Perhaps the worlds not completely mad

[new in today]

NiceCupOfTea said:

Hmmm, we don't really know the details though. Kids need to learn that their actions have consequences, and at the age of 13 the kid was probably bigger than the dinnerlady. We're not talking 6 year olds playing "kiss chase", the kid may have deliberately been being an arse and trying to intimidate the dinnerlady (seen it before). If that was the case than he should be held culpable as he should have seen the possible results of his actions coming.

Of course litigation is hardly the answer, but let's not assume the kid was whiter than white...

You didn't read the story did you.

The kid 'backed into her' ie he didn't even know she was there.

She on the other hand could see them.

It was an ACCIDENT

He was in the PLAYGROUND

Stop making things up...

[ehonda]

I'm curious about how she's no longer 'able to work'. I can't think of a less demanding job than dinner lady. If she really can't perform that role then she must be seriously injured. On the other hand she could just be taking the P.

[Jasandjules]

ehonda said:

I'm curious about how she's no longer 'able to work'. I can't think of a less demanding job than dinner lady. If she really can't perform that role then she must be seriously injured. On the other hand she could just be taking the P.

She appears to have suffered brain damage, so presumable fell backwards so hard on the ground as to have a serious injury (yet the CPS did not feel there was any liability to prosecute the kid)..... But to no longer be a dinner lady I assume she must have been really, really, injured (or she's just taking the p**s).

[kaese]

I always thought brain damage was a prerequesite when applying to be a Dinner Lady anyway?

[NiceCupOfTea]

new in today said:

Stop making things up...

All we have to go on is a link to a short BBC story. If you want to take everything you read at face value that's fine I'm simply pointing out (again) that it may not be as simple as it seems.

[Dracoro]

NiceCupOfTea said:

new in today said:

Stop making things up...

All we have to go on is a link to a short BBC story. If you want to take everything you read at face value that's fine I'm simply pointing out (again) that it may not be as simple as it seems.

If the story was just about the lady claiming damages and hadn't yet gone to court and so on etc. then I'd be inclined to agree with you.

I'm all for a bit of scepticism with the media and so forth, however, the story points out the facts that it has been to court AND been to the court of appeal and she has lost on both counts.

If you think there's a big conspiracy then be by guest but the link seems to point out the facts as I stated.

[nelly1]

Sounds like there's an urgent need for playground speed limits, as we all know the real culprit don't we...