Top story in the Argus

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.

axel rose

LTL, the full article stated that the fence and gate were errected last year to address antisocial behaviour in the area. So if that is the case then the spikes were a definate necessity.

Legally, you probably have a point but its the angle that the Argus took that just really crosses the line. The proper response when the mother called should have been 'Would you cop yourself on you silly cow! Its not the job of the council to supervise your kid. I suggest you speak to him about the importance of respect as soon as we hang up on you'.

Long Term Louth

axel rose wrote: »

LTL, the full article stated that the fence and gate were errected last year to address antisocial behaviour in the area. So if that is the case then the spikes were a definate necessity.

Legally, you probably have a point but its the angle that the Argus took that just really crosses the line. The proper response when the mother called should have been 'Would you cop yourself on you silly cow! Its not the job of the council to supervise your kid. I suggest you speak to him about the importance of respect as soon as we hang up on you'.

I agree totally!

From a safety perspective, signs, spikes etc. will have implications in any claim taken. Wrong I know but probably true.

coronaextra

Would yous ever give the mother a break..... the inadequacies in the methadone programme in Dundalk is the clear issue we have here!

But seriously these local papers have gone to the dogs lately, they would put anything on the front cover in order to sell papers. Some very lazy journalism going on at the moment :mad:

jezko

Kids climb/explore fact, to deter them spikes are put on top of gates walls etc ...Once bitten etc...

Does the law state we can't engineer (affordable) deterants to stop kids climbing.

Does the law state we society / County Council are responsible to ensure kids don't fall in deep holes/get caught in machinery etc... etc. Or even plain old Trespass.

So we need Fences/Walls/Signs and indeed Spikes!!!

The child was Wrong... (He was 9?)

So who taught him this?

As a child I did similar, Trespass!! But I always make sure not to do much more / or get caught... I knew My Parent's (Dad) would have punished me!!

And It was a given that I would not be rewarded for doing WRONG!!

But then it is the council's fault after all the Gates were there to STOP anti social activities... And that is the councils responsiblity!! ??

Long Term Louth

jezko wrote: »

Kids climb/explore fact, to deter them spikes are put on top of gates walls etc ...Once bitten etc...

Does the law state we can't engineer (affordable) deterants to stop kids climbing.

Does the law state we society / County Council are responsible to ensure kids don't fall in deep holes/get caught in machinery etc... etc. Or even plain old Trespass.

So we need Fences/Walls/Signs and indeed Spikes!!!

The child was Wrong... (He was 9?)

So who taught him this?

As a child I did similar, Trespass!! But I always make sure not to do much more / or get caught... I knew My Parent's (Dad) would have punished me!!

And It was a given that I would not be rewarded for doing WRONG!!

But then it is the council's fault after all the Gates were there to STOP anti social activities... And that is the councils responsiblity!! ??

I am not saying its the Councils fault, but saying that they may IMO and I repeat Rightly or Wrongly in the case of a claim be held partly responsible.

I agree with a lot of your statements and would have received a similar punishment but the following,

"Does the law state we society / County Council are responsible to ensure kids don't fall in deep holes/get caught in machinery etc... etc. Or even plain old Trespass"

In the case of the Council, Health and Safety Law does state (rightly or wrongly) that they have a responsibility to ensure that indeed holes for which they are responsible are protected and machinery in their possession on any council site meets all safety requirements. This same law also places onus on the Council to erect adequate signage and adequate protection.

Sickening as this may be and I disagree with it, these are some of the areas that a solicitor seeking compensation will examine.

BettePorter

Long Term Louth wrote: »

"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.

Unfortunately there is no 'may' about it. We all know that she will get money from this. even if it comes down to the fact that the council didn't have a sign displayed informing any child of the 'sharpness' of said spikes. The spikes will be taken away, and probably the gates, the woman will get money and the anti social behaviour will continue until another preventative measure is taken and another chancer finds a way to make money from that attempt to keep estates safe and / or tidy. There's just no helping some people.

Long Term Louth

BettePorter wrote: »

Unfortunately there is no 'may' about it. We all know that she will get money from this. even if it comes down to the fact that the council didn't have a sign displayed informing any child of the 'sharpness' of said spikes. The spikes will be taken away, and probably the gates, the woman will get money and the anti social behaviour will continue until another preventative measure is taken and another chancer finds a way to make money from that attempt to keep estates safe and / or tidy. There's just no helping some people.

I agree, perhaps you know what the gates were protecting?

Regardless of what the child did/did not know he could have been killed by the said spikes, wheter anyone states good enough for him or not, the fact remains that he could have been killed.

The actions of both the parent and the paper would have to be questioned, so perhaps those living in the area sholud seek clarity from the "Argus" or perhaps get them to change their story. Until many people react to a circumstance the situation will never change. Perhaps a petition to Mr "Ahern" from concerned residents may help.

But usually it is difficult to get people to react to this sort of action.

BettePorter

Long Term Louth wrote: »

I agree, perhaps you know what the gates were protecting?

Regardless of what the child did/did not know he could have been killed by the said spikes, wheter anyone states good enough for him or not, the fact remains that he could have been killed.

The actions of both the parent and the paper would have to be questioned, so perhaps those living in the area sholud seek clarity from the "Argus" or perhaps get them to change their story. Until many people react to a circumstance the situation will never change. Perhaps a petition to Mr "Ahern" from concerned residents may help.

But usually it is difficult to get people to react to this sort of action.

i'd be more inclined to italicise the 'Mr' rather than the Ahern;) !!!!!

You've more chance of your numbers coming up in the euromillions than you have of ahern even blowing his nose on a petition from the little people of coxes. If the saving of the hospital was so low on his radar i should think that the dangers of trespass within such or any estates in Dundalk wouldn't even warrant a comment !

Long Term Louth

BettePorter wrote: »

i'd be more inclined to italicise the 'Mr' rather than the Ahern;) !!!!!

You've more chance of your numbers coming up in the euromillions than you have of ahern even blowing his nose on a petition from the little people of coxes. If the saving of the hospital was so low on his radar i should think that the dangers of trespass within such or any estates in Dundalk wouldn't even warrant a comment !

I suppose youre right

No one seems to be able to answer "The Gate" question, I am wondering was it a fence rather than a gate? as this would make the event a totally different scenario.

BettePorter

Long Term Louth wrote: »

I suppose youre right

No one seems to be able to answer "The Gate" question, I am wondering was it a fence rather than a gate? as this would make the event a totally different scenario.

Personally i've never seen the gate. but i think oakland park is facing the carpark of dunnes (may be totally wrong here).
Next time i'm down that way i must have a nose.

PS what diff would it being a fence rather than a gate make ?