One eyed Jack wrote: » and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years
One eyed Jack wrote: » Iwhich arise out of the fact that children are increasingly at risk, a fact borne out by the rise in insurance claims.
One eyed Jack wrote: » If they don’t want to face high insurance costs as a result of insurance claims, the onus is on the owners of the business or the management of the school to ensure the safety of the children in their care.
"We've ran this business for five years and have only had one claim in that time, which involved an adult, not a child," she said.
"My insurance went from €8,500 a few years ago to €47,000 and I've endured months of stress over all this, it has tormented me. "Maybe the government will care when thousands are unemployed and everyone has to sign-on. There is no future for people in the play centre business at the moment. "I've had two claims in 15 years so why would my insurance go up so high?
Other play centre owners who have had no claims against them say they are "living in fear" as "it can be the difference in getting a quote and not getting a quote."
Elaine Mullally opened Clown Around in Portarlington, Co Offaly in 2008 and has had no claims in 11 years of business, yet her insurance increased from €3,500 to €14,500.
bucketybuck wrote: » Cite? You say that a rise in insurance claims is evidence that children are at risk, but that logic is nonsense. That logic would be faulty even if the number of claims were increasing, yet the businesses linked in the article have had none or minimal claims over 10/15 year periods. Their insurance costs have skyrocketed despite a low number of claims, not because of a high number. If you are going to state that children are at risk in these places, that they are not safe, please provide some evidence for this opinion or I'll assume you are taking a contrary position just for the sake of it.
King of Kings wrote: » You are talking out your hole. It cant be profitable as you given they are closing due to costs. Your statment makes no sense.
Granted I cant vouch for all play centres but the ones ive been in were fine. I've been in quite a few.
The issue here is that accidents happen esp with kids but for some reason a lot of accidents seem to result in not just finiancial rewards but significants rewards. Sure these places are businesses but they offer great services to the community. If you cant see that there is something wrong with the current situation...then you are either blind or just a crank on a wind-up.
One eyed Jack wrote: » If reducing costs means putting children’s safety at risk
due to their own prioritising cutting costs and increasing profits over their patrons safety
One eyed Jack wrote: » You understand how insurance is calculated and applied to an industry? Whether or not an individual business had no history of insurance claims is only one factor in how their insurance costs are calculated. It’s insurance against claims, not insurance against members of the public being injured on the premises.
bucketybuck wrote: » More rubbish pulled from your ass, you have no evidence of any of this. Clearly you are not posting in good faith.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m posting in good faith.
Wheeliebin30 wrote: We like to think we’re a great nation. But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The days of picking the child up, kissing their scuffed knee or cut finger and telling them run along, are long gone
bucketybuck wrote: » You stated without evidence that the businesses were putting children at risk, and now that they are doing so by cost cutting. Both claims pulled from your ass.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The evidence is that children are being injured in these play centres, and these injuries could have been prevented if the owners of the business were interested enough in children’s safety to implement adequate health and safety standards. Implementing adequate health and safety standards costs an absolute fortune, and will eat into the profits of any business, but in the long run, they’ll save a fortune on their insurance costs. If there are 10 play centres and one of those play centres is costing their insurance company their profits, then the insurance company is going to raise the cost of their premiums for that industry as a whole, because the risks of providing insurance for that industry have increased, exponentially it would seem, in the last couple of years.
whisky_galore wrote: » Why should they be? Otherwise we are raising a generation of entitled little cotton-wool wrapped sh1ts with zero personal responsibility. Bogus claim seekers should be named and shamed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » What’s this “we” business? Let’s keep things in perspective at least. The people who will claim against a business in the event that their child is injured are in a minority. Like every other patron, they’ve paid the business to ensure their child is able to play in an environment where they are safe. When that doesn’t happen, it may or may not have been as a result of the business owner being negligent, and if it is shown that the injury could have been prevented by the business owner, then the claim against them is likely to be successful.
irelandrover wrote: » Can you show some proof of this?
whisky_galore wrote: » Why should they be? Otherwise we are raising a generation of entitled little cotton-wool wrapped sh1ts with zero personal responsibility.Bogus claim seekers should be named and shamed.
bucketybuck wrote: » No, you are not. Have you read the article yet?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Some proof of what, that with adequate health and safety standards in place, the risk to children’s health and safety is mitigated? In other businesses where they have adequate health and safety standards in place to prevent injuries to children, children don’t get injured. Very simple really.
One eyed Jack wrote: » In other businesses where they have adequate health and safety standards in place to prevent injuries to children, children don’t get injured.
One eyed Jack wrote: » they’ve paid the business to ensure their child is able to play in an environment where they are safe. When that doesn’t happen, it may or may not have been as a result of the business owner being negligent, and if it is shown that the injury could have been prevented by the business owner, then the claim against them is likely to be successful.
irelandrover wrote: » No, proof that children are being injured due to owners cutting costs. What you ssaid is quite clear,The evidence is that children are being injured in these play centres, and these injuries could have been prevented if the owners of the business were interested enough in children’s safety to implement adequate health and safety standards You said children are being injured and its due to owners cutting costs.
Rennaws wrote: » Yes they do. So what do they do when the their child gets injured at home.. Or maybe in your home ? Will you be ok with being sued because you didn't cover every possible eventuality ? Where does this nonsense end. You and all the greedy people like you are the problem with this country. Not the genuine business owners who are trying to provide a service and make an honest living.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You even cited me word for word, and still tried to twist what I actually said, to try and imply I was saying something I didn’t. Well done.
irelandrover wrote: » I actually dont see how i took you up wrong. You said children are being injured and its because owners arent interested in adequate health and safety. Children being injured does not mean that the business is negligent. I asked for proof that children are being injured due to this.
