Top story in the Argus

axel rose

http://www.argus.ie/premium/news/son-lucky-he-wasnt-killed-2310875.html

Honestly how can this paper seriously print this tripe? This mother should be ashamed of herself and not trying to angle for her 'compo money'.

My two year old can grasp the fact that gates are put up to keep people out- Why couldn't a nine year old?

It's terrible that the kid got injured but both the child and the parents need to take responsibility here not the flipping council!

Biggins

True, the signs are there for a reason. I suspect that the boy can actually read too!
He shouldn't have been were he was, end of story.

uoluol

Yeah typical - "it's everyone else's fault"....

Off course it's the council's fault - they should have people manning the locked gates with the keep out sign, at all times , to stop children climbing over.....

The boy was very lucky in that he could have been more seriously injured, but somebody should explain the concept of parental responsibilities to his mother! How in the world she thinks it's the council's fault is beyond comprehension.

event

read it today

she said that he was climbing the gate to have a look at some dogs or something. can he not look through the gate?

amacachi

Jesus, shows how much happened around here in the last week.

Truff Puff

axel rose wrote: »

http://www.argus.ie/premium/news/son-lucky-he-wasnt-killed-2310875.html

Honestly how can this paper seriously print this tripe? This mother should be ashamed of herself and not trying to angle for her 'compo money'.

My two year old can grasp the fact that gates are put up to keep people out- Why couldn't a nine year old?

It's terrible that the kid got injured but both the child and the parents need to take responsibility here not the flipping council!

The law is crooked. Trespassers should not be permitted to make claims. Unfortunately the law supports their claim and in a court of law they win.:mad:

axel rose

true-I'm guessing that she wont be paying for the solicitor either :rolleyes:

Truff Puff

You could be nearly certain. Irish Legal System=disgrace

workstoomuch

climbing on gate means breaking law, typical compo seeking fools who think the intelligent public care about their scumbag kids

Truff Puff

workstoomuch wrote: »

climbing on gate means breaking law, typical compo seeking fools who think the intelligent public care about their scumbag kids

No. They are motivated by money period. They do not care if the public cares for their kids or not! injury, right or wrong=money in their eyes. It is not about caring. If they cared they wouldn't be pursuing such a case. Compensation over morals, ethics. These kinds of people have no ethical morals

peewee_44

what total and utter nonsense that woman needs to get real. Them gates are there for a reason and had he not been climbing he would not have got hurt. I know kids will be kids and none of us were perfect im sure as kids but if that was me my parents would have thanked god I was ok then I would have got a clip around the ear for being so stupid.

BettePorter

totally agree. what was the editor thinking ? obviously the ma contacted the argus........'come down and see what that b***ard council did to my son'! surely the reporter would have the common sense to think, hang on here a minute, this isn't newsworthy, this kid was trespassing and got hurt, serves the wee fecker right, he'll not do it again.

this is not unlike the burglar who falls off your roof when he's breaking in and then sues you. some ppl like this mother have no shame. if he was my son, i'd have clipped him round the ear . as it is he's now of the mentality that ' i can do what ever i want cause mammy will always take my side. ppl like her sicken my happiness. I hope the council complains to the argus for such ridiculous reporting.

wait til you read the court report in a few months time. it'll be all 'little johnny was such a fun loving child who loved nothing more than climbing the fence to to look at the nice little doggie, while on his way to visit his sick elderly neighbour.......but now since the horrific trauma he experienced he's become withdrawn and stays in his room all day. at night time he has flashbacks and wets the bed and he doesn't play soccer anymore whereas before he was being scouted by dundalk............cue 33 grand to ease the pain ! where's Judge Judy when you need her !

house45

always the irish way compo, compo its a sad stae of affairs.

LCD

Bette Porter well said!

axel rose

BettePorter wrote: »

totally agree. what was the editor thinking ? obviously the ma contacted the argus........'come down and see what that b***ard council did to my son'!

LOL You just gave me the image....A bunch of skanger women cackling together......'you should phone yer man Joe Duffy'......'Thats right mary, and don't forget D'argus too'.....'How much do ya think you;ll get for it?, My barry fell off the path p1ssed last year an' got €16k', he even got transferred to disability too- Its great.'

whelan1

handy coming up to christmas:rolleyes:

Atomic Pineapple

Truff Puff wrote: »

The law is crooked. Trespassers should not be permitted to make claims. Unfortunately the law supports their claim and in a court of law they win.:mad:

Actually hasn't that changed very recently meaning tresspassers are not entitled to claim if they are tresspassing and force can be used to remove them.

BettePorter

axel rose wrote: »

LOL You just gave me the image....A bunch of skanger women cackling together......'you should phone yer man Joe Duffy'......'Thats right mary, and don't forget D'argus too'.....'How much do ya think you;ll get for it?, My barry fell off the path p1ssed last year an' got €16k', he even got transferred to disability too- Its great.'

lol yeah Dat's right mary, sure ring d'argus der and when ye get de compo ye can take me to D'england on D'airplane via de D'ecco road! lol Deadly !

PS up De town !

Princess Zelda

Aghhhh this story really annoys me. Kind of reminds me of a good few years ago when there was a playground in the middle of Muirhevanmamor. A child was walking up the slide the wrong way and another child was sliding down. Cue a broken leg. The parents got £6000 off the council and the playground was taken away. You really can't account for peoples greed and kids stupidity. When I was a kid I learned the wrong thing to do by experience and it is very dissapointing this doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Dunny

I didnt know anyone still bought the Argus anymore. Complete tripe of a paper.

DD loyal.:cool:

Long Term Louth

Just curious,

I wonder does anyone know why the gate was erected, or if anyone is familiar of the highlighted gate?

axel rose

asfaik the gates were erreted about a year ago to address antisocial behaviour.-Its not like they an be missed-they are 6ft tall!!!!

Princess Zelda

Future Darwin award canditate methinks

Long Term Louth

Princess Zelda wrote: »

Future Darwin award canditate methinks

you thinks wrong!

jezko

draffodx wrote: »

Actually hasn't that changed very recently meaning tresspassers are not entitled to claim if they are tresspassing and force can be used to remove them.

As far as I know that still hasn't passed into law... could be wrong thou..

10green bottles

The Argus have gone ala Sun/Star with this spiel.To be fair to the journo involved,she never(to my knowledge)gets involved with this kind of story,more arts and "serious" articles.
The question is, are local newspapers and their editors putting pressure on journos to produce any story regardless of there content??
Will they accept "sensationalist" stories over "quality" stories in their clamber for readers??
I buy both the Demo and the Argus, but the Argus are a 100 miles ahead of the Demo in some mad race to the bottom:mad:

BettePorter

10green bottles wrote: »

The Argus have gone ala Sun/Star with this spiel.To be fair to the journo involved,she never(to my knowledge)gets involved with this kind of story,more arts and "serious" articles.
The question is, are local newspapers and their editors putting pressure on journos to produce any story regardless of there content??
Will they accept "sensationalist" stories over "quality" stories in their clamber for readers??
I buy both the Demo and the Argus, but the Argus are a 100 miles ahead of the Demo in some mad race to the bottom:mad:

Do you really think thats the case ? I might be wrong but i reckon there are ppl who buy only the argus and those that buy only the demo, then some who buy both regardless of headline , like me (i'm loaded me ............got a massive claim when i sued me neighbour cause i cut me hand on his rose bush)

i don't reckon there are a sizeable amount of ppl who buy it only if there is a sensationalist story on the front page. ( more times than not anyway, the headline and story on the front page is all bluster and little content and only confined solely to the front page. at that rate you got read it in the shop !

(Though i look forward to pre booking my copy of the argus in a forthnight when the headline finally reads; ' Mc Ardle jailed at last'.........though i won't hold my breath !!!!)

TheBigFella

workstoomuch wrote: »

climbing on gate means breaking law, typical compo seeking fools who think the intelligent public care about their scumbag kids

He climbed on a fence, fell and cut himself. Yeah, a real scumbag alright!!

And only 9 years old, a master criminal he's going to be!!

Send him to jail now and get it over with.

whelan1

the gate is obviously there for a reason , HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON IT ! GET OVER IT -excuse the pun

BettePorter

TheBigFella wrote: »

He climbed on a fence, fell and cut himself. Yeah, a real scumbag alright!!

And only 9 years old, a master criminal he's going to be!!

Send him to jail now and get it over with.

i think you're splitting hairs here....... i read Workstoomuch as speaking in general about the kind of ppl who are constantly on the lookout for free money. and it depends on your personal interpretation of a scumbag. personally i think using a stupid self inflicted act as a way to fleece an innocent party, is a scummy thing to do.

Children learn what they live, and in instances like these it certainly doesn't bode well for the integrity and responsibility of these kinda kids in the future ! 'Sure thats what ma and da did' !

it's the same as calling to someones door cause you just saw their little johnny break your window. so you tell the parent and instantly the parent f%%Ks you off and and does the whole ' it wasn't my child' ! taking th3e kids word over that of the adult who watched him do it. it gives kids the carte blanche to behave as they like without fear of consequences. back in the day you would have been dragged by the scruff of the neck up to your parents house and hidden under the bed waiting for your dad to come in. now you can't even look wrong at one of them and they're spouting assault !

This child in question should have been told, ' serves ye right now don't do it again', not given the title of victim and the 15 mins of fame that he now has amongst his mates.

washiskin

In an attempt to both highlight and lighten, has anyone seen the "Holy Moly Bike" vid in YouTube? Speaks volumes for the "My child's an angel" Brigade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bekLCvSjrT8

Dunny

He should not have been on the gate, he hurt himself (almost fatally) Is that not lesson learned for her to keep an eye on him? Rediculous to blame the council and look for compo!

But sure the Argus make it front page news, jesus wept!

As for "Holy Moly Crazy dude on a Bike" CLASSIC

BettePorter

washiskin wrote: »

In an attempt to both highlight and lighten, has anyone seen the "Holy Moly Bike" vid in YouTube? Speaks volumes for the "My child's an angel" Brigade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bekLCvSjrT8

Exactly the kind of ppl i mean !

(p.s. theres a thread on AH entitled 'whats the worst accent'...........and i was offended by ppl mentioning dundalk.........I WAS SO WRONG ! Facepalm !)

bigneacy

That's ridiculous, makes me sick to think she'll get 5 figure compensation out of it. And she will. The way the Irish legal system is and the local judges sympathy for scumbags, she'll probably get a record breaking payout. Pure muck.

whelan1

she will have no luck for it believe me , it will only bring hardship

indiewindy

With his young age, he might have a change of compensation, his mom may have gone to the Argus hoping a solicitor will take her on no win no fee....

Ann22

BettePorter wrote: »

i think you're splitting hairs here....... i read Workstoomuch as speaking in general about the kind of ppl who are constantly on the lookout for free money. and it depends on your personal interpretation of a scumbag. personally i think using a stupid self inflicted act as a way to fleece an innocent party, is a scummy thing to do.

Children learn what they live, and in instances like these it certainly doesn't bode well for the integrity and responsibility of these kinda kids in the future ! 'Sure thats what ma and da did' !

it's the same as calling to someones door cause you just saw their little johnny break your window. so you tell the parent and instantly the parent f%%Ks you off and and does the whole ' it wasn't my child' ! taking th3e kids word over that of the adult who watched him do it. it gives kids the carte blanche to behave as they like without fear of consequences. back in the day you would have been dragged by the scruff of the neck up to your parents house and hidden under the bed waiting for your dad to come in. now you can't even look wrong at one of them and they're spouting assault !

This child in question should have been told, ' serves ye right now don't do it again', not given the title of victim and the 15 mins of fame that he now has amongst his mates.

Is she looking for compo? It didn't say so in the article. I wouldn't label the child as a scumbag either because of the actions of the parents. They can hardly blame the council either, it's her responsibility for preventing her son from trespassing.

I heard of a case recently where a young man broke into a school and injured himself. The pure and utter scumbag claimed and the insurance company paid out.Wtf?

axel rose

Ann,
I think it's fair to say that we can interpret the type of person the mother is by how she chooses to take responsibility for both her lack of supervision and how she completely failed to see that her son did wrong (and in doing so got injured).

A decent and responsible person would know that the area is a magnet for antisocial behaviour and would supervise her child. A decent and responsible parent would speak to their child about the importance of respecting private property and natural consequences (for example if you trespass you may hurt yourself). A decent and responsible parent would see that they failed to do either of the above and see how they were ultimately responsible for the incident. The child may not be a scumbag but the mothers parenting skills do not do the kid any favours.


(A decent and responsible paper would not have the story headlined)

However this woman failed to do any of this and rang the flipping Argus- Why exactly? To warn against the dangers of not supervising your child? To warn against the dangers of trespass? No to moan and whinge the about the fact the council hurt her son. (How exactly???)They are pretty accurate signs of a woman who wants money without working for it!!

10green bottles

BettePorter wrote: »

Do you really think thats the case ? I might be wrong but i reckon there are ppl who buy only the argus and those that buy only the demo, then some who buy both regardless of headline , like me (i'm loaded me ............got a massive claim when i sued me neighbour cause i cut me hand on his rose bush)

i don't reckon there are a sizeable amount of ppl who buy it only if there is a sensationalist story on the front page. ( more times than not anyway, the headline and story on the front page is all bluster and little content and only confined solely to the front page. at that rate you got read it in the shop !

(Though i look forward to pre booking my copy of the argus in a forthnight when the headline finally reads; ' Mc Ardle jailed at last'.........though i won't hold my breath !!!!)

What im realy trieing to say is,are Editors putting the big "P" on journos to get stories,headline,attention grabbing stories,regardless of news worthieness.Are journos @ the Demo and the Argus now on a basic wage backed/topped up by piece work??? As i mentioned, the lady that wrote this piece of junk is a serious writer(imo) who dosent usualy report on this kind of crap.

And absolutley to your Mc Ardle comments.

Whiskey Devil

This kind of 'story' obviously sells papers. Most of the free locals around the country report in the same fashion and a lot of them are very profitable. They are local tabloids for Sun readers.

I don't see what's so bad about a 9 year old climbing a railing though. It's what kids do. 'Scumbag' is way over the top. As for the mother, people with that kind of attitude shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

Ann22

axel rose wrote: »

Ann,
I think it's fair to say that we can interpret the type of person the mother is by how she chooses to take responsibility for both her lack of supervision and how she completely failed to see that her son did wrong (and in doing so got injured).

I don't think I worded my post properly Axel, I meant to say I wouldn't label the child as a scumbag.. when I said 'either' I meant as well as The Big Fella said a few posts above, it sounded like I was saying I wouldn't label her either.

People who get piles of money for injuring themselves while trespassing on someone else's property and doing something they clearly shouldn't be doing p*ss me off:mad:.

axel rose

That makes more sense now!! For a while I thought you felt she was a fine and responsible young lady! I would be reluctant to call her kid a scumbag too.

Long Term Louth

scum·bag
n. Slang A person regarded as despicable

Hardly the terminology to be aimed at the 9 year old in question??

axel rose

I agree with you LTL, but what are your feelings on the attitude of the parent and the responsibility taken by D'Argus?

Long Term Louth

axel rose wrote: »

I agree with you LTL, but what are your feelings on the attitude of the parent and the responsibility taken by D'Argus?

Very poor opinion of both, im in agreement with most of the comments but having once been a 9yo child myself (long time ago) I have to admit, I went into a lot of places I probably should not have and can appreciate how a nine may see the gate as an adventure.

I am not aware of what lies behind the gate or what the intentions of the associated child may have been, but to compare his actions to a burgular entering a home (unless his intentions were to commit a crime, this is not mentioned) I find a bit OTT.

If the associated gate is been used as a boundary divider (again I do not know) I would have to ask is there a need for spikes?

However if it was one of my own children, I think I would know of their whereabouts and certainly would not be gaining coverage by the incident.

bigneacy

But he wasn't compared to a burglar himself. The point made was that it was a similar situation. He was somewhere he shouldn't have been. Somewhere that people made efforts to keep him out of, and he indeed got in and injured himself.

Now his mother and her cackling horde are, presumably, trying to squeeze every cent they can out of his accident.

Its similar to situations where burglars hurt themselves or got hurt by the property owner while doing a spot or burglarising and then sued for compensation.

And perhaps there isn't a need for spikes but sure thats not the councils fault either, in an ideal world there wouldn't even be a need for a gate. There shouldn't be the problem of having to keep people out, but there is, and if there is a gate to keep someone out, then someone shouldn't be climbing over it. If they injure themselves well then its nobodys fault only their own.

Long Term Louth

bigneacy wrote: »

But he wasn't compared to a burglar himself. The point made was that it was a similar situation. He was somewhere he shouldn't have been. Somewhere that people made efforts to keep him out of, and he indeed got in and injured himself.

Now his mother and her cackling horde are, presumably, trying to squeeze every cent they can out of his accident.

Its similar to situations where burglars hurt themselves or got hurt by the property owner while doing a spot or burglarising and then sued for compensation.

And perhaps there isn't a need for spikes but sure thats not the councils fault either, in an ideal world there wouldn't even be a need for a gate. There shouldn't be the problem of having to keep people out, but there is, and if there is a gate to keep someone out, then someone shouldn't be climbing over it. If they injure themselves well then its nobodys fault only their own.

This is a nine year old child, it is no ones fault only his own??

Still unclear as to what the gate is supposed to be protecting.

bigneacy

He's nine, not five... Should have a bit of common sense to not climb over a gate that has sharp metal spikes on top.

When I was 9, I did. Maybe climbed over a gate or two, but knew I shouldn't have been doing it.

I'm unsure as to what the gate was protecting either.

Long Term Louth

We shall agree to disagree perhaps, that action of the nine year old was/was not entirely his own fault.

Depending on what the gate was protecting, IMO (rightly/wrongly) that the council may be found negligent, if they cannot justify the spikes.

However I do agree, and repeat that the actions taken by the parent and that of the paper certainly wont enhance the upbringing of the child in any way and hopefully this will be taken into account if a claim is pursued.

uoluol

I'm sorry, but how can you state that the council could be liable for having a fence with spikes in it??? Surely that should have been an indication to even the most dumbest nine year old that the fence is not meant to be climbed? How come other children in the area can grasp the fact that a tall fence should not be climbed over. Presumably they have been reared by parents who teach their children to respect public property, and to obey signs........

The child unfortunately paid the price for his stupidity and lack of social responsibility. I'm sure at nine you knew that you would potentially be in trouble for climbing over an obvious obstacle that you had no business to climb. And if you did injure yourself I'm sure your mother would not contact the local newspaper.

But I agree, the child can not be blamed, it is obvious that his mother has few social morals, and no parental skills.

Long Term Louth

uoluol wrote: »

I'm sorry, but how can you state that the council could be liable for having a fence with spikes in it??? Surely that should have been an indication to even the most dumbest nine year old that the fence is not meant to be climbed? How come other children in the area can grasp the fact that a tall fence should not be climbed over. Presumably they have been reared by parents who teach their children to respect public property, and to obey signs........

The child unfortunately paid the price for his stupidity and lack of social responsibility. I'm sure at nine you knew that you would potentially be in trouble for climbing over an obvious obstacle that you had no business to climb. And if you did injure yourself I'm sure your mother would not contact the local newspaper.

But I agree, the child can not be blamed, it is obvious that his mother has few social morals, and no parental skills.

"I'm sorry, but how can you state that the council could be liable for having a fence with spikes in it???"

I agree with the majority of your comments,

"Depending on what the gate was protecting, IMO (rightly/wrongly) that the council may be found negligent, if they cannot justify the spikes".

Which is what I in fact stated, it is still unclear as to what the gate was protecting. I dont agree that the council should be held responsible for either negligence or liability, but unless there is a good reason for the spikes I think purely from a legal perspective they may be held partly responsible.