Nothing to disagree with in that case and appears to me that they found correctly and BT were definately in the wrong. The difference between these two examples could just be the reporting of the case of course.
Loads of ideas about this topic :lol: what if your normal break is e.g @ 10:00
so you may have eaten however given the time from last bg's means everyone on here who is in agreeance with the 2hr post test are contradicting them self :lol: :lol: :lol: Diabetes is'nt an excuse it's a reason :? :? :?
Customer helplines that use recorded menus that promise to put me through to the right person but never do - and being ill. Oh, and did I mention customer helplines :)
Slightly reminds me of a driving theory test I did 2 years ago in which I turned up and they said I couldn't take any food in because of disturbances. After some argument I got them to agree that a pack of glucose sweets and meter was likely to make considerable less disturbance than an ambulance crew.
Now that is a long and complicated one. I think the final judgement was right though in that they blamed the kid and the school.
The kid was definatley at fault, but he was a kid. If the school had said "No you can't come on this trip until we know you are doing things right" and then let him join in again once he'd proved he wasn't going to make the same mistake again then the school would have got away with it. They seem to have just decided that as a diabetic had had a hypo on a previous trip tey are now banned from any activity.
If another kid had misbehaved in some way on a trip would they then have been banned forever from taking part in any further trips, or would they be excluded from one as a punishment but then let back again after that?