Are they new facts?
If the internet had had fuck all sympathy for my original story, I'd probably be tempted to change my story as well.
(, Fri 13 Sep 2019, 14:20, Reply)
I didn’t say new
I said more. Crucial difference.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Fri 13 Sep 2019, 14:37,
Reply)
OK then.
Are they even facts? The "facts" bit was the crux of the question, not their age.
(, Fri 13 Sep 2019, 16:47, Reply)
Sheesh.
Which part of the Coroner’s conclusion are you calling into question?
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Fri 13 Sep 2019, 20:32,
Reply)
That he told staff about his allergies.
I'm not claiming he didn't, I just wonder how the assistant coroner knows.
(, Fri 13 Sep 2019, 21:16, Reply)
You’re not claiming he didn’t, you have no evidence he didn’t, the coroner was satisfied he did, yet you still doubt he did.
Why? What do you gain by casting doubt on the circumstances of the death of a teenage boy?
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Fri 13 Sep 2019, 22:07,
Reply)
What has being a teenager got to do with anything?
Would it be more tragic if he was a little baby? Less tragic if he were an old man?
Somebody died. Boohoo. My point is that they *weren't* being vigilant as a family.
If you have an food allergy so severe that consuming anything from that particular food group will kill you in under an hour, you shouldn't really be eating out whatsoever.
Even if a meal explicitly states that it contains no relevant allergens, it's still coming from a kitchen where those allergens are in abundance. Nobody can guarantee zero risk of cross contamination.
Likewise, nobody can guarantee that the staff are going to give you accurate information about the dish. Even if the family *did* enquire about the ingredients, it's still not very fucking vigilant considering the circumstances.
The original reports on this case that I read both explicitly stated that the family assumed the dish in question was safe because there was no mention of a marinade. Again, not very fucking vigilant. Neither of these reports mentioned anything about the family enquiring about allergens.
No matter which way it played out, even if they enquired about the allergens in the meal, they weren't being very fucking vigilant.
My issue with this story is the growing inability of the UK public to take responsibility for their own actions. It's always somebody else's fault.
What's wrong with saying "Our flippant behaviour in regards to our son's serious food allergy ended in tragedy.", unless you're hoping for some kind of financial restitution, obviously.
(, Sat 14 Sep 2019, 6:59, Reply)
And so we go round the loop once more
Marinading is not cross-contamination. The allergen that killed him was an integral part of the dish, and should have been listed on the menu as such.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Sat 14 Sep 2019, 7:34,
Reply)
Correct.
In this case the marinade was plain old contamination.
My point is that even if the chicken had been nothing but a completely plain, unadulterated boiled fillet, there would still be a distinct chance of cross contamination considering its been prepared in a kitchen and handled by staff who also deal with a significant amount of dairy produce - its a fucking burger restaurant.
If you have a child with an allergy that severe, is it vigilant eating at a restaurant like that in the first place?
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/12/byron-restaurant-denies-wrongdoing-over-teenagers-allergy-death
(, Sat 14 Sep 2019, 8:25, Reply)
