Boy, four, dies after gravestone falls on him at Rawtenstall Cemetery in Lancashire, police say
The boy was fatally injured at Rawtenstall Cemetery on Burnley Road, Haslingden, at lunchtime on Saturday, Lancashire Police said.
Paramedics tried to save him but "tragically" the boy died in the "devastating" incident, the force said in a statement.
Officers were called to the cemetery at 1pm "following reports a gravestone had fallen onto a child.
"Tragically, and despite the best efforts of the emergency services, the boy sadly died. Our thoughts are with his loved ones at this devastating time."
His death was not being treated as suspicious and a file will be sent to the coroner "in due course".
Rossendale Borough Council posted on X on Saturday evening: "We are deeply saddened by the tragic death of a young child at Rawtenstall Cemetery today. Our thoughts are with the family at this devastating time.
Andy MacNae, Labour MP for Rossendale and Darwen, said on Facebook his thoughts went out to the family and everyone affected by the "tragic incident".
Local councillor Liz McInnes also wrote on Facebook it was "a terrible tragedy. My heartfelt and deepest sympathies to the family of this poor boy. The whole of Rawtenstall is grieving".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
21 minutes ago
- The Sun
Woman ‘sexually assaulted in pub toilets' as 2 men, 18 & 19, arrested & cops appeal for Good Samaritans to come forward
TWO men have been arrested after a woman was sexually assaulted in the toilets of a pub. The woman was attacked in the lavatories of George's Bistro and Wine Bar in Cleckheaton, West Yorkshire, between 12am and 1am on June 28. Both men, aged 18 and 19, have been arrested on suspicion of sexual offending. Now, West Yorkshire Police is also appealing for two Good Samaritans - who helped the victim in the aftermath - to come forward. is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video. Like us on Facebook at and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSun. 1
Times
21 minutes ago
- Times
Whistleblowing bill doesn't go far enough
The Office of the Whistleblower Bill is set to get its long-awaited second reading tomorrow, seven years after an all-party parliamentary group on the subject launched with the aim of providing stronger protections. That work led to the bill and its aims include the establishment of an independent office that will set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases. It will also provide disclosure and advice services and direct investigations, as well as ordering redress of detriment suffered by whistleblowers. The need for reform has been obvious for years as whistleblowers frequently expose scandals. But for those who dare to blow the whistle there can follow a loss of livelihood, reputational damage, poor mental health, and targeted attacks. Research by the all-party group showed that 78 per cent of respondents to its survey declared that organisations retaliated against them for blowing the whistle. Yet law enforcement continues to rely on whistleblowers to do the right thing and bring serious criminality to light. Nick Ephgrave, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, is vocal about the need to pay whistleblowers and cites the US as an example of where monetary rewards for those who speak out are working in the fight against economic crime. But while the bill is welcomed, it does not go far enough or fast enough and will not remedy the numerous life-changing outcomes that all too often flow from making a protected disclosure. The bill is only on its second reading, so it may be many months before it becomes law. It will then take time to set up and staff an office. The obvious missing element from the bill is a financial incentive scheme, which evidence from other jurisdictions shows increases the effectiveness of economic crime investigations and is being called for by law enforcement. The bill widens the number of entities that can receive a whistleblowing report, but it does not offer guidance on which is the best route for a whistleblower to follow. It is not clear how the office will select cases to take on and those it will pass to under-resourced police or over-worked regulatory bodies. The bill introduces a criminal offence for those causing detriment to whistleblowers with a proposed maximum sentence of a fine or 18 months' imprisonment. For whistleblowers who have lost everything, the punishment is insufficient. The bill is a step in the right direction but will be little comfort to those who risk everything to do the right Titus is a barrister at the London office of US law firm, McGuireWoods
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
The MP caught out by a tangled love life — and bad legal advice
Many a political career has foundered on allegations over sex. Yet many politicians have managed to regroup, even if they never reached their former heights. Destined for high political honours in the late Victorian era was the handsome Sir Charles Dilke, the MP for Chelsea, a cabinet minister, who was possibly headed for the premiership. Where he came a cropper was in part the result of his own bad behaviour — but also bad legal advice. The Dilke family love life was tangled to say the least. He was a widower said to have the choice of society women in London. His great friend in parliament was Donald Crawford, who was married to 19-year-old Virginia Smith, whose sister was the widow of Dilke's dead brother, Ashton, and with whose mother Dilke had an affair. Crawford received a letter in 1885 saying that 'Virginia has been mixing with bad company'. But worse, it ended with: 'Beware of the member for Chelsea.' When he showed the letter to his wife she dismissed it saying it was probably her mother causing trouble. The next letter was rather more specific. She confessed and Crawford began divorce proceedings citing Dilke. There was only her confession, which was inadmissible, against Dilke and he was dismissed from the suit and awarded costs. Many thought Dilke should have given evidence and a campaign against him was started by WT Stead, the controversial journalist who campaigned against child prostitution and who went down with the Titanic. As a result of his campaign, Dilke's lawyers pressed the Queen's Proctor — a now-obsolete official who could intervene in divorce cases — to say that Crawford's divorce should not stand. It was a wholly ill-conceived action and on July 16, 1886, the hearing began which, far from redeeming Dilke's reputation, would ruin his political career. His aim was to show that Virginia was protecting her real lover, a Captain Henry Forster. There were also suggestions she had been bribed by Lady Rosebery, wife of the Earl and a political rival, to frame Dilke. In the witness box Virginia admitted she had only committed adultery with Dilke to get divorced from Crawford. Dilke admitted he was a serial adulterer, including with two of his servants, but not with Crawford's mother. Virginia, portrayed in the press as an innocent young girl who had been debauched by the evil Dilke, was far from it. While she denied two other affairs, she had been taken to a brothel by Forster and words which she should not even have known — such as ménage à trois, syphilis and sodomy — were bandied about. Smiling, chatting with her sisters and yawning in court, Virginia stood up to cross-examination, during which she gave details of a house in Warren Street in London that was owned by Dilke, where she said she met him. Fanny, one of the servants expected to give evidence to say Virginia had never been there, then disappeared. In contrast Dilke prevaricated. Nor was it the finest case of Sir Walter Phillimore, the barrister — and later an appeal court judge — who appeared for the Queen's Proctor. Dilke apparently had a complete alibi for a day when he was meant to have been at Warren Street. Lady Dilke was called in support but not the respectable Mr and Mrs Earle who had lunched with them. Where were they? asked the judge rhetorically in summing up. Apparently in court and willing to give evidence. But Phillimore had thought that since Lady Dilke had not been cross-examined, that was sufficient. A graphologist who examined the letter written to Donald Crawford and some written by Virginia to Forster concluded that they were written by the same person — and far from being from her mother, Virginia herself had written them. The judge summed up wholly in favour of granting the decree absolute. Whatever the truth, there was nothing to upset the nisi and the jury agreed with him after only 17 minutes' retirement. Dilke went abroad saying he would live in France until his name was cleared. There was talk of prosecutions for perjury but they came to nothing. In 1892 he was asked to stand as Liberal candidate for the Forest of Dean, a seat that he won and held until his death in 1911. Virginia became a writer, converted to Catholicism and took up women's suffrage. She never remarried and died in London in Morton is an author and a former criminal law solicitor
