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

[The_DADDY]

49 minutes ago, FoxLady said:

Remember this one?

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thomas-buckett-teenage-burglars-family-5515886

Didn't work out well, I'm pleased to say.

Yup I remember that one.

[gaz 786]

I know of a lad who rode an off road motorbike no licence insurance tax or test and crashed into a motorist in a car park he received over a million pounds in compensation. I am certain the builders will lose due to insecure fencing yes it's going like America am afraid 😨 

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, AndrewC said:

I thought an interesting debate was being raised here, and then I got to the last line and my jaw hit the floor. Incredible that you would use the death of a child to basically carry-on whingeing about temporary traffic lights.

And then have the audacity to claim "**** happens" in the face of fatal accidents, when you get yourself so wound up about having to wait a few minutes at a red light.

It's a perfectly logical extension of the argument.

This is modern society, where so many people don't want to be exposed to any risk (except when it comes to driving, then they complain about speed cameras.....) and they think someone else should keep them absolutely safe without them having to think for themselves. Add to that the no win no fee lawyers offering to sue anyone and everyone, and that is why there are more and more ludicrous disproportionate and very annoying restrictions on our lives. I chose to write about temporary traffic lights which are not necessary because that was the last thing of that ilk I came across, but one could quote literally hundreds of other equally crazy regulations. Just because they are of little consequence relative to the death of a child is no reason for just accepting them without complaint.

 

"**** happens" is a crude was of reminding people there is such a thing as bad luck, bad things happen, you cannot avoid all of it, and much of what can be avoided should be for responsible mature people to take their own risk assessment and take appropriate action if they want. If that lad was not deemed capable of doing that why was he let out on his own ?

 

2 hours ago, gaz 786 said:

I know of a lad who rode an off road motorbike no licence insurance tax or test and crashed into a motorist in a car park he received over a million pounds in compensation.

That sounds absolutely crazy.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Chekhov

[AndrewC]

15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It's a perfectly logical extension of the argument.

This is modern society, where so many people don't want to be exposed to any risk (except when it comes to driving, then they complain about speed cameras.....) and they think someone else should keep them absolutely safe without them having to think for themselves. Add to that the no win no fee lawyers offering to sue anyone and everyone, and that is why there are more and more ludicrous disproportionate and very annoying restrictions on our lives. I chose to write about temporary traffic lights which are not necessary because that was the last thing of that ilk I came across, but one could quote literally hundreds of other equally crazy regulations. Just because they are of little consequence relative to the death of a child is no reason for just accepting them without complaint.

 

"**** happens" is a crude was of reminding people there is such a thing as bad luck, bad things happen, you cannot avoid all of it, and much of what can be avoided should be for responsible mature people to take their own risk assessment and take appropriate action if they want. If that lad was not deemed capable of doing that why was he let out on his own ?

 

No, it isn't the same. One of these issues led to the death of a human. You getting irritated about traffic lights and complaining on an internet forum does not compare.

 

 

As for this example itself, who ever said blame is a finite thing that can only be attributed to one sole person/organisation? Just because the article refers to the lawsuit and the company involved, it doesn't claim the kid didn't pay with their life, that their mother has to live with the grief of their child dying, etc.

 

Is anyone here really of the opinion that those in charge of a building site that has not been secured to an appropriate standard (as appears to be the case in this situation) should not be held to account for that, by either the authorities or the families of those impacted? No, doubt it, so why look upon that as some kind of illustration of societies ills?

 

Just because you survived playing in construction sites in the 1970s doesn't mean standards should change.

 

The modern world isn't that bad, it's just people like you can't handle change, mostly. Which is ironic really, given how bad you are at waiting for traffic lights to change.

[Al Bundy]

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.

[hackey lad]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

It's a perfectly logical extension of the argument.

This is modern society, where so many people don't want to be exposed to any risk (except when it comes to driving, then they complain about speed cameras.....) and they think someone else should keep them absolutely safe without them having to think for themselves. Add to that the no win no fee lawyers offering to sue anyone and everyone, and that is why there are more and more ludicrous disproportionate and very annoying restrictions on our lives. I chose to write about temporary traffic lights which are not necessary because that was the last thing of that ilk I came across, but one could quote literally hundreds of other equally crazy regulations. Just because they are of little consequence relative to the death of a child is no reason for just accepting them without complaint.

 

"**** happens" is a crude was of reminding people there is such a thing as bad luck, bad things happen, you cannot avoid all of it, and much of what can be avoided should be for responsible mature people to take their own risk assessment and take appropriate action if they want. If that lad was not deemed capable of doing that why was he let out on his own ?

 

That sounds absolutely crazy.

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  

[gaz 786]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

It's a perfectly logical extension of the argument.

This is modern society, where so many people don't want to be exposed to any risk (except when it comes to driving, then they complain about speed cameras.....) and they think someone else should keep them absolutely safe without them having to think for themselves. Add to that the no win no fee lawyers offering to sue anyone and everyone, and that is why there are more and more ludicrous disproportionate and very annoying restrictions on our lives. I chose to write about temporary traffic lights which are not necessary because that was the last thing of that ilk I came across, but one could quote literally hundreds of other equally crazy regulations. Just because they are of little consequence relative to the death of a child is no reason for just accepting them without complaint.

 

"**** happens" is a crude was of reminding people there is such a thing as bad luck, bad things happen, you cannot avoid all of it, and much of what can be avoided should be for responsible mature people to take their own risk assessment and take appropriate action if they want. If that lad was not deemed capable of doing that why was he let out on his own ?

 

That sounds absolutely crazy.

Yeah hard to believe but it's true !

[Palomar]

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.

[Chekhov]

15 hours ago, AndrewC said:

No, it isn't the same. One of these issues led to the death of a human. You getting irritated about traffic lights and complaining on an internet forum does not compare.

It's EXACTLY the same and I am surprised you cannot see it

It's about regulations restrictions etc that affect many thousands of people but which might, just might, save one life.

The infamous Mike Buckley comment is also EXACTLY the same principle :

 

(June 2021 on Mark Dolan's Talkradio show) Mike Buckley : broadcaster and Labour activist :

All secondary school pupils wearing masks would be worth it to save one life

 

Technically it would actually have been adding an average of about 5 years onto the end of one person's life in return for 3,000,000 kids being forced to wear masks all day at school.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

15 hours ago, AndrewC said:

Is an one here really of the opinion that those in charge of a building site that has not been secured to an appropriate standard (as appears to be the case in this situation) should not be held to account for that

I am saying exactly that.

 

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.