To think it’s wrong of this man to film a child?

[MrsA2015]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5391341/Passenger-films-toddlers-eight-hour-tantrum-flight.html

I can see why he filmed it but for it to be put on the net is too far! I feel quite sorry for the mother she must have felt mortified

Lovely of everyone to suggest nice cancelling headphones, great if you can afford an extra £300 just because some woman can't parent her kid. Not that hard to get some tranquillisers from the vets

I'm fairly certain that animal medication is not fit for a little boy!

Also - a fair few reputable articles claim that medication should be used as a last resort in instances of distressed and challenging behaviours. I personally think lots more could have been done environmentally if communication was better between mum, staff and passengers.

The staff might have had something very close to noise cancelling headphones for the little boy or could have liaised with the mum to see if they could find something in their merchandise that might have successfully distracted him. I don't know. As said before, i'm not sure about flights and what is possible on board, but surely something has to be done - going forward - to ensure long haul flights are accessible to everybody? These aren't always avoidable. E.g. this little boy may not have been jetting off on a holiday. Maybe he had to travel urgently for a family emergency or something. In such cases, surely more can be done to accommodate everybody on board??

Not that hard to get some tranquillisers from the vets

Oh I can just imagine the MN response to tha thread!! “My son Is a nightmare on flights but we have to travel. AIBU to get some ket to keep him quiet on the flight?”

Then she should have got off her arse every hour or so, and tried to soothe her disabled, distressed child

One of mine is a screamer. If I followed your instruction he would get louder and louder and louder and more dangerious every single time i attempted to soothe him. You would end up,begging me to stop trying.

Presumably he had to be strapped in for take off and landing. I doubt the noise could have been much worse if he'd been strapped in the rest of the time. At least he wouldn't have been climbing over everyone that way.

Actually. From a previous thread on here I'm surprised they took off with him aboard as he'd started while they were still on the ground. Wasn't there a thread about someone being removed for rocking?

Keeping him strapped in for 8 hours is physical restraint. One step better than medical restraint. I disagree with both unless all other avenues have been exhausted.

Maybe the reason this child was so distressed for 8 hours is because he'd been physically restrained for take off? That could well have been his (unavoidable) trigger.

Basically, this little boy had as much right to travel to Newark as all the other passengers. And he'll likely travel again at one point. I just hope that all parties have learnt from this situation. I hope the staff are more aware or strategies/environmental changes they could make (maybe further training is needed?). I hope the mum communicates better with staff and other passengers. And i hope the other passengers, upon learning retrospectively that this child most likely had a disability, learn not to jump to conclusions/show more understanding and compassion next time.

Lovely of everyone to suggest nice cancelling headphones, great if you can afford an extra £300

Lol at £

I bought a Sony pair at £12.99.

You push the earbud in which creates a seal that prevents noise leakage both ways.

At any volume from midway up, I am absolutely deaf to outside sounds. It os quite disorienting and dangerous in fact as you can hear nothing but music. Not even traffic sounds, just your music.

Even with the earbuds pushed into your ear and nothing playing through them, I have to take the buds out to hear normal speech properly. It cancels an awful lot even with no music playing through them.

Of course keeping him strapped in is physical restraint! Same as in a pushchair or car seat. Presumably mum straps him in then. Doesn't let him climb all over the car or run down the street.

@Loveache you mean him as opposed to it?

He's a child not an object.

Those poor passengers.

So many things wrong here - and they all lead back to the so-called mother. She didn't appear to be doing anything to control the situation and make things better for the other passengers.

I've seen/heard and dealt with SN children (and adults) who've been stressed out and having a meltdown. This boy didn't sound anything like that. He sounded exactly like the NT kids I've heard having normal tantrums.

IF he had SN then the most obvious thing would've been to say so. It would've explained his behaviour, although not excused it. She never mentions it so the only conclusion I can draw is that he is just an out of control, spoilt, NT brat who is the product of very poor parenting.

I'm stunned the plane even took off, as he was screaming and sitting on the tops of seats whilst they were still on the ground. Many other people have been evicted from plans for way less dangerous behaviour.

Not that hard to get some tranquillisers from the vets

What fucking backstreet vet do you go to? Don’t be so ridiculous, of course it isn’t “easy” to get sedatives prescribes by a vet, and it is even less “easy” to administer safe yet effective sedation which lasts for over 8 hours to a small child in a confined space with no paediatric airway support. I’m an adult doctor and I wouldn’t fucking attempt it.

And the people calling this little boy “it” - you are disgusting.

He's a brat. You can say it. The parents need to parent and actually discipline their kid.

Keeping him strapped in for 8 hours is physical restraint. One step better than medical restraint. I disagree with both unless all other avenues have been exhausted.

^

It's called aeroplane travel

I’m standing by you being a disgusting excuse for a person, Loveache.

Keeping him strapped in for 8 hours when other people do not have to be IS physical restraint and not equality at all. The mum obviously knew it would do more harm than good which is why she didn't try it.

Absolutely DISGUSTED with some comments on here. There is a way to disagree with how the situation was handled without resorting to personal attacks against a child, fgs! Posters are equating him to an animal and 'it'. Awful. It's not surprising why this man thought it appropriate to film a highly distressed child. Lack of awareness and compassion is rife everywhere, it seems.

It's called aeroplane travel

As said before, i've been on a flight (shorthaul) just twice in my life so I'm in no way an experienced flier but i'm fairly sure being strapped to your seat against your will for eight hours while other passengers don't have the same restraint is NOT normal aeroplane travel. It's cruel and any form of restraint should be a last resort unless it's an absolute emergency i.e. putting an immediate stop to a person inflicting serious harm to themselves or others.

Would you say that keeping your seatbelt on in the car is physical restraint?

It sounds absolutely horrendous for all and given some of it seemed to start before take off I'm surprised they weren't removed from the plane. He must have been sitting down and strapped in surely?

And surely IF he behaviour was a result of a disability the mother could have and should have explained to people. At least that way there would have been a level of understanding as to his behaviour.

And if he was in a meltdown related to his disability surely she wouldnt just say 'calm down honey'?

Would you say that keeping your seatbelt on in the car is physical restraint?

Everybody in a car would be expected to do this. Also - if the boy climbed all over the driver, it could cause serious harm to all in the car. The boy in the video had no access to the pilot. He was not violent towards himself or other people. The only reason it's being suggested that he should be restrained is to stop him inconveniencing other passengers. That is exclusionary. And totally different from any car situation where everybody legally needs to be strapped into their seats for the duration of their journey.

Here is a great document by NAS on restraint and how it should be used as a last resort:

www.autism.org.uk/~/media/nas/nasschools/helen-allison-school/documents/pdf/nas%20local%20policies/use%20of%20restrictive%20physical%20interventions%20(rpi)%20in%20nas%20schools%20and%20services%20policy%20so-0039.ashx?la=en-gb

However, on some occasions it may be necessary to use as a last resort a strategy that includes a Restrictive Physical Intervention (RPI). Any form of restrictive physical intervention will only be used in order to maintain the welfare and safety of the people we support
and others and should be a method in which staff are trained to achieve this

Restrictive interventions can take several forms and may not always involve direct physical force but also chemical restraint, Pro-re-nata medication (in the form of sedation), rapid tranquilization, mechanical restraint and environmental restraint, such as the holding of doors or blocking egress by use of a person

An RPI is only justified in law if there is the presence of a Clear and Immediate danger. The term ‘immediate’ in this context refers to seconds as opposed to minutes. It does not justify action taken to prevent a possible danger unless incident data clearly shows that a given behaviour or cue quickly results in escalation to a dangerous level, in which case a planned intervention may be justified in the short term, whilst further more positive and proactive strategies are developed

As well as the presence of a clear and immediate danger staff must also be able to demonstrate that all other available less restrictive options have been tried and failed before the use of an RPI. A useful acronym in this situation is ‘TINA’ - There Is No Alternative. The number and nature of the alternatives available to staff will vary but
the use of distractors and motivators (including those staff may feel are in some way ‘rewarding’), removal of triggers, removal of others, change of activity, or change of staff. There is an expectation that alternatives to an RPI would increase with staff training, experience and knowledge of the individual. If you can find no alternative to
using a restrictive physical intervention then you should use it

i'm fairly sure being strapped to your seat against your will for eight hours while other passengers don't have the same restraint is NOT normal aeroplane travel. It's cruel and any form of restraint should be a last resort unless it's an absolute emergency i.e. putting an immediate stop to a person inflicting serious harm to themselves or others

Of course it's normal aeroplane behaviour. Do you think anyine enjoys being strapped in for up to 16 hours straight? No, but we all do it when we fly. Other babies and toddlers travel strapped into baby seats for 12+ hours on long haul. I'm sure they don't like it either, but the difference is, their parents don't just let them run around the plane screaming and climbing instead.

The bottom line is, this woman failed in her parenting duties. IF (and that's a big IF in my book) he has SN, then she should've been aware that he could become distressed in an unfamiliar situation and not placed him in it. When he began acting up during boarding she should've got off the flight.

As is more likely, she's just a shit parent, then she should've been named and shamed for inflicting that on hundreds of other innocent people for eight hours!

Unless he was travelling for a life saving operation that could only be performed in the US, then she didn't HAVE to take him on that plane.

I don't think they should have taken off, or at least continued with the flight. It simply is not safe.

Nobody actually has a 'right' to travel by plane, it is always up to the discretion of the crew who have to make safety the absolute priority.

If an adult is behaving unpredictably and deemed a risk then usually they are not allowed to fly. There are some problems less likely to arise with a child, but the effect his behaviour may have on other passengers is also a risk. That level and type of noise could have been a very severe issue for others with health problems or disabilities. It isn't far fetched either to imagine that someone would have flipped listening to it, with violence or conflict the result.

I feel sorry for the passengers and for the little boy, but the situation shouldn't have been allowed to go on. I am surprised that the parents made the decision to go ahead with this....I can absolutely imagine circumstances in which they might feel they had to fly with him without more assistance or preparation, but we don't have any real evidence those circumstances apply in this case.

The video captions and the Daily Mail presentation of it are reprehensible and this should never have been made public.