BRITISH AIRWAYS ADDED TO THE LIST OF BRITISH COMPANIES WHO VIEW ALL MEN AS POTENTIAL SEX OFFENDERS

The Daily Mail broke the story (link) that "British Airways has been accused of treating all men passengers as potential sex offenders after it was revealed it has banned children from sitting next to male strangers - even if their parents are on the same flight.

The bizarre regulation came to light when a nine-year-old girl was moved from her seat next to a 76-year-old passenger and his wife on a flight from Malaga to London."

If the Terminal 5 debacle was not enough for people to not use BA, this is another reason not to use them.

This form of male sexual discrimination is not new in the all-men-are-potential-paedophiles culture endemic in the UK

• Butlins who have policies of not allowing fathers with their children in their indoor play areas.

• The Science Museum has policies on it sleepover events which bans fathers from looking after groups unless they are with mothers/women*. This is certainly the case with all girl groups (that is, a father is not allowed to be in charge of his daughter and her friends) and for all boy group there has to be a motet/female in attendance as well.

Are there any other companies that operate blatantly anti-male/anti-father polices that treat all men as potential paedophiles. If so, please let the site know.

*- For an all girl group you will need 1 female adult for every 5-6 children
- For an all boy group you will need 1 female or 1 male adult for every 5-6
   children
- For a mixed sex group you will need 2 female adults or 1 female and 1 male
   adult for every 5-9 children

Comments

[Barry Madison]

I've heard about the British Airways' policy. Can you imagine any other class of people being stereotyped n this manner? In America, where I live, a disproportionate percentage of blacks commit violent crimes. Can you imagine stores, malls or restaurants putting restrictions on all blacks? And how unfair that would be to the vast majority of blacks who are law abiding citizens? Why is it any different for men? I only wish that some litigious American would be told to move on one of these flights -- because he's male. I would love for this issue to be litigated in a U.S. court.

What I also find amusing is that British Airways must realize how controversial this policy is -- they don't even advertise it on their Web site:
http://www.britishairways.com/travel/childinfo/public/en_gb

Could it be they realize this blatant gender stereotyping wouldn't go over well with approximately half the population? Gee, one needn't be Einstein to realize this policy would not be popular because it is so unfair.

[John Kimble]

Qantas and Air New Zealand had close ties with BA and have a similar policy. It had been far more controversial there - lots of protest a few years back and MPs actually trying to do something about it.

I'm pleased you brought up Butlins and the Science Museum as I wasn't aware that they were gender racists too. Have their policies made the news at all? We need the media to report on this as then more people will boycott these idiots.

[John Kimble]

One more thing - I've thoroughly researched the whole BA saga and it was actually the Times who broke the story way back in 2001 so best give credit where it is due. Here's a link to the article:

http://www.vaeter-aktuell.de/english/British_Airways_-_Men_cannot_sit_with_lone_children_2001.pdf

Boris Johnson has also been a victim of the policy and wrote about it in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/09/do0901.xml

[Barry Madison]

Just curious: here in the U.S. we have an annual day called "Take your daughter and son to work day." The idea is to bring the kids to the workplace and expose them to the real world, etc. Until about 15 years ago, it was just "Take your daughter to work day" with an emphasis on building up girls' self-esteem to enter the work world. The reason it changed to include boys was that a lot of our school districts refused to let kids participate if it excluded boys. (Bravo!) I am constantly alarmed by the anti-male news I read coming from the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and consider the U.S. somewhat less afflicted with this (though certainly not in all areas). Perhaps a better description is that it's less blatant here. I wonder if my perception is shared by others?

[John Kimble]

You perception is absolutely correct. i think these is becasue people in the US are much cautious when it comes to discrimination due to the immense racism of the past (something which was never anywhere near as bad in most other countries). Combined with the fact that Americans enjoy a good lawsuit (not always such a bad thing) means there is less obvious discrimination and less which is an official documented policy.

That said, BA have many flights to the US so you're still going to suffer almost as much as us on this issue. Perhaps someone should sue them in a US court?

[John Kimble]

Just noticed teh Science Museum small print. To be fair their policy isn't quite as disgusting as BA's

BA believe all men are both heterosexual AND homosexual pedophiles, whereas the science museum believes they are merely heterosexual pedophiles.

Perhaps most worryingly of all neither company believes females to be capable of any abuse whatsoever.

[Barry Madison]

John, I suspect that if this BA policy was ever blatantly shoved down the throat of any number of Americans, we'd have our lawsuit. (You may have heard about the trouble one of our airlines landed itself in when it made a couple of young women cover up their breasts on flights. Wow!)

And you are correct about the racism -- with millions of black slaves transported here against their will, then released amid anger and ignorance in the deep south. It is America's great shame.

[John Bull]

One word... ...Europeancourtofhumanrights.

[Mark]

That's blame culture for you. Can you imagine if BA put a child next to a man and they were abused.... Someone at BA would have to have to be blamed, forced to take full responsibility for actions wey beyond their control, and have their life destroyed. Can you blame people for desperately running about trying to cover their backs?

As long as the women who run the Child Protection services consider it more important to blame and crucify Men, than to tackle the issues which are the root causes of these issues, this is going to happen and you can't blame the individuals or companies involved for running for cover!