......and the literacy skills of a three year old...? :-) >>
......... or, indeed, it's mother?
|
I'm with GM on this one...
As to those who say the parents are responsible... I would challenge any parents who have had more than one child to catagorically say that they were there in the same room/car/whatever at ALL times their children were together and never left them alone... I doubt any of us could say that... Perhaps the rest of us were just lucky our kids didn't have violent tendancies, eh?!
|
People are responsible for the actions of their dogs, and dogs don't have any sense of criminal responsibility at any age.
If my pet ferret escaped in a supermarket and went for someone's throat, it would be a criminal injury and I'd be responsible.
|
If my pet ferret escaped in a supermarket and went for someone's throat it would be a criminal injury and I'd be responsible.
>>
Just remind me what supermarket you use Cliff, so I can avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
Leaving aside the mother's eyelashes, and where any compensation might come from - I understood that the injured child had 'completely recovered'. Why is anyone demanding compensation at all? Is any injury a possible scam? The whole thing seems such a blatant try-on. It must be a combination of a job-hunting solicitor and Max Clifford.
|
|
|
|
Right - saw the Mother - scary!
|
Dammn
AS, ya beat me to it.
Re the mother
I wonder could her children claim offen her when they are older
For being traumatized by the sight of her make-up.
i tell ye---it traumatized me
my wonder was?
how did a three? year old have the strength to weild a car jack/
But to use NI terminology
Scallys---- what else can one expect.
I predicted to the missis that with a wee nudge or two from the mother he might even fit in a couple of more claims as a juvie before embarking on his adult scamming career.
PS
i near went down the throat of a very silly person at work when he said about the McClaren buggy "injuries" & how terrible it was.
a blinking VERY minor flesh wound, which i notice was NOT shown on TV
well they couldnt could they?
Edited by dieseldogg on 14/11/2009 at 15:34
|
|
Marvellous this modern profiling software you can get, a few seconds of exposure on the news and it can tell you everything about a person !
|
Pugugly, ould hand
I have been arguing for years in work that DISCRIMINATION is a good thing
like why else would one prefer a Mercedes to a Tata
Or a Sony to an Alba?
Or a decent country girl to a crackhead( for a wife)
etc
etc
So hey I see myself as being a person great discrimination
But not THAT seriousley
cheers
M
|
|
|
|
For being traumatized by the sight of her make-up. >>
According to the Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6551154/Toddler-attacked-...l
".. Miss Williams, of the Wirral, a trainee beautician ..... >>
She is a trainee after all, and so can be excused for getting the eye makeup wrong! -)
The attacker is now in care:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8357870.stm
" ... Jay's assailant cannot be named for legal reasons. He cannot be prosecuted for the offence because of his age and he is currently in the care of social services. ... "
That will be more costly than the £27k paid to the victim.
Edited by jbif on 14/11/2009 at 16:54
|
|
Thanks jbif, i wondered what all the eyelash fun was about.
|
If you watch the clip of the interview with Renai and you can tear yourself away from the eyes. Look what the little angel is doing with the biro!
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8357870.stm
Think i'd be hitting him with something hard :-)
Edited by Fullchat on 14/11/2009 at 23:29
|
|
Now now, FC, you are not allowed to even smack kids these days.... ;-)
|
|
I think you're being a bit unfair - the little lad has obviously got problems - some compassion wouldn't go amiss. Suffer the little children and all that.
|
Ps
Pugugly
We fostered for a while there & might again once the weans have flown the coop
This experience only reinforced our preconception that our UK world is TRUELY mad
With regards to useless neerdowells breeding ad neausem
And expecting Rolls Royce care from the state
And all paid for by those who choose to limit the no of children they produce
The "natural" parents get away with murder ( occassionally) and minor curelty & gross neglect endlessy
Yet are allowed to keep the children ( and more importantly ) the benefits
Whilst decent would be parents CANNOt get children to adopt
Scheesh
PPS
I do appreciate that this is not the forum for a rant about Social morals
cheers
M
PPPPS
When the child who I had twigged may indeed have other "issues" becomes a "twocker"(perhaps) and kills an innocent?? Because nothing will EVER be HIS fault??
What then Pugugly
Edited by dieseldogg on 15/11/2009 at 10:45
|
So what are you advocating ? - a sound battering ? And all this based on a video clip lasting a couple of minutes. Incredible assessment of needs etc.
EDIT - Ah yes I forgot that it's a presumption based on the length of false eyebrows.
Edited by Pugugly on 15/11/2009 at 11:47
|
Have you ever tried to get biro off leather? I once had to within 20 mins of the sofa being delivered thanks to one of my little angels. That reminds me must go and check the stair. cupboard.
Challenge noted PU.
|
|
Fullchat, am told that babywipes do a very good of removing biro from leather. Love to know if it true!
|
I would believe it.
Baby wipes clean up almost everything (experience from having a 3 year old).
|
Nope
Removal of children after the first two or three unsuccessful "attempts" at child rearing and put them up for fostering/adoption.
Or a decreasing scale of benefits after the first couple of weans.
NO benefits unless the father is named?
Though since he will probably be a neerdowell too that hardly matters
we are into the 4th or 5th generation of dysfunctional families all aided & abbetted by our namby pamby social care system, saying "its not their fault", whilst fiddling their own returns and overtime, for visits that did not happen. cf the Victoria Climbre case
well , sorry, but some of it is.THEIR FAULT
Whilst the unfit patents smoke drink and run to the bookies there will ALWAYS be "child poverty" no amount of money thrown at the problem will make a whit of difference.
The provision of "social housing" once the silly wee minx gets deliberately knocked up hardly helps.
cheers
Ps we have had the 16 year old's boyfriend living under our roof this last 18months.
he would be homeless otherwise.
see, hardly heartless.
You may edit or delete this post if you wish
PS
I will NEVER vote BNP, or for owt of that ilk.
|
NO benefits unless the father is named
That would cause some confusion where I last worked..
Still I don't think its a three year old's fault. Didn't ask to be born did they. By accident of birth many of us have been "lucky" that's all it is though - luck.
Still disagree with the social classification due to disproportionate length of eyelashes though :-)
|
Can't help agreeing with some of dieseldogg's points.
Things have changed a lot in this country and 'the family' isn't what it was. Informal arrangements are commoner than marriage now I believe. However one has to remember that the children of married couples are sometimes abused or otherwise turned into little monsters at an early age, and that the children of unmarried couples are often raised well. There's nothing wrong with smoking, drinking and betting on horses provided the children aren't starved (or trained as petty criminals) to pay for these things.
Sooner or later, I believe, some mechanism will have to be devised to deter the minority of utter toerags from reproducing and costing us all money and anxiety with their damaged offspring. How this can be done I have no idea. Seems to me that whatever is done, large numbers of people will complain sentimentally and scream the place down.
|
|
Whichever way you cut it - you can't blame a kid for it's parenting, especially for the ages under discussion.
|
you can't blame a kid for it's parenting
Of course not. But the damaged nipper still has to be repaired, supervised or incarcerated when all else fails.
|
|
I know that well enough. That kid in the video I would suggest has some irreperable damage not linked to parenting or the thrashing he had, in all lieklyhood - we can't judge parenting on the length of false eyelashes, that's all I'm saying !
Edited by Pugugly on 15/11/2009 at 16:40
|
Haven't been able to get the video.
Three-year-old children are not responsible and like all human beings are capable of cruel and destructive acts. They don't have a clear idea of the consequences of their actions to themselves or others. So this three-year-old may be damaged and somehow malevolent but may just have been trying something new. Perhaps it had never met another nipper.
As for false eyelashes, they are neither here nor there. A matter of no interest and no significance.
|
|
Agreed - Finally the voice of reason on the blinking eyelashes !
Edited by Pugugly on 15/11/2009 at 17:18
|
Oh come on PU. We agreed all along really.
:o}
|
Three-year-old children are not responsible
Wifey tells me that at that age, they learn by copying and that 'badness' is not already in them....
so if one 3 yr old has bashed hell out of another 3 year old....then he's done so because he's seen someone else doing that....either for real or on the t.v. or similar
|
... So this three-year-old may be damaged and somehow malevolent but may just have been trying something new. Perhaps it had never met another nipper. ... >>
In reply to Lud, the Telegraph story says:
" ... The attack happened in December 2007, when the families of both boys had arranged to go out for a meal together. Jay had asked if he could go with his friend, and the toddlers had been put in the other boy?s car outside his house, ready to set off.
They were left alone together when the boy?s mother momentarily went back into the house to get something she had forgotten. Jay?s family still have no idea why the attack happened, but it was so ferocious that the assailant cracked the car?s windscreen as he rained down blows with the jack, which had been left in the car.
Jay was eventually rescued when the other boy?s parents heard his screams. ...
.... "This decision makes it very clear that in cases where a child suffers an injury in an intentional attack by another child, they are entitled to compensation regardless of the fact that the child who committed the act is below the age of criminal responsibility." .... "
Edited by jbif on 15/11/2009 at 20:20
|
No theres another thought
Lower the age of criminal responsibility
I am thinking in particular of the 16 year old serial rapist
who recently made the news
|
The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in England and 8 in Scotland, the lowest in the EU.
What age would you lower this to? Do British children develop criminal tendencies before our European neighbours ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see the problem in general, but in particular I question the motives of the people applying for compensation, as the boy has not suffered lasting injury. I also think that the boy concerned will not be helped in his future life by constantly being reminded of this - in a little while, left alone, the memory would recede.
|
I also think that the boy concerned will not be helped in his future life by constantly being reminded of this - in a little while left alone the memory would recede.
>>
Exactly what SWMBO said....and she is somewhat qualified in that field.
|
I started this thread out of continued annoyance that drivers convicted in court for even the most trivial offence now have to cough up £15 towards the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund (debated previously here), and I was using this as an example of how ridiculous the situation has become. But it did start with a motoring theme, so please keep it motorist related.
HJ
|
|
|
|
|
