Would you press charges in Katharine Goldberg groped you?

[buctootim]

Not meant to be a lairy post, but really, even if you are gay, would you press charges? The repurcussions for her seem out of proportion to the action.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15917679

Edited 28 November, 2011 by buctootim

[SNSUN]

People have a right to do their job without fear of intimidation or assault, but on a personal level, I wouldn't mind being groped, I certainly don't think I'd take it this far. I'd probably just laugh it off to start or tell her she was propah nawty.

[buctootim]

People have a right to do their job without fear of intimidation or assault, but on a personal level, I wouldn't mind being groped, I certainly don't think I'd take it this far. I'd probably just laugh it off to start or tell her she was propah nawty.

 

Exactly. Its not like she was being abusive or lamping people or was 6 foot tall, 15 stone and intimidating. Cabin crew ought to be able to handle situations like that.

[Pugwash]

Fair point, but without a court appearance, would she have admitted her drink problem? In the long run it might do her good.

[Lighthouse]

For the sake of playing Devil's advocate; if it was a 25 year old male passenger grabbing a stewardess' arse, he'd probably be labled a sex offender, sent to jail and have union bosses screaming for sexual harassment lectures for the entire country.

 

I suppose it depends on the individuals concerned. I'd probably just shrug it off as some drunk slapper personally, but I can see how some people may feel degraded.

[buctootim]

Fair point, but without a court appearance, would she have admitted her drink problem? In the long run it might do her good.

 

Maybe. That or the publicity, loss of job and public humiliation will send her off the deep end. If clubs handled all their customers who behaved inappropriately that way they'd be sentencing 20 people a night.

[buctootim]

Sure. There's a power and strength differential though. One is threatening and distasteful - the other is just distasteful. I dont see that criminalising someone for a drunken misjudgement helps any. Alcohol has made an arse out of all us at some point.

 

in response to Lighthouse

[Panda]

Isn't being drunk on an aircraft a criminal offence? I suspect the steward did not bring the charges but the police did, otherwise I am sure the airline would.

[Turkish]

In the words of Richard Keys, I'd have smashed it.

[buctootim]

In the words of Richard Keys, I'd have smashed it.

 

or at least kept her topped up till later.

[Pugwash]

Maybe. That or the publicity, loss of job and public humiliation will send her off the deep end. If clubs handled all their customers who behaved inappropriately that way they'd be sentencing 20 people a night.

 

And some may say "Why not?" See other hot thread...

 

(BTW - where are these clubs where quite attractive 20-something women will grope men? PM please... )

[Channon's Sideburns]

I have to be honest - in my late teens such attention would be bl00dy welcome TBF...especially from her.

[Saint in Paradise]

A lady flight attendant doesn't agree with you lot ( or me either )

 

From another forum I quote:-

Lemain, you say that -demanding to have sex with someone and grabbing his penis and crotch area- is not invading someone´s bodily integrity, is not meting out degrading treatment, but is merely 'silly behaviour and pretty harmless'.

 

You also say that grabbing someone´s genitals and demanding sex needs to be seen in proportion, and warrants the cutting of slack.

 

In other words, according to you, being grabbed in the crotch is part and parcel of being a flight attendant, and a flight attendant therefore should not report it to the police.

Your logic is that if a passenger gets a criminal conviction for sexual assault, and suffers the consequences of such a conviction, the blame for those consequences lies with the flight attendant and not with the person who did the grabbing.

 

According to you, the flight attendant, after having his genitals grabbed by a passenger, has to think of the consequences for the grabber and not report.

The grabber does not have to think of the consequences of her own action, and should therefore not be made suffer the legal consequences of her behaviour.

 

Your position strikes me as neither logical nor tenable Lemain.

In fact, both from a legal and moral perspective, your position is indefensible.

 

You are just plain wrong.

 

The Universal Declaration of Human rights applies to all humans, and that includes flight attendants of both genders.

 

I direct your attention to articles 3, 5, 7 and 8.

 

 

You may also benefit from reading the the following, an excerpt of a paper called "The human right of bodily integrity and the challenge of intercultural dialogue" written by junior Professor Sybille Kalupner:

 

Quote:

 

No function of the modern legal system is as familiar to the citizens of western democracies as the protection of their bodily integrity. Should we come to suffer bodily injury at the hands of someone else, we can be sure that the responsible party will be made accountable in the court of law. The physician who commits malpractice, the motorist who mistakenly takes our right of way, and the drunk who could not control his emotions: All are held responsible for the harm they cause our body to suffer and all must face the sanctions accorded to them by the gravity of their actions and the pertaining rule of law.

 

... On both levels of society, on the level of interaction between society members as well as on the level of the relationship between the state and its citizens, the inviolability of the person is a type of cultural premise, a key concept in the moral self-image of western democracies.

 

The significance of the inviolability of the person in current human rights debates can be understood in much the same way.

The inviolability of the person consistently ranks, along with the right to life, at the top of the list of importance in both classical and modern human rights declarations. According to a differentiation common since Georg Jellinek, the inviolability of the person is a fundamental right of the status negativus, applying even before the other negative liberty rights, including the right to freedom and political participation. In the UN Declaration of 1948, which is still the central reference text in the debate concerning the universality of human rights, the inviolability of the person is formulated in Article 3 with the words, "Everyone has the right to life, freedom and safety of person"...

 

So, that's you lot told then