IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: EMMA SHAW CASE
Topic Summary: Result of the Court case
Created On: 31 March 2014 04:35 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 04:35 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 05:19 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 31 March 2014 05:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 31 March 2014 05:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 31 March 2014 05:30 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - impvan - 31 March 2014 05:31 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - rocknroll - 31 March 2014 05:46 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - perspicacious - 31 March 2014 06:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - jcm256 - 31 March 2014 06:03 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 31 March 2014 08:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - jcm256 - 31 March 2014 08:53 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 31 March 2014 10:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 31 March 2014 11:54 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - antric2 - 01 April 2014 12:40 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 01 April 2014 09:23 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 01 April 2014 10:57 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 11:17 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 01 April 2014 12:41 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - antric2 - 01 April 2014 12:46 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - aligarjon - 01 April 2014 08:07 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 09:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 01 April 2014 03:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 11:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 11:36 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 12:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 01 April 2014 01:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 01:43 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 01:22 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 01 April 2014 02:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - ennel - 01 April 2014 07:07 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 02 April 2014 10:20 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 01 April 2014 03:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 01 April 2014 03:28 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 03:15 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 01 April 2014 03:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 01 April 2014 03:36 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:05 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:10 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 10:16 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 02 April 2014 12:00 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 06:57 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 09:15 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 09:21 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 09:38 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 02 April 2014 10:26 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 12:06 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 12:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mapj1 - 02 April 2014 01:20 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 01:50 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 03:04 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 04:13 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - GeoffBlackwell - 02 April 2014 04:22 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - rocknroll - 02 April 2014 04:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 05:50 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 06:36 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zuiko - 02 April 2014 07:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - geoffsd - 02 April 2014 07:33 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 02 April 2014 08:24 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 02 April 2014 11:38 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mawry - 03 April 2014 02:39 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - briandoherty - 06 April 2014 06:09 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zs - 07 April 2014 07:27 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mawry - 08 April 2014 11:13 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mikejumper - 08 April 2014 07:46 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 09 April 2014 12:06 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 09 April 2014 10:50 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 09 April 2014 02:01 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 02 April 2014 08:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Parsley - 02 April 2014 10:30 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - electricman - 02 April 2014 11:06 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - ericmark - 03 April 2014 02:37 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 04 April 2014 09:20 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 06 April 2014 03:53 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - electricman - 08 April 2014 11:19 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - AJJewsbury - 08 April 2014 11:23 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - mikejumper - 09 April 2014 04:42 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 09 April 2014 05:14 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - psychicwarrior - 10 April 2014 08:56 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - napitprofessional - 11 April 2014 05:54 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - davezawadi - 12 April 2014 11:46 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 12:33 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - John Peckham - 12 April 2014 01:21 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 12 April 2014 06:28 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 06:51 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - weirdbeard - 12 April 2014 08:11 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 10:57 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 12 April 2014 04:02 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Grobbyman - 12 April 2014 05:44 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Zoro - 12 April 2014 06:11 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Fm - 12 April 2014 11:26 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 12 April 2014 11:37 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - Fm - 12 April 2014 11:40 PM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - sparkingchip - 13 April 2014 12:04 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - phantom9 - 13 April 2014 09:25 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - OMS - 14 April 2014 10:13 AM  
 EMMA SHAW CASE   - potential - 14 April 2014 10:32 AM  
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02 April 2014 12:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 17795
Joined: 13 August 2003

Part P simply addressed a missing link in the regulation covering domestic installations

Although curiously the Emma Shaw case was brought under the Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. , rather than building regs, even though part P would have been in effect at the time of the work and (if I recall correctly) had an explicit provision for testing (old P2).
- Andy.
 02 April 2014 01:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 12039
Joined: 22 July 2004

But it was clearly more than 6 months after the installation - then the statute of limitations of the magistrates courts act 1980 section 127 or whatever it's been updated too by now kicks in, and muddies the water, as simply failing to meet building regs alone, is a non-inditable offence.
In this case, installing and failing notify or to inspect alone would be un-prosecutable after 6 months if nothing else happened. I think in certain special cases, like not meeting environmental standards, there is a longer time limit.

Of course, really its far more serious in this case as there are overrtones of conspiracy to deliberately fake results, not to mention the actual fatality itself, so it makes sense to use a law with more bite.
I still wonder what folk would be saying if the tests had actually been performed to standard, and had recorded a pass on the day. I'm reasonably confindent that eevn if not this time, there are situations where a screw could in principle catch the live core and a non-grounded something else that can be touched later, and still evade detection by typical test intstruments on a dry day. Perhaps we should have a higher IR test limit requiring investigation, at least for brand new installations?
regards M.

-------------------------
regards Mike
 02 April 2014 01:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22864
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury

Part P simply addressed a missing link in the regulation covering domestic installations


Although curiously the Emma Shaw case was brought under the Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. , rather than building regs, even though part P would have been in effect at the time of the work and (if I recall correctly) had an explicit provision for testing (old P2).

- Andy.


Indeed - what else could have reasonably be use.

Section 7 actually says:

7 General duties of employees at work.
It shall be the duty of every employee while at work -
(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and .
(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.

Same legislation used for example in the Menendez shooting at Stockwell

So the Part P duty to test was on the employer ? - and the employee failed to do so

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
Statistics

New here?

  • To participate in discussions, please log in and introduce yourself.

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2022 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

 
..