Pattaya Water Park death

[Wanderlust]

charlesh,
Interesting post. What would the punishment handed out in Oz be for something like this? Would it be on the water park itself or the employee whose job it was to lock the grill? Would the parents have to pursue a separate legal action there to get compensation, not that it would compensate for the loss of their child however much it was? Presumably all of these things would be set against the actions of the victim themselves as well?

Everyone,
On the nanny state issue it might be that we are talking at cross purposes; probably my fault for using the expression in the first place. What I was trying to get at was the issue of personal responsibility rather than the government's legislation; for me the latter has come about because of the apparent reduction in the former, which I think can be illustrated by the 'pavement trip' analogy - while I have no statistics to back this up, my perception is that more people would be inclined to blame someone else rather than themselves now than they would in the past; whether this is because the general perception is that all accidents must be blamed on somebody (rather than just accepting them for what they are), or the plague of personal accident lawyers that has descended on the world making people believe they can get rich, I don't know.

So many things have disappeared from or changed in the UK because of the need to legislate against people's stupidity or the threat of legal action, a couple of examples being the old double deckers where you got on and off at the open back, people not being able to choose whether they wear a crash helmet/seatbelt or not, and pubs being forced to be non smoking (I am not a smoker and never have been but no one ever forced me to go into a smoky pub). It is all about an increasing restriction of choice and I resent that, whether it would have been a choice I would have made or not. The only people that need to be protected from themselves are children and the mentally challenged, but this is the job for parents, family and carers, not governments and lawyers. There is a place for Health and Safety regulations of course but for me, in this case the failure of the grill being locked is insignificant against the wilful negligence of the victim, and possibly his brother if he helped him open it. 14 and 15 year olds are generally (and legally) accepted as being responsible enough to be able to travel alone so I think should be regarded as responsible enough to know that a grill on the bottom of a swimming pool should not be opened AND once opened not to go inside. If the grill had not been in place then that would alter things dramatically, but even then I would hope that a 14 year old would go and tell his parents about it as he would realise the danger to others.

[Chas]

and pubs being forced to be non smoking (I am not a smoker and never have been but no one ever forced me to go into a smoky pub).

Have to disagree on this one WL. When all your friends are going into that pub for an evening of fun . . and you have a smoke allergy, respiratory problems or just a profound distaste for the dirty habit. . including returning home stinking like an ashtray from just being in there . .what do you do then? Give up hanging out with your friends and go home alone . .. or stand outside the pub in the fresh air . . .also alone?

I am SO thankful that the no-smoking law was passed here! When smoking was allowed in Thai pubs, I often went through real misery trying to enjoy an evening out with my friends.

However, we just just returned from a vacation in Greece and I am happy to say that even in the smoking heyday here in Thailand . .nothing compares to the way Greeks smoke . .everywhere and all the time! ( I just read that they have the worst habit in Europe and have just tried to ban smoking in restaurants . .for the third time!!)

[Wanderlust]

Chas,
That is a fair point, but before the recent law change in the UK, pubs had to provide non smoking areas separate from smoking areas which I found to be a much fairer compromise. Depending on the make up of the group of friends this would often mean that you could all sit and drink together in the non smoking bit, and the smokers could go to the other section to get their fix - no one had to go and stand outside. I find cigarettes and smoking just as distasteful as you do, but I also believe in their right to choose; I would rather they didn't have to make the Hobson's choice I (and you) used to have to make of either suffering the smoke or being billy-no-mates. I understand the reasons why the total ban was made, but if they are going to do that then they should just go the whole hog and ban cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco et al. However I would rather see people have complete freedom of choice within the limitations that it does not effect anyone else i.e. taking personal responsibility for your actions and making sure you don't impinge on others freedoms. That is the ideal world but as I have already said the trend is in the opposite direction, and people are not showing themselves able to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions, including the most important one of all, parenting. It then becomes a vicious downward spiral as each generation becomes less responsible than the previous one. This is, however, getting a bit abstract and off topic now so I will leave it there.

[caller]

I'm not aware that UK pubs had to have non-smoking areas? For most that would have been impossible and for what its worth the US and Ireland got there first. I think the bigger issue is the cost of health care for smokers far outweighs the tax raised, which isn't a good thing.

The old London routemaster is an intersting example for a chat about safety. Firstly, you went up and downstairs at the back, great, the natural 'G' force put you there anyway and you could prop yourself up okay. But they are all God knows how many years old and folk with disabilities can't use them, on the whole - and there's no door. As a kid, I got pushed off one, but hey, it was slowing, maybe doing 20 miles an hour, I went tit over ass and then into a hedge, followed by an ambulance ride and stay in hospital, I guess we were about the same age as the kid in the pool? Seemed an occupational hazard!

Ironically, as most new double-deckers have the stairs facing away from the front, halfway down the bus, I think they're less safe? Its not funny when you're getting ready to alight and have shopping or a kid to hold on to and the braking action pushes you away from the direction you are heading and down the stairs! Whichever Dick designed the new range obviously never travels on them!

Bye the bye WL, each week of summer brings stories of kids that have drowned in rivers, lakes and the like, a very young 'Cub' lost his life on an organised field trip and God knows how many walkers and climbers have slipped and fell a few hundred feet to their death!

An aussie even leaped between the two halves of Tower Bridge and did a loop-de-loop as well!

http://londonist.com/2009/07/robbie_mad ... bridge.php

[margaretcarnes]

This case has certainly opened a can of worms, and I do take WLs point about people taking responsibility for their own actions. I don't particularly like the growth of civil litigation in the UK. But I do expect a certain degree of safety over here when going about my work, or just out and about.
I wouldn't personally sue a Council if I was daft enough to trip over a paver for example, but at the same time I expect those pavements to be as safe as possible for people who are elderly, infirm, or blind. I am, after all, paying taxes to maintain public places.
By the same token I expect my workplace to comply with prescribed standards of Health and Safety. It's also important to remember that in the UK, and probably most other 'developed' countries, employees also have a 'duty of care' and can equally be sued by their employers.
But we are talking about responsible adults, and as Spitfire points out children, even at 16, need a higher level of supervision and care. When parents pay for entry to theme park, water parks etc they should reasonably expect things which are meant to be locked to actually BE locked, and staff on duty to respond to calls for help.
Most of us do realise that in LOS it doesn't quite work like that, and we accept it. We even understand the potential 'loss of face' aspect, and no doubt the father of this unfortunate lad also understands. But many tourists don't. The adverse publicity caused by this accident doesn't help Thailands image. Then again - we also know that doesn't really matter to many.

[charlesh]

WL without wishing to pi-s in your pocket you are quite logical and yes there has been a slow reduction to what I call the LCD effect (lowest common denominator) with Yes a "nanny" approach to many laws especially those covered by the OH&S banner. The concept of personal responsibility is almost an anathema. Lord Robens duty of care concept has been stretched to almost breaking point with the expansion of the concept including for example that of outlawing smoking in open public places (no I am not a smoker and never have been).
The OH&S authorities legal dep't would have a field day taking to court both the owner of theme park and his contractors who look after the water feature. Careers would be made and bonuses distributed with a successful prosecution followed by the guilty being pilloried on TV and in the media.
It would be a flavour of the month project and all field staff would immediately have to drop tools to investigate any premise that had water and a grill - no joke. This to the detriment of staff using unguarded machinery in factories!
They even had a horse racing project when a jockey was seriously injured and subsequently died during a training run.