Even Aussies can be silly!

I hope this is not turning into one of those "okay, you blacks to the back of the bus" things or "I don't know what you have or haven't done, but you look guilty to me."

I know, let's have a profiler at the ticket counter separating the shifty looking clods from us "norms." Then, we'll be safe from everyone except our priest, athletic coach, teacher, preacher, Boy/Girl Scout leaders, Uncles, Step-Parents, weird neighbor, well, you get it, it can't be done. Soon, there will be a defamation of character suit when some surly lawyer has to move to another seat. There will be a shoving match, the lawyer's back will be injured and then, he'll have to find someone who will take an airline off his hands, cheap.
 
Last edited:
tomtom22 said:
Yeah, where did you get that from. I saw nothing of the sort after rereading the entire thread. Your posts, WD, however have been very disrespectful and inciting.
Click to expand...

I dont agree, I think it shows that guys are not that enthused about automatically being assumed guilty of being child molesters because some overly pious parent is concerned that the kid they abandoned at an airport might be at risk.

Personally I think the better rule for an airline is that children under 17 (or what ever the age you become an adult these days) can no longer fly without a parent or legal guardian.
 
tomtom22 said:
Yeah, where did you get that from. I saw nothing of the sort after rereading the entire thread. Your posts, WD, however have been very disrespectful and inciting.
Click to expand...

Come on, this has been satirical and over the top because I think this rule is extremely rediculous and over the top.

I made my arguments, bulldogg made his, but at a point I think you've got to realize that we're two guys who live on oposite ends of the earth arguing about a little rule on a place where neither of us even live on the continent... and when you realize how rediculous that is I think you can have a little fun with Bulldogg's sanity :D
 
Last edited:
Either way, if you are a male travelling on an Australian airline you are a potential child molesterer.
The dabates on tv and talk back radio is just as heated in Oz as on this folder!
 
Rabs said:
On the other hand if the plane is almost full and theres no other place to sit and the clean cut businessman sits next to the kid it could turn into a hassale.
Click to expand...

Okay here's ^^^^^ a problem. The above sterotype does not discount the fact that this guy could also be a Sex Offender. Tell everybody what.

You can't tell a Sex Offender by looking at them. They don't have to be the Creepy guy in the trench coat with a pocket full of candy. They can be Business people, Lawyers, Doctors, Clergy you name it.

In the majority of these cases the victim knows and trusts the Molester.They are family, friends, neighbors, authority figures. Most of the Molesters go out of their way to build a trust with the intended victim.

That being said. If Quantas wants to have that policy so what. IMO it's a non issue. It's their Company Policy.
 
MontyB said:
Personally I think the better rule for an airline is that children under 17 (or what ever the age you become an adult these days) can no longer fly without a parent or legal guardian.
Click to expand...

Spoken again like someone who is not personally acquainted with the exigencies of being a divorced parent living thousands of miles from the other custodial parent unable to take time off from working owing to the child support and other family that must be supported.

Do you lock the doors of your house when you are not home?

Do you lock your car and not leave the keys in the ignition when you go shopping?

Do you watch a group of male teenagers with the same concern as you do a group of female teenagers?

Prevention and a healthy dose of caution is prudent wisdom and if you would step off your high horses and quit being so :cen:ing self-righteous you could see it. But then your commitment to your cause of the poor besieged and mistreated white male might render your conscious unable to answer these questions honestly.

And besides, this ISNT a friggin law, like 03 said its a COMPANY POLICY, don't like it, vote with your feet and pick another airline. :shoothea:
 
bulldogg said:
Spoken again like someone who is not personally acquainted with the exigencies of being a divorced parent living thousands of miles from the other custodial parent unable to take time off from working owing to the child support and other family that must be supported.

Do you lock the doors of your house when you are not home?

Do you lock your car and not leave the keys in the ignition when you go shopping?

Do you watch a group of male teenagers with the same concern as you do a group of female teenagers?

Prevention and a healthy dose of caution is prudent wisdom and if you would step off your high horses and quit being so :cen:ing self-righteous you could see it. But then your commitment to your cause of the poor besieged and mistreated white male might render your conscious unable to answer these questions honestly.

And besides, this ISNT a friggin law, like 03 said its a COMPANY POLICY, don't like it, vote with your feet and pick another airline. :shoothea:
Click to expand...

Bull:cen:...
The simple fact is that I am not prepared to let you or anyone else treat me as child molester just so that you can dump your parental responsibility on an airline.

Do you lock the doors of your house when you are not home?
Click to expand...
I sure do but then I am a strong believer in personal responsibility I assume you simply leave the house open and demand the neighbour shoot anyone that looks up your driveway?

Prevention and a healthy dose of caution is prudent wisdom and if you would step off your high horses and quit being so :cen:ing self-righteous you could see it. But then your commitment to your cause of the poor besieged and mistreated white male might render your conscious unable to answer these questions honestly.
Click to expand...

What are you the militant wing of the politically correct metrosexual division?
You may like being catagorised as "most likely to be a sex offender" but I dont and I strongly doubt any male does (Note I said male they can be any colour so drop the white part) so basically you can take this politically correct acquiessence and stick it in a spot only your priest will find.

Once again yes I know its a company rule so as I see it the best course of action is for the company is to ensure all children are accompanied by a legal care giver (parent, guardian etc) and if that cost solo parents more tough luck they are your kids take responsibility for that fact.

Incidently I travel a lot and to be perfectly honest QANTAS would be my last choice of airlines (Air NZ is not far behind them either) they are crap.

Oh and one last question:
How many cases has their been of child molestation on a flight?
 
How boring would life be if this thread would have 3 posts saying all the same: we agree. My solutions is also: don't fly Quantas! I've seen many good posts and I must say I am in no-mans land on this matter, whereas I started as strongly opposed. So cheers to you all and good argumenting on both sides!!!
 
Ted said:
How boring would life be if this thread would have 3 posts saying all the same: we agree. My solutions is also: don't fly Quantas! I've seen many good posts and I must say I am in no-mans land on this matter, whereas I started as strongly opposed. So cheers to you all and good argumenting on both sides!!!
Click to expand...

Indeed.

In the end you are correct in that "not flying QANTAS" is the only real method of protest in this case but given that there are many other reasons not to fly either QANTAS or Air NZ (who have the same rule) it is probably one of the least effective protest methods.
 
As Doctor Phil always says: "you must choose your battles". I reckon there's not a whole lot else to do. Exerting pressure to a company is different then doing so to public officials. So it won't be very effective doing it solely, but if many people do the same the protest will be felt.
 
Shouldn't Qantas staff be closely observing an un-attended child anyway. If someone is a sex offender, They are clearly not going to do anything with a whole plane load of people watching them. And then the Qantas should, by law, escort the child to meet their parent/guardien after the leave the aircraft.

If they obey common sense laws off hand, this policy is not needed.
 
Good point! But common sense seems to be on the losing side when it comes to politcal correctness. I agree wholeheartedly with you Bory, but somehow this point doesn't seem to come across and new policy is born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top