In light of the Damilola thread I thought I might raise this issue.

Most of you wil have heard of the little girl (six I think) was killed by what turned out to be a hit and run driver.

It turns out that she had been playing in the park when she started t head home and as she crossed the road she was hit. Usual response as the man was hunted down and charged with the usual stuff and a strange one being cruelty to children? Don't understand that one but that's still not the reason for the thread.

The road was a busy dual carriageway with a three to four foot high fence. I presume she was with friends but where was the mother?

I agree with the man being prosecuted but why isn't the mother or whoever lifted (she had to have been helped) the child over the fence in the first place. Why wasn't the mother with such a young child, surely it wasn't left up to some children just a few years older to keep an eye on the girl. I cannot see how we can blame the driver entirely for this, what is a great tragedy.

The articles have all been about how it happened but not why. Why on earth was the girl crossing a dual carriageway. I don't cross dual carriageways and I'm 27 for gods sake.

It's controversial but I don't care. I will either lay some of the blame at the mothers feet if she's let left the child in the care of other children or if it was another adult with the child then with that adult. If the child was on it;s own then again at the mother;s feet for allowing the child to be on it's own.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Answers

My mam said exactly the same and to be honest I agree entirely.

The hit and run driver was stupid, but he had no insurance or driving licence which is why he probably ran. Had he had a licence he would have probably stayed and reported.

However, as six year old myself (this is echoing what you've said really) I was rarely allowed to play out in the street unless I was with someone older and we weren't living in a really rough area or anything.

But crossing a busy road where cars doing 70mph is a norm seems a bit stupid. If a bloke got run over from crossing the road there it would be because he was an idiot for trying to cross.

Although you can't blame a six year old who was obviously still learning lessons in life, the parents must be feeling a little bit guilty at letting her kids play so close to such a busy dual carriageway.

And if somebody lifted the girl over the fence they deserve a jail sentence just as much as the driver.

Basically, I totally agree with you, whether it's controversial or not.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

"i only took my eye off him for a minute" = i was in the pub beer garden all afternoon after i'd told him not to get in me bloody way, aga

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Sadly, she was with her sisters aged 11 and TWO at 8pm at night.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

There are undoubtedly questions about how a 6 yr-old was put "at risk" in the way she was. However, imo this does nothing whatsoever to excuse the driver for sodding off and leaving the poor mite to die.

In addition, not having a driving license or insurance is a miserable excuse for an excuse for sodding off - that is, it's no feckin excuse at all.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

These are two different issues. The driver should be hung, drawn and quartered - I find it hard to excuse anyone for driving without insurance, but to drive off after hitting a small child and leaving them to die at the roadside - well I hope he rots in prison for the rest of his life.

As to why these children are out on their own at all, there is no possible acceptable excuse. It makes my blood boil. I`ll leave it at that......I could get into a full rant otherwise.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

I have no sympathy at all for the driver here, let's make it clear.

But I still feel that letting a six year old anywhere near a dual carriageway is asking for trouble.

It's a preventable accident.

Clarky, I agree that having no driving licence is no excuse but the bloke would have probably stopped if he had a licence, although obviously I can't be certain of that, he might be a prat who would have driven off regardless.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Gal, you're coming at this from the same place as me. The two are totally separate yet both horrific. The driver clearly must accept the majority of the blame, but the folks who were "responsible" for the bairn are almost equally culpable. Indeed, possibly even more so.

Who's to say the you or I might not have been driving down that road when she wandered into the busy traffic? All the insurance in the world wouldn't have protected her, nor stopping after the event. Whether the driver was "otherwise affected" is unknown to me so I guess he might be more responsible or not.

But letting the bairn out there in the first place must surely be a major contributory factor. Not that it excuses the driver for driving with no insurance nor for not stopping.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Can you imagine what a field day the press would have had if this had happened on a school trip?

I've just come back from a governors meeting at school - one of the issues under discussion was a new draft policy concerning supervision on school trips, especially residential ones, and whether the teachers involved should be allowed to consume alcohol (a glass of win with an evening meal was used as an example - not getting totally rat arsed). I decided to be controversial and pointed out that, as teachers were legally considered to be "in loco parentis" was it not acceptable to shove the kids out onto the street while we went down the pub for a pint? The Head gave me a look like a forty bob summons but a few agreed that much higher standards are expected of we poor sods in the teaching profession than many parents exercise themselves. This case simple illustrates the point.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

...you know, I could even comprehend the driver being so shocked by what had happened, and god forbid by the state of the poor bairn he had hit, that his reaction was just to get the hell away from the scene. His concerns regarding his lack of licence/insurance would feed that instinctive reaction.

However, what I cannot begin to understand is why he, or his passenger, could then simply do nothing - take no action to get help for the bairn, who they knew was laying on the road, broken and dying. That, more measured reaction, was cold, uncaring and callous beyond belief.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Just say the driver had been insured and hadn't effed off. Hopefully, the family wouldn't have needed the distraction of an ar5ehole equally as big as any of them to make them wish they could turn the clock back.

The moron who did the runner deserves all he gets. but I'd like to think we couldn't do anything to make the family feel worse.

Mind, being the cynic I am, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they go the whole hog and salve their conscience by giving the bingo a miss for all of one session.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Excellent points Jacko.

I wouldn't like to judge the mum too harshly without hearing her side of the story. On the basis of the above she sounds irresponsible but other factors might mitigate against that. People can be subject to all sorts of pressures and crises and might lose control of a situation for a short but fatal period of time. At the other end of the scale is the parents down the pub for 3 hours. I don't know where this mum fits on the spectrum.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Fair shout Jonno. We don't know all the details.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2002

Agree with most that has been said and it is clearly a tragic accident

I know its a bit of "do as I do" and dare I say 'nannying' but, there was no way me mam would have let me out at 8pm at night unsupervised when I was 6 (and there are no dual carraigeways in stakeford) and subsequently there is NO WAY (no matter what crisis is going on) that I would let my 6 year do the same.

I know the plural of anecdote is not data but you do seem to see more and more young (and I mean under 8s!!!) out at 8,9,10 at night UNSUPERVISED......tragedies like this are bound to happen

I blame Thatcher by the way (destroying community spirit, no sense of responsibility for others etc)

cheers

Jonboy

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

I am far from a fan of Thatcher Jon Boy but destroying community spirit isn't the same as a parent not looking after their kids. I have two, ages 7 and 9 and there is absolutely no way I would allow them to wander the streets unsupervised. Don't know all sides of the story, gut reaction is to damn both sides. Crime by kids is supposed to be on the rise - are parents held accountable? The vast majority of these kids act as they do because of nurture (the old argument) or lack of, rather than nature. I'll stop rambling now!

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

Guess it's a lesson the kid's parents won't forget in a hurry. Mind, the driver must have either been a proper c**t for driving off or just paniced.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

>>>>>> I am far from a fan of Thatcher Jon Boy but destroying community spirit isn't the same as a parent not looking after their kids <<<<<<<

Is it not just an extension of that though?....Im all right JAck...bugger the consequences....who suffers as a result, the weak of society

Anecdote again but most of the 5,6,7,8 year old I see wandering the streets dont come from middle class backgrounds

J

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002

'Anecdote again but most of the 5,6,7,8 year old I see wandering the streets dont come from middle class backgrounds '

I know, JonBoy, the Royal Family these days. Shocking.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2002