Author Topic: Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion  (Read 174368 times)

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2010, 09:57:29 AM »
Civvy
Was that a custard powder fuelled explosion or have you discovered how to initiate the combustion of a non newtonian liquid?

Powder of course. It doesn't matter. You died in it. Its a sad story.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #61 on: August 11, 2010, 11:57:16 AM »
Civvy
Was that a custard powder fuelled explosion or have you discovered how to initiate the combustion of a non newtonian liquid?

Powder of course. It doesn't matter. You died in it. Its a sad story.

Yes I went to your funeral Bleve, it was a lovely service, shame the vicar kept sneezing though must have been remnant small amounts of custard powder dust emminating from your coffin.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #62 on: August 11, 2010, 05:45:28 PM »
Can I have Bleve's slide rule and log tables now he doesnt need them anymore?

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2010, 08:10:05 PM »

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #64 on: December 23, 2010, 01:49:31 PM »
Not the most robust of studies.

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #65 on: December 30, 2010, 04:39:48 PM »
Wee Brian, did you not read it fully?

MORE than FOUR in TEN!!!!

Maybe BLEVE can do the maths, but if that isn't a majority then I don't know what is.

To ensure that it cannot be questioned they should alter the title to "Fire fines 'are too low'. FACT"

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2011, 10:36:01 PM »
Fines don't seem to bother Poundland!

I wonder if they are any better now as due to the time it takes to get to Court the recent glut of cases are due to breaches from some time ago.
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline lingmoor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2011, 02:20:18 PM »
does anyone know if any hospitals have been prosecuted since the Order came in?

Eli

  • Guest
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2011, 02:49:40 PM »
does anyone know if any hospitals have been prosecuted since the Order came in?

None identified in the 2008/9 or 2009/10 audit figures that I have.

I heard a speaker at an event I attended yesterday say that hospitals have a very good record in fire safety compared to other high risk premises during audits from the FRS  He also said that the he feels the FRS do tend to work with hospital trusts rather than enforce. Not sure where he gets that from but it makes sense.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 11:25:52 AM by Eli »

Offline lingmoor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2011, 03:03:32 PM »
cheers Eli...I know of Hospitals that have had an Enforcement Notice but not full prosecution

Offline tmprojects

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2011, 12:16:02 AM »
If I drive my car too fast and use my mobile, I get fined. If I kill somebody whilst doing this (An RTC not some random shooting whilst driving you understand..) then the punishment is greater....

Discuss.

excellent point wee b. what is the diff! The person on the phone at 90mph with no consequence is just luckier than the guy who sadly kills a family. The crime is the same, its just the outcome that is different. one get 7 years at Her Majesties pleasure, the other gets 6 points. how is that justice?

I personally think its a travesty that they should be treated differently. Their is no difference in their intent. its simply one is luckier through circumstance than the other.

sadly most people seem to believe that the severity of sentence should be comparative to the outcome. I belive it should be comparative to the intent.

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #71 on: June 15, 2011, 01:00:36 PM »
TM, when New Look appealed against their huge fine recently on the basis that the fine was too large considering nobody actually got hurt, they lost on grounds that back up your way of thinking.

However, some legal experts are arguing the opposite, and stating that such fines should not be instigated when nobody has been seriously injured.

Offline tmprojects

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #72 on: June 16, 2011, 07:16:30 PM »
 I think any sentence should be proportional to intent and neglect. I think both examples in my analogy were too severe. One was too lenient and one too harsh.

I personally think the New Look fine was set to also 'fire a shot across the bow' of other companies. However, I think it was sufficiently demonstrated that they where neglectful of their duties, and showed some intent in cutting corners for profit, to justify that level of fine.

Offline Big A

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #73 on: June 17, 2011, 04:13:31 PM »
[[/quote]

He also said that the he feels the FRS do tend to work with hospital trusts rather than enforce. Not sure where he gets that from but it makes sense.
[/quote]

He gets it from HTM 05-03 Part K Paras 3.37 - 3.42.

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Re: UK PROSECUTIONS discussion
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2011, 07:46:54 PM »
A posting from another forum,

We are opening a bargain shop in a Bradford shopping area. One large room upstairs and a cellar with little customer and staff toilet. Top room about 30ft by 25ft. Bottom 23ftx20ft. Cubicle 4x5ft.
There is some emergency lighting already. No smoke alarms or panel. The backdoor in the top room is locked all the time to prevent theft.
Following some scary prosecutions (Poundstretcher etc) we want to carry out a fire risk assessment and get up to speed.

It seems these prosecutions are having an effect.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.