I am using the example of the little girl who drowned in a wave pool on holiday in Egypt, but it seems to happen all the time.
Her parents say that it is the fault of the holiday company for not having enough lifeguards,and that the ambulance took too long.
It seems that they took a calculated risk in leaving her alone by the pool.
The hotel may have been at fault but surely your child's safety is your own responsibility?
I can understand the family's reaction but why is the media reporting it as if they have a valid complaint? Or do they?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326457...lifeguards-duty.html

Every day, we place our kids in the hands of other people - such as teachers, nurses, lifeguards, sports coaches, cooks, police etc.

As long as parents carry out proper and prior due diligence on those to be 'in loco parentis' - they are fulfilling their parental duties; parents cannot be there all the time.

The only questions here are whether those, with temporary responsibility, acted responsibly - and were qualified to do so.

it's a country with brown skinned people and they don't love children as much as whitey does do they ?

a sad tragic accident and no-one is at fault.

ignore tabloid moralizing....they have no morals.

Ben 9 wrote:
Every day, we place our kids in the hands of other people - such as teachers, nurses, lifeguards, sports coaches, cooks, police etc.

As long as parents carry out proper and prior due diligence on those to be 'in loco parentis' - they are fulfilling their parental duties; parents cannot be there all the time.

The only questions here are whether those, with temporary responsibility, acted responsibly - and were qualified to do so.

I wouldn't call a lifeguard on duty "in loco parentis" but I agree that we must sometimes trust others to be in charge, and take risks ourselves with their safety for the sake of their happiness and development.

It as since emerged that they left the child with her sister, (although that wasn't mentioned at first) and in normal circumstances a fifteen year old should be perfectly capable.

I blame neither the parents, sister or grandmother. It only takes a seconds distraction and I think we have all lost sight of our child for a moment.
Sometimes horrific things "just happen" and it is a shame to blame others before the full facts are known.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I wouldn't call a lifeguard on duty "in loco parentis"


Of course he/she is - to ensure water safety.

Like lolipop men and women are there to ensure road safety.

Ben 9 wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I wouldn't call a lifeguard on duty "in loco parentis"


Of course he/she is - to ensure water safety.

Like lolipop men and women are there to ensure road safety.






The lifeguard has a specific duty to all swimmers,and no more,but someone in loco parentis has a responsibility to care for the child as a reasonable parent would.

I do think you probably need more lifeguards than usual in a wave area,because it is very easy to get into difficulty, but with the layout of that particular pool with the slides and underwater tunnels it would be impossible to monitor everyone anyway.

It's not clear that lifeguards were meant to be on duty at all. Some pools advertise that you swim at your own risk.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Ben 9 wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I wouldn't call a lifeguard on duty "in loco parentis"


Of course he/she is - to ensure water safety.

Like lolipop men and women are there to ensure road safety.






The lifeguard has a specific duty to all swimmers,and no more,but someone in loco parentis has a responsibility to care for the child as a reasonable parent would.


I do think you probably need more lifeguards than usual in a wave area,because it is very easy to get into difficulty, but with the layout of that particular pool with the slides and underwater tunnels it would be impossible to monitor everyone anyway.

Ban swimming then

andrew wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Ben 9 wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I wouldn't call a lifeguard on duty "in loco parentis"


Of course he/she is - to ensure water safety.

Like lolipop men and women are there to ensure road safety.






The lifeguard has a specific duty to all swimmers,and no more,but someone in loco parentis has a responsibility to care for the child as a reasonable parent would.


I do think you probably need more lifeguards than usual in a wave area,because it is very easy to get into difficulty, but with the layout of that particular pool with the slides and underwater tunnels it would be impossible to monitor everyone anyway.

Ban swimming then

Well, we all take slight risks all the time and I haven't suggested it is a good idea to do otherwise, but I see lifeguards as a bonus (might be handy if I fainted in the water or something)not an excuse to behave irresponsibly.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
if I fainted in the water or something


best idea you've had on here sugar

good luck

Dawn Morning wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
if I fainted in the water or something


best idea you've had on here sugar

good luck




Thank you, Dawn Moaning. As charming as ever, I see.

haven't you watched Bondi Rescue ? There are lifesavers all over the place.
The amount of swimmers dragged from the surf is staggering. Only takes a minute to drown.