MSE News: 'Family tax': Dad's outrage as Ryanair tries to seat 3yo away from family

peachyprice

tain wrote: »

I'm a trained health and safety officer, and I'm very confident in my work.

I think that says it all really.

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

I
Separating an adult from their child is removing the legal responsibility that parent has over the child. I'm of the opinion that that isn't subject to 'entitlement' - I think it's a human right.

But your opinion - no matter how well-informed it may be - is not relevant to how airlines seat familes.

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

So - as long as there is no loss/inury/health consequence - airlines are not breaking the law then.

Maybe the parents are more interested in getting their 15 minutes of fame than ensuring airlines 'bring about improvement or prohibition orders'.

As MSE are so against this optional extra that they refer to it as a 'family tax' and are 'demanding' (later downgraded to 'calling for') it be scapped, I wonder why they don't go down the route of bringing it to the attention of a HSE inspector or Environmental Health Officer.

Do you - Pollycat - know how to report something to the HSE or an EHO? Do you even know what either of them are, and what they do, and why they're appropriate to this situation?

I'm sure you don't because you make ridiculously embarrassing comments like 'as long as there is no loss/inury/health consequence - airlines are not breaking the law then.' And that's not a criticism of you - most people don't know who these people are beyond inspecting restaurants for food hygiene. So why in gods name would the people in the initial complaint?

And it's ignorant to assume that, upon reading what I've said in this thread, they're still not looking to take this further. And it's none of your business if they are taking it further.

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

Are you being purposefully obtuse? No one can say how the law is applied to a specific situation until a test is put through the courts.

So, in my professional and well trained opinion, yes - it breaches the law.

Unless I'm mistaken, no one else in this thread include yourself has offered any more advanced a professional opinion. I'm a trained health and safety officer, and I'm very confident in my work.

No, I'm not being obtuse at all.
I like a straight answer to a straight question.
And I'm still not convinced that it breaches the law.
Again, you mention 'your opinion'.
That doesn't make it a breach of the law.

If you're so convinced that you're right, why don't you escalate this to the appropriate body?

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

But your opinion - no matter how well-informed it may be - is not relevant to how airlines seat familes.

It's entirely relevant if it turns out to be the correct opinion. Why on earth is your opinion relevant and mine not? You seem to be struggling with the concept of our laws, so I'm going to stick by my opinion over yours, thank you.

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

No, I'm not being obtuse at all.
I like a straight answer to a straight question.
And I'm still not convinced that it breaches the law.
Again, you mention 'your opinion'.
That doesn't make it a breach of the law.

If you're so convinced that you're right, why don't you escalate this to the appropriate body?

Because it's none of my business. This is just a thread discussing the topic - I don't even have kids of my own. I have simply read it, offered my professional opinion, and left it at that. It's not my place to pursue someone else's fight on their behalf.

If they were to approach me for advice however, then I'd do what I can to help.

And you are being obtuse. I repeat:

No one can say how the law is applied to a specific situation until a test is put through the courts.

You seem to ignore that point. Until it's gone through the court, all we have is opinion. And if I want an opinion on something, I go to a professional.

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

Do you - Pollycat - know how to report something to the HSE or an EHO? Do you even know what either of them are, and what they do, and why they're appropriate to this situation?
.

If I was so 'outraged' that my child was sat away from me, I'd spend my time researching the rules/regulations/guidelines/ laws and find the appropriate body to take it to.

tain wrote: »

I'm sure you don't because you make ridiculously embarrassing comments like 'as long as there is no loss/inury/health consequence - airlines are not breaking the law then.'

I was just testing my understanding of what you had posted.

tain wrote: »

And that's not a criticism of you - most people don't know who these people are beyond inspecting restaurants for food hygiene. So why in gods name would the people in the initial complaint?

Instead of running to the papers, they could have found out who to escalate this to.

tain wrote: »

And it's ignorant to assume that, upon reading what I've said in this thread, they're still not looking to take this further. And it's none of your business if they are taking it further.

I very much doubt they're interested in taking this further - they've had their 15 minutes of fame.
Once they put themselves into the public domain, discussion of their experience and subsequesnt potential actions are anybody's business who wishes to discuss it.

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

If I was so 'outraged' that my child was sat away from me, I'd spend my time researching the rules/regulations/guidelines/ laws and find the appropriate body to take it to.

I was just testing my understanding of what you had posted.


Instead of running to the papers, they could have found out who to escalate this to.

I very much doubt they're interested in taking this further - they've had their 15 minutes of fame.
Once they put themselves into the public domain, discussion of their experience and subsequesnt potential actions are anybody's business who wishes to discuss it.

For someone who criticised assumptions earlier, you're making HUGE assumptions here.

You have no idea what the family affected did. None what so ever. They could be speaking to lawyers as we speak, or on the phone to the HSE ready to bust out huge legal action.

Despite all of this, publicity is an essential tool in the process of law. The public need to scrutinise organisations and hold them to account. This is particularly important when we are discussing multi-billion pound organisations with a legal team big enough to make anyone in the world scared.

steve1500

Pollycat wrote: »

No, I'm not being obtuse at all.
I like a straight answer to a straight question.
And I'm still not convinced that it breaches the law.
Again, you mention 'your opinion'.
That doesn't make it a breach of the law.

If you're so convinced that you're right, why don't you escalate this to the appropriate body?

I very much doubt that there is a law that specifically states you have to wear a hard hat on a building site.


But if something happened to a worker as a consequence of not wearing a hard hat, because the employer thought they would save a few quid by not supplying them Health & Safety would be all over the employer and rightly so.


The airlines will only change their tune when a tragedy happens & it seriously hits them in the pocket or the CAA makes them

peachyprice

steve1500 wrote: »

I very much doubt that there is a law that specifically states you have to wear a hard hat on a building site.


But if something happened to a worker as a consequence of not wearing a hard hat, because the employer thought they would save a few quid by not supplying them Health & Safety would be all over the employer and rightly so.


The airlines will only change their tune when a tragedy happens & it seriously hits them in the pocket or the CAA makes them

There is a law regarding the supply of PPE on a building site. An employer can/will/has been prosecuted for not providing appropriate safety equipment. There is no comparison.