Advanced search

Head guilty of Hand S breaches which led to pupil's death .

(172 Posts)
LIZS Fri 03-Aug-07 09:08:49 Can't help thinking that this is the thin end of the wedge as far as our children being given scope to play is concerned. Obviously the accident ahd very sad consequences but how does the financial penalty and a civil case by the parents help ? At what age is it acceptable to expect children to obey out of bounds rules without constant supervision. Does Ofsted apply in Wales ,and if so, if it was such an obviosu hazard why had it not previously been noted as an action point .

nailpolish Fri 03-Aug-07 09:11:50

im sorry, i dont see how the headteacher is responsible. the poor child was only jumping down some steps. my dds do that every day. it was an accident. pure and simple.

prettybird Fri 03-Aug-07 09:17:13

'A health and safety expert told the court the boy's fall was like "falling from the arm of a domestic settee". '

Accidents happen and are tragic - but tihs could so easily have happened to a child at home. Are we then to be prosecuted?

Whizzz Fri 03-Aug-07 09:20:32

The head teacher would be deemed responsible as the person in overall control of H&S at the school

nailpolish Fri 03-Aug-07 09:22:11

thats fair enough whizzz, but the boy was jumping down some steps

are schools not allowed steps now? or should the head have been standing there to help each child down the steps?

Pixiefish Fri 03-Aug-07 09:23:21

Tis very enar me this school and tis very sad. The parents are now going to seek damages- twas reported in the Daily Post yesterday.

Don't have Ofsted as such here in Wlaes we have Estyn which is the same thing just a different body

very sad for all concerned.

wheresthehamster Fri 03-Aug-07 09:25:36

And yet he actually died in hospital from an MRSA type bug. Maybe the hospital are more to blame than the head?

Whizzz Fri 03-Aug-07 09:25:36

There's not enough info in the story below to get the full picture - I can only assume that the prosecution was 'successful' if it was proven that the HT knew about the 'risk' from the steps but then decided to do nthing about it - hence being negligent. It is unclear whether the prosecution was brought about by the H&S Executive or the childs parents.
The HT doesn't necessarily himself have to have been there, its just that he will be the named person in charge of H&S wich is why they prosecute him

Mercy Fri 03-Aug-07 09:27:38

It's a private school which the HT owns himself which is why he has been convicted.

nailpolish Fri 03-Aug-07 09:28:23

i dont see hwy there had to be a prosecution in the first place

MaloryTheExciterTowers Fri 03-Aug-07 09:30:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot Fri 03-Aug-07 09:34:32

I remember hearing about this case on the radio there is more to it. The reason the HT was found negligent was because the child was 3 and should not have been unsupervised on those steps. It was his job to either ensure that 59 pupils were not being supervised by one member of staff, or to ensure that the 3 year olds were not able to get near an obvious danger point, by means of a gate (which is now there).

Sorry but I've got no sympathy for the guy. If you look after children, it's part of your job to take reasonable measures to protect children in your care. A gate was the obvious solution, which he didn't bother to do. We're not talking about 7 year olds, we're talking about 3 year olds. He didn't need to take unreasonable, mad precautions - just show a reasonable amount of care. This he failed to do, and that was why, quite rightly, he was found guilty.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot Fri 03-Aug-07 09:35:12

It was an accident that was predictable and very easily preventible.

MaloryTheExciterTowers Fri 03-Aug-07 09:35:25

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheQueenOfQuotes Fri 03-Aug-07 09:36:46

I hate this "blame" soceity we seem to be living in now. As has been said it was an accident - and they happen - blimey DS1 has fallen downstairs 4 times (at home ) - should I be prosecuted too???

MT - I think there's usually 2 adults on playground duty at DS1's school - 180 children - and "shock horror" - some steps which they could fall down (Although they're not supposed to go up them....)

That poor teacher.

nailpolish Fri 03-Aug-07 09:37:15

i dont see steps as a "danger point"

at what age are children allowed near steps unsupervised, then?

expatinscotland Fri 03-Aug-07 09:37:34

I'm with you, QoQ.

MaloryTheExciterTowers Fri 03-Aug-07 09:39:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheQueenOfQuotes Fri 03-Aug-07 09:40:30

"would you NEVER let a three yr old near a few steps"

prescisely.........should I now stop DS2 (who won't be 4 until November) playing upstairs in his bedroom with he often goes up and down the stairs to tell me stuff.

I personally think that by 3yrs old most children are perfectly adept at walking up and downstairs unaided. IME that's the sort of age they also like starting to jump off the bottom step......I guess this poor little boy was a bit too ambitious and jumped down 4 steps.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot Fri 03-Aug-07 09:41:13

Sorry, you don't see "a flight of brick steps" as a danger point for a 3 year old?

Really? You'd let your 3 year old walk up and down them unsupervised?

I wouldn't. I don't believe in over-supervising children, but a flight of brick steps and a 3 year old unsupervised are not a happy combination. No responsible childcarer would countenance it.

MaloryTheExciterTowers Fri 03-Aug-07 09:41:55

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MaloryTheExciterTowers Fri 03-Aug-07 09:42:45

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

expatinscotland Fri 03-Aug-07 09:43:05

The other day, DD1 was playing with a wee boy from the other stair who is 6. He accidentally tripped - my DH was there and saw the whole thing and the two of them went down. Of course, they got badly scraped, but the wee boy was already terrified he'd get in 'trouble' for bringing down DD1, too.

As my DH said, how sad that a 'bairn' can't even have a wee accident now without freaking out about how it can be seen as his fault.

MaloryTheExciterTowers Fri 03-Aug-07 09:44:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Leati Fri 03-Aug-07 09:45:31

The school was clearly negligent. The head teacher should never allowed a ratio of one teacher to 59 pupils. Had there been a more reasonable ratio then the poor teacher may have noticed the child was engaging in a dangerous activity, such as, jumping down brick stares onto a cement surface.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: