Horrific accident on the Ashton Canal

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:10:50 +0100, "John Gwalter"
<ernest@stoppage.gwalter.co.uk> wrote:

>"Dave Mayall" <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:m9i4645kn2m66ek87opvcgip5dcbd3t5c4@********.. .

>> Yes, unfashionable as it may be, some of her "deeply traumatised"
>> mates should be charged.
>
>Probably not necessary.
>If they aren't hardened brigands they will be traumatised mainly by the
>realisation of what they collectively have done.
>That will have been punishment enough and a severe object lesson.

Nope, we can't simply absolve people from their crimes because seeing
the evidence of them was traumatic.

What next, do we let boy racers who run over kids because they were
showing off to their mates go free becasue they are traumatised.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:12:55 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>Trust me, that mindset DOES pervade society. It may not do so in Ireland,
>but it does here.
>
>I can't be bothered to post the very many examples that I have personally
>seen.

Not that examples prove pervasion.

bjg

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:41:42 +0100, Dave Mayall
<david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

>Because I've seen it in so many cases where some kid up to no good is
>injured, and all of the sudden the press and parents are off looking
>for some authority figure to blame.

I'm sure you can cite valid examples, but that doesn't prove
pervasion.

>Even in the earliest reports, we hear than BW and the HSE are
>investigating.

[...]

>The only investigation that is needed is by the police into the
>conduct of those present at the bridge leading up to the incident.

Ah. So you've carried out an investigation that enables you to decide
that? Or are you arguing from ignorance?

>Yes, unfashionable as it may be, some of her "deeply traumatised"
>mates should be charged.

So far you have shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your
contentions. And you are now suggesting that nobody else should look
for evidence. On other matters you take a fairly hard-headed attitude;
here you are suggesting that both public policy and the public
response to a particular incident should be based entirely on your own
prejudices.

bjg

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

"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
news:8ai564591re0t4nu3a0t3ak39t9ejn2od0@********...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:12:55 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Trust me, that mindset DOES pervade society. It may not do so in Ireland,
>>but it does here.
>>
>>I can't be bothered to post the very many examples that I have personally
>>seen.
>
> Not that examples prove pervasion.
>
Indeed not. But, by extrapolation, if I personally experience many incidents
and examples, then multiplying that experience by the number of people I
don't know surely indicates that either there is pervasion or that I am
exteremely unlucky.

I favour the pervasion.

"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
news:b3k6645u41d6kdvehgtsnqcsvvj5l3bog0@********...
> 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.
>
An enquiry will be a good step, if it is conducted by the right people, and
taking into account all of the evidence. That won't happen.

The courts can only be called upon to decide what the most expensive
barrister puts forward. The word "justice" as practised by the current
regime is not in any context similar to the word "fair".

"Dave Mayall" <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59s464lh92179e625ete0l5n0vde5jvhi3@********...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Tony Haynes
> <canaldrifter@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>What lacks is common sense.
>>
>>I have every compassion for the girl, but the accident has been
>>avoided for years by all those who didn't do what she and her friends
>>did.
>
> Stop that right now.
>
> You are supposed to disagree with me.

It is not possible to argue that black is white, unless you are a serving
MP, or have absolutely no knowledge of the subject in hand.

Tony doesn't fit those criteria.

He can argue with you about new newsgroups - I am signing up for both to see
what happens because I don't have a strong enough opinion either way.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:30:34 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
<paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:

>Indeed not. But, by extrapolation, if I personally experience many incidents
>and examples, then multiplying that experience by the number of people I
>don't know surely indicates that either there is pervasion or that I am
>exteremely unlucky.

No, it doesn't. It indicates only that you make general statements
based on insufficient and inadequate evidence.

And that logis is not one of your strong points.

>I favour the pervasion.

It's the wifebeater that does it.

bjg

"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
news:gro664dmq582euekc4dv2slbhabhm4on3m@********...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:30:34 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
> <paul.r@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Indeed not. But, by extrapolation, if I personally experience many
>>incidents
>>and examples, then multiplying that experience by the number of people I
>>don't know surely indicates that either there is pervasion or that I am
>>exteremely unlucky.
>
> No, it doesn't. It indicates only that you make general statements
> based on insufficient and inadequate evidence.
>
> And that logis is not one of your strong points.
>
Logic? Hell's teeth - if wurk ever finds that out ...

>>I favour the pervasion.
>
> It's the wifebeater that does it.
>
True. So true.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:28:30 +0100, Brian J Goggin
<myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:

>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.

OK, can we assume that most serious injuries to children are reported
in the press? I believe that we can.

From empirical observation of these reports, most seem to contain
quotes from the parents.

Again, from empirical observation, most seem to attach blame to
anybody other than their child.

So, perhaps I was being sweeping in saying that the attitude pervades
society. I stand by my conclusion that it pervades those parents whose
children are injured.

>>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.

I can state, as a frequent user of this structure that it is
sufficiently stiff in its operation that it cannot possibly have moved
to crush the girls legs without the aplication of external force.

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

Disagree. H&S is NOT somebody elses problem. First and foremost, YOU
are the person responsible for YOUR safety.

Regardless of the blame that may attach elsewhere, the accident would
not have happened if the girl had not sat in what was obviously a
dangerous location.

>>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.

I accept that eyewitness reports may lack accuracy.

However, from a simple understanding of human nature, and the desire
of the mates to absolve themselves of responsibility, I think we can
be 100% certain that if somebody outside the group (whether another
person or a passing boat) had caused the bridge to move, then the
eyewitness would have said as much.

As it is, another named youth who was present, and a friend is quoted
(in the local press) as saying "it just bounced off her leg". No
mention of anybody pushing the bridge.

As we know that the bridge didn't move by itself, and none of the
group has attempted to implicate anybody else, the only possible
conclusion is that the group themselves were messing with the bridge.

We also have reports (in another local paper) of a resident stating
that;
1) Youngsters fashioned their own keys for the bridge
2) Youngsters regularly went "joyriding" on the bridge

Condemn me for leaping to conclusions if you will, but I don't expect
to be proved wrong.