I tend to agree . If it had been a more symphathetic stew, it may not have ever made the papers.
He probably thought the TAiwanese stews were probably more ok with something like that, I doubt he wouldve done that to an American stew on United.
No, I don’t think that’s it at all. He has been in Asia since his time in the Vietnam War and has been helping Vietnamese, Cambodian and Korean students to get into American schools and has been sponsoring several of these students in the US. He was in Taiwan partly to see whether he could help any Taiwanese students get into school in the US.
I believe that his action was completely innocent, if not prudent. I don’t think he was trying to take advantage of a poor Asian flight attendant.
Others do know, but not knowing is no excuse anyway.
Source? The articles do not mention he had intention to return to his seat nor does it say he actually did return.
In any case just another side of the story and the truth may be somewhere inbetween.
Nope, flight attendants do not frequently touch passengers nor do passengers touch them.
(In the context of the situation touching meaning with intention and without permission)
Accidently, as in e.g. brushing against someone in a crowded/tight space perhaps. But intentionally is a no-no, unless it’s between friends or family/partner etc.
They did? Where?
Well, I tend to find that they like brushing their fine arses against my shoulders.
The air hostess in question sounds like a bitch. I would tie her up and leave her in a room with Tommy for a couple of hours.
Well, I tend to find that they like brushing their fine arses against my shoulders.
The air hostess in question sounds like a bitch. I would tie her up and leave her in a room with Tommy for a couple of hours.[/quote]
haha Tommy might not mind actually 
:bluemad: 
That is precisely what happene to him… and he spent a night in the clink and had to pay NT$ 50,000 bail… as if he were a risk to be smuggled out of Taiwan on a fishing boat…
Maybe you’d like to read the rest of the posts before you make such an ignorant commet?
What’s the big deal? The plane was on the ground during boarding.
He flew around a lot, I’m sure he knew exactly what he was doing. Anyway he got his punishment.
I heard this story from people that met the chap on numerous occasions. I’m in no doubt the guy was railroaded. What I find sort of funny here is the auto assumption he was somehow lecherous. Older = gulity perve. Is that how it works?
The peanut gallery has been thrown some specifics on this case in this thread and yet still the verdict seems to be guilty. It’s kinda weird. If I was electing a hjury I think I’d have to try and weed out anyone who posts on Forumosa. 
HG
I just spoke on the phone with my stewardess friend, who tells me the civil suit was simply a cynical cash-grab. The woman was counting on the hope that the poor guy would cough up the money in order that he could leave. She was COMPLETELY aware that her case was spurious and that if the guy had been prepared to stay and fight she’d have got nothing. It was a COMPLETELY callous and calculated move.
What a complete scumbag! Apparently, too, the guy didn’t do anything that could reasonably be construed as “inappropriate” touching – that was dreamed up by the stewardess.
There’s a loser in this creepy tale, sure enough. And the loser is NT$150,000 better off and her workmates are even more disgusted with her than they were before.
Maybe thats why she was refused a US visa?
My ex gf who was a Cathay stew was much smarter. She simply married some rich dude she met in First Class, as did many of her peers.
So many of these things boil down to he says/she says, and invariably one way or another the guy gets roasted - irrespective of the truth.
I often feel for the guys who get falsely accused of molestation by school pupils. Even once cleared (if they are lucky), there is a good percentage of people who still maintain that he “probably did it but got off this time”, and they never can shake it after that. Interesting that when such cases are cleared, generally no charges are raised in the other direction for the damage they have done…
Ok, maybe a bit more to the story then, fair enough, both people at fault here.
Always a good rule to follow.
Actually, there was no question as to the truth in this case. The attendant complained that the professor “touched” her on her thigh and the Professor admitted to touching the attendant by patting her thigh several times. He admitted “guilt”. The attendant then alleged that she was a victim of an offense prohibitted under the sexual harrassment law. That law does not explicitly describe what sort of “touching” is prohibited. I believe that the Prosecutor thought that the matter was trivial and thus sent the case to the small claims court and recommended the minimum punishment (NT$ 3,000). Under the law, one can be imprisoned for 2 years or detained for a month or fined NT$ 100,000, or some combination of these punishments. Its possible, for instance, that he could have been fined NT$ 100,000 plus imprisoned for 2 years or detention for a month. Had he been sentenced to detention for a month the judges would likely have allowed a fine fo NT$ [some fixed amount] per day in lieue of the detention and thus the total fine might have been approximately NT$ 150,000.
But, the judge agreed with the prosecutor and fined the Professor the minimum of NT$ 3,000. The attendant requested the Prosecutor to appeal the sentence and on appeal the professor was again fined only the minimum of NT$ 3,000.
This wasn’t a case of she said-he said.
If we’re at risk of such frivolous lawsuits when flying a particular airline, we’re going to be less likely to fly that airline, no? In which case the airline would be hurting its own business by retaining such an individual…
Alright, but firing an employee who’s complaint was upheld by a court of law is only gonna end in tears for the company.
It was in the respect that she said it was sexual molestation.
Nope.
She complained only of an “inappropriate” touching, which is all the law refers to. That was enough, for her complaint. Pretty ambiguous, IMO.
Nope.
She complained only of an “inappropriate” touching, which is all the law refers to. That was enough, for her complaint. Pretty ambiguous, IMO.[/quote]
So are you saying she said it was inappropriate, and he agreed?