NeverAgain Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Can't believe some of the comments here, its an incredibly selfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverAgain Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Edit function isn't working for me : Choice between a childs life and a packet of nuts, any selfish individual that decides their more worthy than a childs life doesn't deserve to be in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Poor little thing. What a terrible affliction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 It is Merkin. BB I'm assuming you ride a motorbike? Do you assume everyone is going to co-operate with traffic laws at all times and not try to kill you, or do you take the precautions to not give anyone the opportunity to kill you? Not quite a parallel situation. I have been known to take to 2 wheels if it's warm and sunny and then ride very defensively. You can take serious avoiding action and are mostly in charge of your own destiny but the same can't be said for someone strapped into an aluminium tube with another doing something which could kill you. The only real avoiding action she/her parents could take is to not fly. I think that is asking too much. I've just spent about 10 days in a place where I know < a dozen words of the local language. You really don't need to speak the language to know what's going on. It's reported he was arguing with the guy in front who was likely probably pointing at the nut pack and shaking his head but, hey, let's just assume he didn't understand body language either. It makes the situation much simpler and easier to justify. FWIW, I think the ban is too much but an hour or two in the police's company on arrival might have made him think. On second thoughts, maybe not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.C. Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 If it was up to me, I'd have the low life passenger done for child abuse and causing grievous bodily harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 If it were me I'd have the parents prosecuted for the deliberate endangerment of a child - and I'm deadly serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 @spook "Do unto others", or did you forget that bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 The bloke eating the nuts, after being asked not to, is a selfish twat - I think a ban is fair enough. As for the parents, they took reasonable precautions (contacting airline in advance, carrying EpiPen etc) and so Spook's 'serious' suggestion of prosecuting them is just more trolling on his behalf. Airlines, and other service providers, have to make reasonable allowances for disabled customers under equality legislation. I think in this case Ryan Air did just that, if you consider a serious allergy to be equivalent to a disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 @spook "Do unto others", or did you forget that bit? If I had been so thoughtless and or selfish as to have done what they did I would expect to be prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 And just why do people have to eat in inappropriate places? How many are always chomping on sweets/crisps etc. when they're at The Villa/Gaiety? There's an Intermission for those that need refuelling in excess of three times a day! If you really must, why not eat before you arrive and eat again after you've left? For heavens sake, can't the passenger do without food and drink for an hour or two? Or was he a nut job TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Tenerife to the UK is around 4 hours in the air to which there's at least a couple of hours messing around at the airport to be included on top. Last time i was in Reina Sofia it wasn't particularly awful but refreshments were far from inexpensive and so planning to take advantage of on board catering is hardly inappropriate as well as breaking what can be a difficult journey when there's badly controlled children and badly behaved chavs on board and surprising to me an increasing number of badly behaved old aged pensioners, the so called Saga Louts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 @spook "Do unto others", or did you forget that bit?If I had been so thoughtless and or selfish as to have done what they did I would expect to be prosecuted. As I suspected, all mouth and no trousers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 The bloke eating the nuts, after being asked not to, is a selfish twat - I think a ban is fair enough. As for the parents, they took reasonable precautions (contacting airline in advance, carrying EpiPen etc) and so Spook's 'serious' suggestion of prosecuting them is just more trolling on his behalf. Airlines, and other service providers, have to make reasonable allowances for disabled customers under equality legislation. I think in this case Ryan Air did just that, if you consider a serious allergy to be equivalent to a disability. how did the parents know on the outward flight someone had not been eating nuts in that seat? this is a daily fail story so blame the nigga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Whilst it's still the parents fault (if you are allergic to something, and you die, it doesn't matter if it's someone elses fault - you can't say "It's their fault" - you're already dead) I dug into the story a bit more - The guy was banned because he disobeyed the cabin crews instructions to stop eating nuts, after being repeatedly told not too. Just like someone getting banned for not stopping drinking when they tell you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 @spook "Do unto others", or did you forget that bit?If I had been so thoughtless and or selfish as to have done what they did I would expect to be prosecuted. The only person being thoughtless and selfish was the prat who when flagged of a potentially serious problem kept munching away,not very christian behavior in my book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.