[Shiara]

Quote

Virgin Australia has been accused of treating male passengers like paedophiles after it made a man swap seats because he was beside two unaccompanied minors.

The company has defended the policy as in the interests of children.

Sydney fireman Johnny McGirr, 33, said he was flying home from Brisbane in April when he took his seat next to two boys he estimated to be between 8 and 10 years old.

He was assigned the window seat but sat in the aisle seat so the two boys could look out the window.

However, a flight attendant approached him just as passengers were asked to put on their seatbelts, asking him to move.
Mr McGirr said when he asked why, he was told, "Well you can't sit next to two unaccompanied minors."

"She said it was the policy and I said, 'Well, that's pretty sexist and discriminatory. You can't just say becauseI'm a man I can't sit there,' and she just apologised and said that was the policy.

"By this stage everyone around me had started looking."

Mr McGirr said the attendant then asked a fellow female passenger, "Can you please sit in this seat because he is not allowed to sit next to minors."

"After that I got really embarrassed because she didn't even explain. I just got up and shook my head a little, trying to get some dignity out of the situation," he said.

"And that was it, I pretty much sat through the flight getting angrier."

Mr McGirr pointed out that he works as a fireman in Newtown in Sydney and was trusted in his job to look out for the welfare of children.

"(The attitude of the airline) is 'we respect you but as soon as you board a Virgin airline you are a potential paedophile', and that strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes," he said.

A spokeswoman for Virgin Australia confirmed the policy and said while they didn't want to offend male passengers, their priority was the safety of children.

"In our experience, most guests thoroughly understand that the welfare of the child is our priority," she said.

The spokeswoman said staff usually tried to keep the seat empty but when that was not possible a woman was seated next to the child.

"Virgin Australia takes the safety of all guests very seriously and in the case of unaccompanied minors, we take additional steps to ensure their flight is safe and trouble free in every respect."

Mr McGirr, who wrote to Virgin to complain, said the policy was flawed.

"(It's) blatant discrimination that just because I'm a male I can't sit there," he said. "...they apologised that it happened on the flight and said it shouldn't have happened then but my issue is not with the mistakes made there, my issue is with the policy in general.

"The majority of sexual assaults are (also) committed by men, does that mean that we can't sit next to women? Should we just have a seat by ourselves and that way women and children will be protected?"

Mr McGirr said he understood the children were vulnerable when not with an adult but fears about crimes committed by a small minority of people should not rule society.

Mr McGirr said Virgin should either allocate a chaperone for children to sit with them for the entire flight, have staff do regular checks on the children to see if they were all right or ask parents to purchase the seat that is vacant so it is always left empty.

Among other Australian airlines, budget carriers Jetstar and Tiger Airways do not accept unaccompanied minors on their flights, though the two airlines have different definitions of what constitutes a minor. Qantas has been contacted for comment on its unaccompanied minor policy.

[Aptorian]

What can you say to an article like this. It's a shame it's come to this? I find the hysteria surrounding children's safety and the fear of pedophiles preposterous but on the other hand I can see the position the airline is in. This isn't really about the safety of the children for Virgin. It's about keeping their backs safe in case of a lawsuit for not protection children on board their plane. They have to take their precautions.

I am curious though, is the majority of pedophile sexoffenders male? I would imagine it was close to an even split.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 10 August 2012 - 07:02 AM

[Obdigore]

I was curious about it too when I saw this

Quote

Although mostly documented in men, there are also women who exhibit the disorder,[18][19] and researchers assume available estimates underrepresent the true number of female pedophiles.[20]

and

Quote

"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." It is believed that the true number of female pedophiles is underrepresented by available estimates, and that reasons for this may include a "societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys and adult women, as well as women’s greater access to very young children who cannot report their abuse", among other explanations.[20]

Probably because it is considered disgusting for a male to have sex with a minor, but generally considered 'hot' for a female to do it. Although I'm talking pubescent minors here, not pre-pubescent.

And I agree with Apt that this 'policy' is probably saving them money on their insurance. However, since it is their 'policy', they should have adjusted either the guys assigned seat or the kids assigned seats before boarding passes were printed. If they are going to continue this policy, they need to do it much better so it does not show up in situations like these, especially when it makes it seem like the guy is a pervert and that is why he was moved.

(Clearly all quotes are from Wikipedia)

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 10 August 2012 - 07:12 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

No, there is nothing right about this. If this is the policy you make minors fly with guardians not move men from their seats for fear of a very unlikely activity.

This is discrimination of the worst sort. Insidious, creeping, anti-male discrimination. Fuck this and fuck them.

Could you imagine the outcry if this had been a gay man, a transgender woman, anything.

[Aptorian]

Ugh, just spent way too long googling female pedophelia article. My brain... I need to go watch some carebear cartoons or something.

Everything seems to contradict everything but mainly because the methodology and focus of the studies are all different. The highest suggested percentage of female offenders out of all pedophile offenders was 40% but it really is hard to make an estimate. Especially when you put men who fuck 3 year olds into the same category as 18 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds,

[Obdigore]

Aptorius, on 10 August 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Ugh, just spent way too long googling female pedophelia article. My brain... I need to go watch some carebear cartoons or something.

Everything seems to contradict everything but mainly because the methodology and focus of the studies are all different. The highest suggested percentage of female offenders out of all pedophile offenders was 40% but it really is hard to make an estimate. Especially when you put men who fuck 3 year olds into the same category as 18 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds,

Aye, the strict definition of pedophelia is a post pubescent having sex with a pre pubescent. Which isn't an 18 year old and a 17 year old getting funky. Its a pain to sort the stuff out because the laws are all different and in some places (at least in the states), if I turned 18 yesterday and you turn 18 in a week and we have sex now, I'm a pedo. Huzzah?

[Battalion]

 Gary-Glitter13197t.jpg (17.28K)
Number of downloads: 2"I was so angry they wouldn't let me take my seat. I was only asking them if they wanted to be in my gang!"

[HoosierDaddy]

Thank you for that very important piece of information. I don't think this would be an informed discussion if you hadn't been here to bring it forth. We are now better off having seen and read it.

This is the Discussion Board. Pictures with text are not discussion. If that is all you have to say then you are better not saying anything at all.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 10 August 2012 - 07:51 AM

[Aptorian]

Is that an actual picture of the fireman?

Because it brings up that stereotypical argument that pretty people get away with everything and weird looking people (and yes he looks weird) get accused of everything. Reading the article I was wondering of the fireman in the Virgin flight was some pudgy, sweaty, pig eyed neckbeard who read manga comics on the flight. There's a lot of stigmas connected to the mental image of a pedophile..

[worry]

While I'm generally in favor of insidious, creeping, anti-male discrimination, I do agree with HD that it's bad policy here. Did it prevent more problems than it caused? No, it did not. All of the suggestions in the penultimate paragraph are far superior to the one in place.

[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 10 August 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

While I'm generally in favor of insidious, creeping, anti-male discrimination, I do agree with HD that it's bad policy here. Did it prevent more problems than it caused? No, it did not. All of the suggestions in the penultimate paragraph are far superior to the one in place.

I've been watching too many one word horror movies again, evidently.

But, seriously, are we now at the point where we just assume we can't trust men with strange children? That's a sad acknowledgment of many, many things I neither agree with nor acknowledge.

[Traveller]

That picture is of convicted paedophile Paul Gadd, who used to be pop star Gary Glitter. Not really needed here though.

I think it's pretty horrible how men are immediately treated as a potential threat. So what if an unnaccompanied man sits next to some kids? Kids grow up and learn from interraction with adults, even people they end up sat on a bus or plane with. If they prove to be a weirdo and DO something, take action, but I'm fed up with this culture that makes you feel guilty for even acknowledging children that aren't your own, let alone actually talking to them.

I was in the park the other day with my daughter, and two other kids were collecting insects to look at under a magnifyer. They came over and showed me what they'd found, and I told them where there were a load of spiders they could catch. But even then, in a park with my daughter, I now feel like I have to look over my shoulder in case there's another adult around who will be frowning at such a breach of what has now become the norm - adults not talking to kids because of a fear of being accused of something sinister.

It's a big shame - so fuck them and their policy.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 10 August 2012 - 09:17 AM

[Tsundoku]

People on this board have a short memory.

I complained about this very thing in a thread here when I caught a SAL/BA flight back from England to Singapore in 2009.

I was seated next to an Indian mother and daughter in the back row of the compartment (the daughter was definitely in her 20s) and I was asked by the flight attendant to switch with a young boy close to the front of the compartment as he was an unattended minor sitting next to an adult male. An adult male who had his girlfriend on the other side, might I add.

I raised a bit of a fuss and made it clear to all and sundry that I thought it was a disgusting discriminatory practice, but eventually I complied.

For my generosity, I was subject to 2 infants in the row in front of me screaming in shifts for the entire 13 hour flight to Singapore.

When I got off the plane and they bade me goodbye and "looked forward to seeing me again", I stopped and snarled something along the lines of "not until you change your policy about treating all men as paedophiles". There may have been a couple of more choice words in there, but that was the gist of it.

[Otataral Toblakai]

I understand the blatant abuse of rights and the reaction, which is justified. But ill have to - apologetically - agree with their stance. Why? It's a subjective thing and not objective. Its a necessary precaution and I speak based on the fact that such laws/policies hardly exist in my part of the world which has led to a painful and dreadful environment where such things happen. I believe its better to take every step necessary to stop paedophiles, steps that may inconvenience many but, ultimately, may work in saving that little boy/girl's life. Think about it. Place yourselves in the shoes of those whose son/daughter/child/brother/sister is persecuted by the paedophiles. What then? Wouldn't you want such policies in place to prevent such acts even happening? What is a few hours of inconvenience next to the life of a child?

Apologies for my statement and no offence meant.

This post has been edited by Otataral Toblakai: 10 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

[worry]

In your part of the world, there is a plague of pedos jackin off and/or to little kids in the middle of an airplane?

[Aptorian]

Otataral Toblakai, on 10 August 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

I understand the blatant abuse of rights and the reaction, which is justified. But ill have to - apologetically - agree with their stance. Why? It's a subjective thing and not objective. Its a necessary precaution and I speak based on the fact that such laws/policies hardly exist in my part of the world which has led to a painful and dreadful environment where such things happen. I believe its better to take every step necessary to stop paedophiles, steps that may inconvenience many but, ultimately, may work in saving that little boy/girl's life. Think about it. Place yourselves in the shoes of those whose son/daughter/child/brother/sister is persecuted by the paedophiles. What then? Wouldn't you want such policies in place to prevent such acts even happening? What is a few hours of inconvenience next to the life of a child?

Apologies for my statement and no offence meant.

The problem with this stance is that it does little to prevent sexual assault, makes ordinary tasks or actions overly complicated because of unflexible rule sets and it creates a mind set that is fraught with fear and suspicion. It is comparable to the ludicrous fear of terror that permeates the Western world. You really think all those layers of security in airports is stopping terrorists? Non sense. All they do is make life harder for every body and make us live in fear (oh and make it easier to get funding for security agencies and make money for security firms). If somebody wants to fondle a child they'll find a way. Wrapping our children in plastic and locking them inside will not save them in the long run.

I would rather my child, if I ever choose to spawn, would live in an open carefree environment where they don't have to worry about hypothetical strangers with candy. Yes, an actual stranger with Candy might come by, but on the other hand they could also get run over by a car crossing the street or dingo could run away with them. Such is life. I spent my youth playing on the streets and going where ever I wanted, with out a phone or a protective helmet, all I had to do was promise to make sure I was home by dark. I shudder to think what the hell is in store for kids when everywhere people look they see sexual offenders. There's no more pedophiles today than there was 50 years ago, people are just more obsessed with them now a days.

To put it bluntly, I would honestly rather have a couple of kids get fondled than have our entire society bound down by irrational fear. I feel the same way about terrorism. Let them come and blow up my subway, it's preferable to living in fear and spending money on useless counter measures.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 10 August 2012 - 08:17 PM

[McLovin]

Is this policy based on any actual case, or some urban legend?

All the flight attendants need do is know who the minors are and check on them regularly during the flight. Plus have the kid check with them to use the bathroom.

Odds are, even in the unlikely event you just happened to seat the kid next to a real live predator, he's not going to assault the kid right there in the seat in front of all the other passengers. That's not how they operate.

[JPK]

When you start with the stance that it is ok to infringe on a person's rights because of what someone else has done (or may have done in the past) it is a very very slippery slope until you find yourself with no rights left under your feet at all. What's next, should I be unable to go into a store that sells toys because children are kidnapped from places like that? Should I be unable to go to buy a burger from the place on the corner because a child is in the building?

Instead of allowing our lives to be ruled by fear, perhaps this should be looked into in a different light. Why on earth would someone allow an 8 and 10 year old to fly unaccompanied? It would be a very easy beneficial policy change (and one that would likely be profitable to the company itself) to simply require an adult to accompany the minors on the flight.

This post has been edited by The Incredible Kitsu: 10 August 2012 - 09:05 PM

[worry]

I don't think anyone's rights were infringed here.

[Sinisdar Toste]

The only place where i can imagine this being a good policy is the Vatican.