Those who use gender based profiling, should not complain when it is used against them.

>>Tony I never said it was ever ok to molest kids by females, but not men. It's disgusting and criminal no matter who is the perpetrator. We all know that paedophiles are predominantly male. That is an undeniable fact.<<

But you are happy to accept the risk that they will be molested by females but not males. We all some females are paedophiles. This is an undeniable fact. The probability that a given female stranger is a paedophile is lower than the probability that a male but it isn't zero.

>>I wouldn't like to take that small chance of there being a problem<<

Should read: I wouldn't like to take that small chance of a man causing a problem but I will take the admittedly smaller chance of a woman causing a problem. This suggests either:
a) You don't think it's as much of a problem when it's a woman causing it: you've just denied this and I'm happy to accept it.
b) You're willing to accept a small chance of there being a problem just not one as high as if the child was seated next to a male stranger: you've previously denied being will to take any chance of there being a problem.
c) Unreasonable double-standards which don't stand up to scrutiny.
d) Idiocy.

Cheers,

Tony

'No, they are not meant to say that, but they find other ways to ensure they don't have to hire them. But then, you already know that, don't you?'

Yes I do.

So you're happy for women to be excluded from jobs due to profiling or not?

If you were, it would mean you are consistent.

If not, and you are happy for airlines to profile men, then that would make you a hypocrite.

We still have no answer to the question...

"What is the risk posed to an 'unaccompanied minor' from sitting next to an unaccompanied male on a plane?"

We do know the risk of going down in a plane is more than 53,000,000:1 against and that the survival rate of this is over 95%.

I reckon any 'unaccompanied minor' would be happy to sit next to anyone who could help them deal with their sense of abandonment.

>>We do know the risk of going down in a plane is more than 53,000,000:1 against<<

Curses! I'd really like to go down in a plane one day. Surely there must be some way to stack the odds. I should seek advice from He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named: Ralph Fiennes. Apparently it's one of the Dark Arts he's mastered ;)

>>and that the survival rate of this is over 95%.<<

Well over 95% by my reckoning.

Statistically speaking aeroplanes are very safe places to be - safer than homes or workplaces where we spend most of our time. The chances of your death on a plane are scarce enough: the chances of your death whilst going down in a plane are so infinitesimally tiny that it doesn't bear thinking about. Which is kind of shame because it would make for one hell of an obituary.

Cheers,

Tony

Obviously Tony, the problem of seating unaccompanied kids next to men on airlines IS considered a serious enough potential problem for the airline to take this stand.

No mention of a problem seating them next to women has been suggested.
Maybe all those airline managers aren't aware of all the female paedophiles out there?

The airlines apparently have been quietly doing this for years,
They will just have to be even more subtle now,,,,