Originally Posted by phillipas
This argument cuts boths way.
To quote Globaliser:
If a parent chooses to send their child on a 'public form of transport', i.e. BA, then they have to accept that their child will end up interacting with the public in all it's forms - be it popes, politicians, pop stars or perverts. And let's be realistic - the 'public' that you get on BA is probably one of the 'safer' groups in terms of risks to children.
But the parents are not the ones who made the policy BA has and the outrage has been by men who disagree with a the policy not by parents saying they would not send their children unless said policy was inacted. On what basis is the BA public safer than the general public?
Originally Posted by phillipas
It's part of growing up, having the chains let loose. Specific precautions in relation to specific risks are fine - but to seek to effectively block contact between children and half the adult population on the grounds that a very small minority of that group are paedophiles is inappropriate. The solution to paedophiles is to identify them individually and deal as appropriate.
Yes you are right. But on a 12 hour flight it would be quite easy for a perv to give the UM an email address or get hold of their myspace account. No physical contact has occurred but would you want your child giving a 40 year old man or woman their email or other personal details
Originally Posted by phillipas
The advantages of letting a child develop independence have to be weighed against all the perils that come with it. On balance I think the independence route is the way to go.
And every child develops at a different rate. As their is no set rate of maturity isn't it better to err on the side of caution?
Edit to add: thats my 1000th post
