The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling more
than dennis.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out of her
sons hands.

Liam Boyle (ISTR it was Owain gave us all the details of the death at the
time and inquest)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-12973829

--
Adam

On 21/06/2012 20:23, ARWadsworth wrote:
The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling more
than dennis.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out of her
sons hands.

"The lead with moulded plug attached had been removed from an appliance
that was being 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."

That does sound careless. If I dump an electrical appliance I always
break the live pin off the plug.


Liam Boyle (ISTR it was Owain gave us all the details of the death at the
time and inquest)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-12973829

I didn't know earth pins had to be solid brass e.g. not partly
insulated. When did that come in?


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:

I didn't know earth pins had to be solid brass e.g. not partly
insulated. When did that come in?

1947 ... i.e. it came in from the start when all pins were solid brass
and it never changed, it was only later that shrouding came in for the L
and N pins, alternatively an all plastic earth pin (insulated shutter
opening device for the pedants) can be used where the appliance doesn't
require earthing.

On 21/06/2012 21:23, Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

I didn't know earth pins had to be solid brass e.g. not partly
insulated. When did that come in?

1947 ... i.e. it came in from the start when all pins were solid brass
and it never changed, it was only later that shrouding came in for the L
and N pins, alternatively an all plastic earth pin (insulated shutter
opening device for the pedants) can be used where the appliance doesn't
require earthing.

In fact if you see a plug with a partially insulated earth pin, then its
a guarantee that its non BS compliant, and probably dodgy in all sorts
of ways. (plenty on ebay for example)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 21/06/2012 22:05, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/06/2012 21:23, Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

I didn't know earth pins had to be solid brass e.g. not partly
insulated. When did that come in?

1947 ... i.e. it came in from the start when all pins were solid brass
and it never changed, it was only later that shrouding came in for the L
and N pins, alternatively an all plastic earth pin (insulated shutter
opening device for the pedants) can be used where the appliance doesn't
require earthing.

In fact if you see a plug with a partially insulated earth pin, then its
a guarantee that its non BS compliant, and probably dodgy in all sorts
of ways. (plenty on ebay for example)



I discovered a 2-way trailing extension block lead that I had bought a
couple of years ago - I don't know where from - was pretty dodgy. I
think there must be a lot of nasty stuff around now. Is it possible to
buy plugs and leads made in the UK anymore?

This particular item was so poor: the cable grip inside the 2-way block
was simply not able to function as a cable grip. The cable was loose and
indeed had worked its way out so that the insulation was no longer
within the grip. I noticed that (I need to PAT test all the equipment
for my jazz orchestra for a wedding we're doing in September) and so I
tried to put the cable back in properly thinking it hadn't been
assembled correctly - but no, the grip was quite clearly never able to
hold the cable.

This means that it could have been pulled out of the block whilst the
13A plug at the other end of the cable was plugged in - leaving some
exposed live wires! YUK!

Michael

Michael Kilpatrick was thinking very hard :
This particular item was so poor: the cable grip inside the 2-way block was
simply not able to function as a cable grip. The cable was loose and indeed
had worked its way out so that the insulation was no longer within the grip.
I noticed that (I need to PAT test all the equipment for my jazz orchestra
for a wedding we're doing in September) and so I tried to put the cable back
in properly thinking it hadn't been assembled correctly - but no, the grip
was quite clearly never able to hold the cable.

This problem was true of several examples of UK made plugs from several
years ago. The clamp piece was made from some poor fibre board where if
the two self tappers of the clamp were tightened up adequately, the
clamp would simply delaminate and rip. I don't think these are made any
more and all of the modern ones use a nylon clamp.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

I discovered a 2-way trailing extension block lead that I had bought a
couple of years ago - I don't know where from - was pretty dodgy. I
think there must be a lot of nasty stuff around now. Is it possible to
buy plugs and leads made in the UK anymore?

http://www.olson.co.uk/13amp_slim.htm

You'll have to ask the prices ...

John Rumm used his keyboard to write :
On 21/06/2012 21:23, Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

I didn't know earth pins had to be solid brass e.g. not partly
insulated. When did that come in?

1947 ... i.e. it came in from the start when all pins were solid brass
and it never changed, it was only later that shrouding came in for the L
and N pins, alternatively an all plastic earth pin (insulated shutter
opening device for the pedants) can be used where the appliance doesn't
require earthing.

In fact if you see a plug with a partially insulated earth pin, then its a
guarantee that its non BS compliant, and probably dodgy in all sorts of ways.
(plenty on ebay for example)

I have come across several examples of molded on 13amp plugs, with an
IEC plug on the far end, where there has been no fuse at all in the
plug. Typically they have been supplied with computer equipment
originating in the far east. The plugs are triangular and just large
enough to contain the pins.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In article , Harry
Bloomfield wrote:
John Rumm used his keyboard to write :
On 21/06/2012 21:23, Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

I didn't know earth pins had to be solid brass e.g. not partly
insulated. When did that come in?

1947 ... i.e. it came in from the start when all pins were solid brass
and it never changed, it was only later that shrouding came in for the
L and N pins, alternatively an all plastic earth pin (insulated
shutter opening device for the pedants) can be used where the
appliance doesn't require earthing.

In fact if you see a plug with a partially insulated earth pin, then
its a guarantee that its non BS compliant, and probably dodgy in all
sorts of ways. (plenty on ebay for example)

I have come across several examples of molded on 13amp plugs, with an
IEC plug on the far end, where there has been no fuse at all in the
plug. Typically they have been supplied with computer equipment
originating in the far east. The plugs are triangular and just large
enough to contain the pins.

there is no user replacable fuse - not the same thing.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

That is an outrageous and inaccurate interpretation of what we say on the site, which is: "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. The lead with moulded plug attached had been removed from an appliance that was being 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. Liam took it to his playroom, plugged it into a socket and grabbed hold of the bare wires.
According to a pathologist Liam died instantly."

There is no mention of Liam's mother, only a criticism of the handyman who failed to observe the most basic precautions.

We do believe that "It remains the responsibility of parents and carers to ensure that other, portable, devices which may give rise to shocks or burns are kept beyond the reach of small children.". That must be true, it is ridiculous to suggest that a plug-in socket cover can prevent children plugging things in. That concept seems to be an invention of Clippasafe to combat the fact that FatallyFlawed had revealed that their basic claim was simply untrue. What Clippasafe claim for their product, as printed on the packaging, is: "These socket covers help prevent children from inserting fingers or other items into plug sockets.") It is untrue because what prevents fingers is the size of the holes in a socket, and what prevents other objects is the shutters which have always been an integral part of a BS 1363 socket. Clippasafe, and other socket manufacturers, indulge in scaremongering to encourage the purchase of unnecessary junk.

Anyway, Clippasafe, having been debunked, then tried to claim that covers “will prevent children from plugging in electrical items such as heaters and hair straighteners”. But, they also claim that their covers are “easily removed from the socket by inserting the plug you need to use” - clearly, these statements cannot both be true!

One of the fundamental problems with plug-in socket covers is that they were originally designed for semi-recessed European sockets (without built in shutters). Such covers do provide protection which is not already in the socket, and they do tend to be difficult for a child to remove without the use of some sort of key because the recessed socket means that little fingers cannot grasp the cover. When ignorant suppliers started to offer covers for non-recessed sockets such as UK and US sockets they failed to realise that it is simply not possible to prevent a child from pulling a cover out. One of the tricks they employ in attempt to make it more difficult is to make the pins oversize, but that, of course, will cause permanent contact damage. Other deviations from the standard size may also make it more difficult to remove, but cause other long term damage. Not one cover on the market conforms to BS 1363 dimensions!

Getting back to the subject of Clippasafe, it is worth pointing out that in 2010 they quietly modified their design, this followed FatallyFlawed's revelation that their pins were too short to allow them to stay securely in place, and that objects could be inserted directly into the live contacts via the hole in the cover. At the same time they introduced a completely misshapen ISOD which has a pointed shape in one plane, and no chamfering whatsoever in the other plane. BS 1363 requires ISODs and pins to be no more than 2mm wide at the shaped end, many sockets (including some MK, Duraplug and Marbo sockets) have earth contacts right at the faceplate which have no flare, they have a contact opening of about 3mm. The end of the Clippasafe ISOD is the full thickness of the pin, 4mm. 4mm into a 3mm gap does not go, and attempts to force it tend to result in mangled contacts.

Regarding dangerous plugs, you may like to take a look at BS 1363 Plugs and Sockets

In article ,
"ARWadsworth" writes:
The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling more
than dennis.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out of her
sons hands.

I posted about this a while back.
I was fairly neutral about Fatally Flawed until then.
We now have a couple of deaths which could have been avoided by
the use of dummy plugs, and not even a single injury caused by
their use.

So I now think Fatally Flawed is basically a bunch of misguided
time wasters. If they want to do something useful, they could
try and get the dummy plugs included in BS1363.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
So I now think Fatally Flawed is basically a bunch of misguided
time wasters. If they want to do something useful, they could
try and get the dummy plugs included in BS1363.

Thing is, if dummy plugs were covered by BS1363 it would remove
the point for them, eg: must be removable from socket without tools
by grasping sides of body.

On second thoughts, yes, get them covered by BS1363.

JGH

On 21/06/2012 23:47, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" writes:
The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling more
than dennis.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out of her
sons hands.

I posted about this a while back.
I was fairly neutral about Fatally Flawed until then.
We now have a couple of deaths which could have been avoided by
the use of dummy plugs, and not even a single injury caused by
their use.

I am not convinced that the plugs would necessarily have helped anyway.
I have seen so many removed by kids without any difficulty[1] - plus the
"fuss" created by their parents insisting on using the protectors only
seems to draw their kids attention to the socket as something
interesting to play with, that can also jerk mummy's chain with whenever
they feel the need.

[1] where quite often the adults have more difficulty getting them out!

So I now think Fatally Flawed is basically a bunch of misguided
time wasters. If they want to do something useful, they could
try and get the dummy plugs included in BS1363.

Having them conform to proper pin length and tip shaping requirements
would seem like a sensible precaution to avoid socket damage. As would a
specification of appropriate material composition...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Jun 22, 2:34*am, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/06/2012 23:47, Andrew Gabriel wrote:





In article ,
* *"ARWadsworth" writes:
The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling more
than dennis.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out of her
sons hands.

I posted about this a while back.
I was fairly neutral about Fatally Flawed until then.
We now have a couple of deaths which could have been avoided by
the use of dummy plugs, and not even a single injury caused by
their use.

I am not convinced that the plugs would necessarily have helped anyway.
I have seen so many removed by kids without any difficulty[1] - plus the
"fuss" created by their parents insisting on using the protectors only
seems to draw their kids attention to the socket as something
interesting to play with, that can also jerk mummy's chain with whenever
they feel the need.

[1] where quite often the adults have more difficulty getting them out!

So I now think Fatally Flawed is basically a bunch of misguided
time wasters. If they want to do something useful, they could
try and get the dummy plugs included in BS1363.

Having them conform to proper pin length and tip shaping requirements
would seem like a sensible precaution to avoid socket damage. As would a
specification of appropriate material composition...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

- Show quoted text -

Electricity will always be dangerous. I have seen kids chewing
flexes.

The only way you will get round it is by banning loose plug in flexes
or making the socket on the end have shutters too.

What is the point of these plug in flexes anyway?

I see you can buy BC lampholders now with shutters.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 2:34 am, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/06/2012 23:47, Andrew Gabriel wrote:





In article ,
"ARWadsworth" writes:
The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling
more
than dennis.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother
for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out
of her
sons hands.

I posted about this a while back.
I was fairly neutral about Fatally Flawed until then.
We now have a couple of deaths which could have been avoided by
the use of dummy plugs, and not even a single injury caused by
their use.

I am not convinced that the plugs would necessarily have helped anyway.
I have seen so many removed by kids without any difficulty[1] - plus the
"fuss" created by their parents insisting on using the protectors only
seems to draw their kids attention to the socket as something
interesting to play with, that can also jerk mummy's chain with whenever
they feel the need.

[1] where quite often the adults have more difficulty getting them out!

So I now think Fatally Flawed is basically a bunch of misguided
time wasters. If they want to do something useful, they could
try and get the dummy plugs included in BS1363.

Having them conform to proper pin length and tip shaping requirements
would seem like a sensible precaution to avoid socket damage. As would a
specification of appropriate material composition...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Electricity will always be dangerous.

Not necessarily.

I have seen kids chewing flexes.

You really should feed them better.

The only way you will get round it is by banning loose plug in flexes

Not even possible.

or making the socket on the end have shutters too.

That wouldn't stop electricity being dangerous.

What is the point of these plug in flexes anyway?

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that it just aint feasible to have everything permanently
wired in, most obviously with power tools.

I see you can buy BC lampholders now with shutters.

Wont do a damned thing about the kids gnawing on the flexes.

Electricity will always be dangerous. I have seen kids chewing
flexes.


Better to use the flex to strangle the parents

On 22/06/2012 07:50, harry wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:34 am, John wrote:
On 21/06/2012 23:47, Andrew Gabriel wrote:





In ,
writes:
The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling more
than dennis.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out of her
sons hands.

I posted about this a while back.
I was fairly neutral about Fatally Flawed until then.
We now have a couple of deaths which could have been avoided by
the use of dummy plugs, and not even a single injury caused by
their use.

I am not convinced that the plugs would necessarily have helped anyway.
I have seen so many removed by kids without any difficulty[1] - plus the
"fuss" created by their parents insisting on using the protectors only
seems to draw their kids attention to the socket as something
interesting to play with, that can also jerk mummy's chain with whenever
they feel the need.

[1] where quite often the adults have more difficulty getting them out!

So I now think Fatally Flawed is basically a bunch of misguided
time wasters. If they want to do something useful, they could
try and get the dummy plugs included in BS1363.

Having them conform to proper pin length and tip shaping requirements
would seem like a sensible precaution to avoid socket damage. As would a
specification of appropriate material composition...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

- Show quoted text -

Electricity will always be dangerous. I have seen kids chewing
flexes.

The only way you will get round it is by banning loose plug in flexes
or making the socket on the end have shutters too.

I have often thought that shuttering would make sense, but it couldn't
be done for the smaller connectors and equipment is often too small to
be equipped with the larger ones.

What is the point of these plug in flexes anyway?

So that manufacturers don't need to equip their product with specific
plugs for all the countries they sell into on the production line - they
just buy-in the appropriate leads for packaging.

It also allows users to change cables easily if damaged or if they are
the wrong length.

Allows people to move equipment between home and office, without having
to carry leads with bulky BS1363 plugs on with them.

Allows easy swapping for laptop chargers and the like where they may
well be used abroad and different leads are required.

Allows equipment to be easily plugged and unplugged when the mains plug
is plugged into a socket behind a desk or cupboard and is difficult to
access.

I'm sure there are many more.

SteveW

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:23:06 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

The campain against the use of child proof socket covers is wriggling more
than dennis.

shrug
Darwin in action.

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

mentions Liam Boyles death. The site IMHO virtually blames his Mother for
his death as SHE did not ensure that she kept the dangerous lead out of her
sons hands.

Scurrilous trash.
I'm surprised at L.H-D picking up the cudgels - I shall view him as
(more of a) **** from now on.

That is an outrageous and inaccurate interpretation of what we say on the site, which is: "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. The lead with moulded plug attached had been removed from an appliance that was being 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. Liam took it to his playroom, plugged it into a socket and grabbed hold of the bare wires.
According to a pathologist Liam died instantly."

There is no mention of Liam's mother, only a criticism of the handyman who failed to observe the most basic precautions.

What we do say is that "It remains the responsibility of parents and carers to ensure that other, portable, devices which may give rise to shocks or burns are kept beyond the reach of small children." That must be true, it is ridiculous to suggest that a plug-in socket cover can prevent children plugging things in. That concept seems to be an invention of Clippasafe to combat the fact that FatallyFlawed had revealed that their basic claim was simply untrue. What Clippasafe claim for their product, as printed on the packaging, is: "These socket covers help prevent children from inserting fingers or other items into plug sockets." That is highly misleading, what prevents fingers is the size of the holes in a socket, and what prevents other objects is the shutters which have always been an integral part of a BS 1363 socket. Clippasafe, and other socket cover manufacturers, indulge in scaremongering to encourage the purchase of unnecessary junk.

Anyway, Clippasafe, having been debunked, then tried to claim that covers “will prevent children from plugging in electrical items such as heaters and hair straighteners”. But, they also claim that their covers are “easily removed from the socket by inserting the plug you need to use” - clearly, these statements cannot both be true!

One of the fundamental problems with plug-in socket covers is that they were originally designed for recessed European sockets (without built in shutters). Such covers do provide protection which is not already in the socket, and they do tend to be difficult for a child to remove without the use of some sort of key because the recessed socket means that little fingers cannot grasp the cover. When ignorant suppliers started to offer covers for non-recessed sockets such as UK and US sockets they failed to realise that it is simply not possible to prevent a child from pulling a cover out. One of the tricks they employ in attempts to make it more difficult is to make the pins oversize, but that, of course, will cause permanent contact damage. Other deviations from the standard size may also make it more difficult to remove, but cause other long term damage. Not one cover on the market conforms to BS 1363 dimensions! (US research has established that US socket covers are ineffective, and most states now require domestic new-builds to use shuttered sockets.)

Getting back to the subject of Clippasafe, it is worth pointing out that in 2010 they quietly modified their design, this followed FatallyFlawed's revelation that their pins were too short to allow them to stay securely in place, and that objects could be inserted directly into the live contacts via the hole in the cover. At the same time they introduced a completely misshapen ISOD which has a pointed shape in one plane, and no chamfering whatsoever in the other plane. BS 1363 requires ISODs and pins to be no more than 2mm wide at the shaped end, many sockets (including some MK, Duraplug and Marbo sockets) have earth contacts right at the faceplate which have no flare, they have a contact opening of about 3mm. The end of the Clippasafe ISOD is the full thickness of the pin, 4mm. 4mm into a 3mm gap does not go, and attempts to force it tend to result in mangled contacts. Another example of how the designers of socket covers show no understanding of the real issues.

Regarding dangerous plugs, you may like to take a look at BS 1363 Plugs and Sockets

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.

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.

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.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:17:01 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

I suspect SIOTB.

Time of the month.

"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.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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.

He knew exactly what he was saying there.
It may not be true but it helps those left.

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sherriff's report into Liam's death

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.

He knew exactly what he was saying there.
It may not be true but it helps those left.

Sure, but when he does stuff like that, you do have to wonder
what else he said isnt true and was said for that reason.

On 26/06/2012 08:28, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Sherriff's report into Liam's death

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.

He knew exactly what he was saying there.
It may not be true but it helps those left.

Sure, but when he does stuff like that, you do have to wonder what else
he said isnt true and was said for that reason.

No you don't. The Sherriff or coroner in such circumstances has expert
testimony on everything involved.

Either *everything* he was said correct, or everything was correct apart
from some minor humouring of the parents by suggesting there was no
pain. You have absolutely no basis for the statement "that's incorrect
and therefore I'd like to imagine everything else the Sherriff said was
a load of tosh too".

If you believe there was pain, show some expert testimony that says
there probably was, and don't use this argument to detract from the
point of this thread!

Michael

dennis@home wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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.

He knew exactly what he was saying there.
It may not be true but it helps those left.

Wow.


I for once totally agree with dennis. I do not have to say any more. If
dennis can work it out then the rest of the world should have no problem
working it out.


--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote
dennis@home wrote:
Rod Speed wrote

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.

He knew exactly what he was saying there.
It may not be true but it helps those left.

Wow.

I for once totally agree with dennis. I do not have to
say any more. If dennis can work it out then the rest
of the world should have no problem working it out.

Separate matter entirely to what else the Sherriff said that was done
for the same reason when he so clearly said that for that reason.

On 25/06/2012 22:42, PlugSafe wrote:

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."

The message there being that a RCD may have saved him had one been fitted...

"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"

The voyage through the handyman's qualifications is a rather pointless
exercise. He did the electrical work on the oven to a satisfactory
standard one presumes. His error was of lack of attention to detail and
lack of awareness of the potential danger of the discarded lead -
something even the most qualified person could have suffered from in the
same circumstance.

[snip]

"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."

or was it the earth?

[snip]

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.

Indeed...

Which begs the question why is this case even mentioned at all since it
has no relevance to socket covers?

In my professional capacity I have long been aware that socket covers
were unnecessary, and that they can give rise to additional dangers

In general I expect most of us would agree with you on that.

which are not present when they are not used. As a mother I do all

Those dangers are at this stage theoretical, since there seems to be no
hard evidence to show that the failure mechanisms demonstrated have been
exploited in reality, and there is no evidence that these have lead to a
serious injury or death at this stage. (not to say they won't in the
future)

that I can to protect my children. I have had the unsettling

Which is understandable, however I would question the weightings you are
applying in your risk analysis. Its human nature to perceive risks that
are unusual, rare, out of your control etc as being more serious than
ones that are familiar and mundane. In reality its the mundane every day
risks (crossing the road, driving the car etc) that are far more likely
to injure a child (or anyone else for that matter) than being
electrocuted. Socket covers whatever their effect could at worst only
elevate the risk of an extremely unlikely event into an extremely
unlikely event in practical terms.

By all means make the engineering case, and demonstrate the flaws.

Highlight the point that they can give a false sense of security (as you
did in this post)

Calling those flaws "fatal" may be over egging it. Parading Liam's case
where it has no particular relevance (he was not killed in any way
remotely connected with the use of a socket cover, and there was no
suggestion that one would have kept him alive either), seems like a
cruel and unusual punishment for his parents.

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.

Alas they have started with a single clearly defined purpose - that of
exposing the design and conceptual weaknesses of the covers. However
they have spoilt that effect by allowing feature creep to expand the
site into new and only loosely related areas. (as an engineer you will
no doubt be very familiar with this problem).

Other plug and lead safety related material would be better promoted on
a different site IMO. By all means include links to it from the FF one.

I appreciate the Liam's story is emotive and adds "human interest",
however it seems to be being used here in the very worst traditions of
the "if it bleeds, it leads" school of journalism.






--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:45:34 AM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
Which begs the question why is this case even mentioned at all since it
has no relevance to socket covers?

Parading Liam's case
where it has no particular relevance (he was not killed in any way
remotely connected with the use of a socket cover, and there was no
suggestion that one would have kept him alive either), seems like a
cruel and unusual punishment for his parents.

Other plug and lead safety related material would be better promoted on
a different site IMO. By all means include links to it from the FF one.

I appreciate the Liam's story is emotive and adds "human interest",
however it seems to be being used here in the very worst traditions of
the "if it bleeds, it leads" school of journalism.

--
Cheers,

John.



In the early days of the FatallyFlawed campaign the founders received significant feedback that the site should not ignore other electrical dangers.

This feedback came from outside sources and also the advisory panel.

The "Other Dangers" page was added as a result.
Liam's story was added at the time of the Fatal Accident Inquiry last year.

It is nonsense to claim that Liam's story is being connected to socket covers,
or is used as a lead feature. It is not mentioned at all on the home page.
It is not even at the top of the "Other Dangers" page.

On 26/06/2012 09:02, PlugSafe wrote:

The "Other Dangers" page was added as a result. Liam's story was
added at the time of the Fatal Accident Inquiry last year.

It is nonsense to claim that Liam's story is being connected to
socket covers, or is used as a lead feature. It is not mentioned at

When you feature a storey on a single issue site, it is alas "linked"
whether that is your intention or not.

However, the recent rewording has improved matters, and for that I thank
you.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Well, as I am quite prepared to admit my mistakes, unlike others, I confess that I completely screwed up my first two attempts at that last post.

And just for the sake of the record, some of the people involved in FatallyFlawed.org.uk are also involved (with others) in PlugSafe.org.uk

My main involvement is with FatallyFlawed.org.uk but I do, on occasion, assist with PlugSafe.org.uk and have full access to the Google Groups account belonging to PlugSafe.org.uk

Now I sit back and wait for the full blast of the inevitable abuse.

http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/200...is-sockets.cfm

PlugSafe wrote:
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/200...is-sockets.cfm

You don't have time for this. You still need to answer the questions about
my school that you claim to know, about your professional qualifications
that you seem to have conveniently forgotten, about why you lied about a
death in Thailand and about what a death involving a rip-off PSU has to do
with BS1363.

Lots of others as well, or you could admit that you're full of ****.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
PlugSafe wrote:
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/200...is-sockets.cfm

You don't have time for this. You still need to answer the questions about
my school that you claim to know, about your professional qualifications
that you seem to have conveniently forgotten, about why you lied about a
death in Thailand and about what a death involving a rip-off PSU has to do
with BS1363.

It would be easy to find your school, there weren't that many approved ones.

Lots of others as well, or you could admit that you're full of ****.

Pot, kettle..