On 24/06/2012 16:44, PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:38:34 PM UTC+1, wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:50:35 PM UTC+1,
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Steve wrote in message
...

And of course no recognition that in this case a socket cover
may have prevented the accident.

So you are saying the parents are at fault for not using socket
covers?

The main point is there are no recorded deaths caused by the use of
socket covers and there recorded deaths where the use of a socket
cover may have saved a life.

So statistically which is the safest option?

--
Adam

fatally flawed should be called factually flawed

Please state what deaths you are referring to. As the Sheriff made
clear, there is no evidence to support the idea that a socket cover
could have saved Liam's life, so whose lives are you talking about?

You might also like to bear in mind that the damage caused to sockets
by the use of incorrectly sized socket covers will only ever cause
problems when the covers have been removed. There is little
likelihood of a death due to a faulty earth connection in a socket
(into which someone had once rammed a clippasafe cover) will be
ascribed to the root cause. Similarly, a socket which has damaged
L&N contacts caused by having been left with a socket cover with
oversized pins for several years, and which (when it is eventually
used to deliver power again) catches fire because of arcing, will not
be blamed on the socket cover.

And how many people will force in and out a plug on an appliance for years
as the pins on the plug are bent causing similar damage to the socket as the
socket cover.

I see lots of electrical dangers at work. I put the socket covers (even the
crap ones they sell ATM) pretty low down on that list of dangers.

--
Adam

To sell an incorrectly sized plug is an offence which may result in 6 months imprisonment. There is no law to prevent the sale of incorrectly sized socket covers, and no one sells correctly sized ones. Is that not cause for concern?

Your professional standards leave much to be desired.

Adam is a qualified electrician. And you are....?



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Monday, 25 June 2012 09:10:12 UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Adam is a qualified electrician. And you are....?
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

A professional electrical engineer and mother of two small children.

On Sunday, 24 June 2012 16:26:41 UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
Call me a liar again, and your teeth will be travelling to say hello to
your colon.


It's a small world Steve.
My husband says he remembers you from school.
He looks forward to catching up when he returns from Helmand.

On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket cover
nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was put in the
socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable localised heating.
Luckily I was passing a notice the smell. This was in a timber building.

--
From KT24



Charles, thanks for this.
With your permission we would like to use it on our professional feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html
Please get in touch.

PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket cover
nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was put in the
socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable localised heating.
Luckily I was passing a notice the smell. This was in a timber building.

--
From KT24



Charles, thanks for this.
With your permission we would like to use it on our professional feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html
Please get in touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any objective
proof.

PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 16:26:41 UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
Call me a liar again, and your teeth will be travelling to say hello to
your colon.


It's a small world Steve.

It may seem that way to some.

My husband says he remembers you from school.

Then your husband is a stranger to reality.

He looks forward to catching up when he returns from Helmand.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahhshahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahagasp hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhshahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh shahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhshahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh please someone make her stop, oh my aching sides.

Of all the people on here you could have tried to pull that one on, I'm the
one that you really shouldn't have tried it on. Here's a clue. I know that
no contemporary of mine from my school is currently in Helmand. There's a
very good reason why I know that.

On 24/06/2012 16:29, ARWadsworth wrote:

Liams death is IMHO a reason for using socket covers. Using correctly
fitting covers would be even better.

Hang on! Aren't you just speculating that Liam would not simply have
removed a socket cover, had there been one there, and inserted the mains
plug - that with the bare wire ends at the other end of the cable - into
exactly the same socket?

Liam was clearly capable of inserted a plug into a wall socket and it
has been clearly demonstrated that children below that age are easily
capable of removing a socket cover.

Alongside a fair number of quotes of the word "statistics" in this
thread there seems to be a lot speculation from the parties taking both
sides of the argument, and perhaps some disservice is being done to
statisticians.

Michael

Owain wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:30 pm, John Rumm wrote:
It strikes me that strong promotion of RCD protection for all
accessible sockets in houses with kids would also not go amiss.

Provided they're separate from lighting circuits.

Otherwise we'll have more people falling down stairs in the dark.

I can't ever remember falling down the stairs due to lack of light.

--
Adam

On Monday, 25 June 2012 16:58:27 UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe
wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 16:26:41 UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
Call me a liar again, and your teeth will be travelling to say hello to
your colon.


It's a small world Steve.

It may seem that way to some.

My husband says he remembers you from school.

Then your husband is a stranger to reality.

He looks forward to catching up when he returns from Helmand.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahhshahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahagasp hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhshahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh shahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhshahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh please someone make her stop, oh my aching sides.

Of all the people on here you could have tried to pull that one on, I'm the
one that you really shouldn't have tried it on. Here's a clue. I know that
no contemporary of mine from my school is currently in Helmand. There's a
very good reason why I know that.

Who mentioned "contemporary"?

John Rumm wrote:
On 24/06/2012 16:12, PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:50:35 PM UTC+1,
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...



And of course no recognition that in this case a socket cover may
have prevented the accident.

So you are saying the parents are at fault for not using socket
covers?

The main point is there are no recorded deaths caused by the use
of socket covers and there recorded deaths where the use of a
socket cover may have saved a life.

So statistically which is the safest option?

-- Adam

fatally flawed should be called factually flawed

Please state what deaths you are referring to. As the Sheriff made
clear, there is no evidence to support the idea that a socket cover
could have saved Liam's life, so whose lives are you talking about?

You might also like to bear in mind that the damage caused to
sockets by the use of incorrectly sized socket covers will only
ever cause problems when the covers have been removed. There is
little likelihood of a death due to a faulty earth connection in a
socket (into which someone had once rammed a clippasafe cover) will
be ascribed to the root cause. Similarly, a socket which has
damaged L&N contacts caused by having been left with a socket cover
with oversized pins for several years, and which (when it is
eventually used to deliver power again) catches fire because of
arcing, will not be blamed on the socket cover.

Dare one slide a word in edgeways for risk of being hit by flying
toys... (coming from multiple sides!)

Each of you have valid points it seems to me, however there is danger
of them being lost in the noise...

The fundamental difficulty with any discussion of this nature is that
the numbers we are dealing with are so low. The numbers of deaths in
this country per year from electrocution are vanishingly small
whichever way you look at it. This makes it exceedingly difficult to
spot significant trends. It has already been mentioned that we
already have the safest electrical wiring standards and accessories
in the world as a starting point.

Are plug covers worthwhile? In my opinion (based on no hard data - so
just that, an opinion) they serve no benefit and probably their risks
are more significant than their benefits. However it is important to
note that even if they halved or for that matter doubled the number of
deaths resulting from toddlers playing with sockets each year, the
nett effect would be near enough zero either way as to make no
difference. As a percentage of causes of infant mortality these
accidents will be well down in fractional percentages. Far greater
numbers will die each year at the hands of the medical profession,
their parents, or even just cot death / SIDS etc. As Adam mentioned,
compared to the things he will see during the normal course of
working on customers existing installations, the presence of plug
covers will be pretty well down the list of primary concerns... lack
of earthing, no RCDs, missing EQ bonding, exposed live metalwork,
dangerously overloaded circuits, and bodged extension work etc, will
certainly figure as more pressing matters.
Hard numbers for serious injury rather than death due to electric
shock would actually be a far more useful metric, and perhaps allow a
more rational assessment of true risks and benefits.

Does the fatally flawed site intend to give the impression that it was
all the mother's fault in this case? No I don't expect it was intended
that way. However the proximity of the various statements could
certainly give that impression, and I have no doubt that in its
current form it will be read by many as implying it was simply a
failure of parental responsibility. I am sure the site could be
better split up into sections that don't attempt to cover these
various things in a way that could conflate them in people's minds.
(it is also worth remembering what any parent will tell you - even
with the best will in the world, you can't be aware of everything
that they do every day all the time with 100% reliability).

I see no need to "spin" the story about Liam. Even mentioning that a
cover may hay helped in this particular case does not detract from the
problems presented by the socket covers. Presented with both bits of
information, parents could be allowed to form their own conclusions.

Highlighting the risks of unshuttered sockets on the end of flying
mains leads is worthwhile in my opinion, but again it does not need
to be done in proximity to the article about the comments about the
flex with unterminated ends. (the risks from lamp holders however are
probably less worth mentioning since gaining contact with a live BC
socket for long enough to cause serious injury is actually quite
difficult in practical terms)


It strikes me that strong promotion of RCD protection for all
accessible sockets in houses with kids would also not go amiss.

That is what I would like to see. Although the bigger danger (in the number
of lives that gould be saved) is the lack of RCD protection on sockets that
adults use. They are the ones that use the hedge trimmer and the lawn mower
(most of the time).

It was made clear that an RCD would not have saved Liams life as a Live
Neutral touch was the given cause of death. I cannot remember the report
going into details of how they came to that conclusion.

Is is totally impossible to say how many injuries and lives the introduction
of the 30mA RCD has saved. It is also impossible to say if a socket cover
has ever saved a life. A child that was unable to plug something into a
socket that would have hurt or killed them is not a recorded event. It's a
non event - nothing really happened (other than there was a socket cover in
place).

I have often encountered sockets that no longer make proper contact with the
pins on a plug. These sockets have never seen a socket cover.

Considering the incompetent DIY I have seen today [1] I really can say that
socket covers are the least of my worries.

[1] All the DIY extended circuits had the brown and blue cables connected up
the wrong way to the red and black cables. There was no earth on 1/3 of the
house sockets due to bad connections. 5 amp strip connector was used to
extend the ring etc

The best bit was that when it rains the RCD trips. That was because some of
the water in the roof valley ran down the steel conduit into a socket:-) And
who the hell screws down tiles?

--
Adam

In article ,
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
Hang on! Aren't you just speculating that Liam would not simply have
removed a socket cover, had there been one there, and inserted the mains
plug - that with the bare wire ends at the other end of the cable - into
exactly the same socket?

Liam was clearly capable of inserted a plug into a wall socket and it
has been clearly demonstrated that children below that age are easily
capable of removing a socket cover.

I'd often wondered - not having kids myself - up to what age are they
incapable of removing a dummy plug or whatever? And is it more difficult
to remove one than to plug something in? Also, since pretty well all
sockets are shuttered, what purpose does a dummy plug really serve?

--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

PlugSafe wrote:


You have no "evidence". You actually admit this on your website. You
have a lot of statements that are personal opinion presented as fact.

Once again, a completely misleading statement with no basis in fact,

Yes, you're rather good at that. What a shame that being an engineer has
not actually taught you anything about concepts of proof, evidence or
even, it seems the basics of testing.

we provide a lot of information which has been very well researched by
professional engineers, we provide the results of tests and measurements.

Really? And where would that be? There's emarkably little "test and
measurement" on your website. Unless of course you're describing your
someonewhat risible "socket cover pin dimensions" sheet.

I really CBA to entr that into a spreadsheet and do a proper analysis on
it. However it seems to contradict your statements here on pin
dimensions (in that the majority of dimensions are smaller than the
standard, not larger). Also you seem to be obsessively quibbling about
differences in dimensions of 0.07mm or less without stating your
measurement technique or the errors in measurement.


What we do not have, because the government does not collect it, is any
statistics. You should not confuse statistics with facts.

You really are whoppingly ignorant aren't you? Statistics most certainly
are facts. Data on the number of deaths attributable to poor design of
electrical sockets, plugs or socket covers would give some substance to
your site. As it is, it's an evidence free rant by someone who doesn't
seem to have understood the need for a sound statistical analysis of
data.


You, on the other hand, have no data to offer whatsoever.

I'm not the one claiming that a device degrades safety based on no
evidence whatsoever. You need to go, run don't walk, to a library and
learn something about testing, statistics and the first concepts of
proof including the impossibility of proving a negative.

PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:29:42 PM UTC+1,
wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:51:49 PM UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe
wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:39:46 PM UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]

"installed by a handyman, instead of removing the fuse and
ensuring that the lead was safely disposed of the lead was
left lying where Liam could find it." seems pretty clear to
me.

It's not clear at all. You want it to be clear but it does not
in any way place blame upon the handyman, particularly if the
full sentence is quoted rather than editing it as you did above.

"The lead with moulded plug attached had been removed from an
appliance that was being installed by a handyman,"

Does not clearly identify the handyman as the person
responsible for removing the lead.

" instead of removing the fuse and ensuring that the lead was
safely disposed of the lead was left lying where Liam could
find it."

Again does not clearly identify the handyman as the person
responsible.

Now set it in the context of your page that repeatedly states
the *parents* are responsible for making safe appliances and
leads.

Perhaps you could rewrite your page to state, clearly that the
death was the result of the handyman's negligence and had
nothing to do with socket covers or with Parents failing to
take proper care of appliances and leads?

You have absolutely no evidence to back up the myth that
socket covers prevent children putting plugs in.

You have absolutely no evidence that their use degrades safety.
Not even a credible mechanism by which they could do so.

However your responses here are making it clear that you're one
of those pompous arses who will never admit fault, so I don't
expect to see any recognition of your errors.

First, let me ask you if you are suggesting that parents are not
responsible for ensuring that their homes are safe? The way that
you have written would seem to suggest that.

Leaving that aside, we have no wish to have anyone misinterpret
the piece about Liam, albeit that the misinterpretation under
discussion is disingenuous in the extreme. Accordingly the piece
has been re-written as follows:
"In February 2009 Liam, 22 months old, was killed when he
received an electric shock while playing with a plug and lead he
had found lying in his home. A handyman, who had removed the
lead with attached plug from an appliance that he was installing,
had left it lying where Liam could find it. The handyman should
have removed the fuse and ensured that the lead was safely
disposed of.
Liam took the lead to his playroom, plugged it into a socket and
grabbed hold of the bare wires.
According to a pathologist Liam died instantly."
By the time you read this our webmaster should have updated the
site.

Given that the page on which Liam's story is related is clearly
headed "Other Dangers" it is hard to see why you would wish a
statement that Liam's death had nothing to do with socket covers.

As far as evidence of the danger of socket covers goes, the site
is full of it. We go to great lengths to explain how the use of
socket covers which do not conform to the proper dimensions (ie,
all plug-in socket covers) gives rise to all sorts of dangers.
If you have any evidence to the contrary please state it rather
than making sweeping statements which are completely unsupported.

Whilst I agree that the socket covers that are currently available
are a pile of ****e the very mention of Liam Boyles death on your
site is wrong. His was a life that could potentially have been
saved by the use of one of these socket covers that you consider so
dangerous but have not yet been proven to be the cause of a death.


From your site

"How many injuries or deaths have been caused by the use of socket
covers?

The UK government does not collect statistics on the causes of
death by electric shock in the home, we have been unable to find
any reliable UK statistics on the subject.

Our position is simply that the possibility of electrocution caused
by the use of socket covers in UK sockets is clearly demonstrable,
while we have identified no benefit attributable to their use."

Liams death is IMHO a reason for using socket covers. Using
correctly fitting covers would be even better.

Socket covers are like RCDs in terms of saving lives. We do not
know how many lives have been saved because of them.

--
Adam

But the Sheriff, on the basis of the evidence, disagrees with you,
therefore Liam's death does not in any way support your argument.
Whose are the other deaths you refer to?

Why do you continue to ignore the facts?

Facts are very difficult to come by. One Sheriff has said the socket covers
would not help. That is not a fact that is one Shefiffs opinion.

And I can remember the pathologist stating that Ian Tomlinson died of
natural causes.

I do not trust authority.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:29:42 PM UTC+1,
wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:51:49 PM UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe
wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:39:46 PM UTC+1, Steve Firth
wrote: [snip]

"installed by a handyman, instead of removing the fuse and
ensuring that the lead was safely disposed of the lead was
left lying where Liam could find it." seems pretty clear to
me.

It's not clear at all. You want it to be clear but it does not
in any way place blame upon the handyman, particularly if the
full sentence is quoted rather than editing it as you did
above. "The lead with moulded plug attached had been removed from
an
appliance that was being installed by a handyman,"

Does not clearly identify the handyman as the person
responsible for removing the lead.

" instead of removing the fuse and ensuring that the lead was
safely disposed of the lead was left lying where Liam could
find it."

Again does not clearly identify the handyman as the person
responsible.

Now set it in the context of your page that repeatedly states
the *parents* are responsible for making safe appliances and
leads.

Perhaps you could rewrite your page to state, clearly that the
death was the result of the handyman's negligence and had
nothing to do with socket covers or with Parents failing to
take proper care of appliances and leads?

You have absolutely no evidence to back up the myth that
socket covers prevent children putting plugs in.

You have absolutely no evidence that their use degrades
safety. Not even a credible mechanism by which they could do
so. However your responses here are making it clear that you're
one of those pompous arses who will never admit fault, so I
don't expect to see any recognition of your errors.

First, let me ask you if you are suggesting that parents are not
responsible for ensuring that their homes are safe? The way
that you have written would seem to suggest that.

Leaving that aside, we have no wish to have anyone misinterpret
the piece about Liam, albeit that the misinterpretation under
discussion is disingenuous in the extreme. Accordingly the
piece has been re-written as follows:
"In February 2009 Liam, 22 months old, was killed when he
received an electric shock while playing with a plug and lead he
had found lying in his home. A handyman, who had removed the
lead with attached plug from an appliance that he was
installing, had left it lying where Liam could find it. The
handyman should have removed the fuse and ensured that the lead
was safely disposed of.
Liam took the lead to his playroom, plugged it into a socket and
grabbed hold of the bare wires.
According to a pathologist Liam died instantly."
By the time you read this our webmaster should have updated the
site.

Given that the page on which Liam's story is related is clearly
headed "Other Dangers" it is hard to see why you would wish a
statement that Liam's death had nothing to do with socket
covers. As far as evidence of the danger of socket covers goes, the
site
is full of it. We go to great lengths to explain how the use of
socket covers which do not conform to the proper dimensions (ie,
all plug-in socket covers) gives rise to all sorts of dangers.
If you have any evidence to the contrary please state it rather
than making sweeping statements which are completely
unsupported.

Whilst I agree that the socket covers that are currently available
are a pile of ****e the very mention of Liam Boyles death on your
site is wrong. His was a life that could potentially have been
saved by the use of one of these socket covers that you consider
so dangerous but have not yet been proven to be the cause of a
death. From your site

"How many injuries or deaths have been caused by the use of socket
covers?

The UK government does not collect statistics on the causes of
death by electric shock in the home, we have been unable to find
any reliable UK statistics on the subject.

Our position is simply that the possibility of electrocution
caused by the use of socket covers in UK sockets is clearly
demonstrable, while we have identified no benefit attributable to
their use." Liams death is IMHO a reason for using socket covers.
Using
correctly fitting covers would be even better.

Socket covers are like RCDs in terms of saving lives. We do not
know how many lives have been saved because of them.

--
Adam

But the Sheriff, on the basis of the evidence, disagrees with you,
therefore Liam's death does not in any way support your argument.
Whose are the other deaths you refer to?

Why do you continue to ignore the facts?

Facts are very difficult to come by. One Sheriff has said the socket
covers would not help. That is not a fact that is one Shefiffs
opinion.
And I can remember the pathologist stating that Ian Tomlinson died of
natural causes.

I do not trust authority.


Sorry Grimley. I forgot to snip:-)
--
Adam

Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket
cover nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was put
in the socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable
localised heating. Luckily I was passing a notice the smell.
This was in a timber building.

--
From KT24



Charles, thanks for this.
With your permission we would like to use it on our professional
feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html
Please get in touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any
objective proof.

I am still waiting for someone to say you should smack a child for messing
with a socket and plug:-)

--
Adam

On 25/06/2012 19:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
Hang on! Aren't you just speculating that Liam would not simply have
removed a socket cover, had there been one there, and inserted the mains
plug - that with the bare wire ends at the other end of the cable - into
exactly the same socket?

Liam was clearly capable of inserted a plug into a wall socket and it
has been clearly demonstrated that children below that age are easily
capable of removing a socket cover.

I'd often wondered - not having kids myself - up to what age are they
incapable of removing a dummy plug or whatever? And is it more difficult
to remove one than to plug something in? Also, since pretty well all
sockets are shuttered, what purpose does a dummy plug really serve?

I don't know, but somewhere on the Fatally Flawed website was a video of
a 1yr old removing a socket cover with consummate ease. Much younger
than Liam. Ergo, any child of Liam's age with the curiosity to plug in a
bare-wired flex and plug will do so if it wishes, socket cover or not.
Whether or not Fatally Flawed have presented their arguments
intelligently or not is a different question, perhaps.

Also, since only a minority of households probably (?) use socket covers
there are fewer incidents of any nature from which to draw a
statistically meaningful sample, quite possibly, I speculate. Therefore
it may not be truly possible to make comparisons or to suggest that the
statistics bear out one particular side of this argument, or not.

Michael

On 2012-06-25, ARWadsworth wrote:

Considering the incompetent DIY I have seen today [1] I really can say that
socket covers are the least of my worries.

[1] All the DIY extended circuits had the brown and blue cables connected up
the wrong way to the red and black cables. There was no earth on 1/3 of the
house sockets due to bad connections. 5 amp strip connector was used to
extend the ring etc

The best bit was that when it rains the RCD trips. That was because some of
the water in the roof valley ran down the steel conduit into a socket:-) And
who the hell screws down tiles?

I'm surprised that someone who would goof other things up like that
would even bother with steel conduit, which is a bit more trouble to
work with. I guess the conduit was put in by someone else & screwed
up later?

On 25/06/2012 18:05, ARWadsworth wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:30 pm, John Rumm wrote:
It strikes me that strong promotion of RCD protection for all
accessible sockets in houses with kids would also not go amiss.

Provided they're separate from lighting circuits.

Otherwise we'll have more people falling down stairs in the dark.

I can't ever remember falling down the stairs due to lack of light.

The alcohol may have softened the blow ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 25/06/2012 19:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
Hang on! Aren't you just speculating that Liam would not simply have
removed a socket cover, had there been one there, and inserted the mains
plug - that with the bare wire ends at the other end of the cable - into
exactly the same socket?

Liam was clearly capable of inserted a plug into a wall socket and it
has been clearly demonstrated that children below that age are easily
capable of removing a socket cover.

I'd often wondered - not having kids myself - up to what age are they
incapable of removing a dummy plug or whatever? And is it more difficult
to remove one than to plug something in? Also, since pretty well all
sockets are shuttered, what purpose does a dummy plug really serve?

IMHO none really. I have seen enough kids pull them out with ease and to
suggest to me that for many their ability to render the socket unusable
is limited. As to providing shuttering, they are surplus to requirements
on uk sockets.

Of course there is no way of knowing if there have been cases where
someone would have done something fatally stupid but were not able to
remove the cover...

(the connection to L & N aspect of Liam's death makes the situation even
more abnormal than the already rare case of a toddler being exposed to
mains voltage in the first place. It really just falls into the category
of "**** happens". Dredging it up to promote an agenda no matter how
well intentioned really serves little benefit IMHO)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket cover
nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was put in
the socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable localised
heating. Luckily I was passing a notice the smell. This was in a
timber building.

-- From KT24



Charles, thanks for this. With your permission we would like to use it
on our professional feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html Please get in
touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any objective
proof.

To you it is an anecdote - to me it's a fact.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 25/06/2012 18:05, ARWadsworth wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:30 pm, John Rumm wrote:
It strikes me that strong promotion of RCD protection for all
accessible sockets in houses with kids would also not go amiss.

Provided they're separate from lighting circuits.

Otherwise we'll have more people falling down stairs in the dark.

I can't ever remember falling down the stairs due to lack of light.

Maybe a little different if the lights suddenly go out as you hear a
scream and a thump - it'd be very different running down the stairs in
the sudden darkness at top speed, before your eyes have acclimatised.
However, you'd probably still get down fine, but then be looking for
your wife/partner/children, possibly in pitch blackness, with no idea
what's gone on, their condition or where they and furniture/equipment
may have been thrown of knocked.

SteveW

ARWadsworth wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket
cover nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was put
in the socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable
localised heating. Luckily I was passing a notice the smell.
This was in a timber building.

--
From KT24



Charles, thanks for this.
With your permission we would like to use it on our professional
feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html
Please get in touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any
objective proof.

I am still waiting for someone to say you should smack a child for messing
with a socket and plug:-)


I showed them this - and said that was what was in the socket...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkNY5xjy5k
--
Tim Watts

charles wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket
cover nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was
put in the socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable
localised heating. Luckily I was passing a notice the smell.
This was in a timber building.

-- From KT24



Charles, thanks for this. With your permission we would like to
use it on our professional feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html Please get
in touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any
objective proof.

To you it is an anecdote - to me it's a fact.

It's anecdotal.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote
Owain wrote
John Rumm wrote

It strikes me that strong promotion of RCD protection for all
accessible sockets in houses with kids would also not go amiss.

Provided they're separate from lighting circuits.

Otherwise we'll have more people falling down stairs in the dark.

I can't ever remember falling down the stairs due to lack of light.

That’s because you landed on your head, silly.

PlugSafe wrote:

On Monday, 25 June 2012 16:58:27 UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]

Of all the people on here you could have tried to pull that one on, I'm
the one that you really shouldn't have tried it on. Here's a clue. I
know that no contemporary of mine from my school is currently in
Helmand. There's a very good reason why I know that.

Who mentioned "contemporary"?

He would have to be you dolt, despite the mass pleading from the
public, the headmaster decided that he was not going to erect a statue
in honour of my attendance at the school.

You might want to get your head out of your butt and realise that the
number of people name "Steve Firth" in the UK is 1. Heck the number
of people named "Steve Firth" in my profession is 1. Always good for
a laugh.

Anyway, please don't let me interrupt your game of "my dad^W husband
is bigger than you" because it's really, really funny. And it's
destroyed the tiny shred of credibility that you may have. You might
want to say hello to Adam. No, not Adam the electrician, Adam who you
claim as a patron. He actually has met me, unlike your husband for
whom I feel a great deal of sympathy.

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."

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

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:
On 24/06/2012 16:12, PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:50:35 PM UTC+1,
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...



And of course no recognition that in this case a socket cover may
have prevented the accident.

So you are saying the parents are at fault for not using socket
covers?

The main point is there are no recorded deaths caused by the use
of socket covers and there recorded deaths where the use of a
socket cover may have saved a life.

So statistically which is the safest option?

-- Adam

fatally flawed should be called factually flawed

Please state what deaths you are referring to. As the Sheriff made
clear, there is no evidence to support the idea that a socket cover
could have saved Liam's life, so whose lives are you talking about?

You might also like to bear in mind that the damage caused to
sockets by the use of incorrectly sized socket covers will only
ever cause problems when the covers have been removed. There is
little likelihood of a death due to a faulty earth connection in a
socket (into which someone had once rammed a clippasafe cover) will
be ascribed to the root cause. Similarly, a socket which has
damaged L&N contacts caused by having been left with a socket cover
with oversized pins for several years, and which (when it is
eventually used to deliver power again) catches fire because of
arcing, will not be blamed on the socket cover.

Dare one slide a word in edgeways for risk of being hit by flying
toys... (coming from multiple sides!)

Each of you have valid points it seems to me, however there is danger
of them being lost in the noise...

The fundamental difficulty with any discussion of this nature is that
the numbers we are dealing with are so low. The numbers of deaths in
this country per year from electrocution are vanishingly small
whichever way you look at it. This makes it exceedingly difficult to
spot significant trends. It has already been mentioned that we
already have the safest electrical wiring standards and accessories
in the world as a starting point.

Are plug covers worthwhile? In my opinion (based on no hard data - so
just that, an opinion) they serve no benefit and probably their risks
are more significant than their benefits. However it is important to
note that even if they halved or for that matter doubled the number of
deaths resulting from toddlers playing with sockets each year, the
nett effect would be near enough zero either way as to make no
difference. As a percentage of causes of infant mortality these
accidents will be well down in fractional percentages. Far greater
numbers will die each year at the hands of the medical profession,
their parents, or even just cot death / SIDS etc. As Adam mentioned,
compared to the things he will see during the normal course of
working on customers existing installations, the presence of plug
covers will be pretty well down the list of primary concerns... lack
of earthing, no RCDs, missing EQ bonding, exposed live metalwork,
dangerously overloaded circuits, and bodged extension work etc, will
certainly figure as more pressing matters.
Hard numbers for serious injury rather than death due to electric
shock would actually be a far more useful metric, and perhaps allow a
more rational assessment of true risks and benefits.

Does the fatally flawed site intend to give the impression that it was
all the mother's fault in this case? No I don't expect it was intended
that way. However the proximity of the various statements could
certainly give that impression, and I have no doubt that in its
current form it will be read by many as implying it was simply a
failure of parental responsibility. I am sure the site could be
better split up into sections that don't attempt to cover these
various things in a way that could conflate them in people's minds.
(it is also worth remembering what any parent will tell you - even
with the best will in the world, you can't be aware of everything
that they do every day all the time with 100% reliability).

I see no need to "spin" the story about Liam. Even mentioning that a
cover may hay helped in this particular case does not detract from the
problems presented by the socket covers. Presented with both bits of
information, parents could be allowed to form their own conclusions.

Highlighting the risks of unshuttered sockets on the end of flying
mains leads is worthwhile in my opinion, but again it does not need
to be done in proximity to the article about the comments about the
flex with unterminated ends. (the risks from lamp holders however are
probably less worth mentioning since gaining contact with a live BC
socket for long enough to cause serious injury is actually quite
difficult in practical terms)


It strikes me that strong promotion of RCD protection for all
accessible sockets in houses with kids would also not go amiss.

That is what I would like to see. Although the bigger danger (in the
number of lives that gould be saved) is the lack of RCD protection on
sockets that adults use. They are the ones that use the hedge trimmer and
the lawn mower (most of the time).

It was made clear that an RCD would not have saved Liams life as a Live
Neutral touch was the given cause of death.

And its far from clear how accurate that cause of death actually is.

I cannot remember the report going into details of how they came to that
conclusion.

And it isnt even possible to be sure of that
in most cases, whatever they may have said.

Is is totally impossible to say how many injuries and lives the
introduction of the 30mA RCD has saved.

It is however possible to say if there has been a statistically
significant drop in the number of electrical fatalitys per
head of population since they were required tho.

It is also impossible to say if a socket cover has ever saved a life.

There must have been some cases when the brat cant get it out.

A child that was unable to plug something into a socket that would have
hurt or killed them is not a recorded event.

But it may well have happened even if it had not been recorded.

It's a non event - nothing really happened (other than there was a socket
cover in place).

You don’t know that in all cases that have ever happened.

I have often encountered sockets that no longer make proper contact with
the pins on a plug. These sockets have never seen a socket cover.

But you don’t know how many have got like that due to the use of bad socket
covers.

Considering the incompetent DIY I have seen today [1] I really can say
that socket covers are the least of my worries.

That’s a separate matter to whether they can be useful tho.

[1] All the DIY extended circuits had the brown and blue cables connected
up the wrong way to the red and black cables. There was no earth on 1/3 of
the house sockets due to bad connections. 5 amp strip connector was used
to extend the ring etc

The best bit was that when it rains the RCD trips. That was because some
of the water in the roof valley ran down the steel conduit into a
socket:-) And who the hell screws down tiles?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
Hang on! Aren't you just speculating that Liam would not simply have
removed a socket cover, had there been one there, and inserted the mains
plug - that with the bare wire ends at the other end of the cable - into
exactly the same socket?

Liam was clearly capable of inserted a plug into a wall socket and it
has been clearly demonstrated that children below that age are easily
capable of removing a socket cover.

I'd often wondered - not having kids myself - up to what age
are they incapable of removing a dummy plug or whatever?

There is no particular age. Some kids can do things like
read and talk and walk etc well before others can.

And is it more difficult to remove one than to plug something in?

Likely it is, if only because they don’t have
the cord that can help with removing it.

Its also rather easier to put one in that to remove one too.

Also, since pretty well all sockets are shuttered,
what purpose does a dummy plug really serve?

That’s certainly a valid point.

charles wrote:

To you it is an anecdote - to me it's a fact.

Other than anecdotal evidence, is there anything else that you don't
understand?

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:20:49 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Sorry Grimley. I forgot to snip:-)

At least you have a functioning word wrap/line length.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
charles wrote:

To you it is an anecdote - to me it's a fact.

Other than anecdotal evidence, is there anything else that you don't
understand?

I understand "anecdotal evidence" perfectly. It does not apply to what I
found since that was a first hand experience. I equally uinderstand why
you may consider it to be anecdotal. But, we aren't in Court of Law - so
what's your problem?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:42:39 -0700 (PDT), PlugSafe
wrote:

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

****ING LINE WRAP!

You know what?
**** you, you're in my killfile.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket
cover nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was put
in the socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable
localised heating. Luckily I was passing a notice the smell.
This was in a timber building.

--
From KT24



Charles, thanks for this.
With your permission we would like to use it on our professional
feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html
Please get in touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any
objective proof.

I am still waiting for someone to say you should smack a child for messing
with a socket and plug:-)

Someone did, but didn’t use the word slap, a different
word that I've forgotten already meaning the same thing.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
I'd often wondered - not having kids myself - up to what age
are they incapable of removing a dummy plug or whatever?

There is no particular age. Some kids can do things like
read and talk and walk etc well before others can.

Right. So precautions should be taken with any offspring living at home
regardless of age?

And is it more difficult to remove one than to plug something in?

Likely it is, if only because they don’t have
the cord that can help with removing it.

UK plugs have side entry flex. Which makes it difficult to remove them
with it.

Its also rather easier to put one in that to remove one too.

Is it?

Also, since pretty well all sockets are shuttered,
what purpose does a dummy plug really serve?

That’s certainly a valid point.

--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket
cover nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was put
in the socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable
localised heating. Luckily I was passing a notice the smell.
This was in a timber building.

--
From KT24



Charles, thanks for this.
With your permission we would like to use it on our professional
feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html
Please get in touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any
objective proof.

I am still waiting for someone to say you should smack a child for
messing
with a socket and plug:-)


I showed them this - and said that was what was in the socket...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkNY5xjy5k

Trouble is that with the worst of them, that would guarantee they'd try it
themselves.

charles wrote:

I understand "anecdotal evidence" perfectly. It does not apply to what I
found since that was a first hand experience. I equally uinderstand why
you may consider it to be anecdotal. But, we aren't in Court of Law - so
what's your problem?

That you are presenting as fact something that is anecdotal and in part
hearsay. And in part balderdash. From that mish-mash someone is
attempting to make a case that is not supported by the tale that you
have told.

It's poor science, poor evidence and misleading.

You state that the "socket server pins were two (sic) big" but offer no
measurements of these pins, nor indeed any objective evidence that there
was a socket cover in use. You also do not provide any objective proof
that the socket cover pins had damaged the conductors in the socket.
That possibility is just guesswork on your part. I doubt that you
dismantled the socket to examine and measure the contact condition and
spacing.

I've seen sockets overheat when there has been no use of socket covers.
Many different types of abuse can damage the conductors. As othrs have
stated bent pins can do it, hammering plugs into the socket can do it,
yanking on the lead to remove a plug from the socket can do it. Jamming
wires into the socket using matchsticks to hold in the wires can do it.

Can you eliminate all other possibilities as possible cause of the
damage to the conductors? No you can't.

Another common source of overheating is a poor connection within the
plug top. This is less common than it used to be with moulded in plugs
but still possible. Heat is then conducted along the pin and causes the
same damage to the socket that is seen when the conductor in the socket
is damaged. In my experience more overheating is caused by faulty plugs
than by faulty sockets.

So, you are left with this observation:

You were passing a room. You noticed a smell typical of overheated
thermoseting plastic. A plug/socket combination had overheated. The root
cause of the overheating is not known.


So why are you trying to make a definite statement that the cause of the
overheating was a device that you have not proved was the cause?

ARWadsworth wrote:

To you it is an anecdote - to me it's a fact.

It's anecdotal.

Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how many children between the
ages of 0 and 9 died as a result of electrocution in 2010?

How about in 2009?
Or 2008?
2007?
2006?

Answer: 2010, 1; 2009, 0; 2008, 0; 2007, 0; 2006, 0

The entire purpose of "Fatally Flawed" appears to be transparently
pointless. Firstly there really is no evidence linking the use of socket
covers to the death of children in the age range likely to be affected.
There's not one recorded death involving the use of a socket cover in
five years of data collection. There's only one death in that time
caused by electrocution and the cause of that death was not forseen by
"Fatally Flawed" nor was any advice given *before the event* that could
have prevented that tragedy.

Meanwhile 20 children a year are battered to death by their parents.

If there's a cause worth having a web campaign for, it's to put an end
to violence against children. Attempting to prevent one death every five
years (and that's likely to be an over-estimate of the death rate) by
complaining about something that was not implicated in that death is
bizarre.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
charles wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
PlugSafe wrote:
On Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:13:56 UTC+1, charles wrote:
and I personally know of one case where the use of a socket
cover nearly caused a fire.

So give the details then.

socket server pins were two big, so that when a 3kW fire was
put in the socket there was a poor connectionm and considerable
localised heating. Luckily I was passing a notice the smell.
This was in a timber building.

-- From KT24



Charles, thanks for this. With your permission we would like to
use it on our professional feedback page.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/pro_feedback.html Please get
in touch.

Yes I would if I were you. After all, it's anecdote without any
objective proof.

To you it is an anecdote - to me it's a fact.

It's anecdotal.

It’s a fact.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

**** you, you're in my killfile.

She (has outed herself as female now that she thinks there's an
advantage to playing the poor ickle woman card) has as tenuous a grasp
of reality as that mad Welsh/American bint calling herself "Totally
Confused".

I suspect SIOTB.

"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.