Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Biker claims compo after killing 12 y/o

13»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I drove down that road literally half hour after it happened. It's a dangerous road, and theres no where for a car (or bike) to go if someone runs out infront of it. I think he should be able to claim compensation, he wasn't at fault.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I mean fucking hell I came from a very proper background for most of my childhood, until my parents broke up and I went off the rails, and I did a LOT of things they would of gone mental for, like being out smoking/drinking/smoking weed etc all at the age of 12/13, do you think my parents would condone that? Or that they didn't teach me otherwise? No! They did a great job but I went off the rails and guess what, sometimes kids do things they shouldn't, and heres the really amazing part... being a child it's no uncommon to realise the consequences of your actions! Jesus, it wasn't until my own son was born that I really realised how fragile life is and how careful you have to be...

    Get real man.

    But they are two very different actions - if you get stoned, pissed, or spend a day smoking, you're not causing harm to anyone else. Nor are you risking it.

    Running into a busy road with the intention of missing traffic by marginal amounts is not even remotely the same, is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    After the PMs yesterday (again, thnx BTW) I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but buggerit.
    The risk I choose to take is based on the driving habits of other road users, and my abilities.

    No, the risk you take is that your car (and possibly you) will be damanged. You just haven't realised that fact. I'd say it's a risk awareness thing, just because you don't see it doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist.
    If I have an accident as a result of stupid behaviour on the part of someone else, then I shall seek recompense from them. Simple as.

    Indeed and I wouldn't dispute your right to do that, just as I think that the biker should try to get something from the CIB. We all pay into that scheme for occasions like this. So long as you go after the responsible party and not some third party who wasn't involved.
    Maybe I'm just different to you - if my child had caused such horrific problems for someone else, then I'd be putting my money where my mouth is and doing what I can to do the right thing. I guess we have different interpretations as to what the right thing is, here...

    We obviously do. I believe that the loss of a child is punishment enough. You obvoiusly have no idea of the amount of pain those parents are going through, especially in the past couple of weeks.
    To answer the original question, the children should not be 'tapped up' for the finances of the parents.

    I think that you misundertood what I said. It's the parents who you want to be tapped up for the actions of their child. In this case it's harsh - as an understatement.
    I think your view on this needs to be reversed. Running out in front of traffic on a 70mph road is not a huge risk - it's a deathwish, with a small risk that nothing will happen.

    Do you think that the child wanted to die? Of course not. The child obviously thought that the risk was lower than it actually was. Sadly they haven't had the chance to learn from this mistake.
    But it is possible to try and put-right their mistakes

    You are assuming that a mistake has been made.
    is just as unfair on the innocent person, if not more.

    You are having a fucking laugh, aren't you?

    The man will get better, he has suffered some material loss. The parents will never see their child again. How is that even close to being less of a loss?
    Had the parents done things differently

    Like I said, they are probably asking that very question themsleves, and will for the rest of their lives. Sadly life isn't that simple - if only it was.

    Are you honestly going to be able to tell me that you parents have never had reason to tell you off for doing something? If they have, then is that because they didn't have enough control over you in the first place?

    Kids do stupid things. Parents try to teach them right from wrong but kids will still do the wrong thing. It's nature.

    What you seem to suggest here is that personal responsibility doesn't exist. We are all products of our parents teachings and yet we are all responsible for our own actions. If you don't believe that then you cannot support imprisonment for crimes committed - becuase the argument that "my parents didn't bring me up correctly" could be applied in all defence cases. In fact you could apply it to this case as well. The parents could argue that their parents didn't teach them how to bring children up. It's a never ending cycle.
    They may not have condoned it, but the fact that this incident happened at all is testament to the fact that there was a lack of control.

    Not so. Do you think that if they had known what the child was doing that they wouldn't have stopped him? If you don't then you cannot argue that there was no control.

    The only way possible to achieve the levels of control you seem to want is never to let a child out of the house.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It wasn't the guys fault, nor the parents. The kid was being stupid, and paid the ultimate price.

    I'm not even driving yet but i'm dreading hitting a kid one day and getting the blame. I've already been in the car near my brothers school where there is alot of traffic on a small road and the kids just walk all over it without a care in the world.

    My dad is a train driver, a few years ago some kid was playing on the tracks, he got killed - and the train company were sued. The kid was old enough to know that train tracks = trains, and there's no way a train is gonna stop for you. But they were sued anyway. :rolleyes:

    You see young kids being taught how to cross the road etc, but that's when they're like 6/7. The ones that seem to have lost any road sense are the older ones - i think they ought to target them at senior school and not just primary school.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    i think they ought to target them at senior school and not just primary school.

    And beyond. There's a college near me with a pelican crossing and a bridge and the tossers still just saunter across the road in a 'ya not gonna hit me' attitude.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm very tired, and don't have the energy to respond to every point made in your post - and much of it has been covered before. However... :)
    Indeed and I wouldn't dispute your right to do that, just as I think that the biker should try to get something from the CIB. We all pay into that scheme for occasions like this. So long as you go after the responsible party and not some third party who wasn't involved.

    But his chances of gaining anything from the CIB are minimal, judging by experience of an acquaintance. I think the general consensus here is that he is entitled to compensation - however, should he go without if he isn't able to claim from the CIB?
    We obviously do. I believe that the loss of a child is punishment enough. You obvoiusly have no idea of the amount of pain those parents are going through, especially in the past couple of weeks.

    I dare say I don't - no person who isn't a parent could. However, I've certainly felt pain - my cousin died at the age of 5, a friend was murdered at the age of 16, I've watched two grandparents fall to the hand of cancer, I have a sibling who has tried to commit suicide on more than one occasion(one very recently), and I do my best to care for my housebound grandmother, who is sliding downhill before my eyes.

    I'm not comparing any of them to the pain of losing a child, but each point certainly delivers very real pain. Yet no matter the pain, I can still see the difference between an innocent person suffering or not, whether it be related to my pain or not.
    I think that you misundertood what I said. It's the parents who you want to be tapped up for the actions of their child. In this case it's harsh - as an understatement.

    I didn't - you asked if I thought the children should be 'tapped' for actions of their parents. I said I didn't. You asked 'if not, why not?'. and I explained - we take on the responsibility of children until such age as they can make decisions for themselves, and with due regard for the consequences. Children didn't decide to take on the responsibility of having parents - it works the other way around ;).
    Do you think that the child wanted to die? Of course not. The child obviously thought that the risk was lower than it actually was. Sadly they haven't had the chance to learn from this mistake.

    I've no idea, but living certainly wasn't all that high on his list of priorities from the look of things...
    You are assuming that a mistake has been made.

    He ran out in front of speeding traffic! If it wasn't a mistake(which has been argued by you and others here), then it was a wilful act - which is my point of view. The child deliberately ran out into the road, it wasn't a mistake, nor was it an accident. He made the decision to run out there, hoping to avoid a collision.
    You are having a fucking laugh, aren't you?

    The man will get better, he has suffered some material loss. The parents will never see their child again. How is that even close to being less of a loss?

    But the road user had absolutely no say in the actions of the child. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had no role to play in the decision taken by the child. On the other hand, the parents have had over a decade to teach the child the difference between hurting others, and not. 12 Years to influence the way his mind works.

    And because of this, I take the view that the road user was the most innocent. Not the greatest amount of pain, but certainly the most innocent. His wounds will heal, the cost of his machine and equipment can be recovered, or replaced by himself at a later date. But he'll be living with the knowledge that him, on his machine, took the life of a child with whom he had never interacted.

    Is it not fair that the parents to their best to return his standard of living to a similar state he had before? Regardless of their loss or suffering, it's quite clear this was not his fault at all(assuming the news report is accurate). Why should he have to suffer?
    Are you honestly going to be able to tell me that you parents have never had reason to tell you off for doing something? If they have, then is that because they didn't have enough control over you in the first place?

    Of course they did - but there are very different levels of wrong. I did stupid things - but did I ever inflict pain or suffering on another human being? Not really.

    I drank, I smoked, I stayed up too late watching TV. I had fights with other lads at school(which I don't believe I ever instigated). But I never wilfully damaged the property of anyone else. Sure, I broke glass in the greenhouse kicking a ball around and whatnot - and paid to have it replaced.

    But none of my stupidity endangered the lives of others, nor risked my own. I was a child, and made mistakes, but I still had the minimal amount of sense required to not gamble with the life of another human, nor their property.
    Kids do stupid things. Parents try to teach them right from wrong but kids will still do the wrong thing. It's nature.

    Agreed. But I still stand by my view that something this extreme - a child playing such a dangerous game, is beyond nature or anything considered reasonable. Parents only have so much influence over their children - but they still should be held responsible for the actions of the child until such age as the child can take full responsibility themselves. If a 12 year old deliberately keyed the paintwork on your car, or slashed the face of your child, would you honestly be saying that the only person who could be blamed was the child?
    What you seem to suggest here is that personal responsibility doesn't exist. We are all products of our parents teachings and yet we are all responsible for our own actions. If you don't believe that then you cannot support imprisonment for crimes committed - becuase the argument that "my parents didn't bring me up correctly" could be applied in all defence cases. In fact you could apply it to this case as well. The parents could argue that their parents didn't teach them how to bring children up. It's a never ending cycle.

    No - my point is that until children reach such age as they can be held liable for the consequences of their actions(generally deemed to be somewhere around the age the youngster is able to marry, vote, have a credit card, etc), the parents must be held ultimately responsible for the behaviour of their children. Once someone is old enough to behave as an adult, then they should be the sole-bearer of the consequences of their actions. Not before.

    You're taking me out of context - I have never attempted to make such a statement. :)
    Not so. Do you think that if they had known what the child was doing that they wouldn't have stopped him? If you don't then you cannot argue that there was no control.

    Some parents would, some parents don't give a toss - be honest here. There are varying scales of parenting, as there are varying scales of people. As I said in one of my earlier posts, either the parents should have been supervising him better, or they should have taught him better. Whichever it was, for him to be out of sight and able to cause this incident shows a lack of control by the parents. If they had control, or if the child had sufficient intelligence to not run into the road attempting to miss traffic, we'd not be having this discussion. He'd still be alive.

    [quoteThe only way possible to achieve the levels of control you seem to want is never to let a child out of the house.[/QUOTE]

    Not true. The levels of control required don't depend solely on observation by a parent - they depend on the intelligence, nature and general character of the child. This child was certainly lacking in one or more of those basic requirements - and had he been better supervised, none of this would have happened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm very tired, and don't have the energy to respond to every point made in your post - and much of it has been covered before. However... :)

    Indeed. In fact there are only a couple of areas where there is any contention really:
    I drank, I smoked, I stayed up too late watching TV. I had fights with other lads at school(which I don't believe I ever instigated). But I never wilfully damaged the property of anyone else. Sure, I broke glass in the greenhouse kicking a ball around and whatnot - and paid to have it replaced.

    But none of my stupidity endangered the lives of others, nor risked my own. I was a child, and made mistakes, but I still had the minimal amount of sense required to not gamble with the life of another human, nor their property.

    The "level" of stupidity is irrelevant. You have just made my point though, inspite of what you parents may have taught you, you still did the opposite.
    No - my point is that until children reach such age as they can be held liable for the consequences of their actions(generally deemed to be somewhere around the age the youngster is able to marry, vote, have a credit card, etc)

    It's ten actually. This child was over that age.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote:
    And beyond. There's a college near me with a pelican crossing and a bridge and the tossers still just saunter across the road in a 'ya not gonna hit me' attitude.

    We don't have that anywhere near school apart from outside the primary school (which is at least a 5 minute walk away from the secondary school) so if I wanted to right near the secondary school and not have to walk past the crowds then at times it can be quite dangerous. TBH, it's even more safe crossing the road at the local college than it is at school.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The "level" of stupidity is irrelevant. You have just made my point though, inspite of what you parents may have taught you, you still did the opposite.

    Right. And the rules I didn't stick to weren't massive - they didn't hurt anyone, and these things were done with their knowledge - they laughed at me when I came home very drunk on Christmas eve - I'd downed 4 big cans of strong cider in 20 minutes, and felt like I was on deaths door when I spend the next two hours kissing the toilet.

    I never normally behaved like that - I started drinking at 14/15, but it wasn't to excess on a regular basis. Because my father had let me have his alcohol when 12/13, it was all fun. Have a couple of beers, moan about girls, moan about parents, play games - I was taught that alcohol was great fun, until you reach the point at which it makes you completely stupid.
    The "level" of stupidity is irrelevant. You have just made my point though, inspite of what you parents may have taught you, you still did the opposite.

    It isn't, really. I only ever gambled with something that could have harmed my own life - I risk on a body that I would suffer the consequences. It wasn't going to include other peoples lives or property - because I have the basic understanding that we have no right to harm people innocent of the situation.
    It's ten actually. This child was over that age.

    So anything a 10 to 16-year-old does to the property of another person - the damage costs cannot be recovered from the child, because they aren't able to work. And the damage costs can not be claimed from the parents, because their child is now classed as an adult?

    That flat-out stinks, and is completely wrong IMO.

    And I'm now going back to bed, after going 36 hours without sleep, taking my magic pills, and then getting 3 hours kip. So my apologies if I'm notking making my responses as claim as I could have - I'm crackered. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Right. And the rules I didn't stick to weren't massive

    That doesn't matter. The fact is that you didn't do what they would have told you was in your best interests. It's part of growing up. Or in this case, not.

    Children disobey. It's that simple and no amount of control will stop that from happening.
    I only ever gambled with something that could have harmed my own life

    Again you are working on the bsis that a 12-y-o can fully understand the implications of their actions. They can't - at least not in all situations. I would bet that he didn't think he was even a risk to himself. At 12 you are immortal.
    So anything a 10 to 16-year-old does to the property of another person - the damage costs cannot be recovered from the child, because they aren't able to work. And the damage costs can not be claimed from the parents, because their child is now classed as an adult?

    That flat-out stinks, and is completely wrong IMO.

    It was a criminal act. Personal reponsibility applies. I go back to my "it's my parents fault" comment previously.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    TBH, as far as I see it, it is the kids fault at the end of the day. The biker ha been dealt a harsh hand and has alot to deal with now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm with MOK on this.
Sign In or Register to comment.