Brian J Goggin

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:08:31 +0100, Dave Mayall
<david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

>The fact that you will be unable to find examples in the press of
>children being injured, and their parents saying "it was their own
>silly fault" wouldn't prove it then?

No, it wouldn't. It might tell me something about the standard stories
that reporters construct, or about what the press chooses to report,
but it wouldn't tell me anything either about that small subsection of
society made up of parents of injured children, about the larger
subsection made up of parents or about the whole of society.

>From the information that I have, I am sure, beyond reasonable doubt,
>that this bridge could not have rotated into the girls legs in the
>manner it did due to any random lightness of balance, or gust of wind.
>It would have moved only due to the application of external force.

This is useful information, but it does not amount to evidence of what
actually happened on the occasion in question. Indeed, as you say ...

>I am, perhaps, jumping to conclusions that it was her mates.

.... which doesn't necessarily mean that the victim bore any
responsibility.

>Perhaps I
>should say that I am satisfied that the bridge moved due to direct
>action by "person, or persons unknown". However none of the reports,
>including local reports that have comments from one of her friends who
>was there suggest that there was anybody outside the group of friends
>present.

That may well be so. But, first, the reports you cite have been
through several levels of selection and, second, eyewitness reports
are not always reliable, The evidence has to be tested to establish
what actually happened; once that is established, it may be possible
to allocate responsibility --- and responsibility may be divided
amongst several actors. So an enquiry seems like a good first step; if
necessary, the courts can be called upon to allocate responsibility at
a later stage.

bjg