Mum Sues Building Firm When Her 10 Yr Old Son Enters A Site And Gets Killed

[Chekhov]

15 hours ago, AndrewC said:

The modern world isn't that bad, it's just people like you can't handle change, mostly. 

You speak for yourself, I hate it. And most people in their 50s and 60s would say they preferred it how it used to be, I defn do.

 

>>can't handle change<<

 

Two points :

 

1 - I can handle it, just about, but I do not like it. And it's getting worse with every year that passes. Fortunately I will not have to put up with it for ever, a nice silk lined pine box with no more bull**** to put up with. The prospect has a certain appeal.

 

2 - You are assuming all "change" is for the better, and it most certainly is not.

 

 

15 hours ago, Al Bundy said:

Roughly translated.

 

Little Wayne broke in to see what he could nick to help pay for a motorbike to terrorise the neighbourhood but didn't see the danger because he had a balaclava on.

It may well that Al, or it may just be he had a sense of adventure which went wrong. These things happen unfortunately, as I said before, **** happens.

Why would it have been any different had he fallen off the edge of a cliff or a high wall whilst playing ? Would the mother then be campaigning for all cliffs and high walls to have child proof fences ? It'll come though, you mark my words.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

14 hours ago, hackey lad said:

But not rare . I too know a bloke on a  motorbike (not his so no insurance ) ,driving like an idiot ,did a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre  , crashed ,smashed a car up and hurt himself badly . Received £750,000 compensation  

That's disgusting, and we're all paying for that.

 

1 hour ago, Palomar said:

Children of 10 years old are basically living in a fantasy world, they do not understand the world well enough to anticipate the terrible things that could happen to them. My childhood friend lost his arm doing something an informed person would never do. A danger of death sign and some barbed wire might well have put him off.

I would be amazed if he didn't know he should not be on that site. The case said the fence had been vandalised, not that there was no fence there at all. That said, not all building sites in 1970s had high security fences, why not ?

Edited December 5, 2023 by Chekhov

[Bargepole23]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

You speak for yourself, I hate it. And most people in their 50s and 60s would say they preferred it how it used to be, I defn do.

 

>>can't handle change<<

 

Two points :

 

1 - I can handle it, just about, but I do not like it. And it's getting worse with every year that passes. Fortunately I will not have to put up with it for ever, a nice silk lined pine box with no more bull**** to put up with. The prospect has a certain appeal.

 

2 - You are assuming all "change" is for the better, and it most certainly is not.

 

 

It may well that Al, or it may just be he had a sense of adventure which went wrong. These things happen unfortunately, as I said before, **** happens.

Why would it have been any different had he fallen off the edge of a cliff or a high wall whilst playing ? Would the mother then be campaigning for all cliffs and high walls to have child proof fences ? It'll come though, you mark my words.

That's a long way from being pi$$ed off with regulations.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

... 1 - I can handle it, just about, but I do not like it. And it's getting worse with every year that passes. Fortunately I will not have to put up with it for ever, a nice silk lined pine box with no more bull**** to put up with. The prospect has a certain appeal.  ...

Your posts are getting increasingly worrisome.  This obsession can't be doing your heath any good.  You should try to back away from it for a while. 

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

>>Chekhov said : I can handle it [change], just about, but I do not like it. And it's getting worse with every year that passes. Fortunately I will not have to put up with it for ever, a nice silk lined pine box with no more bull**** to put up with. The prospect has a certain appeal.<<

 

That's a long way from being pi$$ed off with regulations.

Not from where I am. My personality is not suited to the modern world. I do not like being told what to do at the best of times, but when it's stuff for which there is no proportionate reason (certainly no reason that was deemed good enough when I was growing up in the 1970s) it pi$$es me off hugely.

We've all got to die anyway (something people seemed to forget during Covid....), so why not look at the positives ? ! ?

 

37 minutes ago, Hecate said:

Your posts are getting increasingly worrisome.  This obsession can't be doing your heath any good.  You should try to back away from it for a while. 

I will be doing, probably in about 25 years.

 

PS you can't "back away from it", it's all around us all the time, and getting worse and worse all the time.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Chekhov

[ECCOnoob]

5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Not from where I am. My personality is not suited to the modern world. I do not like being told what to do at the best of times, but when it's stuff for which there is no proportionate reason (certainly no reason that was deemed good enough when I was growing up in the 1970s) it pi$$es me off hugely.

Given some of the ridiculous comments made on here I can't think of any time in which your personality will suit.

 

You seem to be the kind of rebellious, arrogant, know it all person in the wartime who would be refusing to put up blackout curtains and stoically rejecting going down into a shelter because it was too inconvenient for you......  The sort of person whinging and complaining about all the fuss over Asbestos and Mesothelioma just because you used to play with it and were fine..... The sort of person  thinking HIV was just a 'gay disease'....

 

Oh and let's not go down the deluded nostalgic wallow that the 1970s were sooo better than now. There were still plenty of rules and regulations to get up your nose.  The Health and Safety at Work act itself came in 1974.   Yes, there might not have been the glut of TV lawyers as we have today, but don't you think there wasn't plenty of claims being brought.  Insurance claims teams in the big corporations employed thousands.  Plenty of trade unions and community organisations were sticking their oar in, bringing compensation requests for their members because someone's tripped over a spanner left on site or Doris from the typing pool got a paper cut or the vending machine ran out of milk powder or the showers only had lukewarm water....

 

As someone whose worked in legacy claims I've seen plenty of occasions of management being hassled because those supposed 'burly' 'real men' Workers were crying about the showers being grubby or demanding allowances for their washing overalls or canteen or softer toilet paper or more comfy work boots because god forbid the threat of strikes or group compensation actions.  

 

As for overbearing 'health and safety bollix'  Do we not remember the golden age of the public information films. Little horror stories constantly played out. The Finishing Line, Apaches, play safe, films about escalators and chip pan infernos, the toppling pushchair due to bags being hung off it and of course Charlie Says ...   The screaming kid getting a leg run over by train or the boy trying to get his football blowing himself up on a substation...

 

Certainly not a new modern world concept. You are kidding yourself.

Edited December 5, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[ECCOnoob]

12 hours ago, Palomar said:

Children of 10 years old are basically living in a fantasy world, they do not understand the world well enough to anticipate the terrible things that could happen to them. My childhood friend lost his arm doing something an informed person would never do. A danger of death sign and some barbed wire might well have put him off.

To be honest, if the company hadn't severely failed in their basic duties to protect the site it would put him off.

 

Seemingly, they didn't maintain the fencing, failed to comply with inspection regimes and regularly check the fencing structure, failed to keep mandatory records, and keep the place secured, hence why they were found guilty and fined a six figure sum.

 

Based on the article I read, there was even more crucial element because the site location was in close proximity to a kids playground, a factor that a competent risk assessor should have noted being an obvious increase in invitation for kids to come exploring and thus more incentive for a operator of the site to make damn sure they keep it secured and safe.

 

However, I can say from experience (just to appease Chekhov and Co), that generally compensation for dead people is nowhere near the award levels of severely injured but alive people, so I'm sure that's some consolation to them in their constant grumbles about this mad litigious modern world.  

Edited December 5, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[Chekhov]

18 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

As for overbearing 'health and safety bollix'  Do we not remember the golden age of the public information films. 

Sorry, are you seriously saying we are not suffering from health and safety over kill. 

Seriously ?

If you are seriously saying that I am deeply worried, because in my experience almost everyone thinks we are, but generally blames the "compensation culture".

 

>>Do we not remember the golden age of the public information films<<

 

I do remember them.

Two things :

 

1 - They were  talking about real risks, not made up risks which are so unlikely they are not worth talking about.

What, pray, is the purpose of temporary traffic lights on a road where the roadworks take up no more room than  a legally parked car ?

 

2 - They were trying to make progress through education not restriction.

 

18 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Oh and let's not go down the deluded nostalgic wallow that the 1970s were sooo better than now. There were still plenty of rules and regulations to get up your nose. 

I Iived through the 1970s, they weren't perfect, but they were much better than this **** world we live in now.

You might not agree with me and you have a right to your opinion. I would not insult you for thinking that, I would just disagree with you, strongly....

 

18 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

You seem to be the kind of rebellious, arrogant,

Calling me arrogant, because I do not agree with you is, er, arrogant......

Edited December 6, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

18 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

To be honest, if the company hadn't severely failed in their basic duties to protect the site it would put him off.

 

Seemingly, they didn't maintain the fencing, failed to comply with inspection regimes and regularly check the fencing structure, failed to keep mandatory records, and keep the place secured, hence why they were found guilty and fined a six figure sum.

 

Based on the article I read, there was even more crucial element because the site location was in close proximity to a kids playground, a factor that a competent risk assessor should have noted being an obvious increase in invitation for kids to come exploring and thus more incentive for a operator of the site to make damn sure they keep it secured and safe.

 

However, I can say from experience (just to appease Chekhov and Co), that generally compensation for dead people is nowhere near the award levels of severely injured but alive people, so I'm sure that's some consolation to them in their constant grumbles about this mad litigious modern world.  

Would you care to answer my question :

 

Question : Did that child know they should not be playing on that building site, yes or no ?

 

If the answer is yes, the child did know they should not have been playing on there surely the child should accept some responsibility for that. If your point would then be that some 10 year old kids cannot do that then the obvious next point is they should not be out on their own.

 

If the answer is no, the child did not know they should not be playing in there (which I do not believe for a second but let's go with it), then that is the responsibility of the parents for either not bringing them up with a sense of responsibility and/or for letting them go out playing when they have no sense of responsibility.

[Bargepole23]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Sorry, are you seriously saying we are not suffering from health and safety over kill. 

Seriously ?

If you are seriously saying that I am deeply worried, because in my experience almost everyone thinks we are, but generally blames the "compensation culture".

 

>>Do we not remember the golden age of the public information films<<

 

I do remember them.

Two things :

 

1 - They were  talking about real risks, not made up risks which are so unlikely they are not worth talking about.

What, pray, is the purpose of temporary traffic lights on a road where the roadworks take up no more room than  a legally parked car ?

 

2 - They were trying to make progress through education not restriction.

 

I Iived through the 1970s, they weren't perfect, but they were much better than this **** world we live in now.

You might not agree with me and you have a right to your opinion. I would not insult you for thinking that, I would just disagree with you, strongly....

 

Calling me arrogant, because I do not agree with you is, er, arrogant......

On construction sites, no. It's not difficult to do it properly and prevents accidents and deaths, as evidenced in the drop in those figures in the last 40 to 50 years. Much the same throughout industry, with the benefit also of a reduction in working time lost.

 

As for temporary traffic lights, a legally parked car is not the same as a worker on the edge of an open excavation. Motorists will try to squeeze through spaces, without regard for putting other peoples lives in danger, cos thats what motorists do.