Local Lass - Oh really ? He wasn't at fault ? How do you know ?

You're doing it again, I am not defending him or saying it was right, I am saying it was understandable, so why do you want to change my words?

What did you expect him to do??? Ooh you appear to have killed my son, but ihey it wasn't your fault, so lets all sit down with a pot of tea and some cucumber sandwiches!!!

You're living in a fools paradise luv !

   No I think its that you don't understand debate. I never alledged that you said acceptable or justifiable. In fact until this last post I'mnot even sure I have replied directly to any of your posts.

But you were defending the indefensible. My agenda is simply that the driver was not at fault and so the "mob" or his father were wrong to act in the way they were. You appearto disagree simply on the basis that being angry was understandable - understandble is not an adequate defence.

   Local lass - oh dear, I said understandable and you said I said acceptable and now Ive made it clear i said understanable you have said i said justified: I think we better just leave it there cos you clearly have an agenda rather than intelligent debate.

   "Local Lass - I hear what you are saying but do you hear what I am saying" No I don't think I do. Understandable does not mean acceptable is exactly what I am saying. What you have said is that if your child ran out in front of my car and was injured you would be justified in beating me to a pulp because you were upset? If you were angry enough you could kill me is that ok too? Wheather I was at fault or not that is not justified or acceptable. Being upset and angry is understandable - acting on those emotions is not.

In fact i would go so far as to suggest that the reason he may have been so angry was his own feelings of guilt for not having been able to stop it.

PS - no idea what you are on about!

   Local Lass - I hear what you are saying but do you hear what I am saying? Understandable does not mean acceptable. Look at what Ive said regarding emnotions and try and imagine how a man would feel: we are just animals and often revert back to intrinsic instincts in these sort of situations when we are in shock.

PS: Burnage Blue???

   I completely understand how a 3 year old could run out into the road suddenly and get hit by a car. This is an accident. If the supervising adult was unable to stop him how do you expect a car to be able to stop in time? If the article is wrong that is hardly these commentators fault is it?

So yes I understand why the father was upset of course I do, but I still don't think is it acceptable to attack anyone or their vehicle in this instance, in fact it is for this very reason that It can never be acceptable.

And Darren who said "if your hit by a car at 40mpg there is an 80% chance you will die, but if your hit at 30mph there is an 80% chance you will live, need I say anything more?" Yes please because I really don't get your point. At 30mph there is 20% chance a child will die - 1 in 5 children age upto 16 presumably die if hit at 30mph. Even then a small child is surely far more likely to suffer critical injuries to vital organs simply by virtue of his height compared to that of the car bumper.

   Thanks Hands of Stone - this is still very raw for his his parents, brother and grandparents.

Ignoramous - written text often loses meaning - I thought all Mancunians referred to streets/lanes/avenues/groves/closes whatever as roads. i.e "playing down our road" I didn't type it but I'm sure that's how it was meant and that's how I took it too. He wasn't in any event playing in the road.

<3 In the loving Memory of Harley James Huetson <3 xxxxxxx

   Zoe P - God bless you love, my heart goes out to you and your family.

   My little boy and girl would never play near the road, but my road isn't suitable, theres might be? How do you know?

No road is suitable for playing on, the fact Harley died is probably proof of this.

   Hands of Stone, Southside, Manchester, England, GREAT BRITAIN 11/02/2010 at 13:58 - EXACTLY RIGHT!! It was definitely "look what you've done" in a moment of utter dispair and shock, while little one was being tended to by his understandably hysterical mummy and others who were there afterwards!! This, nobody knows from the related article, which is why I felt the need to make people aware of a few facts on behalf of a family, of which I am a part.

<3 Rest in Peace Harley James Huetson xxxxxxxx <3

   "This is no laughing matter and no place to be joking or pointing out shortcomings of this poor tragic family, I can only assume that a few of you are very young and very naive."

This is a public forum, and people can post what they like. Don't like it? Don't continue reading it then!

   Right here goes for those to stupid, pedantic or embarrassed by the fact that I have pointed out there juvenille behaviour, poor taste and lack of sympathy:

I and any other man/woman would obviously tend to the needs of the child first and Im sure that was being done whilst this poor man has lost his rag out of despair (how would you feel?). The last thing this poor man and their family need is self-righteous do-gooders telling him how out of order he was and how it should be done according to the text book of political correcteness. I simply ponted out and exagerrated for the purposes of effect that if it was my son I would of probably leathered him: I possibly would of - I pray I never have that decision, we have all said f***ing hell when weve hit our thumb with a hammer or slammed doors in a row with the wife - this fella was losing his pride and joy, good reason to be angry.

I was driving to the match on tues and cut through some back streets of Longsight and there was kids playing in the dark on the street in the terraced lined streets, that is there environment and a lot of them are 20mph play zones etc. Anyway the point is, I saw those kids and slowed down, even though I was already below the speed limit. You see, we used to play in the street when we were kids too, kerby, wally, one-a-kick, hide n seek, why does everyone think todays kids are so different or is it you are looking down from a societal class angle?

Whilst I am blaming neither party, I am saying that his reaction was understandable and I am defo saying that the peoiple using this story to crack jokes about paedophiles etc are showing an enromous amount of disrespect and should be ashamed of themselves.

This is no laughing matter and no place to be joking or pointing out shortcomings of this poor tragic family, I can only assume that a few of you are very young and very naive.

   Well said, local lass, at last a voice of reason! My heart goes out to the parents, and to the driver who has to live with this for the rest of his life; but accidents happen, and of course there were elements which made this happen. The road is a dangerous place, and certainly no place for any child, let alone a 3 yr old, to be playing. You have to have eyes in the back of your head with little ones, and never, EVER let them out of your sight. Very sad, no blame to anyone, they are all suffering enough now. Let's all learn from this, and stop squabbeling as there is nothing more to be said other than "rest in peace little angel".

   peddler: "There are a multitude of factors that could be classified as dangerous driving, for example putting you're make up on, texting etc...and driving over the speed limit is one of them!"

Generally it isn't, which is why people who do 35mph in a 30mph zone aren't typically charged with dangerous driving.

"yeah not being able to obide a speed limit is falling below a 'defined' standard"

But not the standard by which dangerous driving is defined.

Stop being ridiculous.

   Black Flag "By that reasoning, even if you weren't over the speed limit and you killed someone, it would be classed as causing death by dangerous driving, because whatever you did, it resulted in someone's death.

Dangerous driving is, as it should be, a clearly defined offence which is committed when the driver's behaviour falls below a defined standard, not some vague attack for you to dish out based on the outcome of the situation, with little regard for the contributory circumstances."

At what point did I say that if you kill someone under the speed limit it isnt classified as dangerous driving?! I didnt! There are a multitude of factors that could be classified as dangerous driving, for example putting you're make up on, texting etc...and driving over the speed limit is one of them! "Dangerous driving is, as it should be, a clearly defined offence which is committed when the driver's behaviour falls below a defined standard" yeah not being able to obide a speed limit is falling below a 'defined' standard, so by your reasoning you agree. next you'll be telling me day is night....

   "Laura Norder- i have nothing to apologise for. if you don't like my opinions don't come on here. the facts are that people at this tragic accident felt it would be more productive to attack the driver than help the kid. these people obviously didn't have their priorities in the right order." - Stickman, Bury

And I'll say again: "Read my post", or get someone who can, read it for you!

S*d it, here's what I said (in response to 'Hands of Stone) : 'I think that post tells us all we need to know about you - before we even see your signature. (FTR, you missed out 'The World', 'The Universe'...

You think it's acceptable for three-year-old children to play unsupervised in the roads, do you? I despair.

(And if the child was being supervised - what was the responsible adult doing at the time of the accident?)

Now do you get it?

   Whats wrong with the m.e.n nowadays? I just demonstrated my point backed up with evidence and it's not been published? No abuse, no potential law suits, nothing and they've not posted it????

Wots the point, wheres the freedom of speech gone in healthy debate????

   It's milliseconds with kids - there one minute then they're out of your line of vision - if you get to them in time GREAT! If not you spend every day of your life wondering "what if ..." Zoe P.

The only sensible comment so far. Now lets look at the article, it is not about a little child being killed in a road accident. It is about the driver of the car that hit the little boy being attacked by a "Mob" being found to be blameless of dangerous driving. Accident and very sad, but just that, a terrible accident.

   Penny Lane, Manchester - nothing to be confused about. He wasn't playing in the road when the car came into the street - he wasn't on a scooter at all!!! as stated in the article above "who was playing in the road on his scooter one day last August".

Odd sentences taken out of context lead to your confusion - he hadn't been for the period of time before being hit "playing in the road on his scooter".

If you read some of the other posts here they are extremely critical of his supervision at the time, you can only comment on what you are given but the article is not strictly correct so who knows any different. All this "where were the grown ups" attitude is really annoying when you've heard from people there at the time "we were all just getting our coats and going outside cos the kids wanted to play out front - next thing you know there was this noise from outside" it's heartbreaking!

It's milliseconds with kids - there one minute then they're out of your line of vision - if you get to them in time GREAT! If not you spend every day of your life wondering "what if ..."

   Laura Norder- i have nothing to apologise for. if you don't like my opinions don't come on here. the facts are that people at this tragic accident felt it would be more productive to attack the driver than help the kid. these people obviously didn't have their priorities in the right order.

   Dont understand the posts on this. Was the child not on the road not on a scooter not unattended?? How was he knocked down then? Confused!

   "Laura Norder - so your priority would be to kill the driver rather than help your own kid under the car. shows what kind of person you are. there's nothing P.C about that!!" - Stickman, Bury

What the hell are you on about? I suggest you track back and see what I've typed... then come back and apologise.

   peddler: "yes it should be counted as dangerous driving because if you killed someone and you were over the speed limit, hence it was dangerous to put your foot down in a built up area and as a result you KILLED someone."

That's nonsense.

By that reasoning, even if you weren't over the speed limit and you killed someone, it would be classed as causing death by dangerous driving, because whatever you did, it resulted in someone's death.

Dangerous driving is, as it should be, a clearly defined offence which is committed when the driver's behaviour falls below a defined standard, not some vague attack for you to dish out based on the outcome of the situation, with little regard for the contributory circumstances.

   90's Higher Broughton is right. The jokes were about mob mentality, as indeed the headline says "driver forced to flee mob" and the driver was turned on by 10 people. No one was intentionally making light of the death of this child, as the humour was directed at mobs in general. Often the humour can come out due to exasperation with the story. We read so much about these type of circumstances.

   Thanks!! Hands of Stone, Southside, Manchester, England, GREAT BRITAIN 9/02/2010 at 15:13

It really is Chinese whispers in all its glory!! one of the storys at the time of the accident said that a local lady had said "I used to see him all the time playing on his little scooter" - I don't think he was even on a scooter on the day of the accident!! he had dashed out of the house he was visiting with everyone going outside to play (and adults supervise this!!)and for 3 year olds road sense is sometimes at the back of the mind behind playtime!! All over in seconds a tiny life :'( that's the point!!