SIGN UP

2ft deep paddling pool needs a lifeguard

Avatar Image
AB Asks | 13:55 Tue 27th May 2008 | News
15 Answers
Once summer arrives young children often enjoy a quick dip in their paddling pools. One woman has been told though, that if she wishes to continue to let her children and others enjoy a splash about in the paddling pool she must pay insurance and ensure there were supervisors on constant lookout. Of course she would not leave the children unattended but she insists that the council are hinting that it requires lifeguards. She has said she has tried to get insurance but companies are laughing at her request. The council are concerned about drowning and want the woman and local children to enjoy the communal gardens but want her to be aware of drowning risks. What do you think? Is this verging on ridiculous? Or is the council only airing on the side of caution?

Answers

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by AB Asks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So she is in communal gardens? Ah well thats different she should get insurance as not on her land
I dont think they are erring on the side of caution at all.Dont think adults are sometimes very responsible in those situs -BBQ -few beers -etc

Its happens every year -a child drowning -who was the high profiler who had self same happen at his childs party at his home and a child drowned whilst 'under his supervision'.

They can drown in a few inches of water let alone 2' and would other children notice -or indeed why should they be the responsable ones?

I dont think for once this is one of those ridiculous 'cover my own ass' situs !
Would it be too much to ask to get a link to this story?
I'm not sure I fully understand - is this a householder who is setting up a paddling pool on public groung and making it a free for all?
Without knowing all the facts it's hard to make a judgement but it's a brave woman that will take responsibility for other's peoples children in a situation like this and really, if there are a few chilren in the pool and she is the only adult then how is she going to be able to watch them all all at the same time.
surely the council is erring on the side of caution and not "airing" on the side of caution?
An unfortunate effect of the �compensation culture� is that �accidents� no longer happen. There must always be somebody to blame.

In the past tragic accidents occurred (such as a child drowning in a paddling pool) just as they do now. The coroner would return a verdict of accidental death, there would be obvious sorrow and grief, but that was that.

Now, particularly where children are concerned, �supervision� is paramount. A couple of weeks ago a case was reported where a bouncy castle was hired for a child�s birthday party and was used in a private garden. A child was left brain damaged because of an accident and the people who hired the device were ordered to pay compensation (running into millions) for failing to supervise the activities adequately.

Local councils quite rightly insist that indemnity is secured for activities taking place on property for which they are responsible. If they failed to do so and an accident occurred they could find themselves liable for compensation and this would have to be met by council taxpayers.

Yes, the situation is ludicrous. But don�t blame the council. Blame Parliament for allowing the law to develop to such a state where a simple accident can no longer take place.
If this was in her own private garden the council wouldn't be interested - but it is in communal gardens owned by the council so ultimately they are responsible.

A backlash of the compensation culture, as already stated.
Surely this is what you come across in an ever growing compensation culture.
AB Asks, instead of asking stupid questions, can you not divert your efforts into people using this site as a spring board for abuse and cloning names?
Mail are at it again.

Note it say's "outside her home" first trying to fill the air with cornflakes before admitting that it's communal property.

They use the word Zealots in the article title, helpfully telling you what to think before you go to the bother of reading the story.

I do wonder how they'd have treated the story if a catastrophe happened and an unsupervised child had slipped and hit it's head.

Doubtlessly then there'd have been all sorts of accusations of "unsuitable to be a mother".etc.

What a waste of paper and ink




The story is illustrated with picture of a very young baby that is not old enough to walk, nevermind paddle. If this baby were to fall over, it could drown in an inch of water.

Babies are a lot more susceptible to changes in temperature than adults. The baby getting too cold, or too hot (there was no shade shown in the photo could be dangerous.
the flipside to the compensation culture is that people do indeed leave their kids in pools and assume the council will look after them. And so the council should - but perhaps it might not be so careful if it didn't face the risk of lawsuits when things go wrong. These things aren't just sent to try us, they arise out of the way people behave.
Today's Daily Express reports the pool as being 4ft deep, not 2ft.

Also, if you had a pool in your garden, surely you'd ensure there was an adult around anyway?

Let's say she left her kids to play in the pool unsupervised and one drowned. I can just imagine the stories/posts now "MUM ALLOWS KIDS TO DROWN WHILST WATCHING TRISHA"

I'm wondering at the relevance of divorced 47 year old mother of three, and full time carer to....
I think they are trying to make out she is some sort of saint whiffey because she cares for her disabled son alone.

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Do you know the answer?

2ft deep paddling pool needs a lifeguard

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.