Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

1235789

Comments

  • #122
    Necro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 58,686 ✭✭✭✭Necro


    I mean as someone said a lot of these cases aren't even heard before a judge, the judge just approves settlement.

    Mostly there's no admission of liability as well.

    The issue is that to challenge the chancers and frauds it costs too much money, and again as posted in this thread the legal costs can vastly outweigh the settlement amount itself.

    So it's fair to say it isn't a health and safety issue, as this isn't even adjudicated on.

    It's an issue with the daylight robbery the legal services cost to defend the case primarily.
    Insurance companies are way more likely to simply settle as it costs far too much to defend in most cases.


  • #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It’s not living in a cave at all, it’s acknowledging that the Courts will determine liability and award costs accordingly in civil cases where the burden of proving liability is substantially lower than proving criminal liability.

    The courts are a basket case in this country through, they are awarding compensation where they should not be. We are a total outlier in Europe in the amount of claims and the amount given in payouts.

    The fact is the courts need to stop or be stopped paying out for nothing claims. So you not see all the crazy claims and payouts that are publicized regularly?


  • #124
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So these children being minded for free, what level of risk is acceptable there?
    Is the level lower because the parents aren't paying for it? Shouldn't careful parents insist on inspecting the houses where they are going to leave their children for zero Euros while out earning money for the next holiday to Florida themselves?

    Personally I'd prefer to pay and be sure my kids were safe. But maybe that's just me.

    Or could it be that you know well that this soft play thing isn't about actual safety really, and that the children are as safe as active children can be when not sat in front of a computer - and certainly as safe or safer than they would be when left in the care of random neighbours who will let them out to play in the street because you know, they're not being paid to provide an officially inspected play area or anything?


    Random neighbours? Who suggested anything about random neighbours? I know my neighbours better than I know the owner of the local play centre who is charging for their services, but I accept that could be just me... unlikely though. That being said, I would still trust my neighbours with my children’s safety as opposed to a business owner who is responsible for not just my children, but about thirty other children in their care too at any given time.


  • #125
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,116 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Random neighbours? Who suggested anything about random neighbours? I know my neighbours better than I know the owner of the local play centre who is charging for their services, but I accept that could be just me... unlikely though. That being said, I would still trust my neighbours with my children’s safety as opposed to a business owner who is responsible for not just my children, but about thirty other children in their care too at any given time.

    Random in the sense that it depends who's available. If the same person was available every day to mind someone else's children and never got a penny in exchange, I would think that some serious exploitation of others going on there.

    But I know you think it was and is fine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

    Also random in that since it's not a paid activity, the parents can't really dictate how the kids are to spend their time, so no safety checks etc.

    I just think there's a massive disconnect there. Your apparent belief that that's not a set-up just ready-made to go wrong, with differing parental and child-minder expectations about suitable activities and acceptable risks is a fantasy, IME.

    Couple that with your belief that play centres can ever provide an environment where children can run around madly and never get even minor injuries which is equally fantastical, and as I say, the two are also completely inconsistent.

    You didn't say where you would stand on parents taking the unpaid neighbour to court if the child falls in the street and gets hurt? Or indeed the unpaid neighbour taking the parents to court for damage the child has done in their home or for which they are themselves being pursued by someone else?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #126
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Random in the sense that it depends who's available. If the same person was available every day to mind someone else's children and never got a penny in exchange, I would think that some serious exploitation of others going on there.

    But I know you think it was and is fine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

    Also random in that since it's not a paid activity, the parents can't really dictate how the kids are to spend their time, so no safety checks etc.

    I just think there's a massive disconnect there. Your apparent belief that that's not a set-up just ready-made to go wrong, with differing parental and child-minder expectations about suitable activities and acceptable risks is a fantasy, IME.


    The reason you observe what appears to you to be a massive disconnect there is precisely because you’re basing your opinions entirely on your own experience and judging an experience which is not yours, by your own standards.

    I’d observe a massive disconnect too if I was filling in the lack of information I didn’t have in someone else’s account of their experiences with my own imagination based entirely upon my experiences (or in your case, your experiences).

    Couple that with your belief that play centres can ever provide an environment where children can run around madly and never get even minor injuries which is equally fantastical, and as I say, the two are also completely inconsistent.


    I never suggested any such thing, as an expectation like that would be nonsense given that it’s highly likely anywhere where children run around madly are likely to injure themselves. Easy solution - prohibit children from running around madly and teach them the skills of observation and regard and care for their own and others safety.

    You didn't say where you would stand on parents taking the unpaid neighbour to court if the child falls in the street and gets hurt? Or indeed the unpaid neighbour taking the parents to court for damage the child has done in their home or for which they are themselves being pursued by someone else?


    You’re right, I didn’t.

    Nothing wrong with your observation skills at least.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,116 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The reason you observe what appears to you to be a massive disconnect there is precisely because you’re basing your opinions entirely on your own experience and judging an experience which is not yours, by your own standards.

    I’d observe a massive disconnect too if I was filling in the lack of information I didn’t have in someone else’s account of their experiences with my own imagination based entirely upon my experiences (or in your case, your experiences).

    Alternatively of course, one could conclude that the reason you refuse to go into any details in these mutually incompatible scenarios is because you know they are mutually incompatible.

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I never suggested any such thing, as an expectation like that would be nonsense given that it’s highly likely anywhere where children run around madly are likely to injure themselves. Easy solution - prohibit children from running around madly and teach them the skills of observation and regard and care for their own and others safety.

    Really? In what world do you imagine children playing in a play area and there never being anyone who gets over excited and pushes someone else?

    I'm not saying children shouldn't be taught to respect each other, but your belief that this can be achieved with a 100% success rate is unrealistic. The point with children is that they are children, and can't be relied on to always control themselves, so parents and anyone else responsible for them needs to repeat and repeat and repeat.

    And of course the business owner can't be sure that all the parents who frequent the centre will accept the same level of risk, and behaviour, for their children. They're not the parents after all. By your logic they will have to ban a number of children permanently, just for being a bit rougher than the most prudent and fearful children. Probably not a good business plan. Just explaining and repeating, as I say, would have been better but you want the owner up in court the minute there's a tiny injury, so that won't be possible.

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You’re right, I didn’t.

    Nothing wrong with your observation skills at least.
    Nah, not even - it sticks out like a sore thumb. The point is that you can't.
    Because your views are entirely inconsistent with each other.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #128
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 875 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    We're tying ourselves in unnecessary legal knots that are strangling aspects of the economy.

    There's a reasonable balance to be struck and we're nowhere near that. The payouts are ludicrously generous (with someone else's money) and there's been very little done to reform it.

    Legal costs were one of the issues brought up by the so called Troika as being in urgent need of reform but the governments (not just FG) ran away from that as it was too hard and decided instead to install vast numbers of water meters instead.


  • #129
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I never claimed expertise in the area? You claimed something about me in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, while suggesting that I had no evidence for my claims, in spite of the fact that children being injured in play centres is evidence that play centres can be a potential risk to children’s health and safety.

    They lower their risks by observing and eliminating potential hazards before a child is injured. The reason compensation claims are paid out is because it is determined that whatever caused the child’s injury could have been foreseen and prevented. Compensation is unlikely to be paid out in circumstances where the risk of injury couldn’t have even reasonably been foreseen. It’s predicated on the fact that the risk of injury caused could have reasonably been foreseen and prevented if the hazard had been rectified so it didn’t present as a potential risk to a child’s safety.

    There’s no way to prevent all risk to children in a play area. This is why insurers are reluctant to take on any risk in this area in Ireland. Meanwhile ski slopes work in Europe for kids because of different laws on compo culture.


  • #130
    hurler32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 451 ✭✭hurler32


    What amount of claims is a certain Irish ethnic group responsible for ??

    It’s like a top up to your life on social welfare paid for by the fools doing things honestly .


  • #131
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Alternatively of course, one could conclude that the reason you refuse to go into any details in these mutually incompatible scenarios is because you know they are mutually incompatible.


    Again, they are only mutually incompatible by your standards, based upon your assumptions which you’re making because you lack the information required to resolve what appear to you to be incompatible scenarios. I could help you with that by giving you more information, but you’re unlikely to accept that new information as it directly contradicts your experiences of how they do things up in Derry. I’ve never been, so I can’t comment on your experiences.

    Really? In what world do you imagine children playing in a play area and there never being anyone who gets over excited and pushes someone else?

    I'm not saying children shouldn't be taught to respect each other, but your belief that this can be achieved with a 100% success rate is unrealistic. The point with children is that they are children, and can't be relied on to always control themselves, so parents and anyone else responsible for them needs to repeat and repeat and repeat.


    It’s not unrealistic, and it’s entirely achievable, easily! If it were an unreasonable expectation to suggest that children be taught how to behave in any given circumstances, then I would be the first to suggest it’s an unreasonable expectation and an unfair responsibility to put on a child who doesn’t yet have the cognitive capacity to understand that other children are also entitled to play in an area designed for children to play in, and that it’s unacceptable for them to disregard or disrespect other people’s safety in a shared space in favour of their own enjoyment of that shared space.

    It’s what teaches them consideration for their “random” neighbours who they’ve known since they were in nappies that might ask them to run errands for them or who walk them to school without them running out on the road and playing chicken with oncoming traffic, simply because it seemed like a fun thing to do at the time.

    And of course the business owner can't be sure that all the parents who frequent the centre will accept the same level of risk, and behaviour, for their children. They're not the parents after all. By your logic they will have to ban a number of children permanently, just for being a bit rougher than the most prudent and fearful children. Probably not a good business plan. Just explaining and repeating, as I say, would have been better but you want the owner up in court the minute there's a tiny injury, so that won't be possible.


    Actually it’s an excellent business plan, practiced by many public institutions and businesses open to the public, and it’s a very simple behaviour modifier in children - behave themselves, or they are denied entry, and that in turn means that the business doesn’t get a reputation as a place that doesn’t do anything about children running wild and making the place unwelcome to other parents and their children who would also like to avail of the facilities. I also participated in swimming in my youth - “WALK, DON’T RUN!”, was emblazoned on every wall in the swimming pool facilities. Easy to understand even for most children and their parents, implemented because of the number of people who injured themselves or others.

    Nah, not even - it sticks out like a sore thumb. The point is that you can't.
    Because your views are entirely inconsistent with each other.


    I could, but I won’t, because it’s irrelevant, because you’re aware, or at least you should be that parental and community responsibility for children’s welfare, health and safety, is an entirely different context as distinct from a business whose sole purpose is to provide children’s entertainment to adults for financial profit - they are held to very different standards by numerous laws, precisely because business owners are generally not the children’s parents, and so they do not have the same responsibilities as parents, and parents do not have the same responsibilities as business owners.

    It’s like they’re two completely different things. Incredible, isn’t it?

    Not really, but that’s unusual somehow, according to your standards.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,116 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Ok let's put it another way :

    Is it possible that some of the children who injure themselves in a play centre are in fact largely responsible for the injuries by their own carelessness, or just physical awkwardness, or should that be impossible in a properly constructed and run play centre?

    And if so, then given that most cases don't actually go to court, is it likely that some payments are being made to parents whose children were in fact responsible for their own injuries?

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #133
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Ok let's put it another way :

    Is it possible that some of the children who injure themselves in a play centre are in fact largely responsible for the injuries by their own carelessness, or just physical awkwardness, or should that be impossible in a properly constructed and run play centre?

    And if so, then given that most cases don't actually go to court, is it likely that some payments are being made to parents whose children were in fact responsible for their own injuries?


    No, is the answer to the first question, and given the second question is predicated upon the assumption that I accept what you’re suggesting in the first question, the answer to the second question, is also no.

    We differ because while I can understand you would hold children responsible for injuring themselves, I don’t, precisely because as I mentioned earlier generally they lack the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. It’s why they aren’t held legally responsible for injuring themselves either.

    In a properly constructed and properly run play centre (as many of them are, with adequate staff numbers for the capacity of the facilities, qualified and fully trained supervision staff, and properly implemented rules for the benefit of everyone), accidents don’t happen. Accidents don’t happen - they are caused. Eliminate the potential cause of an accident and you reduce the risk to zero of anyone being harmed by a potential hazard which doesn’t exist. It can be done, and it is done, by many business owners and play centres and places which involve providing a service for the care and entertainment of children. People here are acting like this is impossible, but it’s the reality for the majority of businesses who offer their services for children, and it’s only a minority of businesses which act like having to cater for children’s health and safety is some monumental, impossible task. I wouldn’t entrust the care of anyone’s children to someone who thought the welfare of the children they are providing a service for wasn’t their responsibility!

    The fact that most cases are settled by the insurance companies before they get to Court is generally based upon no admission of liability for a guaranteed but lesser settlement. The insurance company have done their math a hell of a lot better than parents rocking up looking for a payoff. Risk assessment is what they do after all, and they’re very, very good at it, certainly far better than the average parent, and certainly far better than a business owner who doesn’t understand how much greater their insurance premiums would be if their insurance company fought every claim instead of settling.


  • #134
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,116 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    No, is the answer to the first question, and given the second question is predicated upon the assumption that I accept what you’re suggesting in the first question, the answer to the second question, is also no.

    We differ because while I can understand you would hold children responsible for injuring themselves, I don’t, precisely because as I mentioned earlier generally they lack the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. It’s why they aren’t held legally responsible for injuring themselves either.

    In a properly constructed and properly run play centre (as many of them are, with adequate staff numbers for the capacity of the facilities, qualified and fully trained supervision staff, and properly implemented rules for the benefit of everyone), accidents don’t happen. Accidents don’t happen - they are caused. Eliminate the potential cause of an accident and you reduce the risk to zero of anyone being harmed by a potential hazard which doesn’t exist. It can be done, and it is done, by many business owners and play centres and places which involve providing a service for the care and entertainment of children. People here are acting like this is impossible, but it’s the reality for the majority of businesses who offer their services for children, and it’s only a minority of businesses which act like having to cater for children’s health and safety is some monumental, impossible task. I wouldn’t entrust the care of anyone’s children to someone who thought the welfare of the children they are providing a service for wasn’t their responsibility!

    The fact that most cases are settled by the insurance companies before they get to Court is generally based upon no admission of liability for a guaranteed but lesser settlement. The insurance company have done their math a hell of a lot better than parents rocking up looking for a payoff. Risk assessment is what they do after all, and they’re very, very good at it, certainly far better than the average parent, and certainly far better than a business owner who doesn’t understand how much greater their insurance premiums would be if their insurance company fought every claim instead of settling.

    This is nonsense.

    There is no such thing as achieving guaranteed ZERO risk of accident through adapting procedures for any human activity which would otherwise entail some risk.

    Name a single company or building or any organization which has managed this?

    And that is the case for professionals - how you imagine that children can be guaranteed never to fail to follow procedures absolutely perfectly is a mystery. Or you're taking the P.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #135
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    No, is the answer to the first question, and given the second question is predicated upon the assumption that I accept what you’re suggesting in the first question, the answer to the second question, is also no.
    .

    You are talking absolute nonsense, most of these “accidents” are kids getting hurt in the normal course of play. There is no way to prevent them. As an example how do you eliminate the accident of two kids running into each other while playing and getting hurt or a kid running and tripping (over nothing just tripping) or a child pushing another child into a wall etc etc.

    These are the types of 100% unpreventable “accident” that people are claiming for.

    Also I put accident in brackets as they are not accidents they are just kids getting hurt in the normal course of play, they should be got up, dusted off, given any treatment they need and off on their way again. The issue is kids are gone soft and parents are gone scummy. When I was a kid plenty of us ended up in a&e and we’re back playing again after getting home and life went on.


  • #136
    mohawk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭mohawk


    Children can hurt themselves anywhere. They trip over themselves FFS. Play is how children learn and being over protective is bad for children especially boys. I imagine we can all look back on our childhoods and can remember stupid stuff we did that our parents didn’t know about.


  • #137
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    This is nonsense.

    There is no such thing as achieving guaranteed ZERO risk of accident through adapting procedures for any human activity which would otherwise entail some risk.

    Name a single company or building or any organization which has managed this?


    Plenty of companies have managed to eliminate foreseeable risks with the introduction and implementation of health and safety standards which address those potential risks and more. Since I mentioned the construction industry earlier -

    CONSTRUCTION FATALITIES DROPPED FROM 9 TO 6 IN 2017

    Systematic behaviour change reducing fatalities


    And you’re arguing the same couldn’t be done with the interests of the health and welfare of children as it’s primary objective? I suppose if your primary objective was simply to make as much money as possible by charging what the market would withstand for your services, then yes, I could see how you wouldn’t want to implement cost saving health and safety measures, because the initial outlay itself is almost prohibitively expensive, and the ongoing cost of insurance for anything to do with children is eye wateringly expensive.

    And that is the case for professionals - how you imagine that children can be guaranteed never to fail to follow procedures absolutely perfectly is a mystery. Or you're taking the P.


    I never said that children could be guaranteed never to fail to follow procedures perfectly? That’s what the people responsible for their care are responsible for, and in the case of business owners cribbing about the cost of insurance for providing their services, they’re in the wrong business if their business model is based upon the idea that they can charge people for the use of the facilities and they have no responsibility for the children who use their facilities. As you pointed out earlier - someone always pays, and the prohibitively high cost of insurance for any business is as a consequence of the fact that they are children, and if anything happens to them then it is the business owner who is generally responsible for any liability.


  • #138
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,484 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    That's not zero risk...


  • #139
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kayleigh Tart Tonsillectomy wrote: »
    You are talking absolute nonsense, most of these “accidents” are kids getting hurt in the normal course of play. There is no way to prevent them. As an example how do you eliminate the accident of two kids running into each other while playing and getting hurt or a kid running and tripping (over nothing just tripping) or a child pushing another child into a wall etc etc.

    These are the types of 100% unpreventable “accident” that people are claiming for.

    Also I put accident in brackets as they are not accidents they are just kids getting hurt in the normal course of play, they should be got up, dusted off, given any treatment they need and off on their way again. The issue is kids are gone soft and parents are gone scummy. When I was a kid plenty of us ended up in a&e and we’re back playing again after getting home and life went on.


    Yes, and when we were children, we didn’t have to pay for the cost of said A&E either. I don’t know about you, but my private health insurance at least covers that much now.

    The examples you give are actually 100% preventable precisely because they are foreseeable, and it’s achieved by the school for example introducing a no-running policy on the school grounds. This isn’t the controversial stuff people here are making it out to be, it’s quite possibly so basic even a child actually could understand it, yet we’re all adults here and some are struggling with the concept.


  • #140
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Who assesses these play centres anyway? Any i've been in were just warehouses with climbing frames in them. I've only been to one, where staff were watching kids were using the equipment properly. I'm not one to leave the lad go unsighted, but I find it a bit difficult going into a play centre that has liability notices up all over the place.


  • #141
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,116 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yes, and when we were children, we didn’t have to pay for the cost of said A&E either. I don’t know about you, but my private health insurance at least covers that much now.

    The examples you give are actually 100% preventable precisely because they are foreseeable, and it’s achieved by the school for example introducing a no-running policy on the school grounds. This isn’t the controversial stuff people here are making it out to be, it’s quite possibly so basic even a child actually could understand it, yet we’re all adults here and some are struggling with the concept.

    So children aren't allowed to run now? FFS.

    Great play centre that'll be. And not much better in the playground TBH. Jeez talk about sucking the fun out of childhood.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • Advertisement
  • #142
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So children aren't allowed to run now? FFS.


    That’s been a rule in many schools for years volchista? Come on now, that can’t have escaped your attention? It’s precisely to reduce the risk of children injuring themselves or others.


  • #143
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s been a rule in many schools for years volchista? Come on now, that can’t have escaped your attention? It’s precisely to reduce the risk of children injuring themselves or others.

    Not my local schools thankfully. They tear around like lunatics; a very natural activity for kids.


  • #144
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,116 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s been a rule in many schools for years volchista? Come on now, that can’t have escaped your attention? It’s precisely to reduce the risk of children injuring themselves or others.

    Yeah that was my point. You can't have a play centre where children can't run.
    And I'm not a fan of school playgrounds where children can't run either - though IME it's about not running in corridors and places where they are not supposed to be playing. You've expanded that to not running anywhere in the school grounds. I wonder how you imagine they do sports then.

    Anyway I think the poster above who said you were trolling was probably right.
    You certainly aren't making a good case for your zero-risk playgrounds, that's for sure. You haven't even managed to find a single zero risk industry yet.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #145
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Not my local schools thankfully. They tear around like lunatics; a very natural activity for kids.


    All fun and games of course till someone loses an... actually, never mind :o


    :pac:


  • #146
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    All fun and games of course till someone loses an... actually, never mind :o


    :pac:
    That's life and you really do come across as someone who would stop kids doing anything. Kids are resilient, far more than uber sensitive adults.


  • #147
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,612 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s been a rule in many schools for years volchista? Come on now, that can’t have escaped your attention? It’s precisely to reduce the risk of children injuring themselves or others.

    Yes if they become too fat to move they won't bump into others.

    Now I understand. You are advocating for health and safety measurements which will cause permanent lower quality of life for generations of children just so nobody gets a scratch. Yeah that makes sense.


  • #148
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,116 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    is_that_so wrote: »
    That's life and you really do come across as someone who would stop kids doing anything. Kids are resilient, far more than uber sensitive adults.

    No running anywhere on the school grounds. No running in play centres. Presumably no unsupervised play anywhere either, since that would negate the whole point of such strict rules in the above mentioned.

    I wonder if the poster has ever met any children. My boys would have been going up the walls if they had never been allowed to run off their energy. And they were well behaved in company precisely because they got plenty of chances to run about madly.

    But maybe Jack thinks running as in supervised athletics training would be a suitable substitute for just running around playing. It isn't, it's training. Not playing.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #149
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    is_that_so wrote: »
    That's life and you really do come across as someone who would stop kids doing anything. Kids are resilient, far more than uber sensitive adults.


    I don’t mean to come across that way, genuinely, as it’s not my intention to stop children doing anything, but rather the opposite - that they are able to do what they want without risk of serious injury to themselves or others. In that regard, I would argue that it is the responsibility of business owners who run facilities where children can play for a fee, that they are responsible for for ensuring children’s safety on their premises. I’m not suggesting that they can reduce every unforeseen risk, simply that they can introduce reasonable procedures to reduce risks that could have reasonably been foreseen with due care and attention. There are people qualified and trained to carry out health and safety risk assessments, and they don’t come cheap, but they are invaluable so to speak in terms of the amount of money they can save a business owner in the long run to reduce their risk of exposure to claims against their insurance. It’s what they pay insurance premiums for, and the less they have to pay in premiums in the long run - the better for their business and the better for the people they are offering their services to.


  • #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yes, and when we were children, we didn’t have to pay for the cost of said A&E either. I don’t know about you, but my private health insurance at least covers that much now.

    The examples you give are actually 100% preventable precisely because they are foreseeable, and it’s achieved by the school for example introducing a no-running policy on the school grounds. This isn’t the controversial stuff people here are making it out to be, it’s quite possibly so basic even a child actually could understand it, yet we’re all adults here and some are struggling with the concept.

    My parents had to pay for a&e when I was a kid or pay for the doctors to put in stitches, who do you think pays for it it’s part of the costs of raising a kid. I have a good health insurance plan and I don’t remember seeing anything about covering a&e costs either. Anyway it’s 100 euro not thousands or 10’s of thousands that people are being awarded.

    No running? Come on how can kids play if they can’t run. I’ve never heard of a school in Ireland banning running in the play ground, it’s a crazy concept.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s been a rule in many schools for years volchista? Come on now, that can’t have escaped your attention? It’s precisely to reduce the risk of children injuring themselves or others.
    It's actually to reduce the risk of litigation, not protect the child, and it potentially has the opposite effect. There's increasing evidence that kids are missing out on learning how to fall while young and bouncy and then sustaining more serious injuries in later life. And that's before you get into issues like missing out on play learning and burning off the excess energy before they have to sit in a class again. Oh and obesity. Far greater risk of that having long term effects on a persons safety. Harder to be sued for though.


Advertisement
Advertisement