Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

171 replies

LIZS · 03/08/2007 09:08

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6925503.stm 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 .

OP posts:
Whizzz · 03/08/2007 10:27

Be careful of how you think of prosecution & suing as people are using both terms here.

A breach of H&S law if proven is a criminal offence - hence will be prosecuted usually by the H&S Exec. - resulting in a fine or even prison for the guilty party (company or individual)

Suing someone is a civil case, which hopes to end up with being paid compensation

Pixiefish · 03/08/2007 10:28

The parents are suing apparetnly

Whizzz · 03/08/2007 10:28

and I must get on my soapbox again I'm afraid & say there's very few things that are 'just accidents'

southeastastra · 03/08/2007 10:29

that ratio is appalling especially when dealing with 3 year olds.

NadineBaggott · 03/08/2007 10:30

what do you mean whizzz?

of course most 'accidents' are ^avoidable' but that's what makes them accidents!

NotADragonOfSoup · 03/08/2007 10:32

So, if the child hadn't died of MRSA would the head have been prosecuted? Whilst he is ultimately responsible for the steps (and the fact that they are now gated off shows it was preventable), he is not responsible for the boy's death. The hospital needs to take some responsibility for that. If it were not for the MRSA infection, would the boy have survived?

Whizzz · 03/08/2007 10:32

My post ealier - that basically said if you investigate any accident properly, you will always find a cause - few 'just happen'.

Sorry for being a bit controversial (very unlike me ) but I used to work in H&S so you can see why I feel the need to stick my head above the parapet (although I risk assessed it first )

aloha · 03/08/2007 10:32

The school knew the steps were hazardous but made no attempt to either supervise them or fence them off. A three year old was left totally alone and unsupervised while doing something very dangerous. I would consider that totally unacceptable if it was happening to my child at nursery.

Whizzz · 03/08/2007 10:33

DRagon - he may still have been prosecuted even if the boy didn;t die - it was the negligence that was proven - doesn't have to include a death, just injury/loss

Whizzz · 03/08/2007 10:34

(oooo I'm quite enjoying dragging my H&S knowledge from the recesses of my brain !)

Leati · 03/08/2007 10:35

I think the danger of the stairs was less obvious than something like a swimming pool. However, schools are supposed to be safe havens for our kids. Nobody likes the idea of sending thier kids to school and never seeing them again.

What makes this stand out as neglectful is the ratio. I would also be curious to know if there was evidence introduced to the court that showed if other children had been hurt on those stairs.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 03/08/2007 10:36

I don't think I'm OTT and hysterical at all.

The gate is there now, why wasn't it there before? If you believe it's reasonable to have the gate there now and you don't believe it should be pulled down, then it follows that it should have been there in the first place. And that's what this case is about.

Leati · 03/08/2007 10:38

NotADragonOfSoup,

The child had bleeding of the brain and was comatose before he got sick.

Leati · 03/08/2007 10:38

LittleBellatrixLeBoot,

You make a very valid point.

LittleBellatrixLeBoot · 03/08/2007 10:40

I think we're in the minority Leati. Most people think it's elf and safety gorn mad.

Leati · 03/08/2007 10:41

I think the crowd has turned, and more people are seeing that there was negligence.

NotADragonOfSoup · 03/08/2007 10:43

But Leati, what actually killed him was the illness, not the injury.

southeastastra · 03/08/2007 10:45

the comment on the link: "The effect of that is that we will be limiting activities.

er no maybe get more people to supervise

nailpolish · 03/08/2007 10:48

i think a line has to be drawn somewhere
you cant prevent children using steps
well, you can, but its not living in the real world

Leati · 03/08/2007 10:50

NotADragonOfSoup,

It was considered a complication and it is a complication that would not have occured if he had never been in the hospital. However, that being said if there was a criminal trial for manslaughter I imagine you would be right. I think it is impossible to say, what would have happened with the child if it were not for the illness.

I do genuinly believe that it was an accident but it could have and should have been prevented.

vitomum · 03/08/2007 10:50

i don't see what difference that makes dragon to the school's responsibility. he was very seriously injured when he got to the hospital.

Leati · 03/08/2007 10:53

nailpolish,

He was not using the steps. It was recess and he liked to play batman and was jumping down them. The steps were considered, "off limits" because the school was aware that they were dangerous. A combination of a lack of adequate supervison and a lack of a gate, allowed this tragedy to happen.

vitomum · 03/08/2007 10:53

but NP you can prevent a crowd of 3 year old playing wild jumping games on a set of concrete steps. i know that is what my 3 year old would get up to if given free access to a set of steps.

nailpolish · 03/08/2007 10:54

i give up

Leati · 03/08/2007 10:55

I have a baby gate protecting my stairs at home because I know it is dangerous.