"PlugSafe" wrote in message
...


Here are some excerpts from the Sheriff's determination which have a
bearing on various of the discussions above:

"... the accident was caused when Liam picked up an un-terminated
electrical power cable and plug from a settee in the living room of the
family home and thereafter made his way into the toy room where he plugged
that un-terminated power cable into a socket. The socket was either
already switched on or alternatively Liam switched it on. Either way, he
received an electric shock at a touch voltage of 240 volts because he
handled the exposed un-terminated copper conductors with the live wire in
one hand and either the neutral or earth wire in the other thereby
creating the conditions for a hand to hand electric shock."


"Mr Rough was commissioned to do that work because he was a general
handyman. He did electrical, joinery and plumbing work of a general nature
for (the landlord)and for other letting agencies. He was not a qualified
electrician. His only formal training in electrical work occurred when he
took a course in electrical safety when at college. That was between
thirty five and forty years before the events that ground this Inquiry. As
at February 2009 he had been acting as a handyman for some six years"

"On examination of Liam there were entry and exit wounds on both hands
which were consistent with him having sustained an electric shock."

"Liam had burn marks present on both of his hands. The marks were slightly
more severe on his left hand. The appearance of the burn marks on both
hands exhibited the classic features caused by electrocution. The presence
of those marks on both hands was consistent with him having held an
electrical wire in both hands with the result that an electrical current
passed through his body. The effect of the electrical current passing
through his body had caused a massive shock to his heart. This had caused
death within seconds before he realised what had happened to him and
before he had the opportunity to feel pain."

There is no basis for that last claim, so we have to take what else
he has said with a sack of salt.

"I accept the expert evidence of Mr Madden based on his examination of the
new cable and plug that Liam grasped the bare wires of the live conductor
in one hand and the bare wires of the neutral conductor in the other."

"Liam was aware that a plug inserted into a wall socket could lead to the
television in the living room being activated. A short but unspecified
time before the day in question, he had started the practice of pulling
out plugs from the socket in the living room into which the television was
plugged regularly. This practice amused him, which sounds as if he saw
this activity as a sort of game, and that even although his mother had
told him that it was bad to do that. I consider his state of knowledge
about what a plug could achieve to be significant for what happened.
Exhibiting the characteristic inquisitiveness of a small boy of his age,
he seemed to have developed an interest in electric plugs presumably
because of what that might mean for him and, in particular, 1 instance
that it could result in him being able to watch television."

"Liam would not have died when, where and how he did if he had been denied
access to the new cable and plug once it had been disconnected from the
new oven."


I leave the above statements to speak for themselves, except to point out
that Liam could just as easily have pulled out the TV plug to insert the
unterminated lead.

Let us imagine a theoretical socket cover which was the correct size, and
by some means (yet to be discovered) was genuinely child proof. Such a
perfect device would only be effective if there were no sockets in the
house without one of these plugged in.

That's not right. Those where he would have been observed
plugging the lose lead in wouldn't have been a risk because
someone would have stopped him doing that.

That means that there can be no TV, phone charger or anything else plugged
in.

Nope, just where there is no one to observe him using that socket.

Such a scenario is unlikely to be acceptable in any practical situation,
and that fact, of itself, negates the idea that plug-in socket covers will
prevent children plugging in appliances.

In my professional capacity I have long been
aware that socket covers were unnecessary,

Easy to claim. What matters is the evidence that substantiates that claim.

and that they can give rise to additional dangers
which are not present when they are not used. As
a mother I do all that I can to protect my children.

You don't actually. You don't supervise them literally at all times.

What you actually do is attempt to minimise the situations
where serious injury can occur and hope for the best with
the risks that are inevitable with any child.

I have had the unsettling experience of taking my children to the
house of a friend who did use socket covers, and discovering that
my (then) 12 month old daughter was perfectly capable or removing
a socket cover in seconds (having watched my friend insert the cover
after she pulled out a plug!) I was not a happy mummy to find her
trying to put it back in, covered in dribble.

The risk is in fact minimal, particularly with RCDs.

The vast majority of the material on the FatallyFlawed web site,
including the Liam story, was in place before I became involved
with the campaign, however I find myself completely in agreement
with both the material and the motives of the founders. That is why
I volunteered to assist them. The idea that Liam's misfortune should
not be held up as a warning to parents of what can happen if children
are allowed access to "dangerous things attached to plugs" is a concept
that I find utterly stupid. Liam's death was a pointless tragedy, but at
least his memory can serve to alert others.

The risk of another child getting hold of another lead that has
been removed from a device being installed is very low indeed.