Carefull as yer go lads, an innocent stupid mistake ????

There is a world of difference between a Dad trying to fit something, compared to a ' professional ' bodging something for profit.

Going by Jumbleducks's idea we'll soon need to do a course, pass an exam and have a certificate before we can give out toothbrushes ! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
There is a world of difference between a Dad trying to fit something, compared to a ' professional ' bodging something for profit.

Going by Jumbleducks's idea we'll soon need to do a course, pass an exam and have a certificate before we can give out toothbrushes ! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Think of the children" and "it must never happen again" are all that's needed to justify courses, exams and certificates.
 
Seajet said:
There is a world of difference between a Dad trying to fit something, compared to a ' professional ' bodging something for profit.

Going by Jumbleducks's idea we'll soon need to do a course, pass an exam and have a certificate before we can give out toothbrushes ! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He was a professional. He runs a plumbing, heating and air-con company.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
He was a professional. He runs a plumbing, heating and air-con company.
Click to expand...

Isn't that probably the key point that is being overlooked? He wasn't an incompetent amateur who made a tragic mistake, he could reasonably have been expected to know better

As a (I suppose you could say retired) qualified electrical engineer I'd expect no mercy from the legal system if I bodged a shore power installation on my boat and electrocuted someone and nor would I deserve any
 
Am I right in thinking there has been no trial yet, he still has to go to court. Surely it is the Police job to gather the evidence, the CPS job to decide if sufficient evidence to warrant him being charged and the job of the court to establish his guilt or innocence. Unless we are saying the Police should have the power to decide to prosecute or not and perhaps even the power to decide guilt or innocence?
If so I much prefer the system we have got
 
Quiddle said:
The mistake was made during installation and I agree that, for this, no charge should be brought.
But the owner had since been hospitalised as a result of this mistake so knew without doubt of the risk which he consciously chose to continue to expose his family to. It is for this that the prosecution is being brought.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? My understanding was that they were all ill together and he was lucky enough to recover, perhaps they were nearer to the genny than him?
 
JumbleDuck said:
Would you apply the same logic to the many landlords who have killed their tenants with dodgy boiler installations. After all, they didn't mean to kill. Neither did anyone who was simply negligent, rather than actively malevolent, but the law recognizes that some negligence (Do drunken drivers intend to kill pedestrians?) is so bad that it merits criminal sanction.
Click to expand...

Big difference there; it has happened so often to tenants that laws exist that insist that there is an independent professional test of the systems. Any landlord without the relevant valid safety cert whose tenant dies will certainly be in court under serious charges, possibly manslaughter.

CO poisonings on boats are rarer & tend to affect the owner & his/her family - largely self-inflicted injuries. Huge difference between the two. The guy was lucky to live, but given the loss of his family & this court case he may now wish he hadn't.

I see no point in adding to his anguish, distress & troubles. It has little chance of deterring others who have a similar ignorance of the risks of CO poisoning.
 
JumbleDuck said:
Are you really saying that you wouldn't take it too seriously if you had a ten year old daughter killed by an grossly incompetent gas installation? Golly.
Click to expand...

How do you benefit by pursuing the perpetrator/ victim of a tragic accident? It won't bring your child back & simply destroys yet another life. There are times when making things worse will never make you feel better. Revenge has no place in a civilised society.

If you cannot see that, then I pity you deeply, you will lead a very unhappy life hurting those around you by punishing them when they are already distressed. Have you never had children & understood that there are times to forgive even serious mistakes when the child is repentant?
 
Save your breath. Some of those posters can't see the difference between commercial and private work.

H&S sees the difference. Your roofer can't scramble up your ridge tiles with risk of prosecution. But as the householder you can.
 
Two years ago I was asked by a local (very worthy) charity if I would offer a day out on our boat as a raffle prize for their fundraising efforts. With reluctance I refused, pretty much because of the risk of litigation should something go wrong as above.

Our local Lions club have similarly cancelled many fundraising events for the same reason, there must have been thousands of similar cancellations over the years up and down the country. Those baying for blood need to have a quiet think about the sort of society we want and what the true cost of all this litigation really is.
 
Seajet said:
There is a world of difference between a Dad trying to fit something, compared to a ' professional ' bodging something for profit.

Going by Jumbleducks's idea we'll soon need to do a course, pass an exam and have a certificate before we can give out toothbrushes ! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There are two different issues here: competence and qualification

I'm not a great believer in qualifications, and in general I think it's better to be left alone to make a mess of things. However, when other people are involved, I think that certification makes more sense, so I am happy that charter boats, or skippers taking paying passengers, require a degree of qualification which non-commercial operations do not.

However, just because a certificate is not required does not give carte blanche for gross negligence. The dangers of carbon monoxide and of engine fumes in enclosed spaces are hardly secret, so anyone installing an engine in boat, caravan or house has absolutely grounds for pleading ignorance.

So go on giving out all the toothbrushes you want, but if you manage to kill someone as a result, be prepared to take the consequences.
 
Searush said:
How do you benefit by pursuing the perpetrator/ victim of a tragic accident? It won't bring your child back & simply destroys yet another life. There are times when making things worse will never make you feel better. Revenge has no place in a civilised society.

If you cannot see that, then I pity you deeply, you will lead a very unhappy life hurting those around you by punishing them when they are already distressed. Have you never had children & understood that there are times to forgive even serious mistakes when the child is repentant?
Click to expand...

Would you say, then, that a repentant drunk driver who kills a family member or friend should not be given any further punishment if they are suitably upset? That the mothers who kill their babies when they overdo the methadone dose they are giving to keep them quiet should walk scot-free?
 
Lakesailor said:
Save your breath. Some of those posters can't see the difference between commercial and private work.

H&S sees the difference. Your roofer can't scramble up your ridge tiles with risk of prosecution. But as the householder you can.
Click to expand...

Go on then. Install a dodgy gas boiler in a flat, kill a couple of tenants and then claim that as an amateur you should be immune from prosecution.
 
drumbeat said:
Our local Lions club have similarly cancelled many fundraising events for the same reason, there must have been thousands of similar cancellations over the years up and down the country. Those baying for blood need to have a quiet think about the sort of society we want and what the true cost of all this litigation really is.
Click to expand...

The true cost is not having a society in which good intentions cancel our gross negligence. I'm OK with that.
 
drumbeat said:
Except that the person that you are judging has not been found guilty of 'gross negligence' or anything else.
Click to expand...

I'm making no judgement in this case, but I think the courts have a right to, and that we should not automatically exempt well-meaning amateurs from any legal consequences of their actions.
 
JumbleDuck said:
I'm making no judgement in this case, but I think the courts have a right to, and that we should not automatically exempt well-meaning amateurs from any legal consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

Agree, but unless there is unseen evidence in this case.

It strikes me that all its going to achieve is stopping well meaning amateurs getting on with there hobbies and pastimes "in case" something goes wrong...

This poor guy must be at his wits end, he certainly is going to come out of the other side a changed man.

Is that not the goal of courts and punishment? to correct whats deemed as unacceptable behavior?

Are the changes really going to be for the better?
 
onesea said:
Agree, but unless there is unseen evidence in this case.

It strikes me that all its going to achieve is stopping well meaning amateurs getting on with there hobbies and pastimes "in case" something goes wrong...

This poor guy must be at his wits end, he certainly is going to come out of the other side a changed man.

Is that not the goal of courts and punishment? to correct whats deemed as unacceptable behavior?

Are the changes really going to be for the better?
Click to expand...

All of that applies to drunk drivers who kill family members. Should they be immune from prosecution? Serious question.

I have some sympathy for "s/he's suffered enough" as a principal in minor matters, but I don't think it should be a blanket thing: I think there are cases where the negligence is so great that a prosecution and, if proved, a conviction, are reasonable.

Every year I supervise teams of unpaid volunteers who take responsibility for looking after other people's children. I expect the same high standards of responsibility from them as I would from paid professionals and if they or I were grossly negligent I would not look to our unpaid status as a get-out card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top