Kids and men on planes.

[Bartman10]

See here

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3495794a11,00.html

Who would want to sit next to a whinging, snotty nosed kid for 15 hours? This policy works in the mans favour as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be extended to bus and train services too, including commuter services. I think it's a great policy!


:yes:

[Sniper]

As long as we can still sit next to hot females, Im happy

[James Deuce]

It's bollocks.

When I was 8 I flew to Christchurch from Auckland unattended to spend the holidays with my Aunt.

I sat next to a dude called Keith and he made that trip for me. He told how planes stayed up, taught me how a tin of pineapple and an airsick bag can make all the people in visual range throw up, and made my trip fun.

I WISH organisations would stop sexualising children and generalising about men.

One day Bartman, you'll have a different perspective on children, and you'll understand that they don't all fit your stereotype. I've lodged some feedback on that story, and I've lodged a complaint with the Children's Commisioner about her attitude.

[Aitch]

This really makes my blood boil! What proportion of men are paedophiles? 1 in a thousand? And of that 1 in a thousand, how many would interfere with a kid in such a restricted environment????
I'm a father of two, and if I was asked to move seats because I was next to an accompanied child I'd take it very personally!
I take it that women never assault kids????

[terbang]

Yup its a PC world we live in now so what next?
Selamat Terbang :shake:

[Sniper]

Did anyone see that program on how NZ is a feminist nation. Im pretty sure this story relates well to it.

[Eurodave]

Yeah, well, as the father of 5 & grandfather of 3, I placed some feedback to that article, I felt the need to vent!!!:hitcher:

[tracyprier]

Well I don't know about anyone else here but being a 41 year old white male... FEAR ME FOR I AM EVIL INCARNATE!!!!... apparantly ;)

And just being the owner of a penis makes you a rapist so I'm told.

[Marmoot]

Yup its a PC world we live in now so what next?
Selamat Terbang :shake:

You speak Indonesian or Malaysian?

[Coyote]

I picked the right time to be born as a white male. Never wanted to be a racist paedophile but can't deny what is my intended nature according to society

[ManDownUnder]

Personal hot topic... thanks for pointing it out.

The bias presented in here is outragious. Would the basis of this policy be that women are better for kids, women nurture while men threaten/discipline.

It's contemptable and I'm taking it up with anyone that'll listen.

[terbang]

Saya tingal di Jakarta tujuh bulan

[James Deuce]

I picked the right time to be born as a white male. Never wanted to be a racist paedophile but can't deny what is my intended nature according to society

You left out violent.

That's violent racist paedophile.

[Marmoot]

Saya tingal di Jakarta tujuh bulan

dua bulan sepuluh hari short of giving birth.

Btw, I like flying with Singapore Airlines coz the flight crew always manage to keep me away from paedophile/homosexual imagination :yes:
Every airlines should be like that.

[SpankMe]

grrrr :angry: hmmmpf :mad: arrghhh :angry2:

I'm so fucken pissed off at this ignorant PC bullshit that words fail me. :shutup:

[tracyprier]

Well try harder ! :)


grrrr :angry: hmmmpf :mad: arrghhh :angry2:

I'm so fucken pissed off at this ignorant PC bullshit that words fail me. :shutup:

[Marmoot]

I picked the right time to be born as a white male. Never wanted to be a racist paedophile but can't deny what is my intended nature according to society

yeah you whinging racist violent paedophile egotistic and individualist trailer trash. But at least you get to grow to be a savvy businessman and you are well known to drive well.

We yellow bastards are known to drive erratically, extort each other of the same type, and waste our parents money. But we don't get student loan or benefits, though.

Gosh....stereotyping at its best :2thumbsup

[idb]

What pisses me off even more about the whole climate of fear over men & kids is that it so pervasive that even I have to fight off judging other blokes as 'possible paedophile' when in certain situations.
It's a rot in society.

[SpankMe]

Well try harder ! :)

This can all be blamed on modern so called news reporting that is only interested in showing the bad stuff so giving an unrealistic view of the world.

[Sniper]

This can all be blamed on modern so called news reporting that is only interested in showing the bad stuff so giving an unrealistic view of the world.

Truer words will never be spoken

[James Deuce]

We yellow bastards ....
Gosh....stereotyping at its best :2thumbsup

You people aren't yellow, you're a sort of brown colour. I've never understood why we call you yellow bastards. You should be lumped in with all the other brown bastards.

[ManDownUnder]

This can all be blamed on modern so called news reporting that is only interested in showing the bad stuff so giving an unrealistic view of the world.

Yes and no - I'd say it's deeper than that. The press certainly report it, but it's all too prevalent in society in general.

Take this scenario (with the journalists nowhere to be seen).

You're at a playground and a little girl comes to you scared - she needs to pee and she's about to wet her pants. The toilets are right there and all you have to do is walk her over and stand by the door.

Do you?
Do you feel the eyes of the world watching you as you you do it?
Why?

What if it was a little boy?
Would you go into the toilet and help him if needed?

It's enough to really piss me off to be honest... and it takes a fair bit to do that

[Grahameeboy]

So much for being our national airline.....what are they on......like most of you I would take offence.....I have shared custody of a disabled daughter so I reckon they may get in the shit if they ever tried this one on me......crazy.....and then they say they would rather leave the seat empty.....
Funny thing is that Air NZ is owned by the Govt and anyway, plus there is the issue of allowing kids to travel alone anyway....they do not talk about protection of kids after they step off the plane....
These are crazy times we live'n geezers.....

[MikeL]

Sort of funny in an ironic way that after years of marginalizing anyone who wasn't white middle-class and male, the white middle class male finds himself on the other end of the stick and complains loudly.

Not that I agree with what the airlines have done. On the other hand I can understand it. Those who are loudest in their ridicule of this latest PC silliness would be the first to hire a lawyer if their own child was molested on a flight...

[Lou Girardin]

This can all be blamed on modern so called news reporting that is only interested in showing the bad stuff so giving an unrealistic view of the world.

I disagree entirely. If this crap is not revealed publicly, how will we know to fight it?
I'm just surprised that the guy actually changed seats. I'm damned if I would have.

They could have put the kid on the flight deck. Anyone seen "Flying High"?

[jrandom]

You people aren't yellow, you're a sort of brown colour. I've never understood why we call you yellow bastards. You should be lumped in with all the other brown bastards.

Nah, they are kind of yellow.

I'm looking at the Chinese engineer at the desk next to me right now (hi Jack!) and comparing him to the Indian one who sits across from us, and he definitely has a sort of citrus tinge to his complexion. Not what I'd call brown, per se.

What gets me, though, is calling whiteys 'white'.

[James Deuce]

MDU, the correct course of action is to let them pee their pants and then complain loudly about the lack of parenting skills in evidence. Then you ring CYF.

[The Stranger]

You're at a playground and a little girl comes to you scared - she needs to pee and she's about to wet her pants. The toilets are right there and all you have to do is walk her over and stand by the door.


What exactly were you doing at the playground MDU?

Sitting on a park bench. Eyeing little girls with bad intent.

[Grahameeboy]

Has anyone been marginallising white middle age man cause I ain 't been....

[duckman]

Yes and no - I'd say it's deeper than that. The press certainly report it, but it's all too prevalent in society in general.

Take this scenario (with the journalists nowhere to be seen).

You're at a playground and a little girl comes to you scared - she needs to pee and she's about to wet her pants. The toilets are right there and all you have to do is walk her over and stand by the door.

Do you?
Do you feel the eyes of the world watching you as you you do it?
Why?

What if it was a little boy?
Would you go into the toilet and help him if needed?

It's enough to really piss me off to be honest... and it takes a fair bit to do that

Are you kidding, I wouldn't walk past a kids playground for fear of being arrested.

[James Deuce]

Sort of funny in an ironic way that after years of marginalizing anyone who wasn't white middle-class and male, the white middle class male finds himself on the other end of the stick and complains loudly.

Not that I agree with what the airlines have done. On the other hand I can understand it. Those who are loudest in their ridicule of this latest PC silliness would be the first to hire a lawyer if their own child was molested on a flight...

And the correct course of action would be to let my child continue to be molested and the molester go unchecked? I'm not sure that I understand the logic behind that comment Mike, just as I am NOT convinced that active discrimination is a way to "punish" those "guilty" of belonging to a "class" previously described and labelled as the discriminators. I'm 40 and I've only experienced negative discrimination against my "class" and gender. White, male, and middle aged, means you are to blame for everything - excessive health care spending, attitudes to violence in society, inability to commit to relationships thereby causing emotional distress for children, not paying enough tax to maintain an increasingly over-balanced welfare system, and now a defined and labelled threat to all children.

I have a disabled child like Grahameeboy and I have acess to no help whatsoever, despite earning less than the national average for household earnings in NZ, because those earning are a single income. I have two other children to support as well. But my disabled child needs grommets, so we have to go privately to get them done, so that we can maximise his potential hearing, which will never be that good as it is a part of his condition. I have to pay for it, which I'll have to borrow money to do, thereby reducing the available cash in my household and affecting everyone else. But I guess I deserve it for being male and subscribing to "white middle-class values".

I'll look forward to the 7am door knock from CYF now then shall I?

[ManDownUnder]

What exactly were you doing at the playground MDU?

Sitting on a park bench. Eyeing little girls with bad intent.

Playing with my kids - pun fully intended due to my occasional scurrilous outbursts on here.

There are a number of things I hold sacred - one of them is the right for children to live in a safe society. If they don't feel safe - they're going to grow up and maintain a society where they, and as a consequence, their kids, don't feel safe. Get the kiddie fiddlers and chop their nuts/hands off. Give them a lobotomy... Do whatever it takes to get them off the streets and away from the kids.

Let the rest of us be grown up about it - helping kids as appropriate, where, when and how they need it. I used to have a strong opinion on this, but since I've had a couple of kids of my own that's changed - it's gotten even stronger.

CaN - I have to admit I saw red the first time I read your post, but I know you better than that and the irony and wit are welcome - hence the wording of the opening stanza of this reply.

[Karma]

Whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

Seems that society always needs a scapegoat for it's problems. Just seems at the moment they can blame their childrens behavoural problems on the lack of paternal figure.

Ever noticed the fact that so many custody rulings automatically go to the mother?

There once was a time when blacks weren't allowed to sit next to anyone, then they had problems with hippys, then ravers, now it seems to be men who are the big bad.

Well if they want to be like that... I'd say fuck'em make them unload all my baggage and refund my ticket price.

Oh, and it could be worse... could be arabic, then you'd be a violent terrorist child molesting wife beater.

Society sucks.

[Marmoot]

You people aren't yellow, you're a sort of brown colour. I've never understood why we call you yellow bastards. You should be lumped in with all the other brown bastards.

I never understood either. They keep calling me people yellow.
To quote someone in the past, the correct words were "yellow little piece o' sh1t". :hitcher:

but fer sure we ain't no niggas either, bro! Ain't no brown like Bobby Brown does.
If we iz brown, then we iz niggaz! and we be in prison by now. Ain't no kiwibiker internet in prison.


(EDIT)....sorry, just got confirmation from me mates, niggaz are black. Apology for misinformation (/EDIT)

[Marmoot]

Nah, they are kind of yellow.

I'm looking at the Chinese engineer at the desk next to me right now (hi Jack!) and comparing him to the Indian one who sits across from us, and he definitely has a sort of citrus tinge to his complexion. Not what I'd call brown, per se.

What gets me, though, is calling whiteys 'white'.

Ha ha, LOL... I like the 'citrus tinge' part. Now stop tasting your workmates please. :blip:

[froggyfrenchman]

ive spent quite some time in the past few years as a scout leader. With all the drama we have to go through, i can be in deep shit if i put my hand on a kids shoulder to get their attention. Its all crap really!

Oh, and no scout leader jokes please...

[ManDownUnder]

ive spent quite some time in the past few years as a scout leader. With all the drama we have to go through, i can be in deep shit if i put my hand on a kids shoulder to get their attention. Its all crap really!



What about the women leaders of the scouts (if there are any) or the women leaders of the Guides? Would they be ok to do it? (Not a loaded q - genuinely interested)

[Lou Girardin]

The whole "keep kids safe" is a nonsense anyway. Remember "stranger danger", a popular strategy among social workers until it became clear that kids were at far more risk from their own families.
Life is inherently dangerous, wrapping kids in cotton wool is leading to a generation which, for the first time, will have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.
The perpetuation of a society living in fear suits certain political stategies and it's being aided by a lazy media who only tell part of the story.

[The Stranger]

Yeah, I knew you were pretty fired up and thought twice.

Mate I know what you are talking about and how you feel.
Way I see it is to hell with it, as long as we have this lot in parliment we are going to have to put up with it, the writing has been on the wall for the last 2 terms, no good getting stressed we have bought it on ourselves.
I shall simply do what I consider to be right by the kid and screw the PC lot.

Mind you good excuse to get you out of bathing the kids.

[tracyprier]

Sort of funny in an ironic way that after years of marginalizing anyone who wasn't white middle-class and male, the white middle class male finds himself on the other end of the stick and complains loudly.

Not that I agree with what the airlines have done. On the other hand I can understand it. Those who are loudest in their ridicule of this latest PC silliness would be the first to hire a lawyer if their own child was molested on a flight...

Well I've never marginalised anyone.... marginalised... no one in this country knows the meaning of the word!

Go vist Tibet some time and see how well the Chinese treat the native Tibetans.

People who spout off about marginalisation in this country are just precious, politically correct no-nothings.

[Devil]

I couldn't believe what I was reading. If I was asked to shift I think the words "balls", "suck" and "my" would probably be involved in the reply.

[ManDownUnder]

People who spout off about marginalisation in this country are just precious, politically correct no-nothings.

But does that mean we should do nothing about it until it becomes just as extreme?

[idb]

Apparently the hostess had to ask a woman who was sitting with her husband to change seats with this bloke.
Then told the fella that it was CAA regulations when in fact it was airline's own rules.
A pretty uncomfortable situation for all involved I'd say - I admit I don't think I would make too much of a fuss at the time - especially with the poor kid sitting next to me.

[FEINT]

dua bulan sepuluh hari short of giving birth.

Btw, I like flying with Singapore Airlines coz the flight crew always manage to keep me away from paedophile/homosexual imagination :yes:
Every airlines should be like that.

Ah Singapore Airlines.... Sangat Gembira. :yes: :yes: :blip: :blip:

[Meathorse]

First thing I'd ask the flight attendant (assuming they're a woman):

"Oh, you'd better keep clear of the child too then - after all a slut such as yourself is likely to distort this childs moral upbringing to believe that hot-monkey sex with dozens of strange men is in fact normal behaviour..... oh you're not a slut? But there are so many sluts in the world today we'd best be careful - now please move away from the child!" :nono:

I don't know if anyone else caught it, but there was a Doco on TV1 a few weeks ago about personality. One of the tests they performed was designed as a test of empathy - the ability to imagine how someone else feels (or putting yourself in someone elses shoes).

They placed a young girl (around 8-10yo) on a busy street corner by herself for a couple of hours. Those people with a strong sense of empathy would stop and see if she was alright, where were her parents etc. Of the dozens who walked past, not a single guy stopped - when the camera crew approached them and asked why they walked by, they responded that it was too much of a personal risk for them to approach a small girl by herself.


The biggest problem I have with all this is where to draw the line - when does helping a child become more important than the risk of accusations? Plus, what's all this doing for the kids - some poor girl can't tie her shoelaces so asks an adult for help only to be refused time and time again - what is she supposed to think and will she bother to ask for help when it really matters?!

**Off topic: Oh, I love the new edit function!**

[Beemer]

My husband was rapt when he saw that item on tv last night - "great, that means I never have to sit next to any bloody children on a plane!" I was pissed off because that meant I potentially would end up sitting next to a child because I would be seen as safe. Fact is, we both hate kids and avoid trying to sit near them, particularly on planes where you can't get away from them! If a child was deliberately moved to sit next to me and my husband was moved, I would be complaining. I'd be tempted to claim I had Tourette's Syndrome and say I was prone to sudden outbursts of foul language!

I think it is stupid, as someone pointed out, do they really think a guy would try something on in a crowded plane? It's an insult to the 99% of men who would never harm a child. Have there been previous incidents involving men and unaccompanied children on flights?

And who will they target next? No men allowed to sit near attractive women in case they sexually harrass them? What ages do they class as children? Would they have a problem with a 12 year-old unaccompanied boy sitting next to a four year-old unaccompanied girl?

The question that begs to be asked here is why was the child flying unaccompanied? Who should be responsible for his or her safety - the airline or the parents/caregivers?

[ManDownUnder]

The question that begs to be asked here is why was the child flying unaccompanied? Who should be responsible for his or her safety - the airline or the parents/caregivers?

It's a sad fact that a number of kids need to go on planes to travel between one parent and the other, where they simply can't afford to accompany them...

There are situations where it "needs to be" but it doesn't make the original proposition that one gender or other is better for the child's welfare.

...still spewing about this one...

[James Deuce]

I sent this to the Commissioner for Children today.

"I'm deeply disappointed that the Commissioner for Children supports the stance of Air New Zealand and QANTAS that all men or violent paedophiles, potentially or actually. It is difficult to read any other meaning into this morning's response to the news article published by Fairfax, and I hope that a more sensible statement acknowledging the contribution of the overwhelming majority of men in NZ to the health, safety, and wellbeing of children in New Zealand can be made in the context of this blatant disregard for Human Rights and New Zealand's anti-discrimination laws."

I'll let you know what sort of shrug off, err, reply I get.

I know that some people don't agree that it is an issue at all, but: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136431.html) "

[Devil]

I sent this to the Commissioner for Children today.
...................
I'll let you know what sort of shrug off, err, reply I get.

I know that some people don't agree that it is an issue at all, but: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136431.html) "
Nice jeorb Jim. CEREBELLUM'D!!!

[ManDownUnder]

I sent this to the Commissioner for Children today.

"I'm deeply disappointed that the Commissioner for Children supports the stance of Air New Zealand and QANTAS that all men or violent paedophiles, potentially or actually. It is difficult to read any other meaning into this morning's response to the news article published by Fairfax, and I hope that a more sensible statement acknowledging the contribution of the overwhelming majority of men in NZ to the health, safety, and wellbeing of children in New Zealand can be made in the context of this blatant disregard for Human Rights and New Zealand's anti-discrimination laws."

I'll let you know what sort of shrug off, err, reply I get.

I know that some people don't agree that it is an issue at all, but: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136431.html) "

:niceone:

Make sure you send a copy to the ministers of Maori Affairs, Womens' Affairs and Mens' Affairs ok?

[James Deuce]

Men's Affairs. Heehe.

[terbang]

While we here in NZ while away the time inventing PC ways of protecting our childrens welfare I read that a 3 month old child, who survived the earthquake in Pakistan loosing everything, just died from the cold..!

However on another note the Catholic church in the USA has had an embarrasing spate of reported child abuse. This has been a fairly common thing in the past that was not so widely talked about. Exposing them, in a more PC world for what they are, has been a good thing.

[ManDownUnder]

While we here in NZ while away the time inventing PC ways of protecting our childrens welfare I read that a 3 month old child, who survived the earthquake in Pakistan loosing everything, just died from the cold..!

I agree that's not good, but it's a separate issue from the one at hand.



However on another note the Catholic church in the USA has had an embarrasing spate of reported child abuse. This has been a fairly common thing in the past that was not so widely talked about. Exposing them, in a more PC world for what they are, has been a good thing too.

I disagree - exposing them any which way is the good thing. There is no requirement for a PC World in order to achieve that though. As I said before - get the kiddie fiddlers and lock 'em up, chop bits off or do what's needed to keep our kids safe, no matter where they are.

Making generalised assumptions isn't going to help however. Of the Maori, Chinese, and European cultures in NZ, one of them will have the highest rate of child molestation - it's just the way statistics are. But to presume a member of that ethnic group poses sufficient risk to move a kid away from them is just plain lunacy.

It's not PC - it's bullshit

[Marmoot]

actually, it's about time government put a ban on male doctors examining children. You don't know how those touchy-feely moments may become sexually arousing.

Also ban male gyneocology.

Actually, ban all male doctors!

In fact, tell all females and children to wear veils! A bloody good idea! I'm sure someone has done it before somewhere!!!

deja vu.....

[Skyryder]

See here

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3495794a11,00.html

Who would want to sit next to a whinging, snotty nosed kid for 15 hours? This policy works in the mans favour as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be extended to bus and train services too, including commuter services. I think it's a great policy!


:yes:

This guys just winding everyone up. The only child Bartman is desribing is his own.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The question that begs to be asked here is why was the child flying unaccompanied? Who should be responsible for his or her safety - the airline or the parents/caregivers?

You raise and interesting point. If the child is not traveling with a caregiver is the airline parenti loci? Any legal types here know the answer to this.

Skyryder

[Karma]

You raise and interesting point. If the child is not traveling with a caregiver is the airline parenti loci? Any legal types here know the answer to this.

Skyryder


Not a legal opinion at all, but I'd hazard a guess and say yes, but only to a certain extent.

I'd imagine they have the same level of responsibility as say teachers or babysitters / nannys

[MikeL]

And the correct course of action would be to let my child continue to be molested and the molester go unchecked? I'm not sure that I understand the logic behind that comment Mike

Which comment? I don't quite understand how you inferred from anything I wrote that I am suggesting that molesters should not be stopped. My point was that there is a type of double standard here. The same middle-aged white male who today is insulted by being asked to move may tomorrow be a concerned father sending his child off unaccompanied. If the airline staff were to ask him whether he is happy for his child to sit next to a strange man, or whether he would prefer them to make "more appropriate" seating arrangements, what do you think his answer would be?

[Ixion]

What about buses? Do children still travel on buses? Or trains?

[James Deuce]

Which comment? I don't quite understand how you inferred from anything I wrote that I am suggesting that molesters should not be stopped. My point was that there is a type of double standard here. The same middle-aged white male who today is insulted by being asked to move may tomorrow be a concerned father sending his child off unaccompanied. If the airline staff were to ask him whether he is happy for his child to sit next to a strange man, or whether he would prefer them to make "more appropriate" seating arrangements, what do you think his answer would be?

My answer would be sure, no problem.

My kids have more chance of being run over, or drowning in the bath than being molested.

Your comment didn't read the way you intended at all and the follow up is a great deal clearer.

[idb]

Which comment? I don't quite understand how you inferred from anything I wrote that I am suggesting that molesters should not be stopped. My point was that there is a type of double standard here. The same middle-aged white male who today is insulted by being asked to move may tomorrow be a concerned father sending his child off unaccompanied. If the airline staff were to ask him whether he is happy for his child to sit next to a strange man, or whether he would prefer them to make "more appropriate" seating arrangements, what do you think his answer would be?
That was my point earlier on about the evil nature of this sort of crap - it crawls around until everyone is infected despite themselves.

[ManDownUnder]

Which comment? I don't quite understand how you inferred from anything I wrote that I am suggesting that molesters should not be stopped. My point was that there is a type of double standard here. The same middle-aged white male who today is insulted by being asked to move may tomorrow be a concerned father sending his child off unaccompanied. If the airline staff were to ask him whether he is happy for his child to sit next to a strange man, or whether he would prefer them to make "more appropriate" seating arrangements, what do you think his answer would be?

interesting use of words though.

"more appropriate seating arrangements" presupposes those on offer are somehow inappropriate.

Let me slightly reword that same question
"If the airline staff were to ask him whether he is happy for his child to sit next to a strange woman, or whether he would prefer them to make "more appropriate" seating arrangements, what do you think his answer would be?"

Same answer I'd expect. Not because of the genders involved but the assumption there is a better seating option available - for whatever reason.

Who wouldn't want that for their kids?

Admittedly there is possibly a bias against the men rather than the woman as a neighbour - and it's that very bias that concerns me.

It's bollox, but bollox Air NZ and Quantas have enshrined in policy. Remind me why that's a good thing?

[scumdog]

Saya tingal di Jakarta tujuh bulan

Saya tudu chukup Malayu. (I think that's how it's spelt)

[scumdog]

It's not the kids they want to protect, the airlines are just worried they'll be sued by the parent of some kid who claims to have been 'molested'' by another passenger imho.

[ducatilover]

i think all this is fucken ridiculous, soon male teachers will not be allowed in primary schools and kindygardens, what the fuck? i agree that there is a percentage of sick fucks out there but they arent all men. we have a problem with hairy legged feminists in this country. why dont they go stop woman from driving? i've been hit by an insolent and fucking stupid [goo looking though] woman at a RED FUCKEN LIGHT how did she not see the bike and/or the red light? why dont i have my bike lisence taken from me? ooooh i am about to go on a plane flight and rape all the little kiddies in an extremely restricted environment. i went on a bus to taupo and sat next to a little german girl on the way there. people were looking at me weird, well there were no other fucken seats left, do they expect me to sit on my thumb? i didnt rape the little girl and i didnt molest her...though i asked if there was any problem about me sitting next to a little girl "no, no i was just thinking..." so i had to say it "thought i sa smoke coming out of yer ears" then silly middle aged man turned and faced the front.....maybe he wanted to rape he and was jealous? PATHETIC:hitcher:

[kerryg]

Just read the first few of the posts and couldn't be arsed reading them all so pardon me if I've got it wrong but there seems to be a real outpouring of annoyance over this. And ot risk of being the one dissenting voice, is it really that much of a deal? Who would you rather have your kid seated beside on a long flight..a woman or a man? On long flights people are asleep, there is darkness, alcohol may have been consumed. I know who I'd prefer. OK I would HATE to be asked to move, with the implication it contains but I would have thought that with a bit of common-sense when allocating seats it never needs to arise.

[James Deuce]

kerry, Origin Pacific probably have the same policy but they were clever enough to respond to the issue when asked by stating that they seat unaccompanied children next to or behind a flight attendant. That's a common sense response.

We're talking about domestic flights, not overseas longhaul flights in this particular case raise with the Human Rights Commission. Yes it is a big deal. The Commissioner for Children obviously feels that keeping men and children separated on public transport will enhance the safety of children. Think about the implications of that attitude.

[idb]

What about the women on the flight that are expected to act as a free baby-sitting service?

[ManDownUnder]

The Commissioner for Children obviously feels that keeping men and children separated on public transport will enhance the safety of children. Think about the implications of that attitude.

It's a good point - why did Rosa Parkes just come to mind?

[idb]

When I think about it, it makes me feel big and powerful.
I can walk down the street knowing that 52% of the adult population and all children are terrified of me!!!!!!!
Maybe us white middle-class males should form a gang and wear big patches.
Yeah!!!!

[Brett]

Yeah this one in particular pissed me off the most. Why can't a guy just genuinely care for a childs safety? If i was out walking or whatever and saw a kid fall and get hurt, i would want to help them and see that they are ok, but we can't do that anymore, cause you are likely to get done for attempted child abuse or some shit.

No wonder so many kids are becoming problems, decent males are no longer able to get onside and teach them a thing or two...that is after all a good fathers job isnt it???

But what do we do about it...really...just get used to it because these liberal ass holes are getting more and more hold in society.

[ManDownUnder]

Here's a fun game....complete the following sentence.

On a plane, children are better off sitting next to women than men because...

[MikeL]

.. of statistics.

[ManDownUnder]

No wonder so many kids are becoming problems, decent males are no longer able to get onside and teach them a thing or two...that is after all a good fathers job isnt it???

I'd take that a step further - it's the job of men in society, not just a father. Some of you guys out there will be able to teach my kids about stuff I can't/don't do or enjoy.

FROSTY and racing
Big Dave and Photography
BJ with Graphic Design
Postie with... letters or something...
etc etc etc

And likewise the women.
Mad Duck taught my little boy more about caring for others than she'll ever know (I hope she's reading this).

Kids grow up in a society, and they need to be a part of that society to develop and learn. "Protecting them" from part of it is just BS. Doing "just this once" is BS

aaaargh *off to cool down over a coffee*

[kerryg]

Here's the last paragraph from today's editorial on the Herald:

"All in all, the 2 airlines have what amounts to a reasonable risk management strategy-as grating and unfair as it is to men. This recognises the devious, well organised or opportunistic nature of abuse. It also provides the maximum protection for children. There will be no complaint from the parents who trust their sons and daughters to the care of those airlines."

I find that reasoning pretty hard to fault in all honesty

[oldrider]

It's not the kids they want to protect, the airlines are just worried they'll be sued by the parent of some kid who claims to have been 'molested'' by another passenger imho.
Of course sitting next to or near the flight attendant would make her/him safe. :slap: Why didn't I think of that!
How do they qualify for an exemption? Can I get one? :doh: Cheers John.

[froggyfrenchman]

What exactly were you doing at the playground MDU?

Sitting on a park bench. Eyeing little girls with bad intent.
Snot running down his nose, greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.


Not a personal attack on MDU!

[froggyfrenchman]

What about the women leaders of the scouts (if there are any) or the women leaders of the Guides? Would they be ok to do it? (Not a loaded q - genuinely interested)

They are alot moe free in what they can do, not by the rules, but by how parents and kids react to woman rather than men that choose to spend a few hours of their spare time every week helping kids learn and enjoy the bush etc, things their own parents wont do with them

[Wolf]

My email to Cindy Kiro.

Have yet to write the ones to Air New Zealand and Quantas.

email:

Ms Kiro

As the father of two wonderful young boys and soon to be the father of a young daughter, I would like to express my extreme displeasure at your commendation of both Air New Zealand and Quantas for their sexist policy vis a vis the moving of men from seats near unaccompanied children.

In supporting their actions you are conveying the message that all men are violent paedophiles.

To claim, as you have, that the policy is not discriminatory is to completely misunderstand the term "discrimination".

If I went up to a random stranger in the street and called him a child molester, I would expect that he would be mortally offended and I would not be surprised if he pressed defamation charges against me.

If I went up to a female stranger and informed her she could not be somewhere or do something because she was female I would expect both her anger and swift retribution under the Human Rights Act.

The policies you have commended are in no significant way different from those scenarios.

Approaching a stranger on a plane, solely because he is male, and telling him he must vacate his seat lest he molest a child in a crowded airplane is discriminatory, defamatory and downright insulting.

New Zealand law is supposed to incorporate the Human Rights Act, which it would appear you have never read. That Act prohibits any discrimination against *anyone* on the grounds of sex (amongst other things) - it does not just apply to women being refused jobs.

Judicial process is based on an assumption of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", which you also seem not to have heard of. That premise means that even if specific charges of paedophilia are levelled against a man, the evidence for that case must be individually examined and the jury must decide *beyond REASONABLE doubt*, that the alleged offences occured.

The policies that you have commended presume that all men are likely, given close proximity to a young child in a crowded aircraft, to sexually molest that child. That presumption is a clear breach of both the central premise of our judicial system and the Human Rights Act.

I feel that the Human Rights Act has been seriously undermined as no lesser personage than the Children's Commissioner has effectively said "It's OK, it's not really discrimination so long as you only do it to men."

I am, as I said, the father of two, soon to be three, children - none of whom I would wish to have harmed and none of whom I sexually abuse. I have no past history of sexual abuse. I have never been alleged to have sexually abused a child.

Were I on a plane and asked to move because an unaccompanied child was to occupy the adjoining seat, I would feel highy insulted in a very personal way.

And thanks to your commendation of those sexist policies, I would have a difficult time seeking redress against the company that chose to discriminate against me based on the fact of my sex.

In extreme displeasure,

[DATA EXCISED]

[Indiana_Jones]

PC bollocks gets up my nose, half the people my age fucking go along with half of it, it's f*cking crazy.

oh oh remember there's no Christ in Christmas, some Mulism or Hindu might feel left out...awww... I'm sorry :p

-Indy

[Wolf]

As I said before - get the kiddie fiddlers and lock 'em up, chop bits off or do what's needed to keep our kids safe, no matter where they are.
Damn straight! If they want kids safe on planes and playgrounds or walking home from school (the latter two being far more risky than the first):

Don't let the kid-fuckers out of jail! EVER!

Then the rest of us, who don't molest kids, won't have to worry about sexist airline staff and sexist policies.

[James Deuce]

.. of statistics.

My wife has worked in Paediatrics in the Hutt for 20 years. The greater percentage of child abuse statistics that reach hospital can be attributed to mothers. Not all abuse is sexual in nature. The greatest number of false accusations are raised against men, often by the female perpetrator of the abuse. Men are responsible for a greater percentage of violent child abuse, but not all violent child abusers are men. Neither are all paedophiles male.

Paedophilia and the potential for a relative to be a victim has been sensationalised beyond what could be called reasonable levels of caution.

[Wolf]

The same middle-aged white male who today is insulted by being asked to move may tomorrow be a concerned father sending his child off unaccompanied. If the airline staff were to ask him whether he is happy for his child to sit next to a strange man, or whether he would prefer them to make "more appropriate" seating arrangements, what do you think his answer would be?
My though would be that in an environment like an airplane there would be little scope for someone to molest a child. Personally, I would be more concerned with the prospect of my children playing unsupervised at a park or walking home from school alone than travelling on public transport.

I would never think that randomly deeming a stranger "unsafe", purely based on his/her sex, more appropriate. Suspicious behaviour, OTOH, fair enough.

[ducatilover]

very good email wof:yes:

[kerryg]

The outrage being expressed on this thread is understandable because (I feel safe in assuming) none of the posters are paedophiles, and they take offence at a policy which tars everyone with the same tainted brush. Fair enough, I'm with you on that. But there ARE paedophiles about (who are these three people who buy all the child pornography....??) and to feed their creepy appetites they blend in, appear inconspicuous, are good at befriending kids. They look like most of us, I'd guess. Doesn't mean we should be made to feel like criminals though. The airline who asked the guy to move to another seat was pretty cack-handed in its handling of the situation if you ask me . It need not have arisen, and no-one would have been any the wiser, if the seats were allocated properly. So, where's the harm?

[ManDownUnder]

The outrage being expressed on this thread is understandable because (I feel safe in assuming) none of the posters are paedophiles, and they take offence at a policy which tars everyone with the same tainted brush. Fair enough, I'm with you on that. But there ARE paedophiles about (who are these three people who buy all the child pornography....??) and to feed their creepy appetites they blend in, appear inconspicuous, are good at befriending kids. They look like most of us, I'd guess. Doesn't mean we should be made to feel like criminals though. The airline who asked the guy to move to another seat was pretty cack-handed in its handling of the situation if you ask me . It need not have arisen, and no-one would have been any the wiser, if the seats were allocated properly. So, where's the harm?

Agreed - but the harm is with the assumption behind the policy.

Air NZ and Qantas have decided that men shouldn't sit next to kids if there is another option.

I'd love to hear a good reason why...

[Wolf]

Here's the last paragraph from today's editorial on the Herald:

"All in all, the 2 airlines have what amounts to a reasonable risk management strategy-as grating and unfair as it is to men. This recognises the devious, well organised or opportunistic nature of abuse. It also provides the maximum protection for children. There will be no complaint from the parents who trust their sons and daughters to the care of those airlines."

I find that reasoning pretty hard to fault in all honesty

I don't. As a parent, I would find that assuming that women are "safe" (despite the number of women who have physically, emotionally and sexually abused children) and that men are "dangerous" sends the kind of message I would not thank any organisation to drum into my children. I want my kids to grow up with a balanced viewpoint and the ability to assess situations on a case-by-case basis, not live their lives following someone else's prejudices.

I would not send my children by either airline as they have proven, by their actions (no assumptions on my part) to be sexist and are conveying messages that are contrary to the tenets of respect for fellow people - tenets on which our "innocent until proven guilty" and the Human Rights Act are based.

I ask this: would you send your child to an organisation that teaches "all white people are superior, fear/hate the nigger" or one that says "don't let the woman do it, they're not fit for anything but cooking and bearing children"? (Serious replies only!)

Why should I use the services of an organisation that blatantly discriminates against any sex and delivers messages to young children that one sex is good, the other is evil? Fuck that! Especially if they were children in shared custody flying between parents as has been suggested a s likely scenario. Gee, what a great message to impart on a kid with separated parents: "Not safe to be alone with men or they'll rape you" - as if the kid is not going to have enough issues with "why did daddy leave, doesn't he love me?" and all the anger than can go with that. "Hey, let's give the little tyke a "healthy" dose of sexual discrimination and paranoia." For a follow-up they could kill the little bugger's dog and then inject the child with HIV.

Suuuuurrre, they're helping the kids - every kid needs to feel alienated from a large chunk of society. People aren't fit for society unless their mind has been totally warped into the latest fashionable bigotry - once it was "Niggers are sub-human", now it's "all men are kiddy-fuckers".

Fuck I hate "society" as an entity. Burn down all the cities and go back to tribal living with autonomous chieftains - sure, people died in intertribal wars but at least within the individual tribes there was a community spirit that seems to have died somewhere along the Road to Nationalism.

[kerryg]

Agreed - but the harm is with the assumption behind the policy.

Air NZ and Qantas have decided that men shouldn't sit next to kids if there is another option.

I'd love to hear a good reason why...

The assumption that men are far more likely to molest a child than women? That assumption?

[ManDownUnder]

The assumption that men are far more likely to molest a child than women? That assumption?

The assumption that the threat is imminent enough to warrant the relocation of the man - yes. Or to rephrase, the assumption a child is better off not in the company of a man, but rather with a woman.

If you're looking at it from a statistical perspective, consider sitting kids next to a white person instead of a black person due to the relative rates of imprisonment for violent offending. It's a nonsense. The statistics say the rates are far higher and yet it's PC bullshit to base everyday policy on it.

[Karma]

Would you rather sit next to Don Brash, or Helen Clark... hard choice.

It's all about scaremongering. Some focus group says men are dangerous based on no particualar facts, then the law swings against us.

I swear it's the feminist movement... they got their equal rights, and now they're rolling right over ours. Men are evil!

[Wolf]

But there ARE paedophiles about (who are these three people who buy all the child pornography....??) and to feed their creepy appetites they blend in, appear inconspicuous, are good at befriending kids. They look like most of us, I'd guess.
I agree with you on that, and i would say that in addition to being good at blending in ("devious", The Harold said) they are also smart enough not to try to molest a child on a plane in full view of other passengers and passing airline staff. My concern would be that the paedophile would be likely to attempt to follow the child on debarking, which means that the important things to be sure of are: the child has someone waiting for them to take charge of them at the other end of the flight and that the child is very clear on the landing procedure and not to accept offers from people no matter how charming they are.

As to there being paedophiles at large - blame the sentencing system. The cops have caught a fair few that juries of twelve reasonably intelligent people have deemed to be guilty. The fact that many of those molesters are out on the streets, and possibly scoping out kids on planes or swings, is because the legal system of New Zealand deems that they can reenter society after a few months in jail.

Wanna solve the molester problem? Jail 'em for life. No need for notifying communities or discriminatory airline policies or books of known offenders being published or people worrying that little Johnny might be chatting with a known paedophile - because the known ones won't be here any more. That just leaves the lesser number of "unknown ones" to be caught and jailed for life...

[kerryg]

If you're looking at it from a statistical perspective, consider sitting kids next to a white person instead of a black person due to the relative rates of imprisonment for violent offending.


You make a good point but perhaps your analogy is a bit simplistic? Is a kid more likely to be the subject of a violent attack by a black person than an adult (I would say, if anything violence is more likely between adults) . We are talking about protecting kids here, aren't we? Then there's this: most of us have travelled on long flights and (if you're a cheap bastard like me) in cabin class where the seats are jammed together. The physical proximity to a fellow passenger is probably as close as you'll get to sleeping in the same bed without actually doing so. Not to put a male and a kid in that kind of proximity seems prudent to me PROVIDED THAT it is done without creating a fuss, or humiliation. Evidently this policy has existed for years and who would have known? I certainly didn't know about it, it would never have occurred to met until the media got hold of it because some guy was understandably annoyed (..I've no issue with his objections) at being asked to move. It should never have come to that if the seats were allocated properly.The airline screwed up.

[Lou Girardin]

Fuck I hate "society" as an entity. Burn down all the cities and go back to tribal living with autonomous chieftains - sure, people died in intertribal wars but at least within the individual tribes there was a community spirit that seems to have died somewhere along the Road to Nationalism.

It's not society that's at fault. It's the attitude epitomised by Maggie Thatchers "there is no society" that has created the attitudes that nurture molesters.
Then you have the 'protectors' of society, like Cindy Kiro, who under the guise of public concern promote their particular agendas.
The marginalisation of men started a long time ago.

[kerryg]

not to try to molest a child on a plane in full view of other passengers and passing airline staff. .


Well yes, that's sounds reasonable and there's truth in that.... but I have a good friend who was a cabin attendant for years (no...he's not gay) and the stories he tells about what goes on between passengers in aeroplanes would probably amaze you

[Wolf]

It should never have come to that if the seats were allocated properly.The airline screwed up.
Screwed up and LIED: the claim that it was more than just company policy in an attempt to direct action away from where it was deserved.

I think the company should pay compensation on the grounds of harrassment - to the couple that were split up (and the wife seconded into being a free "safe" babysitter) as well as the bloke that was accused of being a potential paedophile.

I also think Cindy Kiro should be made to publically retract her statements of commendation then resign from her post as she is clearly unfit for her position. OK, so her bailiwick is Child Safety - great, I'm all for that, but not at the cost of civil rights. If she directed her energy towards keeping kiddy-fiddlers off the streets for the rest of thier natural lives instead of commending sexist policies in keeping with her own sexist attitudes, then it would be OK.

Using her clout as a Commissioner to uphold sexism against men is inappropriate and she should not hold her position.

[ManDownUnder]

Not to put a male and a kid in that kind of proximity seems prudent to me PROVIDED THAT it is done without creating a fuss, or humiliation. Evidently this policy has existed for years and who would have known? I certainly didn't know about it, it would never have occurred to met until the media got hold of it because some guy was understandably annoyed (..I've no issue with his objections) at being asked to move. It should never have come to that if the seats were allocated properly.The airline screwed up.

Close but no - I gotta disgree with you on that one too. I don;t agree with the bed scenario (although I see where you're coming from with it). As someone that flied long haul flights, in economy at least 10 times a year I feel I have some experience in the matter - albeit only my personal experience - which is one of an avid, non kiddie fiddler.

To put a kid in a bed with a non caregiving adult is the issue here, not the issue of that adult being male of female. To introduce the gender as a significant factor brings back to supposition that one will do harm, and the other wont.

Again - I'd suggest you use the same analogy, but make the difference race baced, or martial status, or religion or... you get the idea.

Statistically, within each of those groups its possible to find a race, marital status, age which is more likely to do something bad. It's still not a good idea to make policy or rules on that basis.

[ManDownUnder]

Well yes, that's sounds reasonable and there's truth in that.... but I have a good friend who was a cabin attendant for years (no...he's not gay) and the stories he tells about what goes on between passengers in aeroplanes would probably amaze you

True - not to mention what goes on amoung air crew...!

[Wolf]

True - not to mention what goes on amoung air crew...!
What, you mean they find time away from pilfering off the duty-free trolley to do something else?

[ManDownUnder]

What, you mean they find time away from pilfering off the duty-free trolley to do something else?

As tempting as it is to take up that offer to hijack the thread... I'd rather stick to this one (sorry chap... this is important to me)

edit - my bad however - I know I started that line of thought.
MDU

[Wolf]

Well yes, that's sounds reasonable and there's truth in that.... but I have a good friend who was a cabin attendant for years (no...he's not gay) and the stories he tells about what goes on between passengers in aeroplanes would probably amaze you
Yeah, I'm sure the mile-high club is still in fine form, but there's a bit of difference between a couple of consenting adults dallying and someone pressing their intentions on a minor - I'm pretty sure that if I saw someone attempting to interfere with a kid on a plane I'd take steps to get it stopped.

[kerryg]

Guess there's probably no single right answer, as in so many things. It's understandable that good men who love their kids and who are good dads and husbands get mad when they're lumped in with paedophiles. I share that anger. Is the airlines' policy unfair? Certainly.

But it's not really about fairness. It's about preventing something bad even if it is a little unfair or inconvenient, or even discriminatory towards some people. It goes on all the time. It is no less unfair that a nondrinker is stopped and checked at a checkpoint in case he's been drinking, or a Muslim cleric from Iran is subjected to closer scrutiny by Immigration officials when attempting to enter our country. They are prophylactic measures carried out for the general safety of society, for the greater good even if individual feelings get a little trampled in the process.

Anyway, I guess I have nothing useful to add so those are my last words on this subject.

[James Deuce]

Guess there's probably no single right answer, as in so many things. It's understandable that good men who love their kids and who are good dads and husbands get mad when they're lumped in with paedophiles. I share that anger. Is the airlines' policy unfair? Certainly.

But it's not really about fairness. It's about preventing something bad even if it is a little unfair or inconvenient, or even discriminatory towards some people. It goes on all the time. It is no less unfair that a nondrinker is stopped and checked at a checkpoint in case he's been drinking, or a Muslim cleric from Iran is subjected to closer scrutiny by Immigration officials when attempting to enter our country. They are prophylactic measures carried out for the general safety of society, for the greater good even if individual feelings get a little trampled in the process.

Anyway, I guess I have nothing useful to add so those are my last words on this subject.

Kerry that is just so conter the concept of Liberty, that I can't help but quote another Doyen of the Enlightenment, Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Beemer]

What about the women on the flight that are expected to act as a free baby-sitting service?

Yeah, I didn't see THAT as part of the terms and conditions on airline tickets! Besides, the kids would be in more danger sitting next to me (not from molestation, I'm not into that) because if they annoyed me, I'd be likely to give them a slap!

[James Deuce]

Yeah, I didn't see THAT as part of the terms and conditions on airline tickets! Besides, the kids would be in more danger sitting next to me (not from molestation, I'm not into that) because if they annoyed me, I'd be likely to give them a slap!

MIne can sit next to you. Learning to sit quietly is a good skill to have.

[Gremlin]

To look at this from another point of view, can I pass myself off as still being a child?? :doobey:

Miss, I want to sit next to her :blip: ...... or

I need constant supervision, how about her (air stewardess)


Yes, yes, I know for some of you, this is much more serious (I need to keep things light hearted), and I couldn't give a damn what others might think. If a small child hurts his/herself, I will go to help.

If a steward wants me to move, I'd tell them I was issued with this ticket, move the child :yes:

Pity the air nz stewardesses aren't cuter... :lol:

[ducatilover]

i am sixteen yet i am capable of sexaully offending 30 year old woman if i so choose to. i'm not saying i would, but am i also a person who should be moved on a plane? i may be small [55kg/5ft 8-9ish] but i am an adrenaline driven bugger and am certainly capable of violating another person in an unacceptable manner. so why dont we move all children to the back of a plane or an alloted part of a plane? [eg fridge] if they are unaccompanied by a person that has the ability to resist sexaul exploitations that are unwanted?:hitcher:




and no i don not violate other people or rape little kiddies:spudbn:

[Wolf]

But it's not really about fairness. It's about preventing something bad even if it is a little unfair or inconvenient, or even discriminatory towards some people.
And if they'd moved a black man because they had "statistics" that suggested blacks were more likely to be violent than non-blacks, they'd've been lynched by an enraged "righteously angry" mob. And good-fucking-job it would've been, too. I'd've brought extra rope.


It goes on all the time. It is no less unfair that a nondrinker is stopped and checked at a checkpoint in case he's been drinking, or a Muslim cleric from Iran is subjected to closer scrutiny by Immigration officials when attempting to enter our country.
In all fairness to the checkpoints, they stop everyone regardless of race, sex or age - "non-drinkers" and "drinkers" cannot be distinguished by sight as different sexes or races can. I don't feel discriminated against when being stopped and asked to speak into the machine - it's the only way they can tell whether or not I've been drinking. They're not stopping me because I am male or within a certain age group or white, they're stoppping me because they have a job to do and I have arrived at their checkpoint.

The closer scrutiny of Iranians or any other ethnic group is wrong. All people entering the country should be subjected to the same high level of scrutiny - there are more threats out there than terrorism and not all those who sympathise with the terrorists are obviously Islamic or have coloured skin. There is no point in overly scrutinising an Iraqi cleric and ignoring the white bloke seven places back in the queue - the white guy could be smuggling drugs or an escaped felon travelling on a false passport or an Al Queda sympathiser with a degree in improvised explosives.


They are prophylactic measures carried out for the general safety of society, for the greater good even if individual feelings get a little trampled in the process.
Any discrimination "for the greater good" negates that "good". It was not so many years ago that the "greater good" in America involved "keeping them thar niggas outta our kids' schools".

What next for our "greater good"? As terrorism is a major world wide threat, should we go the way of the US in the wake of the Sept 11 tragedies and remove Due Process and allow wire-taps, and random searches based on suspicion? Should we take away all people's personal liberties because there are a minority who abuse those liberties?

Sorry, kerryg, but "It's all right as long as it is for the greater good" is the kind of attitude that stops us from fighting injustice. It is the mechanism by which individuals in society roll over and get walked on and allow the powerful to get away with treating us unfairly. Be they a large corporation with an eye on the "bottom line" or our government, so long as they can couch it in terms of "the greater good" they can guarantee the population will roll over and take it up the arse.

It is unjust that people should abuse children, it is unjust that terrorists should infiltrate areas and use the local infrastructure to conspire and execute their plans - there are many injustices.

Fighting these injustices by being unjust, by discriminating unfairly, is not the answer. If the price for safety from the injustices of our fellow citizens is injustice from our protectors, then we have truly lost.

[ducatilover]

so all this was provoked by statistics and one minded woman?:bash:

[kerryg]

And if they'd moved a black man because they had "statistics" that suggested blacks were more likely to be violent than non-blacks, they'd've been lynched by an enraged "righteously angry" mob. And good-fucking-job it would've been, too. I'd've brought extra rope.


In all fairness to the checkpoints, they stop everyone regardless of race, sex or age - "non-drinkers" and "drinkers" cannot be distinguished by sight as different sexes or races can. I don't feel discriminated against when being stopped and asked to speak into the machine - it's the only way they can tell whether or not I've been drinking. They're not stopping me because I am male or within a certain age group or white, they're stoppping me because they have a job to do and I have arrived at their checkpoint.

The closer scrutiny of Iranians or any other ethnic group is wrong. All people entering the country should be subjected to the same high level of scrutiny - there are more threats out there than terrorism and not all those who sympathise with the terrorists are obviously Islamic or have coloured skin. There is no point in overly scrutinising an Iraqi cleric and ignoring the white bloke seven places back in the queue - the white guy could be smuggling drugs or an escaped felon travelling on a false passport or an Al Queda sympathiser with a degree in improvised explosives.


Any discrimination "for the greater good" negates that "good". It was not so many years ago that the "greater good" in America involved "keeping them thar niggas outta our kids' schools".

What next for our "greater good"? As terrorism is a major world wide threat, should we go the way of the US in the wake of the Sept 11 tragedies and remove Due Process and allow wire-taps, and random searches based on suspicion? Should we take away all people's personal liberties because there are a minority who abuse those liberties?

Sorry, kerryg, but "It's all right as long as it is for the greater good" is the kind of attitude that stops us from fighting injustice. It is the mechanism by which individuals in society roll over and get walked on and allow the powerful to get away with treating us unfairly. Be they a large corporation with an eye on the "bottom line" or our government, so long as they can couch it in terms of "the greater good" they can guarantee the population will roll over and take it up the arse.

It is unjust that people should abuse children, it is unjust that terrorists should infiltrate areas and use the local infrastructure to conspire and execute their plans - there are many injustices.

Fighting these injustices by being unjust, by discriminating unfairly, is not the answer. If the price for safety from the injustices of our fellow citizens is injustice from our protectors, then we have truly lost.


Wolf, I said I'd shut up because I didn't think I had anything more to say (I would only be repeating myself) and I stand by that. We could debate it back and forwards forever. I respect the position you've taken and the lucid way you have expressed it..and thanks for not descending to the level of name calling and personal attack that some threads on this forum reach. I think it's valuable that there is this kind of spirited, intelligent and passionate exchange of views. Some of the points you make do resonate with me although we would probably never completely share the same standpoint on thgis...but that's OK, very few issues are black and white.

Over and out

[kerryg]

Kerry that is just so conter the concept of Liberty, that I can't help but quote another Doyen of the Enlightenment, Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.



That's an interesting quote. It would be interesting to know if he was contemplating the issue of taking prudent and harmless steps to safeguard our children when he wrote that.

Anyway, I should not be prolonging this discourse. My remarks to Wolf above apply equally to you.

Cheers

[Wolf]

This is what I submitted to both Air New Zealand and Qantas through their feedback pages:

Re: The policy on not allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied children on your flights.

It is unjust that children in our society are not safe from harm from abusers and paedophiles. Children should be safe from such things.

However, it is also unjust to discriminate against people in our society based on race, religion, age or *sex*. Likewise it is unjust to convey messages to children that one sex is "safe" and that another is "evil".

To attempt to prevent an injustice by being unjust is ridiculous.

The seating policy is discriminatory and unjust and conveys messages that uphold bigotry.

To convey the message that all men are potential rapists is socially irresponsible and defamatory.

I am the father of two, soon to be three. I am raising my children to respect all people and assess situations on a case-by-case basis rather than react blindly to anyone's prejudices. I would not send my children to any organisation that conveyed messages to the effect that "blacks are evil" or "women are fit only to cook and bear children" - such blatant bigotry is abhorrent to me.

Likewise, the bigotry against males in the seating policy is abhorrent to me and I would not ever send my children by your airline.

Were I to approach a stranger in the street and call him a child molester, I would expect that he would be mortally offended and I would not be surprised if he pressed defamation charges against me.

Were I to approach a woman and inform her she could not be somewhere or do something because she was female I would expect both her anger and swift retribution under the Human Rights Act.

The seating policy is no significant way different from those scenarios.

Approaching a stranger on a plane, solely because he is male, and telling him he must vacate his seat lest he molest a child in a crowded airplane is discriminatory, defamatory and downright insulting.

If I were on a plane and asked to vacate my seat because an unaccompanied child was going to be sitting there I would be mortally offended at the insult to my integrity - even more so if some random woman were moved into my seat because the sexist policy of the airline deems her "safe" and me a "potential rapist".

The world has had enough bigotry and hate-mongering directed at visibly identifiable groups over the centuries without it being enshrined in corporate policy.

You may be assured that when I next have need to travel by plane I will not be using Air New Zealand or Qantas as I have a few "policies" of my own - including not supporting bigotry in any form.

I suggest that the airline needs to look at other ways of ensuring children are safe on flights - ways that do not involve making sexist decisions and conveying the message that one sex is better or worse than the other.

[ducatilover]

thats telling them...go hard dude:hitcher:

[Wolf]

email from Qantas:

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

Thank you for your feedback.

Your reference number is xxxxxx-xxxxxx.

A consultant will be in contact with you shortly. All feedback is recorded and used in our ongoing review of products and customer service.

A consultant will contact me? And what assistance will (s)he be able to offer?

[ducatilover]

what the f**k? consultant? all they do is go "mmhmm yes mmmm okay uh-huh right, mmm yes, judgeing from this we can ignore you?":bash:

[MikeL]

Child Safety - great, I'm all for that, but not at the cost of civil rights.

This is the nub of the problem. It's part of the eternal debate over where to draw the line. You can't talk of "civil rights" as if they were something absolute. I'm not convinced that the actions of airline staff in this instance, however insensitive or clumsy, could be construed as an infringement of any "right". If considerations of "political correctness" and personal grievance were removed from the equation, wouldn't the airlines' policy be seen as a sensible compromise? How many men I wonder, suffered the same treatment and simply shrugged their shoulders and got on with their flight, and their lives?

[Wolf]

And now I have received an email from a woman at Qantas informing me that my email has been passed onto Customer Care for their review - this tells me that so far Qantas have not only sent an automated reply (above) but someone has actually read it and decided which division it needs to be sent to.

Air New Zealand, OTOH, has not even got an automated response system set up to answer "customer enquiries" and no one has yet responded to me to acknowledge they have even looked at my email - and I sent the email to Air NZ some five minutes earlier than the copy I sent to Qantas.
The slack response to customer enquiries at Air NZ (not even an automated "Dear your email has arrived, please wait, you are valued, blah blah") is another reason not to use their services.

Mind you, they may yet respond faster than the office of the Commissioner for Children - I still haven't received acknowledgement of receipt of the email I sent to Cindy Kiro [I]yesterday.

It will be interesting to see what Qantas says to justify their bigotry.

[James Deuce]

No reply from the office of the Commissioner for Children here either.

[Hitcher]

It is events like this that make me nervous to admit to being a man. But hey, I know I'm a man and I'm glad that I am (and so's Lola)...

This whole matter is so stupid on so many levels that it beggars belief.

If one was to compile a "Top 10 risks for children travelling" it is debatable as to whether "being fiddled with in transit" would rate a mention or indeed even rate on a Top 20 list of clear and present dangers.

Airlines who impose such policies are clearly more interested in protecting themselves than children in their care. Their responses in relation to this matter reinforce this view.

[Wolf]

This is the nub of the problem. It's part of the eternal debate over where to draw the line. You can't talk of "civil rights" as if they were something absolute. I'm not convinced that the actions of airline staff in this instance, however insensitive or clumsy, could be construed as an infringement of any "right".
In the past, when people have made prejudicial and arbitrary decisions about coloured people, women and other readily identifiable sectors of our community, the furore has been strong and all sorts of wrath has descended upon the perpetrators.

It is my right, and everyone else's, not to be treated as if we were criminals or treated differently to other people on the basis of some label.

The man had the right to the seat he was in - he had paid for his ticket, been allocated a seat number. Then he was told to move because an unaccompanied child had been allocated an adjoining seat and he, as a male was considered "too risky", then (because there were no available empty seats to move the man to) they split up a couple travelling together as they deemed that the woman was a "safe" travelling companion for the child (for all they know she could have had a history of abuse - they had no means to check any more than they had means to check whether or not the bloke was a safe travelling companion.)

They based this game of musical chairs on the premise that women are safe around children, men are not. They moved him from the seat he was originally allocated because he was a male - not because he in any way behaved in a threatening or dangerous fashion. If they had inadvertently allocated the seat to a woman who, unbeknownst to them, had 15 priors for child abuse, they would have left her where she was.

Fair enough moving someone whose behaviour is unacceptable - anyone, male or female - but to look at an external appearance (yep, he's a he) and base your actions on that is discrimination - no matter what the "reason" or the policy. There is no difference between that and hastily removing your kids from an area because there's some negro sitting on a nearby bench reading a newspaper - both actions are based on an erroneous preconceived notion.

To write a policy that states that one sex is safe and another not is no different than the drafted laws of Apartheid that decreed that non-whites and blacks were not allowed in certain areas - and they got rid of Apartheid.


If considerations of "political correctness" and personal grievance were removed from the equation, wouldn't the airlines' policy be seen as a sensible compromise?
The airline's policy is that women are safe travelling companions for children, men are not. That can never be a "sensible" compromise.

Fair enough their policy on keeping unaccompanied children away from adults where possible (Beemer and her hubby would certainly not complain) but to say that if that's not possible then make a judgement based solely on the sex of the person is crossing the line into discrimination.

The companies concerned no doubt have specific policies written to ensure everything they do does not discriminate against women and "other races" and physically/mentally handicapped people etc and they would never think of drafting a policy to move a person to another seat because of their skin colour. They should not be allowed to write policies that specifically say to move a person based on their sex (not that they would write such a policy against women because that would directly conflict with their no-discrimination-against-women policies.)

If the policy said don't put kids near adults where possible but if it can't be avoided then "Oh, well, tough shit" I would deem it a sensible compromise. The minute they started targeting one group over another, they crossed the line.

You could still point to the violent minority of every race on this planet and "justify" a policy that disadvantages them all in order to protect yourself or others from that minority; you could point to the (minority) of women who abuse children and deem all women to be unsafe travelling companions - these actions would also be inappropriate.

What the airlines did was to latch on to the risk from the minority of men and deemed all men a risk then ignored the risk from the minority of women and deemed all women safe.

[Marmoot]

I missed yesterday's herald but I wrote to the editor about suggesting women and children to wear veil like they do in middle east. Anyone saw this in the Letters To Editor?

I want to know if my letter went on air :)

[SpankMe]

Has there actually ever been any incidents of guys messing with kids sitting next to them in a crowed plane for these guys to base their policy on?

[ducatilover]

Has there actually ever been any incidents of guys messing with kids sitting next to them in a crowed plane for these guys to base their policy on?
doubt it, maybe some man looked at a little girl who farted?:mad:

[ManDownUnder]

Has there actually ever been any incidents of guys messing with kids sitting next to them in a crowed plane for these guys to base their policy on?

If not - I'd guess they could say the policy works...?!?

Yeah - I do PR (of sorts) for a living - does it show?

[Karma]

Has there actually ever been any incidents of guys messing with kids sitting next to them in a crowed plane for these guys to base their policy on?


It's gotta be terrorism... the guys that flew the planes on 9/11 were all men, and therefore we're all evil by assosiation. (sp)

[idb]

It's gotta be terrorism... the guys that flew the planes on 9/11 were all men, and therefore we're all evil by assosiation. (sp)
In that case we should be prevented from sitting next to the pilots - not children...............

[Karma]

I like children. Properly cooked

[Brett]

I must say that i see your point of view kellyg, but my opinion lies very much in line with Wolf. It is the thin edge of the wedge isnt it. How long until these pricks take the next step and the next while we sit back and say that it is for the greater good. I am sorry to those liberal shits, but i have too much to one day teach my kids and family, and kids around me in general to let some office dicks tell me how to act and behave.
Hell, at this rate, in 10 years time you will need someones permission just to tuck your kids in bed at night cause you might be a fiddling daddy.
I wish it weren't like this, and the good of the kids came first, but it doesnt, because the long term effect on the children would still be bad.
If the child had a solid and trusting relationship with an adult, sometimes a male is best, then chances are that as soon as untoward behavious starts from anybody, that child would feel more comfortable telling someone.
This will also help these sort of people know that they WILL get caught out.
Idealogical?? Probably. The minimum i ask is that i get the chance to interact with kids the normal way, not some fucked up PC way.

[Jantar]

Which comment? I don't quite understand how you inferred from anything I wrote that I am suggesting that molesters should not be stopped. My point was that there is a type of double standard here. The same middle-aged white male who today is insulted by being asked to move may tomorrow be a concerned father sending his child off unaccompanied. If the airline staff were to ask him whether he is happy for his child to sit next to a strange man, or whether he would prefer them to make "more appropriate" seating arrangements, what do you think his answer would be?

When my children were younger, I often sent them unaccompanied on flights, and have never had any reason to question who they may be sitting next to. My daughter flew so often she was beginning to know the air hostesses by name.

When a child is on a flight that is so full that he/she can't have an empty seat beside them, then there are obviously so many people around that nothing could possibly happen anyway.

[Wolf]

Hell, at this rate, in 10 years time you will need someones permission just to tuck your kids in bed at night cause you might be a fiddling daddy.
I know some blokes who won't change their daughters' nappies lest some bugger think they're molesting them..

For FUCK'S Sake!

When you get fathers terrified to look after their kids' sanitary requirements, something is wrong with the messages that are being put out.

Pretty soon we'll have an 0800 line so that nosey neighbours can peer in through your window and dob you in because your son or daughter has woken up in the middle of the night and climbed into bed with you or and people could dob in their neighbours for "sexually molesting" their children by wiping the shit and urine off their privates several times a day.

Meanwhile, the prisons keep releasing child molesters that were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

When the innocent fear false accusation and the convicted walk free after serving only a fraction of the ridiculously short sentences they receive (in a special segregated wing of the prison so the other crims can't dispense "Natural Justice" and where they can swap notes on the kids they've molested) the "justice" system has failed us.

[ManDownUnder]

Thinking about this whole thing, the solution seems (to me) to be relatively straight forward...

Simply do what's right. Look after the kids, give them a hug, tuck them in, change a nappy... whatever you should do. We (guys) need to stop tiptoing around in fear of the consequences, and do it anyway. In doing that it resumes being/becomes "normal" and things will be as they should be.

[idb]

Thinking about this whole thing, the solution seems (to me) to be relatively straight forward...

Simply do what's right. Look after the kids, give them a hug, tuck them in, change a nappy... whatever you should do. We (guys) need to stop tiptoing around in fear of the consequences, and do it anyway. In doing that it resumes being/becomes "normal" and things will be as they should be.
Until the revival of Repressed Memory Syndrome or whatever witchcraft replaces it.

[Pixie]

See here

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3495794a11,00.html

Who would want to sit next to a whinging, snotty nosed kid for 15 hours? This policy works in the mans favour as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be extended to bus and train services too, including commuter services. I think it's a great policy!


:yes:
Apply it to life in general.
I liked it in the old days ,when children were beaten and not heard.

[tracyprier]

Thinking about this whole thing, the solution seems (to me) to be relatively straight forward...

Simply do what's right. Look after the kids, give them a hug, tuck them in, change a nappy... whatever you should do. We (guys) need to stop tiptoing around in fear of the consequences, and do it anyway. In doing that it resumes being/becomes "normal" and things will be as they should be.

I like the cut of your jib MDU :)

Absolutely, just ignore all of this shit, hell I've been doing it for years. Don't let a bunch of damp-eyed nancy-boys and men-hating, hairy-legged dykes in any way affect the way we do things. That way they have no power.

It's by taking notice of all this PC nonsense that we give it legitimacy.

[Bartman10]

Here's some more from the PC brigade!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3505358a11,00.html

[Lou Girardin]

Who's making these "rules" and who the hell says you have to obey them.
What happened to the good old "if you don't like how I do it, you can fuck off"?

[Hitcher]

What happened to the good old "if you don't like how I do it, you can fuck off"?
They're called Sky Marshalls. And they're armed.

[Wolf]

Here's some more from the PC brigade!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3505358a11,00.html
So Santa's not allowed to do anything that might offend some kid's (or, more accurately, parent's) religious beliefs yet the Baptist Church can put up a sign at Christmas time proclaiming "Santa didn't die for your sins" and members of the religious lunatic fringe can walk up to you on the street and attempt to physically shove a religious pamphlet into your hand or attempt to poke your fucking eye out with it...

And watch out lest the loud sound of booming laughter terrorise the children.

Fuck! My kids wouldn't bat an eyelid if Santa lept out at them and roared like a T-Rex. They'd look him in the eyes and say "Dinosaur" then turn to me and say "Daddy, dinosaur comin'."

Fair enough having police checks, but the rest of the rules are bloody nonsense. If parents don't want their kids' (or their own) religious sensitivities dented, or the kids scared shitless: don't take the little tykes to Santa's Grotto, FFS!

It's a proud tradition to take kids to be terrified by a large red-clad man who towers over them and asks Have you been good?

Those who can't cope with that should fuck off. No one put a gun to their heads and forced them to go down to the Santa display.

[ManDownUnder]

Here's some more from the PC brigade!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3505358a11,00.html

And the politically correct response would be...

"FOR FUCK'S SAKE"

Na - that's not good.

[Swoop]

If approached by flight attendant to be moved simply because you are sitting next to an unaccompanied child... "certainly, if that is your airlines policy - you may move me to 1st class - that is my only option". Stuff them.

[ManDownUnder]

If approached by flight attendant to be moved simply because you are sitting next to an unaccompanied child... "certainly, if that is your airlines policy - you may move me to 1st class - that is my only option". Stuff them.

LIKE IT! :niceone:

[Lou Girardin]

They're called Sky Marshalls. And they're armed.

AirNZ doesn't have them.

[idb]

So Santa's not allowed to do anything that might offend some kid's (or, more accurately, parent's) religious beliefs yet the Baptist Church can put up a sign at Christmas time proclaiming "Santa didn't die for your sins" and members of the religious lunatic fringe can walk up to you on the street and attempt to physically shove a religious pamphlet into your hand or attempt to poke your fucking eye out with it....
Absolutely right.
When I was a kid religion had nothing to do with Christmas but now there's religious nutters all over the place trying to take it over.
Go out and get yer own f*ckin festival!!!

"Santa is the reason for the season"

[ManDownUnder]

AirNZ doesn't have them.

Really they don't...

Especially on the planes to and from LAX and San Fran they don't...

Oh and on the Sydney LAX flights either - don't you worry..

... then there's the Heathrow to LAX flight, they're not on there either...

[Wolf]

Absolutely right.
When I was a kid religion had nothing to do with Christmas but now there's religious nutters all over the place trying to take it over.
Go out and get yer own f*ckin festival!!!

"Santa is the reason for the season"
Actually, I was referring to all the year around. There are days when it's not safe to walk in Hamihole owing to the pamphlet pushers and the street corner ranters.

[Karma]

I usually just walk straight through them... and I mean that literally..

There was one dude once who tried to stop me to talk about some kinda crap, and wouldn't get outta the way... I just carried on walking into him until he got the point ;)

[Beemer]

There was a great letter in the Dom Post last weekend from a woman after my own heart!

"What about the women flyers? As a young woman without children who enjoys her yearly holiday to Europe, which includes at least eight flights, I am deeply concerned about the airline policy of not seating unaccompanied children next to men.
Where are they going to sit? Next to me?
I feel discriminated agains for being seen as a safe companion. This will massively increase the chance of my having to sit next to a child, in circumstances where I would prefer not to do so. Therefore, any early morning flights that I take (that are mostly full of suited men) will become a potential nightmare.
If I wanted to sit next to children, I would have my own.
As a full-fare paying passenger, my first preference would be to not sit next to children; my second preference would be for such seating to be on a random allocation basis.
What about customer preference?
Casimira Kerr, Wadestown"

I hear you loud and clear and second that motion! Right underneath it was a letter from an Air NZ employee saying he can't believe why people are complaining. It got me thinking - what about male stewards on flights? If the airline's employees are there to protect the children, what if some of them happen to be men? Would the airline consider it unsafe to seat an unaccompanied child next to an airline employee? It would be interesting to hear what their answer to that would be!

[kro]

This may be over simplified, but the way I see it is...

Years ago one bored employee thinks it would be fun to go for a hoon thru the warehouse on a forkhoist, and bowls and injures a workmate. He knew it was a bad idea, but chose to anyway. OSH legislates, and say forhoist licenses for all.

One youngish motorcyclist takes a spill on a 750 bike years ago, but spills due to unaviodable circumstances, not due to lack of rider prowess, Government legislates, and says "graduated licenses for bikers", even though a recently licensed cage driver can drive a 500hp Skyline the day he obtains a license.

One scum bag child molester fiddles with a child, and suddenly all the good guys are suddenly kiddy porn distributing, child molesters. Airline legislates seating to avoid unaccompanied children sitting next to men.

For as long as they legislate to minorities, the bad or stupid people win, because they are the ones given the spotlight, not the sensible decent people.

The world loves spotlighting these people, and the slow creeping blanket of paranoia, and distrust that it sows, slowly undermines the bonds between us, and evetually gets in as deep as our families, and when that happens, its over, the shitheads win.

[/ramble]

[ManDownUnder]

I think I'm in (...or am in a sterling position to cause...) trouble - I have to fly to Queenstown with my son April of next year.

Who do I contact at the airline to get permission to sit next to him?

[Swoop]

Wolf, your email letters are superb and should be sent to all the main and also local newspapers! Well worded and to the point.

Any comments from the airlines regarding anyones "complaints" should be re-directed to the CEOs of the airlines concerned, as this not a complaint but a policy making submission. The complaints department cannot do anything apart from write more reports etc, etc.


A different poster commented on the seating of the unaccompanied kids with the flight attendants... are any of those male???

Or perhaps there will be an Air Noisyland "Creche Class" seating section?

[KATWYN]

This really makes my blood boil! What proportion of men are paedophiles? 1 in a thousand?

Wow.... That many!:blah:

Why doesnt the airline ban ANYONE from sitting with the children if they are going to discriminate all men- including not allowing the childrens mother,father,uncle,aunty,older siblings,older cousins & family freinds
to sit near them, because isn't that really where the hidden dangers lie?? - Not some stranger who
most likely doesnt actually give a s*** let alone notice the little person sitting next to them.

[Marmoot]

It's a proud tradition to take kids to be terrified by a large red-clad man who towers over them and asks Have you been good?


it's a hell lot better than if he towers over them and says Let's get physical!

I'd go like -> :shit:

[Macktheknife]

grrrr :angry: hmmmpf :mad: arrghhh :angry2:

I'm so fucken pissed off at this ignorant PC bullshit that words fail me. :shutup:
Obviously you just need a little time out, perhaps we should move you to another seat by yourself while you work out your anger issues in a mutually safe environment? lol :spudflip: :spudflip:

[Macktheknife]

You're at a playground and a little girl comes to you scared - she needs to pee and she's about to wet her pants. The toilets are right there and all you have to do is walk her over and stand by the door.

Do you?
Do you feel the eyes of the world watching you as you you do it?
Why?

What if it was a little boy?
Would you go into the toilet and help him if needed?


FARK NO!!!!!!!!!!!
NEVER in a million years, would I do that, I would call out loudly to anyone in the vicinity that this child needs a womans attention please. Completely ignoring the fact that its womens' work anyway.... I would never want to be accused of that kind of behaviour, notice I say accused, because thats all it takes today boys and girls. (bad choice of words, sorry)
Seriously though, would you like to be identified as 'Police are looking to interview a man who was seen escorting a child into the toilet crying?' NO THANKS!

[Marmoot]

FARK NO!!!!!!!!!!!
NEVER in a million years, would I do that, I would call out loudly to anyone in the vicinity that this child needs a womans attention please. Completely ignoring the fact that its womens' work anyway.... I would never want to be accused of that kind of behaviour, notice I say accused, because thats all it takes today boys and girls. (bad choice of words, sorry)
Seriously though, would you like to be identified as 'Police are looking to interview a man who was seen escorting a child into the toilet crying?' NO THANKS!

It's true. It is SICK and SAD, but it is true.

When I go out to public place and where there happen to be a very cute 5 year olds, I sometimes say to my missus "how lovely, I hope ours will be like that"
But I unconciously always try not to stare/look at that little thing too much for fear the parrents will cry wolf.

This is what our society has implanted in our minds. Sad but True.

[KATWYN]

When I go out to public place and where there happen to be a very cute 5 year olds, I sometimes say to my missus "how lovely, I hope ours will be like that"
But I unconciously always try not to stare/look at that little thing too much for fear the parrents will cry wolf.

.


My goodness. Is this really how our societies men are feeling? That being so, there is no hope for humanity. It has been ruined to the point of no return.

[ManDownUnder]

My goodness. Is this really how our societies men are feeling? That being so, there is no hope for humanity. It has been ruined to the point of no return.

Actually yes it IS how a lot of men are feeling.

And it's EXACTLY why I played tag with the kids at the school last week. I was the only grown up in the game (plenty of others around) and the kids mobbed me.

I tickled them and picked them up and generally "rough housed" them (they were a really fun mob of about 25 5 and 6 year olds). Bugger the establishment.

Sure - get the kiddie fiddlers and chop their balls off - I have no qualms with that. But hell - don't starve the kids, or the men, of the pleasure of good fun games. I loved it - they did too and it was a damned sight healthier than sitting in front of a bloody X-Box...

I'll do it again next year too... I promise you that!

[Marmoot]

I tickled them and picked them up and generally "rough housed" them

You touched them?!?!?! YOU TOUCHED THEM!!!!!
HANG HIM DRY!

That's the voices keep ringing in my head. Call me paranoid, but I also have insurance on my bike though I don't intend to crash.

[Lou Girardin]

My goodness. Is this really how our societies men are feeling? That being so, there is no hope for humanity. It has been ruined to the point of no return.

And then, just to rub salt in the wound, the same people bleat about the "lack of male role models".

[Swoop]

And then, just to rub salt in the wound, the same people bleat about the "lack of male role models".

Simply look at the ratio of male/female primary school teachers!!!!
There is stuff all of them out there, and the kids notice this as well.

[Wolf]

I know a guy, separated, shared access to his daughter, got really worried because somone saw that his daughter was in his bed - she had got up in the middle of the night and climbed into bed with him (which is what all kids do, even more so kids that are feeling insecure because mummy and daddy have split up and have even more reason to feel the need to feel the reassuring presence of a parent).

He was terrified that his wife would hear of it and be able to use it as "evidence" that he was molesting his daughter to get his access cut.

Suspicion and accusation are "proof" and you are guilty until proven innocent - it used to be like that in other times too, when people were found "guilty" of "heresy" and "witchcraft" and burned to death, hanged or tortured or killed to prove their innocence - all on the say-so of a spiteful person. And then there was the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and Senator McCarthy's reign of terror when to be accused of "communism" saw you arrested, imprisoned and interrogated and if they could find one "dodgy" thing about you (e.g. homosexuality) then that was all it took to ruin your life (if being arrested and interrogated and deemed suspicious hadn't ruined it already.)

Humankind has been "damned" for a long time, KATWYN, but somehow we survive, most of the witchburners have gone (there are still a few but they no longer hold political sway and no longer can legally torture and burn people), McCarthy is gone and with him most of the paranoid "Kill a Commy for Mommy" loonies. Eventually, the PC stupidity will mostly die out as saner heads prevail and people won't have reason to fear. The PC mob with dwindle to a couple of frothing lunatics ranting to themselves and will lose the support of the law that they currently enjoy.

Then they'll be replaced by some other bunch of crackpots arresting people for painting their houses blue or something equally ludicrous.

[Lou Girardin]

This is part of the fall-out from the "kids never lie about molestation" school of thought that helped nail Peter Ellis.

[Hitcher]

This is part of the fall-out from the "kids never lie about molestation" school of thought that helped nail Peter Ellis.
...But no other Christchurch creche worker. Why this guy hasn't received a pardon by now is beyond me.

[Lou Girardin]

...But no other Christchurch creche worker. Why this guy hasn't received a pardon by now is beyond me.

Too much loss of face among the establishment.

[Swoop]

Then they'll be replaced by some other bunch of crackpots arresting people for painting their houses blue or something equally ludicrous.

Oh fuck.
Races off to the paint shop...

[Skyryder]

Too much loss of face among the establishment.

Not too mention all the dollars.

I know people who used Ellis as a baby sitter. One mother had a 'phobia' about fire that was caused when she was nearly burnt to death as a little girl. She was amazed one night when her little girl asked why 'Mummy' was afraid of fire. Were talking about a four year old (at the time) who had no idea of her mothers phobia. Seems Ellis said something about if she told about 'their secret' her mummy would burn. As a result Ellis never baby sat for this couple again. About six months after this the scandal erupted. Parent to this day have no idea what the secret was.

Ellis innocent? Perhaps, but this guy was playing mind games with kids for whatever reason.

Skyryder

[Brett]

Absolutely right.
When I was a kid religion had nothing to do with Christmas but now there's religious nutters all over the place trying to take it over.
Go out and get yer own f*ckin festival!!!

"Santa is the reason for the season"

Piss off:blah: Religion has been intertwighned in Christmas since the start. Just enjoy it as part of the season, cause it all makes up the tradition that we love...or hate during the christmas buying frenzy.
The same PC shits that complain if a guy looks at a child are the ones that jump up and down when someone has a religious belief. Live and let live...sheesh. I quiet like the history of Jesus, Joseph and Mary and the three wise men etc. Makes it all feel..more like a festival than a reason just to give prezzies.

[Wolf]

The same PC shits that complain if a guy looks at a child are the ones that jump up and down when someone has a religious belief. Live and let live...
I'm all for "live and let live" but it needs to be reciprocal. I don't lurk on street corners jamming pamphlets about paganism into people hands or bash on doors at ungodly hours of the morning trying to sell religious magazines and I don't appreciate it when others do it to me.

If people are running around passing laws to stop all these terrifying and religiously insensitive Santas from terrorising and offending the folks on the street at Christmas time and to stop Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Red Cross from "annoying" people, why are they not also passing laws forbidding the street-corner ranters and pamphlet pushers that infest most towns all year 'round? The Christians are the greater number but the Krishna Consciousness crowd also do this.

They are entitled to their beliefs, sure, but I'm sure the general public doesn't need to hear it - if they want to hear any god's message, I'm sure most people are quite capable of locating the relevant church, gathering place, synagogue, organisation or whatever and going there themselves - just as we are capable of locating whatever products we wish to buy and have no need of some slimebag sending SPAM emails.

The street corner ranters are nothing more than spammers - except I've never once seen a spam email that outright insults the recipient while I have seen street corner ranters point at passers-by and loudly call them harlots or whores because they were not dressed as modestly as the frothy-mouthed Puritan thought they should be.

[Wolf]

Ressurrecting the thread out of curiosity:

Has anyone had any response to emails/letters they've sent to Cindy Kiro, Qantas or Air New Zealand?

Aside from the one email (possibly automated) from Qantas promising to pass my email on and get an answer for me, I have not received one word from Cindy Kiro (or any of her flunkeys) Qantas (despite their promise) or Air NZ.

What a pack of slack bastards. Not so much as a "we have received your email, thank you for your concern but fuck off, we set our own policies." I'm presuming "Yeah, you're right, we're a pack of bigotted fucking retards" is too much to hope for.

I think I shall take it as proof that they have no justification for their actions, and they know it, so they're shutting up and hoping the shit-storm dies down.

Anyone had better luck than me getting a response out of them?

[James Deuce]

No. Ten Characters