• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts'

MyOwnDrum

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Businessman Mirko Fischer sues British Airwars 'for treating men like perverts' | Mail Online

This is totally over the top. British Airways forbids any male to sit next to a child who is either unaccompanied or in a different aisle than their parent. The British have caved into full-blown paranoia.

A businessman is suing British Airways over a policy that bans male passengers from sitting next to children they don't know - even if the child's parents are on the same flight.

Mirko Fischer has accused the airline of branding all men as potential sex offenders and says innocent travellers are being publicly humiliated.

In line with the policy, BA cabin crew patrol the aisles before take-off checking that youngsters travelling on their own or in a different row from their parents are not next to a male stranger.

If they find a man next to a child or teenager they will ask him to move to a different seat. The aircraft will not take off unless the passenger obeys.

Read more: Businessman Mirko Fischer sues British Airwars 'for treating men like perverts' | Mail Online
Click to expand...
 
Re: Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts' Read more: http://www.daily

Don't know what happened with the title on this thread. Didn't mean to add the link.
 
Wow, that is ridiculously paranoid. I don't blame the man for filing this lawsuit, I would be offended too!
 
That is just beyond ridiculous.
 
Maybe I'm just paranoid (which is entirely possible), but I always feel a little bit uncomfortable when I take my young daughter to a playground. I'm just waiting for someone to think I'm some sort of child molester hanging out there waiting to pounce.
 
Coronado said:
Maybe I'm just paranoid (which is entirely possible), but I always feel a little bit uncomfortable when I take my young daughter to a playground. I'm just waiting for someone to think I'm some sort of child molester hanging out there waiting to pounce.
Click to expand...

Yeah, better not take any pictures of your children either. You could be arrested for child porn!


Or maybe it's just the military that does that.
 
rivrrat said:
Yeah, better not take any pictures of your children either. You could be arrested for child porn!


Or maybe it's just the military that does that.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the guy who took pictures of his kids playing in the bath and got busted for kiddie porn? I think that was a civilian.

But yeah, God forbid I should see her naked. I must be some sorta prevert!!
 
Western society in general (not just the British) seems to be devolving into mass paranoia often times. It's annoying.
 
Some of us actually are perverts. :twisted:
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Businessman Mirko Fischer sues British Airwars 'for treating men like perverts' | Mail Online

This is totally over the top. British Airways forbids any male to sit next to a child who is either unaccompanied or in a different aisle than their parent. The British have caved into full-blown paranoia.
Click to expand...

Not only is it over the top, but it is ridiculous. The man was not able to sit next to his pregnant wife in a seat he had booked. The 12 year old boy should have been relocated if the cabin crew considered him to be in danger of being molested (a ridiculous assumption under the circumstances).

I hope British Airways are successfully sued for a million pounds each time they do something as stupid as this. But it is not only in Britain that this sort of paranoia is rife. My aunt in Australia has a close friend who is a primary school teacher. This lady is not allowed to comfort any small boy who falls down in the playground, for fear of charges of touching the child inappropriately. Parents are not allowed to photograph their children in swimming carnivals (a common school age competition in Australia), and anyone waiting for their kids at a playground is viewed with suspicion. Two single men were recently asked to leave a botanical exhibition in a country village, because a party of school children were coming through.

None of these measures are likely to save children from being molested, as statistics show the highest likelihood of molestation coming from family members, close relatives, or people well known to the child.
 
I like the policy! I mean, who wants to be sat next to some random brat for hours on end, anyway?
VGeXJ.gif
 
Coronado said:
Do you mean the guy who took pictures of his kids playing in the bath and got busted for kiddie porn? I think that was a civilian.

But yeah, God forbid I should see her naked. I must be some sorta prevert!!
Click to expand...
There's an army guy under court martial right now because his mother sent him pictures of his young niece. She was in a bathing suit, so you know it MUST have been kiddie porn. (couldn't have been because she was swimming at the time)

Soldier's family says photos are not child porn - Galesburg, IL - The Register-Mail
 
rivrrat said:
There's an army guy under court martial right now because his mother sent him pictures of his young niece. She was in a bathing suit, so you know it MUST have been kiddie porn. (couldn't have been because she was swimming at the time)

Soldier's family says photos are not child porn - Galesburg, IL - The Register-Mail
Click to expand...
Ridiculous, yet typical.

If it were up to me, I'd be court-martialing the guy who thinks a child in a swimsuit is kiddie porn. That guy is the one who is ****ed up.
 
That's ok until some arsehole sues for some imagined slight, then everyone goes into defensive mode.

From the link, the family gave some of the batch of pics to the paper.

g12c0002dc003aafc30674b335a2d08f39b11b40133a0d5.jpg


That is one of them, and while it may be completely innocent, you can see where suspicions might have been raised. Frankly, posing her like a sexy bikini-clad model, sprawled across a car bonnet(hood) is maybe not the best choice to send in this day and age. What do the unpublished ones look like?
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
That's ok until some arsehole sues for some imagined slight, then everyone goes into defensive mode.

From the link, the family gave some of the batch of pics to the paper.

g12c0002dc003aafc30674b335a2d08f39b11b40133a0d5.jpg


That is one of them, and while it may be completely innocent, you can see where suspicions might have been raised. Frankly, posing her like a sexy bikini-clad model, sprawled across a car bonnet(hood) is maybe not the best choice to send in this day and age. What do the unpublished ones look like?
Click to expand...

WTF? It's a picture of his niece, taken by his mother - the girl's grandmother - laying on HIS car.

Dear lord the 'save the children' bull**** just gets more insane by the day.

No, I cannot see where suspicions might have been raised. I have pictures of my nieces and nephew completely nude, does that "raise suspicions"?
 
Manc Skipper said:
That's ok until some arsehole sues for some imagined slight, then everyone goes into defensive mode.

From the link, the family gave some of the batch of pics to the paper.

g12c0002dc003aafc30674b335a2d08f39b11b40133a0d5.jpg


That is one of them, and while it may be completely innocent, you can see where suspicions might have been raised. Frankly, posing her like a sexy bikini-clad model, sprawled across a car bonnet(hood) is maybe not the best choice to send in this day and age. What do the unpublished ones look like?
Click to expand...

Actually I think that is a really dumb photo, and totally inappropriate for a little girl. I'm not surprised there was comment about it.
 
Leo said:
Actually I think that is a really dumb photo, and totally inappropriate for a little girl. I'm not surprised there was comment about it.
Click to expand...
Dumb? Perhaps. Criminal? Hardly.
 
Coronado said:
Dumb? Perhaps. Criminal? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Depends upon the laws extant. There is a case to be made that the little girl was inappropriately sexualised by being dressed in a bikini (totally unnecessary for a prepubescent child) and posed as she was on the bonnet of a car. You or I would not view a small child in a sexual sense, but a paedophile may find that photo appealing. It is simply not appropriate.
 
Leo said:
Depends upon the laws extant. There is a case to be made that the little girl was inappropriately sexualised by being dressed in a bikini (totally unnecessary for a prepubescent child) and posed as she was on the bonnet of a car. You or I would not view a small child in a sexual sense, but a paedophile may find that photo appealing. It is simply not appropriate.
Click to expand...
It does depend upon the letter of the law, but I think in a general sense I would argue that his intent was not to sexualize the girl. If the law makes it a crime to produce a photo that a pedophile would find appealing, that is an awful law in my opinion, as tastes vary, like they do with legitimate pornography, or anything else.
 
Coronado said:
It does depend upon the letter of the law, but I think in a general sense I would argue that his intent was not to sexualize the girl. If the law makes it a crime to produce a photo that a pedophile would find appealing, that is an awful law in my opinion, as tastes vary, like they do with legitimate pornography, or anything else.
Click to expand...

I understand the point you are making, and I do not for a moment think the family members were trying to sexualise their little girl. My point is that they showed poor judgement in portraying her in that inappropriate manner, and I am not surprised that the military authorities questioned that photograph.

This is actually quite a peculiarly American thing with little girls. As evinced by the junior beauty queen contests which also unnecessarily sexualise little children. Again that may not be the intention, but that is the effect, and the results are quite ridiculous. These are small children, for God's sake!
 
Leo said:
Depends upon the laws extant. There is a case to be made that the little girl was inappropriately sexualised by being dressed in a bikini (totally unnecessary for a prepubescent child) and posed as she was on the bonnet of a car. You or I would not view a small child in a sexual sense, but a paedophile may find that photo appealing. It is simply not appropriate.
Click to expand...

LOL She wasn't "sexualized" by being dressed in a two piece. She was swimming, and playing in the water, in the summer. My nieces have been wearing two piece bathing suits since they started having to wear bathing suits at all. Prior to that, they wore nothing at all in the pool or creek.

A pedophile may view a little girl with pigtails wearing a shorts and a t-shirt in a sexual sense, does that mean that if you have such a picture on your hard drive that you have 'child porn'? No. It's ridiculous. And I see nothing the least bit inappropriate about any of the pics the family sent that soldier.

People are just taking the child porn **** WAY too far. It's gotten to where parents are afraid taking pictures of their ****ing kids now. It's insane.
 
Coronado said:
Maybe I'm just paranoid (which is entirely possible), but I always feel a little bit uncomfortable when I take my young daughter to a playground. I'm just waiting for someone to think I'm some sort of child molester hanging out there waiting to pounce.
Click to expand...

I'm right near a park. I'd say I get a little leery of groups of men hanging out right at the swingset. It's a big park. They should go someplace else. It's just creepy to me, but I wouldn't feel that way towards a father.
 
sazerac said:
I'm right near a park. I'd say I get a little leery of groups of men hanging out right at the swingset. It's a big park. They should go someplace else. It's just creepy to me, but I wouldn't feel that way towards a father.
Click to expand...
The problem is, how do you know who is a father and who isn't? That's what I'm concerned about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom