly little logic in making someone swap with his wife on grounds that he might be about to molest a strange UM whilst his wife sleeps next to him, is there?

There is no risk that can be reduced without there being a corresponding cost. I can reduce my risk of dying in a plane related incident to almost zero by never flying, at the cost of not seeing much of the world or of far away relatives.The cost of reducing this risk is increased normalisation of separating men from their social duties towards unknown children - as in the cases upthread of lost children.

[Spero]

I wonder also if it is giving too much power to abusers to say that sexual abuse is the most awful thing that can happen to anyone, that it ruins people's lives for ever, etc, etc.

I do not doubt that it is a horrible thing and can have life long consequences BUT I tell my daughter that the only person who should be feeling shame is the perpetrator and if anything like that ever happens to her, being a victim of abuse should not be what defines her.

But given that we have frank discussions I hope her risks of being abused over a long period and being silenced by fear or shame are minimal.

Obviously, I can't protect her against every random psychopath but the risks of sexual assault from a random stranger are too small in my view to waste my time worrying about.

I wish we could just have more sensible debate about it all. Or even any debate. Rather than just this bonkers response which seems to be that if we just stop men having anything to do with children it will all be ok.

[Spero]

But it is also, surely, a huge deterrent to any public-spirited man contemplating a career in education that society apparently regards all adult male contact with young people as being potentially a bit dodgy, a bit rum, a bit you know…
It is a total disaster.

I agree with what BJ says in that article.

The consequences of this go far beyond the question of risk on a plane flight. We are in danger of driving men out of any contact with children in any kind of activity.

[Pipbin]

The article posted above: www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869, also contains a link to an article by Boris Johnson about BA staff trying to move him from sitting next to children, who were his own children!!
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634055/Come-off-it-folks-how-many-paedophiles-can-there-be.html
Now I'm no fan of the man but he makes a very good point. And does this mean that air crew are wandering around the plane removing any man from sitting next to any child.
The air crew in this example didn't know that the children were UMs, because they weren't!

[Wibblypiglikesbananas]

I used to work for BA and the last case I knew of, which involved police being present at the arrivals gate, was a business class male passenger who'd been assaulted by another business class male passenger. Other cases I've heard about also tended to be in the premium cabins (not that there were many, very very rare). I'd guess it's because it's so much easier to move around first and business class and people are actually on a bed, as opposed to cramped up in an economy seat. Equally, female crew were sadly often seen as fair game by older, male, usually tipsy first and business passengers (not a generalisation - seen many times over).

My top tip would be to scream bloody murder and keep screaming until the crew/other passengers take notice. Scream 'fire' rather than help and you're guaranteed that the crew will come running. Make sure the captain knows what has happened as up there in the sky, his/her word is law and they're the one with ultimate responsibility.

I'd like to add that in all my years working for an airline, there was a very very low chance of this happening. And I never once heard of a child being molested.

[Spero]

Coldlight - there's the problem isn't it? The parent can say to the child (and themselves) - you will be fine. You are sitting next to a lady.

Thus, I assume avoiding the need to have any kind of discussion about what kind of behaviour from any adult needs to be viewed with suspicion and what you should do if you EVER feel uncomfortable; move away, shout out, find another adult etc, etc.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

"If it is easily avoided with no offence"

But it isn't that easily avoided. For example, a pair of friends may be sitting together and toss a coin for who gets the window seat regardless of allocation at check in.

The only way to reasonably set this up is to have specific rows allocated for UMs, they all sit together probably near the galley or whatever so staff can keep half an eye out for ANY kind of need eg extra drinks, trouble working the entertainment system etc.

[TalkinPeace]

Spero
I heartily agree with you.
It would out me to explain how self sufficient I had to be before the age of ten
but the rule of "kick and run" was in my head from a young age

I read the Clifford / Hall / Saville stuff and to some extent thank my stars that my mum was a rubbish as she was because I had to work out what I was happy with.

Those of you wrapping your kids in cotton wool are just storing up problems for later in their lives

case in point
DS loved playing GTA on the xbox
we were in a nasty car crash on holiday
he has no inclination to play it again in a hurry

context and self preservation
and FFS : have you seen how scary angry stewardesses are

[RufusTheReindeer]

turgid

I agree with you that a lot of people would feel more comfortable if their child wasn't sat with a solitary man for the whole flight

If it is easily avoided with no offence (ie with computer when the seats are allocated ) then it should be

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

"Well done. You win the prize for the silliest question ever asked of me on the internet, and believe me there is stiff competition for that accolade."

Snort.

[partialderivative]

Good post Spero

[Spero]

But would you want your child to sit next to a child abuser during a long flight?

Well done. You win the prize for the silliest question ever asked of me on the internet, and believe me there is stiff competition for that accolade.

Of course I would not want my daughter to sit next to a child abuser. On any mode of transport.

But the point I am making is that it is vanishingly unlikely that she ever would be. And that I am not prepared to demonise the entire male sex as well as teaching her very unhealthy and dangerous lessons about risk.

[TalkinPeace]

because the cabin crew did not follow the spirit of the agreed policy.

I still wonder what paperwork I vomited on when I was sat next to that businessman ....

[BoneyBackJefferson]

BA have dropped the policy.

Qantas and virgin have changed theirs due to bad publicity (Takinpeace sorry not being sued but due to public out cry)

BA was Mr Fischer
Qantas was Mr McCluskie
Virgin was Johnny McGirr

[clam]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

Am on phone so can't do a proper link. But this chap Mr Fischer came from luxembourg and was awarded a couple of grand.

[partialderivative]

Yes you are right their abusers tend to be men they alraedy know. But would you want your child to sit next to a child abuser during a long flight?

eh...no! But then I would not like them to walk along a road as a drunk driver passed.

Seriously turgid, please give a numerical value to the risk you think a child would be under by sitting next to a male passenger.

1%
0.1%
0.01%
0.001%
etc


I really would be interested to know where you think the risk lies. And I do think it is important to your viewpoint and argument.

[TalkinPeace]

Qantas, BA and virgin have all been successfully sued over this policy.
links please to the court rulings as that sounds like UTTER bollocks

as a former unaccompanied, I can spot them and they are dotted around the plane on far more flights than people realise