TimR

My degree is in electrical and electronic engineering. It taught me to question things I'm told and not follow blindly. I understand why people should be tested and proved competent by another person. This prompts me to ask two further questions about the boiling frog experiment: 1. Why did they use a stunt frog? 2. Why do they use a container with steep sides?

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391650000' post='2359848'] And there's my point. There will always be total dicks and the only way to totally protect everyone is to gradually introduce more and more regulations and restrictions, which is what is happening and as each new raft of regulations is introduced it clears the way to look for more risks, which of course abound, and so it goes on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html or the more amusing version: ... [/quote] Or maybe as the population increases and the materials (like lithium ion batteries) we use and the processes we carry out become more complex then so do the risks. Maybe the real solution is to train everybody in the world up to the highest safety standards that we can. I'm looking forward to picking up my Nuclear Power Station Handbook and also my one day course learning all about how to safely operate an oil rig. I've already ordered my book on 'fracking in your own back garden' from amazon just in case.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391653437' post='2359855'] ... At least the Engineering Council was enlightened enough to let me call myself a Chartered Engineer on the basis of my proven experience, even in the absence of all those bits of paper, so that was handy when people who didn't have a clue wanted to understand what I could do. Of course, I'm still not deemed to be competent enough to check a mains lead, so I'd have to pay someone who has likely never even heard of Ohms law but has done a one day course and can flourish their 'certificate of competence' with pride. I was never really sure whether to laugh or cry, so I just bailed out of all the madness as soon as I could. [/quote] Still missing the point. The chartered engineer 'piece of paper' is something that shows you have reached a certain standard, however you got there. It saves people having to ask you to prove yourself over and over again and people having to asses you individually on various criteria everytime they want to employ you. They just say they're looking for a chartered engineer. Same with a driving test. Imagine trying to employ a bunch of people to drive your fleet of vans. How do you assess hundreds of applicants and narrow them down to 20, if they all say they can drive but none of them have a licence and none of them have a 10year pile of insurance 'bits of paper' to prove their competency. As I say it's all about scale. We're operating on a European (even global) scale nowadays, where any one of several thousand million people could turn up on your doorstep looking for work. Not just one of a few thousand from your nearest town.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391636547' post='2359698'] ... In my own lifetime, people have become deemed to be 'incompetent' at wiring a mains plug, driving a motorcycle without a CBT course, towing a trailer after passing their driving test, re-wiring their house, installing a wood burning stove, erect scaffolding, use a chainsaw and nowadays test their appliances . . . and I'm sure there are loads of other examples. ... [/quote] Again you're talking daily mail style nonsense. For a start you can buy a mains plug in Maplins and fit it yourself. Absolutely no question. I've used a chainsaw, I'm not aware of any legal requirement to have a chainsaw licence. However, lots of people have been killed doing other things on that list because they've made their own flawed assumption on their own competence and what's worse is other people have died. I only hope that you're not electrocuted when you unplug someone else's dodgy mains plug, or die in a house fire at your friends house because they rewired their house with 0.75mm2 because it was cheaper. But then that would be your own fault. Wouldn't it?

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1391635683' post='2359677'] OT, so apologies, but the word 'obtuse' just sprang into my mind. Can't think why..! Sorry, as you were... [/quote] The point I'm making is that we don't live in 1940 where only one or two people in each street own a car. There's millions of cars on the road. You can't be asking people to be proving their competency every 10minutes. For a start everyone would be crying big brother when the police keep stopping them. The other is that people are (like it or not) very driven by money. They'll say they can do things if it means they can earn money. It's already been pointed out that you don't put out a chemical fire with water. How do you know this? Someone has told you or you've read it. How do I know you know this? I ask you at your induction, are you trained to use a fire extinguisher. If you haven't been then I'll ask you to avoid using them because we have people who are, and there is a likelihood that even with the best intentions you'll make things worse. Now we're back to the millions bit. There have been millions of events logged and examined that show this happens, it's not happened just once or twice and no one is trying to spoil anyone's fun or trying to nanny anyone. It's the way things work. If you've ever been in a serious incident and had to endure the picking over of events all this would all become very clear and you wouldn't question why it's done.

[quote name='White Cloud' timestamp='1391632732' post='2359601'] One thing I never say ever is never say never...ever. If you did say never say never ever you would limit yourself by saying never...ever. Why limit your options.... [/quote] As I say we're human beings. We're not computers with hard coded morals. Say whatever you want and revaluate as you gain life experience. It's not a weakness, it shows that you are able to develop as a person. Flea has made an admirable stand up to the Super Bowl he's managed to stick to his principles. Something has happened that has given him reason to evaluate his position and he's qualified that in his satement.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391633287' post='2359616'] Well, I'd point to my 35 years of accident-free driving for a start . . . [/quote] And how would you prove that?

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1391629912' post='2359520'] Absolutely, as indeed I did, and very safely too, until I passed my driving test. Yes, I knew it was prohibited, and un-insured, so I drove with even more due care and attention (if that's possible...). No, not recommended, and not to be imitated, but yes, I was competent well before having the licence to show for it. [/quote] And how would you demonstrate that competency to a policeman, insurance company or prospective employer?

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391629060' post='2359492'] Arrgghh! Yes, but you should be able to assess your own competence! or do you need a certificate for that? [/quote] Absolutely. Just get in a car and drive no need for a test. That's what we used to do in the old days before all this competency nonesense.

Google 'musician electrocuted'. There's enough there to keep you going for a bit.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391627440' post='2359447'] Yep, another reason to sit back, do nothing and let a 'competent person' deal with it all. You're right that we can't all know everything, but we could all be a bit more aware of what we do and don't know instead of just assume we're incompetent (or worse, be told we are) unless we have a certificate that says otherwise. [/quote] Unfortunately until someone can demonstrate they're competent you have to assume they're not. That's always been the case since time began.

I think you're still missing the point. There have always been people like that. What about the 'technically competent' guy who removed the earth from our PA because it was causing an earth loop? You don't do that by accident! It used to be a common thing to do, and I suspect some people still do it thinking it's fine to do.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391620981' post='2359362'] Bonfires are not outlawed at all, never mind generally: https://www.gov.uk/garden-bonfires-rules Chip pan fires are not reliant on naked flames. Most people may no longer be confident around fire, but that's hardly surprising with all the rules and regulations (and misconceptions). It's symptomatic of a bigger problem though. [/quote] What rules and regulations? We don't use fire. That's not a regulation, it's a way of life. I'm confident around fire, I've spent enough years building and cooking on it to get close to it and pick up burning objects. We could spend time teaching our kids how to do this, but unless they're out doing it regularly there are other more important life skills for them to learn that are more relevant to the world we now live in. In the BBC article they point out that airline staff are now trained to deal with those sorts of fires. We can't all know everything.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391625805' post='2359429'] ... Still, they are allowed to get away with it so who are the stupid ones? [/quote] More old people stuck in their ways and refusing to move with the times.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391617447' post='2359293'] Funny sort of principles then. Seems more like a preference to me. [/quote] That's pretty much what principles are aren't they? We're human beings, we all have many different principles. Often they come into conflict and we have to decide which is more important. That's the trick. 1. We will never mine. 2. We would never turn down the opportunity to be on the TV in front of the whole world. 3. We'll never play a gig that takes longer to set up than we're playing for. 4. We'll never do a free gig. Some perfectly good principles. But which one is the overriding principle? What order of importance are they?

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391622107' post='2359374'] Yeah, well that's what happens when you get old and cranky and start to see things for what they are instead of just going along with them. Not that I have any choice, of course, except to have the occasional rant. On your own heads be it. ... [/quote] My point is you're pretending you don't understand why it's done and you're deliberately trying to find excuses why it's a bad thing. Now you're likening it to being like a frog in a pressure cooker. Another poster and myself have posted real world examples of dangerous occurrences that have been found or would have been found if checked by a competent person but incompetent people have been using in a dangerous state. Surely you are either now just being obtuse for the sake if it or you really are daft!

Fly, you're being deliberately obtuse again.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391618203' post='2359308'] You're right. But it doesn't say to do anything to tackle the fire, except to turn off the heat if possible. Once upon a time they would give advice about how to actually tackle a fire, now they just say get out. Of course, that's good advice in absolute terms, which is why I've said before that these things can't be argued against. My point is not about the advice they do give, it's about the advice they don't give because people are increasingly treated as not being able to do anything for themselves without the appropriate training. Well, guess what, the vast majority of people are not 'trained' to use a fire extinguisher, so why even bother to provide them? Just follow 'professional' advice and simply get away from any fire, call the fire brigade and watch the building burn down before they get there. [/quote] We have at least 4 wardens per floor, all trained. That's about 120people in a building with 8000 people. I would rather see 8000 people getting out rather than a bunch of them trying to work out how to use a fire extinguisher. Most people nowadays have gas fires at home, Bonfires are generally outlawed. I'm guessing most people are no longer confident around fire and see it as dangerous rather than a tool.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391616879' post='2359283'] Good examples of the tough life that a gigging band can inflict on gear. So just doing something may not be enough to absolve someone from negligence if they've used a PAT tester who knows nothing about such things and normally just tests PCs in offices. Once a month might not be considered overkill if the band is gigging a few times each week and I'd bet you could find an expert witness somewhere who would stand in the dock and say so. What then? That'ss the problem with all this woolly 'something is better than nothing', 'you interpret what you need' type stuff. And it's nothing like an MOT because that's a clearly defined legal requirement and you have to go to a certified test station for a fully specified series of tests by a formally licenced expert. It could easily be argued that an annual MOT is total overkill for someone doing 1500 miles a year on the school run but not enough for a company car doing 50,000 miles a year. But from a liability perspective none of that matters because the law only requires the car to have a valid MOT certificate after which there's no room for debate. In comparison, the PAT requirements are a can of worms. [/quote] You're talking nonsense again. The MOT is a test of road worthiness at a particular point in time. As soon as you leave the garage it's the responsibility of the driver to ensure the car remains roadworthy. The same with PAT. The tester gives you a certificate that says it's ok now at that moment in time. After that if something happens it's down to the owner of the equipment. The owner is quite at liberty to argue that the PAT wasn't done properly. In which case the tester shows all his documents and qualifications and argues he did.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391603374' post='2359010'] ... Seems that the current official advice for dealing with chip pan fires is to just get out of the house, call the fire brigade and watch your house burn down, instead of the previous advice to turn off the heat and cover the pans with a wet cloth (if possible to do so safely of course). Hmm. More HSE nonsense? Someone sued the Fire Service about that earlier advice did they? I sometimes wonder why fire extinguishers are provided at all when all the advice is to just run away. ... [/quote] It doesn't say not to use a fire blanket. You shouldn't use a fire extinguisher unless you have been trained to use one. I've been trained and there are lots of things to consider that are not immediately obvious to the untrained eye. The first one being burns from CO2 but there are others.

The artwork gets embedded in the music file if you add it yourself. Otherwise iTunes sticks it in a folder, but you can't see the artwork file in any useable format.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391609536' post='2359149'] Fair points, but it suggests that the PAT testers have to have knowledge of the circumstances and how can they cover every eventuality? In an office environment I can see that there will likely be a person responsible for the company H&S policies and everything will have been determined beforehand, so the PAT tester is called in at the appropriate intervals and told to label everything for next testing as required. Fine. But how does a typical gigging band deal with all this? Who is likely to be competent enough to draw up a band 'H&S policy' and decide how often their stuff should be tested. OK, so they phone up the nearest PAT tester, but how do they know if they are competent to judge the risks of a gigging band? Are there PAT testers who specialise in different fields? [/quote] You have a conversation with the guy. He'll understand your needs with the information you give him. If it's outside his experience then he should decline to Test the equipment. However, any court is going to look at what he could reasonable expect. When your drummer gets electrocuted because he forced his bass drum spike through your amp cable or your roadie slams a cable in the van door when packing gear away then that's an accident. You can't cover everything, all you can do is take reasonably practicable precautions. Everyone should be vigilant for obvious damage, the tester can only do so much. Like an MOT. It's a reduction in likelyhood, not an absolute catch all. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

The only way to progress in life is to know when to stand up for your principles and when to let them take a back seat.

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1391597232' post='2358894'] From HSE site: The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require that any electrical equipment that has the potential to cause injury is maintained in a safe condition.[b] However, the Regulations do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently (ie they don't make inspection or testing of electrical appliances a legal requirement, nor do they make it a legal requirement to undertake this annually). [/b] [/quote] Yes. This is deliberately kept 'wooly' because it depends on every individual situation. This is where the 'common sense' part of real life takes over. If there is a problem you will need to demonstrate that you used your electrical knowledge and all the information available to you to come to a sensible decision. And as above, an expert witness will be bought in to agree/disagree you acted correctly.

I'm guessing here but if you imported it from cd and it hasn't called it Clockwork Angels Tour (Live), iTunes may not know what cd you have imported. That's not iTunes fault.