Male poses danger to children on Virgin Flight?

Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

 

But according to your logic, there could be a man in charge at the waiting airport who might be casing the joint, looking for parentless kids to abuse under the pretense that they are being kept there for their safety.

AGAIN. The children know who they are supposed to go with and the Airline knows who they are supposed to go with. They will not release the children to anyone other than that person. It's set up in advance. My sister has sent her son to see his father when he was growing up many times. There are policies in place to make sure the child is safe. I know the policy well.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


You missed the point, sister. If the innocent man on the plane is a potential abuser in your mind why not the people you are trusting at the airport? Are they all female? I just want to know why you are putting forth this idea that young men can't ride airplanes safely on their own because they are like a piece of meat being dragged past a gallery full of ravenous lions and hyenas? Do I have to point out as well that you seem the victim of some abuse yourself and maybe this is why you are having such an emotional personal reaction?

reply to post by australianobserver


I think the man in question should sue the airline for (defamation of character).

What is (defamation of character)? "Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held, or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."

Link: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

reply to post by Agit8dChop


How in the hell is someone going to abuse a child on an airplane. "Nothin weird going on here passengers just touchin a kid out here in the aisle"

Personally I'd prefer your child wasn't alone on an airline or anywhere for that matter.

reply to post by jeantherapy


They are KNOWN in ADVANCE

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by magma

 

The reality is that men are more likelt to molest kids. Especially when the child is a stranger. You think women in custody disputes are the only one hurting the child? What about the men? Also thats a different topic.

Bollocks, again!

30% of all child abuse cases are done by a family member and another 60% by a family friend, leaving just 10% to be done by a "stranger".

And, depending on what study and the criteria used (such as teachers copping off with students, or mothers abusing kids), the prevalence of women offenders swings from 4% to 43%. Mothers are less likely to abuse their own kids, but when it comes to jumping into bed with a teenage boy, it seems their morals go out the window, so by using those statistics you could argue that woman are actually more likely to "abuse" a stranger than a man, who are more likely to go for close family.

It is a gross generalisation for you to claim what you have, mind you.

reply to post by TheCaucasianAmerican


Exactly... We here, from time to time, about female teachers "abusing" a teenage boy under their care, but it's usually the parents who rat them out, not the boy. All the while, when we read about it, the initial response from pretty much every male I know is usually "damn, why didn't they do that when I was at school?".. Teenage boys would fall over each other to get "molested" by their sexy, young female teacher..

This type of story really makes me sad, as I served with UK Police and I can honestly tell you that for every man that touches a child or kills one, about 8 women do, most child murders (70%) are involving females, women teachers in the UK out number men by 88% so maybe that is the reason more women touch children.
More women take photographs of children, but for some reason people turn a blind eye to things that involve women.
In the UK Police even tell women not to let the kids ring men up because it's wrong, it's sick.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by jeantherapy

 

They are KNOWN in ADVANCE

What percentage of molestation victims knew their abusers?

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


the parents of almost every victim of child sex abuse by peadophile priests [ for instance ] knows the abuser " in advance "

how many parents booking thier child ont a flight ` un-accompanied ` know the flight crew, or the airport staft who will creche the child till and will be resopnsible for the childs saftey tll the minor is handed off to the authorised peron at the destination ?

reply to post by jeantherapy


90%, apparently...

2nd line..

reply to post by australianobserver


This is profiling and the airline should issue an apology to ALL men!

Now on the other hand, if the guy were a priest...


Khar

reply to post by stumason


Thanks, I saw it... just wanted to get that other party to admit it.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


Your name says it all.....Skeptic Con watcher.

I would assume you are either a prison guard or more likely a parole officer.

You see the worst humanity has to offer and deal with them.

You are biased and jaded and I feel sorry for you because you are just as soulless as the people you watch if you have gotten to the point where you think everybody is like those people you watch.

Maybe it's time for a new line of work.

I am a 46 year old man who works in a public park and would give my life to protect any child in my park from any harm. It's really sickening that if you saw me applying a band-aid to a skinned knee of a little girl you would automatically assume I was trying to get in her panties........

This thread has made me quite depressed today and I am so sad the human race is so sick....

Do these children's parents OWN the airline? Why don't they just get the whole plane to themselves?

Tell you what, I certainly don't want to have to sit next to SOMEONE ELSE'S BRATS for several hours. Move THEM away from ME.

Otherwise, the airline must make a new rule: No unaccompanied minors unless the plane is less than half full, so they can have their own row.

If everyone is so concerned, DON'T LET YOUR BRATS GO THROUGH THE TSA GROPE AND GET ON A PLANE BY THEMSELVES. They already got molested before they even got on the plane.

I refuse to be anywhere near children whenever it is possible. Even in a grocery store, I will walk the other way. A couple of times I have had loose children run into me while the parents let them rum around like animals. I always make it a point to tell the parent or store manager to watch their children if they run into me or are a nuisance. Too many children today are lying and saying that they are being fondled or whatever you call it, when in fact it didn't really happen. It does a disservice to those who really are being abused.

I saw a little kid (3-4 years old) walking down the street one time alone, not far from a major intersection. No adult to be seen at all. I wanted to pull over so bad so that the kid wouldn't get hurt by someone, but I just kept on driving, as if I would have stopped in the van I was driving, I could have been accused of trying to abduct the child. Had I even called 911, I could have been accused of something nefarious had the cops not got there quick enough and something had happened to the kid in the meantime. A lot of different scenarios could have played out, each one making me the bad guy for trying to help. What if I had pulled over and asked the kid where he lived so I could take him to his parents, but his parents only saw me with their kid without knowing the details? I could be beaten or killed for trying to be a good Samaritan. No thanks. Thankfully, I never heard anything in the news about a kid getting hit or abducted, etc so evidently it ended up being Okay.

I feel sorry for the fireman who was treated the way he was. He was considered suspicious just because he was a male. In today's world, and Man, especially a middle aged White male is considered to be a pariah. I will NOT put myself in the position of becoming a victim myself when my only goal would be to help another. It ain't gonna happen. Had I been on that plane, and I was chosen to sit next to that girl, I would have demanded immediately that they change me to a different seat. The last thing I would need is for that little girl to have an over active imagination and accuse me of touching her when I hadn't. The fireman should count his blessings that he was told to move.

This idea that children never lie is a grave danger to men, because it's well known that women are best as telling lies and can keep it going years, and with the children being with mothers mostly the kids start to lie when quite young. Only in July this year two young girls about 8 years old rang 999 to say there mother was taken ill in the house, then put the phone down, it took emergency crews and Police 8 hours to trace the girls home only to find it was a hoax call the girls made, that bit of fun from the girls lies cost our Tax payers 1.3 million quid.
Lots of men are serving prison time because stupid women on court cases saying men have abused when they have not done so.

reply to post by australianobserver


This is just more of the vilifying of the male gender.
Every man is a threat, a potential rapist, and abuser, and violent.

Or that's what our society would have us believe now.
It's bs. You can't even defend that you are a decent person now if you are a guy
or you will be accused of defending rapists.

Here is the problem:

We have NO way of knowing if more men ACTUALLY molest children then women. What we DO know is that more men are CONVICTED of molesting/raping/assault than women.

So, evidently, people see it as OK policy to discriminate against people, for things they have no control over (their gender)

So, minorities are CONVICTED of theft more than white people. We have no way of knowing if they actually steal more, only that they are convicted more. Are you guys OK with a policy saying that minorities are not allowed into retail stores because they get more theft convictions? No, that wouldn't be right, at all.

Minorities are also convicted of more assaults, murders, etc. Should we make illegal for minorities to buy guns, because more of then kill people? No, that wouldn't be right, at all.

The majority of people who've hijacked planes have been arabs. Should we make it illegal for arabs to fly on planes? No, that wouldn't be right, at all.

More women kill their children than men do, should we not allow mothers to have any unsupervised contact with their children? No, that wouldn't be right, at all.

I understand the reason for this, I really do. If I was on a plane and asked to move, I would. Like someone else mentioned, I'd rather NOT sit next to kids. Who wants to? They are annoying as hell. So it's a plus for me.

I get it, and maybe it's a good policy that should stand. I just don't like hypocrisy. I don't like how it's seen as OK to discriminate against men for things, but not anybody else for anything else. If you are going to make a law, or a policy that is discriminatory, as long as it's discriminating against men (white men preferably) then you'll be fine and nobody will complain.

As someone that was molested by a male as a child, I still think the airline policy is completely wrong. Yes, most molesters are male, but most males are decent human beings. Even the suggestion that a male may be a pedophile sticks, it's not a tag that can easily go away and they are always presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence.

Most molesters are also close family or friends, or those in a position of power. Are we supposed to keep our children away from all males, just in case? The majority of the time, children are safe from this. And don't blame the parents, no matter how good a parent you are and what measures you take, we can never really know the inner workings of even our closest friends.

This is life, unfortunately bad things happen. We can't all just sit inside all day in the fear that something may happen if we go out into the world. Hell, a plane could fall on your house too, we aren't 100% safe anywhere.