Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone else think that the attention dedicated to discussing paedophiles is somewhat overblown at the moment? Personally i think we are reaching hysteria levels. Whilst i don't like paedophiles any more than the massachusetts colony liked witches, i think the risks are being deliberately overstated. Firstly the number of men (yes it is mainly men) with any attraction to children is about 0.5%. Now most of them wouldn't act on it anyway and if they did, the research shows it would probably be towards someone they knew. So is it really justified that: - airlines like Virgin won't allow adult males to sit next to unrelated children on a plane - Travelodge denied a room to a dad and his daughter - an Australian journalist did an experiment at a beach. A woman stood there taking pictures in the general direction of children. Nobody batted an eye lid. The male journalist did the same thing and three people confronted him and demanded to see his pictures. Hysteria? " Yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I predict this thread is going to be an absolute minefield. I'm inclined to agree, though. Nobody in their right mind thinks child abuse is OK. It's objectively a bad thing. However, I do feel very uncomfortable with the lurid way it's sensationalized by certain parts of the press in a transparent and crass effort to sell more newspapers." I agree and i just think the risk is massively distorted. In some years time i want to be able to film my children doing sports because rewatching their performance with them is a great coaching method. But people get all funny about that! I've never been a paedophile, but my working assumption would be that they like the kind of porn normal adults like, albeit with children. There's not really a big market in porn for fully clothed women running around playing football so i don't know why people would assume that a paedophiles would jack off to it anyway? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Organisations have a duty to safeguard" It's not the principle i object to but the execution. Most organisations have no incentives to do anything other take the most draconian, risk adverse policies because there's simply no benefit to proportional risk taking. Other than it stamps all the fun out of life and makes men want to run a mile from any children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP Where did you get your stat about the number of men attracted to children?" I did a prolonged google search and went through various people that had tried to estimate it. As ever, these things depend on what was asked and how it was asked. Paedophilia is also different to hebephillia. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. " I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. " So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. " I agree, it’s ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. " Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone else think that the attention dedicated to discussing paedophiles is somewhat overblown at the moment? Personally i think we are reaching hysteria levels. Whilst i don't like paedophiles any more than the massachusetts colony liked witches, i think the risks are being deliberately overstated. Firstly the number of men (yes it is mainly men) with any attraction to children is about 0.5%. Now most of them wouldn't act on it anyway and if they did, the research shows it would probably be towards someone they knew. So is it really justified that: - airlines like Virgin won't allow adult males to sit next to unrelated children on a plane - Travelodge denied a room to a dad and his daughter - an Australian journalist did an experiment at a beach. A woman stood there taking pictures in the general direction of children. Nobody batted an eye lid. The male journalist did the same thing and three people confronted him and demanded to see his pictures. Hysteria? " I don't have official figures but I believe child sexual abuse is no more prevalent now than 20-25 years ago (or even since time began). We do now however have social media which therefore makes the reporting of alleged incidents more accessible to everyone thereby making people think it's happening more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. " By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. " But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. " Er no that's not true. Virgin airlines asked Johnny McGirr to swap seats with a female passenger so he was not sat next to two, unrelated young boys. Please don't hide behind health and safety. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives." Like I said, I can't speak for other airlines, but in our case it doesn't factor in the seating planning for flights. If a person is going to abuse a child, they're highly unlikely to do it on a crowded plane where there's bound to be witnesses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone else think that the attention dedicated to discussing paedophiles is somewhat overblown at the moment? Personally i think we are reaching hysteria levels. Whilst i don't like paedophiles any more than the massachusetts colony liked witches, i think the risks are being deliberately overstated. Firstly the number of men (yes it is mainly men) with any attraction to children is about 0.5%. Now most of them wouldn't act on it anyway and if they did, the research shows it would probably be towards someone they knew. So is it really justified that: - airlines like Virgin won't allow adult males to sit next to unrelated children on a plane - Travelodge denied a room to a dad and his daughter - an Australian journalist did an experiment at a beach. A woman stood there taking pictures in the general direction of children. Nobody batted an eye lid. The male journalist did the same thing and three people confronted him and demanded to see his pictures. Hysteria? I don't have official figures but I believe child sexual abuse is no more prevalent now than 20-25 years ago (or even since time began). We do now however have social media which therefore makes the reporting of alleged incidents more accessible to everyone thereby making people think it's happening more. " I'd like to think there's less now. I think the proportion of men with an interest in doing it is the same (0.5%) but hopefully the better reporting and prosecution has lowered the proportion of the 0.5% who act on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. " Agree.  I just don't believe it's possible. 
Headlines and bullshit sells. The truth not so much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. Er no that's not true. Virgin airlines asked Johnny McGirr to swap seats with a female passenger so he was not sat next to two, unrelated young boys. Please don't hide behind health and safety." I don't work for Virgin so I can't speak for them, as I just said in the bit above. But the CAA regulation is 100% aimed at evacuation safety - what other cabin crew on other airlines choose to do is their business - but you're right in that their action is not to do with evacuation safety. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives. Like I said, I can't speak for other airlines, but in our case it doesn't factor in the seating planning for flights. If a person is going to abuse a child, they're highly unlikely to do it on a crowded plane where there's bound to be witnesses. " Not the question being asked. Does your airline actively re-seat a male from sitting next to a child who is unrelated to them? And if they have this rule, do you think it’s overkill. That’s the question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. Agree. I just don't believe it's possible.
Headlines and bullshit sells. The truth not so much. "Nods | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. Er no that's not true. Virgin airlines asked Johnny McGirr to swap seats with a female passenger so he was not sat next to two, unrelated young boys. Please don't hide behind health and safety. I don't work for Virgin so I can't speak for them, as I just said in the bit above. But the CAA regulation is 100% aimed at evacuation safety - what other cabin crew on other airlines choose to do is their business - but you're right in that their action is not to do with evacuation safety. " Yes because the CAA deal with safety. But airline policy is set to avoid the airline getting sued, hence some bright spark at head office has identified that nearly all paedophiles are men so this policy might save them a law suit. Virgin defended themselves by saying their policy was in line with the other major airlines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives. Like I said, I can't speak for other airlines, but in our case it doesn't factor in the seating planning for flights. If a person is going to abuse a child, they're highly unlikely to do it on a crowded plane where there's bound to be witnesses. Not the question being asked. Does your airline actively re-seat a male from sitting next to a child who is unrelated to them? And if they have this rule, do you think it’s overkill. That’s the question." The answer is that we follow seating guidelines set by the CAA. We don't generally carry unaccompanied minors, and other airlines are going this way too - BA ended their unaccompanied minor programme some time back. In general I do think it's overkill, because a paedophile isn't going to risk anything on a plane where there's lots of witnesses and their details are fully known to authorities through passport details. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have an U18 in our sports team, also his dad is in same team. Technically we aren't allowed to change in the same changing room or even get mobiles out. " Hmmm strange it's 18 not 16 and i would have thought the parent being present would be a sufficient safe guard. But there's me with my logic again... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have an U18 in our sports team, also his dad is in same team. Technically we aren't allowed to change in the same changing room or even get mobiles out. " That’s standard child protection policy, yes. I think I’m a changing room set-up that’s probably proportionate too whether his dad is there or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have an U18 in our sports team, also his dad is in same team. Technically we aren't allowed to change in the same changing room or even get mobiles out. That’s standard child protection policy, yes. I think I’m a changing room set-up that’s probably proportionate too whether his dad is there or not. " in* | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives. Like I said, I can't speak for other airlines, but in our case it doesn't factor in the seating planning for flights. If a person is going to abuse a child, they're highly unlikely to do it on a crowded plane where there's bound to be witnesses. Not the question being asked. Does your airline actively re-seat a male from sitting next to a child who is unrelated to them? And if they have this rule, do you think it’s overkill. That’s the question. The answer is that we follow seating guidelines set by the CAA. We don't generally carry unaccompanied minors, and other airlines are going this way too - BA ended their unaccompanied minor programme some time back. In general I do think it's overkill, because a paedophile isn't going to risk anything on a plane where there's lots of witnesses and their details are fully known to authorities through passport details. " Replacing a male with a female in no way changes the flight safety of the seating plan  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have an U18 in our sports team, also his dad is in same team. Technically we aren't allowed to change in the same changing room or even get mobiles out. Hmmm strange it's 18 not 16 and i would have thought the parent being present would be a sufficient safe guard. But there's me with my logic again... " Under 18, still statutory child. Parent could be the threat. I think due to it being a changing room, that’s appropriate — whether I think risk is high or low. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives. Like I said, I can't speak for other airlines, but in our case it doesn't factor in the seating planning for flights. If a person is going to abuse a child, they're highly unlikely to do it on a crowded plane where there's bound to be witnesses. Not the question being asked. Does your airline actively re-seat a male from sitting next to a child who is unrelated to them? And if they have this rule, do you think it’s overkill. That’s the question. The answer is that we follow seating guidelines set by the CAA. We don't generally carry unaccompanied minors, and other airlines are going this way too - BA ended their unaccompanied minor programme some time back. In general I do think it's overkill, because a paedophile isn't going to risk anything on a plane where there's lots of witnesses and their details are fully known to authorities through passport details. Replacing a male with a female in no way changes the flight safety of the seating plan "I never said that it does... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives. Like I said, I can't speak for other airlines, but in our case it doesn't factor in the seating planning for flights. If a person is going to abuse a child, they're highly unlikely to do it on a crowded plane where there's bound to be witnesses. Not the question being asked. Does your airline actively re-seat a male from sitting next to a child who is unrelated to them? And if they have this rule, do you think it’s overkill. That’s the question. The answer is that we follow seating guidelines set by the CAA. We don't generally carry unaccompanied minors, and other airlines are going this way too - BA ended their unaccompanied minor programme some time back. In general I do think it's overkill, because a paedophile isn't going to risk anything on a plane where there's lots of witnesses and their details are fully known to authorities through passport details. Replacing a male with a female in no way changes the flight safety of the seating plan
I never said that it does..."So what relevance does all this CAA talk have to do with the case I'm describing? I think airlines are trying to use health and safety as an excuse for prejudice policies that they think will save them legal fees. Just like a lot of local councils. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 19/11/17 11:56:04]" i would imagine that's because coaches, as with teachers, lecturers etc, the age is 18, not 16, that they can be charged with inappropriate behaviour because they are in a position of authority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Replacing a male with a female in no way changes the flight safety of the seating plan
I never said that it does...
So what relevance does all this CAA talk have to do with the case I'm describing? I think airlines are trying to use health and safety as an excuse for prejudice policies that they think will save them legal fees. Just like a lot of local councils. "I'm trying to give a perspective from my point of view given that, you know, I work for an airline. I'm not trying to defend Virgin's actions, although you seem to think I am, but trying to say that not all airlines operate the same way as Virgin. The CAA thing was to add context to how MY airline works to seat people onboard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? Airlines can implement these different rules but it's highly unlikely to prevent sexual abuse, I always understood it to be that most people are abused in their homes by people they know or are related to them. I can't help thinking that such rules are more to do with image and mitigation against legal action should an offence happen in their aircraft and less about safeguarding minors. Ginger" Different studies do different methods which generate different results. If you interview 1,000 guys in front of each other and ask "right who thinks 5 years look hot?" then your study will find 0% of men have the attraction. When i looked at it, the higher % estimates came from studies that, in my opinion, had major flaws in their samples. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? Airlines can implement these different rules but it's highly unlikely to prevent sexual abuse, I always understood it to be that most people are abused in their homes by people they know or are related to them. I can't help thinking that such rules are more to do with image and mitigation against legal action should an offence happen in their aircraft and less about safeguarding minors. Ginger Different studies do different methods which generate different results. If you interview 1,000 guys in front of each other and ask "right who thinks 5 years look hot?" then your study will find 0% of men have the attraction. When i looked at it, the higher % estimates came from studies that, in my opinion, had major flaws in their samples." Also the hebephilia / paedophilic point OP raised previously. Was the ad source collating the two? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Replacing a male with a female in no way changes the flight safety of the seating plan
I never said that it does...
So what relevance does all this CAA talk have to do with the case I'm describing? I think airlines are trying to use health and safety as an excuse for prejudice policies that they think will save them legal fees. Just like a lot of local councils.
I'm trying to give a perspective from my point of view given that, you know, I work for an airline.
I'm not trying to defend Virgin's actions, although you seem to think I am, but trying to say that not all airlines operate the same way as Virgin. The CAA thing was to add context to how MY airline works to seat people onboard."At the end of the day, if they are going to have their prejudice policies, could they do them discreetly. Personally i don't think many men want to sit next to children anyway, it's certainly not something I'd miss. Fuck I'd be happy for them to have a sperate, sound proof, part of the plane. But that poor bastard had to do a walk of shame down the plane past the "no smoke without fire" crowd who no doubt assumed he'd done something wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Replacing a male with a female in no way changes the flight safety of the seating plan
I never said that it does...
So what relevance does all this CAA talk have to do with the case I'm describing? I think airlines are trying to use health and safety as an excuse for prejudice policies that they think will save them legal fees. Just like a lot of local councils.
I'm trying to give a perspective from my point of view given that, you know, I work for an airline.
I'm not trying to defend Virgin's actions, although you seem to think I am, but trying to say that not all airlines operate the same way as Virgin. The CAA thing was to add context to how MY airline works to seat people onboard.
At the end of the day, if they are going to have their prejudice policies, could they do them discreetly. Personally i don't think many men want to sit next to children anyway, it's certainly not something I'd miss. Fuck I'd be happy for them to have a sperate, sound proof, part of the plane. But that poor bastard had to do a walk of shame down the plane past the "no smoke without fire" crowd who no doubt assumed he'd done something wrong. "Apology accepted  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? Airlines can implement these different rules but it's highly unlikely to prevent sexual abuse, I always understood it to be that most people are abused in their homes by people they know or are related to them. I can't help thinking that such rules are more to do with image and mitigation against legal action should an offence happen in their aircraft and less about safeguarding minors. Ginger Different studies do different methods which generate different results. If you interview 1,000 guys in front of each other and ask "right who thinks 5 years look hot?" then your study will find 0% of men have the attraction. When i looked at it, the higher % estimates came from studies that, in my opinion, had major flaws in their samples. Also the hebephilia / paedophilic point OP raised previously. Was the ad source collating the two?" Yes, that's 0.5% for both. So the % of actual paedophiles is much lower. Whilst im not endorsing it, you can see that for most of history that it wasnt illegal for men to 'marry' 13 & 14 year olds so you can understand why that preference would be more prevalent in the gene pool. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Replacing a male with a female in no way changes the flight safety of the seating plan
I never said that it does...
So what relevance does all this CAA talk have to do with the case I'm describing? I think airlines are trying to use health and safety as an excuse for prejudice policies that they think will save them legal fees. Just like a lot of local councils.
I'm trying to give a perspective from my point of view given that, you know, I work for an airline.
I'm not trying to defend Virgin's actions, although you seem to think I am, but trying to say that not all airlines operate the same way as Virgin. The CAA thing was to add context to how MY airline works to seat people onboard.
At the end of the day, if they are going to have their prejudice policies, could they do them discreetly. Personally i don't think many men want to sit next to children anyway, it's certainly not something I'd miss. Fuck I'd be happy for them to have a sperate, sound proof, part of the plane. But that poor bastard had to do a walk of shame down the plane past the "no smoke without fire" crowd who no doubt assumed he'd done something wrong.
Apology accepted "To be fair you confused in your first posts by your point being unrelated to the point. I’ll accept your apology for that, if we are being patronising. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? Airlines can implement these different rules but it's highly unlikely to prevent sexual abuse, I always understood it to be that most people are abused in their homes by people they know or are related to them. I can't help thinking that such rules are more to do with image and mitigation against legal action should an offence happen in their aircraft and less about safeguarding minors. Ginger Different studies do different methods which generate different results. If you interview 1,000 guys in front of each other and ask "right who thinks 5 years look hot?" then your study will find 0% of men have the attraction. When i looked at it, the higher % estimates came from studies that, in my opinion, had major flaws in their samples. Also the hebephilia / paedophilic point OP raised previously. Was the ad source collating the two? Yes, that's 0.5% for both. So the % of actual paedophiles is much lower. Whilst im not endorsing it, you can see that for most of history that it wasnt illegal for men to 'marry' 13 & 14 year olds so you can understand why that preference would be more prevalent in the gene pool. " Ahh I thought your 0.5 was only paed, fair enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have an U18 in our sports team, also his dad is in same team. Technically we aren't allowed to change in the same changing room or even get mobiles out. Hmmm strange it's 18 not 16 and i would have thought the parent being present would be a sufficient safe guard. But there's me with my logic again... " There are a few idiosyncrasies with the 16-18 age group. The most obvious one is that while 16 is the age of consent, 2 people who can legally have sex can be arrested (and there have been cases of this) for sending naked pictures to each other | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have an U18 in our sports team, also his dad is in same team. Technically we aren't allowed to change in the same changing room or even get mobiles out. Hmmm strange it's 18 not 16 and i would have thought the parent being present would be a sufficient safe guard. But there's me with my logic again... There are a few idiosyncrasies with the 16-18 age group. The most obvious one is that while 16 is the age of consent, 2 people who can legally have sex can be arrested (and there have been cases of this) for sending naked pictures to each other " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? Airlines can implement these different rules but it's highly unlikely to prevent sexual abuse, I always understood it to be that most people are abused in their homes by people they know or are related to them. I can't help thinking that such rules are more to do with image and mitigation against legal action should an offence happen in their aircraft and less about safeguarding minors. Ginger Different studies do different methods which generate different results. If you interview 1,000 guys in front of each other and ask "right who thinks 5 years look hot?" then your study will find 0% of men have the attraction. When i looked at it, the higher % estimates came from studies that, in my opinion, had major flaws in their samples. Also the hebephilia / paedophilic point OP raised previously. Was the ad source collating the two? Yes, that's 0.5% for both. So the % of actual paedophiles is much lower. Whilst im not endorsing it, you can see that for most of history that it wasnt illegal for men to 'marry' 13 & 14 year olds so you can understand why that preference would be more prevalent in the gene pool. Ahh I thought your 0.5 was only paed, fair enough. "No, putting aside the moral aspect, paedophillia serves no purpose (that i can see) in evolution so i think the rate of it naturally occuring should be extremely rare. The overwhelmingly majority of paedophiles on the telly are conventionally unattractive and socially awkward which leads me to speculate it's a learned behaviour more than a natural one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? Airlines can implement these different rules but it's highly unlikely to prevent sexual abuse, I always understood it to be that most people are abused in their homes by people they know or are related to them. I can't help thinking that such rules are more to do with image and mitigation against legal action should an offence happen in their aircraft and less about safeguarding minors. Ginger Different studies do different methods which generate different results. If you interview 1,000 guys in front of each other and ask "right who thinks 5 years look hot?" then your study will find 0% of men have the attraction. When i looked at it, the higher % estimates came from studies that, in my opinion, had major flaws in their samples. Also the hebephilia / paedophilic point OP raised previously. Was the ad source collating the two? Yes, that's 0.5% for both. So the % of actual paedophiles is much lower. Whilst im not endorsing it, you can see that for most of history that it wasnt illegal for men to 'marry' 13 & 14 year olds so you can understand why that preference would be more prevalent in the gene pool. Ahh I thought your 0.5 was only paed, fair enough.
No, putting aside the moral aspect, paedophillia serves no purpose (that i can see) in evolution so i think the rate of it naturally occuring should be extremely rare. The overwhelmingly majority of paedophiles on the telly are conventionally unattractive and socially awkward which leads me to speculate it's a learned behaviour more than a natural one. "I’ve not met one yet who wasn’t abused themselves as a child. (And I mean met, me personally, I’m not globalising that all have) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? Airlines can implement these different rules but it's highly unlikely to prevent sexual abuse, I always understood it to be that most people are abused in their homes by people they know or are related to them. I can't help thinking that such rules are more to do with image and mitigation against legal action should an offence happen in their aircraft and less about safeguarding minors. Ginger Different studies do different methods which generate different results. If you interview 1,000 guys in front of each other and ask "right who thinks 5 years look hot?" then your study will find 0% of men have the attraction. When i looked at it, the higher % estimates came from studies that, in my opinion, had major flaws in their samples. Also the hebephilia / paedophilic point OP raised previously. Was the ad source collating the two? Yes, that's 0.5% for both. So the % of actual paedophiles is much lower. Whilst im not endorsing it, you can see that for most of history that it wasnt illegal for men to 'marry' 13 & 14 year olds so you can understand why that preference would be more prevalent in the gene pool. Ahh I thought your 0.5 was only paed, fair enough.
No, putting aside the moral aspect, paedophillia serves no purpose (that i can see) in evolution so i think the rate of it naturally occuring should be extremely rare. The overwhelmingly majority of paedophiles on the telly are conventionally unattractive and socially awkward which leads me to speculate it's a learned behaviour more than a natural one.
I’ve not met one yet who wasn’t abused themselves as a child. (And I mean met, me personally, I’m not globalising that all have)"Ah yes I'd forgotten that aspect. I've never met one, nor have i really studied it beyond looking for that stat on the prevalence. I've seen a lot of those shows where they bust paedophiles who have been talking to 'children' online and couldn't help notice that 95%+ of them shared some similar characteristics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. " Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. " Don't you just love people who say something is idiotic because it doesn't match there own opinion(quite sad really) Who said anything about it being risk free society, virgin are doing it to prevent people suing them if an incident did happen. You keep trying to force your opinions on people, hope it feels great being right(in your mind) all the time. Maybe the travelodge manager saw something that raised his suspicions but no you obviously know the full story | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. " So, in a devils advocate role, you are happy for some to get abused providing you can sit next to whomever you chose to on an airplane? Blanket policies are lazy I agree but are you really disregarding the sentiment that no child sexual assault is OK? The issue is every time something slips through the net and someone is caught, implicating businesses who did not actively safeguard the children they take a massive hit commercially. Policing and social services are not adequate enough to catch everyone and so it falls upon businesses to think of ways they can try to protect children. Yes I agree that the prejudice on men is very wrong. Going back to another thread, Ian Watkins' crimes were facilitated by women so if they are going to write blanket policies they should make them for all genders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet there was an advert on television yesterday (NNSPC possibly?) That claimed 1 in 20 children suffer sexual abuse, maths isn't a strong point of mine but surely this would equate to the percentage of predators being higher than less than 0.5%? " It is possible that the 1 in 20 figure is correct on paper... how many of those statistics are teens out drinking, trying to pass off as 18 and trying to cop off with someone over 18 though? I bet those instances bump the stats up quite significantly as it is classed as sexual abuse even though you wouldn't necessarily class the adult as a predator just an unfortunate who forgot to demand ID before getting touchy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point about the Travelodge story from someone in the know... staff do extensive training on signs of sexual exploitation of any age range, especially children, and it's better to be safe than sorry. Also, having googled it myself to get the full story, it talks about the fact that the father booked a double bedroom in advance as that was all the hotel had - they could've booked a hotel with more suitable sleeping arrangements, but hey ho - and there wasn't any formal proof that they were related. The company acknowledged that calling the police was a slight over reaction, but they would've had to cover their own arses. " You can't be coming on here having researched the background facts about the travelodge story as it ruins the op"s post and you're not allowed your opinion as only theres count 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is possible that the 1 in 20 figure is correct on paper... how many of those statistics are teens out drinking, trying to pass off as 18 and trying to cop off with someone over 18 though? I bet those instances bump the stats up quite significantly as it is classed as sexual abuse even though you wouldn't necessarily class the adult as a predator just an unfortunate who forgot to demand ID before getting touchy." That's reported stats. Only 30 - 40% of people will ever report it. If someone will molest someone they know, they will given the opportunity and ability to get away with it, molest a stranger child. They have a greater chance of the opportunity occurring with children they know. -- The people on here that say it mainly happens to people they know. You would all be happy to put your child on a plane next to a man who molested his nephews? You would be 100% cool with that, cause i mean hes not gonna do it to your kids? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is possible that the 1 in 20 figure is correct on paper... how many of those statistics are teens out drinking, trying to pass off as 18 and trying to cop off with someone over 18 though? I bet those instances bump the stats up quite significantly as it is classed as sexual abuse even though you wouldn't necessarily class the adult as a predator just an unfortunate who forgot to demand ID before getting touchy. That's reported stats. Only 30 - 40% of people will ever report it. If someone will molest someone they know, they will given the opportunity and ability to get away with it, molest a stranger child. They have a greater chance of the opportunity occurring with children they know. -- The people on here that say it mainly happens to people they know. You would all be happy to put your child on a plane next to a man who molested his nephews? You would be 100% cool with that, cause i mean hes not gonna do it to your kids?" Yes, that’s exactly the point they were making.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point about the Travelodge story from someone in the know... staff do extensive training on signs of sexual exploitation of any age range, especially children, and it's better to be safe than sorry. Also, having googled it myself to get the full story, it talks about the fact that the father booked a double bedroom in advance as that was all the hotel had - they could've booked a hotel with more suitable sleeping arrangements, but hey ho - and there wasn't any formal proof that they were related. The company acknowledged that calling the police was a slight over reaction, but they would've had to cover their own arses. " If they can't produce proof they're related I'd imagine along with the airlines there are also people trafficking issues to take into consideration to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point about the Travelodge story from someone in the know... staff do extensive training on signs of sexual exploitation of any age range, especially children, and it's better to be safe than sorry. Also, having googled it myself to get the full story, it talks about the fact that the father booked a double bedroom in advance as that was all the hotel had - they could've booked a hotel with more suitable sleeping arrangements, but hey ho - and there wasn't any formal proof that they were related. The company acknowledged that calling the police was a slight over reaction, but they would've had to cover their own arses. You can't be coming on here having researched the background facts about the travelodge story as it ruins the op"s post and you're not allowed your opinion as only theres count
"Oh, how clumsy of me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point about the Travelodge story from someone in the know... staff do extensive training on signs of sexual exploitation of any age range, especially children, and it's better to be safe than sorry. Also, having googled it myself to get the full story, it talks about the fact that the father booked a double bedroom in advance as that was all the hotel had - they could've booked a hotel with more suitable sleeping arrangements, but hey ho - and there wasn't any formal proof that they were related. The company acknowledged that calling the police was a slight over reaction, but they would've had to cover their own arses. If they can't produce proof they're related I'd imagine along with the airlines there are also people trafficking issues to take into consideration to. " I completely agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a point about the Travelodge story from someone in the know... staff do extensive training on signs of sexual exploitation of any age range, especially children, and it's better to be safe than sorry. Also, having googled it myself to get the full story, it talks about the fact that the father booked a double bedroom in advance as that was all the hotel had - they could've booked a hotel with more suitable sleeping arrangements, but hey ho - and there wasn't any formal proof that they were related. The company acknowledged that calling the police was a slight over reaction, but they would've had to cover their own arses. You can't be coming on here having researched the background facts about the travelodge story as it ruins the op"s post and you're not allowed your opinion as only theres count
Oh, how clumsy of me "Apology accepted
my view is idiotic apparently lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hysteria? I wouldn’t quite call it that. It does make a good news story so it is media driven. Organisations have a duty to safeguard, whether they get their policy on doing this too strict or too loose will always be debated. Personally I think the public discussion and measures about paedophilia and sexual harassment is long overdue, many people have been affected and silenced for many years. I think there needs to be a raising of the standards of reporting. The sensationalism reporting style is hysterical. And whilst I am pleased for there to be a spotlight shone on the topic, it’s important it’s done so in a useful way for positive change. So what do you think about airlines banning men sitting next to unaccompanied, unrelated children? If they want an evidence based policy then they should ban children sitting with their relatives. Can't speak for other airlines but the one I work for has a policy in line with the CAA for seating children on board - with a related adult on the same booking if possible, or no more than one row away from them if not. By the way, this rule is for safety reasons, not for fiddly reasons. In the event of an emergency, parents trying to find their children cause blockages and delays in evacuating an aircraft. But that’s not actually addressing the point the OP made...no one is talking about not seating with relatives. Like I said, I can't speak for other airlines, but in our case it doesn't factor in the seating planning for flights. If a person is going to abuse a child, they're highly unlikely to do it on a crowded plane where there's bound to be witnesses. " Jimmy Saville was now known to have sexually molested young kids while on camera and live TV. and often in front of other adults. In hospitals under jo noses of doctors and nurses walking by. Let alone the rest of that sordid story. Groping and hands up skirts while hands hidden. Didn't put him off and doesn't always put off others. Kids in care, kids around religious members of the community etc. There is evidence that it does indeed happen in plain sight. One of my best friends was groped by an older man when she was a very young teen on a long haul flight. Flying alone to meet her Dad. Slipped his hand under her jacket on her lap when he thought she was asleep. Traumatised her for years. Petrified at the time. Whether it's rare or common is not the issue. Most outrage at anything is just as proportional to how harmful (and disgusting) we think the occurrence is, not just how often it can happen. Any normal, right thinking person will of course assume that it never happens in plain sight. Because we couldn't possibly imagine doing it ourselves. And even if it was just very rare, does that mean it's ok to not put safeguards in place just because it's rare? A safeguard is a safeguard whether it's for 100 people or 1 million. Just because we can't imagine it happening, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen a lot more than you think it does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP Where did you get your stat about the number of men attracted to children? I did a prolonged google search and went through various people that had tried to estimate it. As ever, these things depend on what was asked and how it was asked. Paedophilia is also different to hebephillia." Thats why i dont read a lot of stories. They call adam johnson a peodo when in reality hes a hebo. Peodos like pre pubescents where as hebos like post pubescen/adolescent aged people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. Don't you just love people who say something is idiotic because it doesn't match there own opinion(quite sad really) Who said anything about it being risk free society, virgin are doing it to prevent people suing them if an incident did happen. You keep trying to force your opinions on people, hope it feels great being right(in your mind) all the time. Maybe the travelodge manager saw something that raised his suspicions but no you obviously know the full story " You just argued that precautions don't need to be proportional to the risk. So if i extend your logic, it's justified to ban all muslims from an airline because it could save one terrorist attack. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. Don't you just love people who say something is idiotic because it doesn't match there own opinion(quite sad really) Who said anything about it being risk free society, virgin are doing it to prevent people suing them if an incident did happen. You keep trying to force your opinions on people, hope it feels great being right(in your mind) all the time. Maybe the travelodge manager saw something that raised his suspicions but no you obviously know the full story You just argued that precautions don't need to be proportional to the risk. So if i extend your logic, it's justified to ban all muslims from an airline because it could save one terrorist attack. " but security protocols before getting on the plane can often prevent terrorists from getting on planes so they do in fact have policies that help prevent it....much like the policies they have to help prevent sexual assaults on minors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. So, in a devils advocate role, you are happy for some to get abused providing you can sit next to whomever you chose to on an airplane? Blanket policies are lazy I agree but are you really disregarding the sentiment that no child sexual assault is OK? The issue is every time something slips through the net and someone is caught, implicating businesses who did not actively safeguard the children they take a massive hit commercially. Policing and social services are not adequate enough to catch everyone and so it falls upon businesses to think of ways they can try to protect children. Yes I agree that the prejudice on men is very wrong. Going back to another thread, Ian Watkins' crimes were facilitated by women so if they are going to write blanket policies they should make them for all genders. " No, I'm saying the risk is not sufficiently increased to justify the precautions. Im not happy about any crime, i just prefer a society with liberty and crime, to a police state with zero crime. By the way, the two safest countries in the world are north korea and cuba. They have legit tiny proportions of crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. Don't you just love people who say something is idiotic because it doesn't match there own opinion(quite sad really) Who said anything about it being risk free society, virgin are doing it to prevent people suing them if an incident did happen. You keep trying to force your opinions on people, hope it feels great being right(in your mind) all the time. Maybe the travelodge manager saw something that raised his suspicions but no you obviously know the full story You just argued that precautions don't need to be proportional to the risk. So if i extend your logic, it's justified to ban all muslims from an airline because it could save one terrorist attack. but security protocols before getting on the plane can often prevent terrorists from getting on planes so they do in fact have policies that help prevent it....much like the policies they have to help prevent sexual assaults on minors." Not the point though, such a policy would have prevented 9/11 so it must be worth it because it would have saved one life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. So, in a devils advocate role, you are happy for some to get abused providing you can sit next to whomever you chose to on an airplane? Blanket policies are lazy I agree but are you really disregarding the sentiment that no child sexual assault is OK? The issue is every time something slips through the net and someone is caught, implicating businesses who did not actively safeguard the children they take a massive hit commercially. Policing and social services are not adequate enough to catch everyone and so it falls upon businesses to think of ways they can try to protect children. Yes I agree that the prejudice on men is very wrong. Going back to another thread, Ian Watkins' crimes were facilitated by women so if they are going to write blanket policies they should make them for all genders. No, I'm saying the risk is not sufficiently increased to justify the precautions. Im not happy about any crime, i just prefer a society with liberty and crime, to a police state with zero crime. By the way, the two safest countries in the world are north korea and cuba. They have legit tiny proportions of crime. " I'm sure the 100000 political prisoners North Korea keep in horrific conditions and those that his regime have executed will be pleased to know it's a safe country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. So, in a devils advocate role, you are happy for some to get abused providing you can sit next to whomever you chose to on an airplane? Blanket policies are lazy I agree but are you really disregarding the sentiment that no child sexual assault is OK? The issue is every time something slips through the net and someone is caught, implicating businesses who did not actively safeguard the children they take a massive hit commercially. Policing and social services are not adequate enough to catch everyone and so it falls upon businesses to think of ways they can try to protect children. Yes I agree that the prejudice on men is very wrong. Going back to another thread, Ian Watkins' crimes were facilitated by women so if they are going to write blanket policies they should make them for all genders. No, I'm saying the risk is not sufficiently increased to justify the precautions. Im not happy about any crime, i just prefer a society with liberty and crime, to a police state with zero crime. By the way, the two safest countries in the world are north korea and cuba. They have legit tiny proportions of crime. I'm sure the 100000 political prisoners North Korea keep in horrific conditions and those that his regime have executed will be pleased to know it's a safe country" In terms of your risk of being a victim of crime whilst going about your daily life it is a legitimately an exceptionally safe country. Probably because it's government is staffed by people of your mentality that rules don't need to proportional to risk. Hence why someone can get a 9 year setenance for having illegal films on their laptop, because if it saves one person being brainwashed... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. So, in a devils advocate role, you are happy for some to get abused providing you can sit next to whomever you chose to on an airplane? Blanket policies are lazy I agree but are you really disregarding the sentiment that no child sexual assault is OK? The issue is every time something slips through the net and someone is caught, implicating businesses who did not actively safeguard the children they take a massive hit commercially. Policing and social services are not adequate enough to catch everyone and so it falls upon businesses to think of ways they can try to protect children. Yes I agree that the prejudice on men is very wrong. Going back to another thread, Ian Watkins' crimes were facilitated by women so if they are going to write blanket policies they should make them for all genders. No, I'm saying the risk is not sufficiently increased to justify the precautions. Im not happy about any crime, i just prefer a society with liberty and crime, to a police state with zero crime. By the way, the two safest countries in the world are north korea and cuba. They have legit tiny proportions of crime. I'm sure the 100000 political prisoners North Korea keep in horrific conditions and those that his regime have executed will be pleased to know it's a safe country" You’re negating your own earlier argument. Very odd. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. So, in a devils advocate role, you are happy for some to get abused providing you can sit next to whomever you chose to on an airplane? Blanket policies are lazy I agree but are you really disregarding the sentiment that no child sexual assault is OK? The issue is every time something slips through the net and someone is caught, implicating businesses who did not actively safeguard the children they take a massive hit commercially. Policing and social services are not adequate enough to catch everyone and so it falls upon businesses to think of ways they can try to protect children. Yes I agree that the prejudice on men is very wrong. Going back to another thread, Ian Watkins' crimes were facilitated by women so if they are going to write blanket policies they should make them for all genders. No, I'm saying the risk is not sufficiently increased to justify the precautions. Im not happy about any crime, i just prefer a society with liberty and crime, to a police state with zero crime. By the way, the two safest countries in the world are north korea and cuba. They have legit tiny proportions of crime. " tiny proportions of reported crime | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If travelodge and virgins policy's save one child from being abused it's good enough for me. Frankly that's an idiotic point of view. If i was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you haven't thought it through properly. If it were possible to make a risk free society then it certainly wouldn't look like anything any of us would want to live in. So, in a devils advocate role, you are happy for some to get abused providing you can sit next to whomever you chose to on an airplane? Blanket policies are lazy I agree but are you really disregarding the sentiment that no child sexual assault is OK? The issue is every time something slips through the net and someone is caught, implicating businesses who did not actively safeguard the children they take a massive hit commercially. Policing and social services are not adequate enough to catch everyone and so it falls upon businesses to think of ways they can try to protect children. Yes I agree that the prejudice on men is very wrong. Going back to another thread, Ian Watkins' crimes were facilitated by women so if they are going to write blanket policies they should make them for all genders. No, I'm saying the risk is not sufficiently increased to justify the precautions. Im not happy about any crime, i just prefer a society with liberty and crime, to a police state with zero crime. By the way, the two safest countries in the world are north korea and cuba. They have legit tiny proportions of crime. tiny proportions of reported crime "Unreported crime is not a complete stab in the dark though. Crimes have motives and we can sensibly estimate the number of people with even the potential to be a paedophile, especially since it seems to be learned behaviour. Anecdotally it seems many paedophiles are prolific in their crimes and therefore are likley to come to justice eventually. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
