My junior school required me using a school bus from the ages of 9 to 13. I was never supervised and neither did we need supervising. If we were caught messing around the driver would stop the bus, warn us and carry on. If we carried on we would be ejected...it never got to that stage as we knew what would happen if we were, both from the school and when we got home!! I would like to know why the driver didn't stop the bus...she must've been able to see as the luggage rack is right at the front.
Or could it simply be a case of this being an emergency window that should never be unduly leant on due to it being next to a luggage rack??!!!
You know my kids and how Howard and I raise them and I hope we are included in the above friends. You know they are well disciplined and we can take them anywhere and that if it was either of mine who'd fallen through the window, they'd be dragged to Ellie Rose, made to apologise and wash the buses until they paid back the money to have the window replaced. However, I do like to think that they can see me as their best friend as well as a disciplinarian. Now Kieran is 14 I would like to hope that he can talk to me about anything and know that whilst I won't have the pi$$ taken out of me, I'm pretty fair and relaxed about a lot of things...especially when you consider how strict David is with him!!

Why is Hudgell defending anyone?

What has the girl been charged with that requires she needs defending?

Until you have even a slight inkling of how the English Legal System works, I'd refrain from making any comment.

It's you who have got this one wrong

It is, in fact, perfectly possible to bring kids up right and still be their best friend.

I'm not sure what a 'biological guardian' is BTW.

It always amuses me when non-parents give advice on parenting.

Got to beg to differ on that.

I used to 'look after' my neice quite a lot but i never realised how challenging it is properly until i got my own.

very simple to look after some for a few hours, usually because they know it sfor certain reasons you are looking after them. try coming home from a hard days graft and controlling 3 kids who are full of energy , whilst having to do other stuff like cooking and even fit in a bit of work too

Spot on Karl. Until you have had kids you have no idea. Anyone who says otherwise has not had kids.

And people making assumptions about what other people's experiences are is completely silly.

There is far too much information missing from this to make a proper judgment.

We all agree that the girl should not have been on the luggage rack, but IMO the fact that she is 12 will rule out any hope of contributory negligence. Ellie Rose would be required to undertake a risk assessment and develop a safe system of work which should take into account that they are transporting school children, and the associated, foreseeable risk that children will skylark.

I have no idea about the condition of the window, but obviously the bus would need to undergo its required servicing and inspections. I dont think that the driver would be expected to check the intreguity of each individual window on a daily user check (more things like lights, indicators, brakes etc).

The Council/School also have a responsibilty to ensure the competence of their sub-contractors and not just to go for the cheapest option. If it is found that Ellie Rose did not have adequate systems in place, then I would think that the council/school could be considered to be at fault also.

It should also be noted that this is entirely a civil claim and that the HSE have had no involvement which I think they would have had if there had been serious H&S breaches.

IMO legally, the parents have every right to claim. Morally, I agree that they are showing their daughter that silly, foolish behaviour can be rewarded. A clear message to the daughter is more important than a quick payout.

nothing RIDDOR reportable then.



Anyways hope them who are defending the girl and parents will be happy when coach prices to away trips go up for there relevant clubs

All very valid points.

rlWhat a load of garbagerl

Using legislation for HGV drivers to potentially prosecute the drivers, ffs!

Simple answer

Bus driver will then refuse to let prams/wheelchairs unstable parcels on

Id even say they have every right to insist on seat belts.


oh and buses are self loading to id say it is the loaders responsibilty which is the person themselves, hope Ellie Rose launch a counter suit for defamation of business etc





i applaud them for that

Really?

More a case of yet more sloppy reportingThe Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991) provide the framework for most of the important provisions relating to the use of motor vehicles on roads in the United Kingdom. Section 40A of the 1988 Act states that a person is guilty of an offence if a danger or injury is caused to any person because of, for example, the manner in which passengers are carried or the load is secured in a vehicle. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (C&U), as amended, govern the construction, equipment, maintenance and use of road vehicles. In addition, buses and coaches that are public service vehicles must comply with the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulations 1981.

However Regulation 100 of C&U requires that all passengers be carried in a manner such that 'no danger is caused to any person'. This generally refers to latent defects or, for example, unsecured loads.

It's the Mail FFS

She only had minor injuries, no broken bones and I would imagine spent less than 24 hours in hospital. If this was the case and she was back at school within 3 days, then this would not need reporting.

Taken to hopsital in ambulance form the scene ?

Fair point cod'ead, I sit corrected.