The main point is there are no recorded deaths caused by the use of socket covers and there recorded deaths where the use of a socket cover may have saved a life.
So statistically which is the safest option?
First, let me ask you if you are suggesting that parents are not responsibl= e for ensuring that their homes are safe? The way that you have written wo= uld seem to suggest that. =20
Leaving that aside, we have no wish to have anyone misinterpret the piece a= bout Liam, albeit that the misinterpretation under discussion is disingenuo= us in the extreme. Accordingly the piece has been re-written as follows: "In February 2009 Liam, 22 months old, was killed when he received an elect= ric shock while playing with a plug and lead he had found lying in his home= . A handyman, who had removed the lead with attached plug from an applianc= e that he was installing, had left it lying where Liam could find it. The = handyman should have removed the fuse and ensured that the lead was safely = disposed of.=20 Liam took the lead to his playroom, plugged it into a socket and grabbed ho= ld of the bare wires. According to a pathologist Liam died instantly." =20 By the time you read this our webmaster should have updated the site.
Given that the page on which Liam's story is related is clearly headed "Oth= er Dangers" it is hard to see why you would wish a statement that Liam's de= ath had nothing to do with socket covers.
As far as evidence of the danger of socket covers goes, the site is full of= it. We go to great lengths to explain how the use of socket covers which = do not conform to the proper dimensions (ie, all plug-in socket covers) giv= es rise to all sorts of dangers. If you have any evidence to the contrary = please state it rather than making sweeping statements which are completely= unsupported.
er.org...
Please state what deaths you are referring to. As the Sheriff made clear, = there is no evidence to support the idea that a socket cover could have sav= ed Liam's life, so whose lives are you talking about?=20
You might also like to bear in mind that the damage caused to sockets by th= e use of incorrectly sized socket covers will only ever cause problems when= the covers have been removed. There is little likelihood of a death due t= o a faulty earth connection in a socket (into which someone had once rammed= a clippasafe cover) will be ascribed to the root cause. Similarly, a sock= et which has damaged L&N contacts caused by having been left with a socket = cover with oversized pins for several years, and which (when it is eventual= ly used to deliver power again) catches fire because of arcing, will not be= blamed on the socket cover.
PlugSafe wrote: [big snip]
First let me ask if you are saying that parents set out to kill their children? Yes that's a stupid question that tries to pre-load an answer and make you look like an arse, but what the heck, we can all ask "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Call me a liar again, and your teeth will be travelling to say hello to your colon.
Thank you for the admission that you are wrong and that your web page was indeed misleading.
Because your site tries to make that link.
Your sites clearly full if it. We just differing what is.
Yes you make many unsupported statements.
You first sonny.
BTW can you do the bit about the "webmaster" again? That was a cracking bit of pomposity. If that site is run by a "webmaster" sack them.
Whilst I agree that the socket covers that are currently available are a pile of s**te the very mention of Liam Boyles death on your site is wrong. His was a life that could potentially have been saved by the use of one of these socket covers that you consider so dangerous but have not yet been proven to be the cause of a death.
From your site
"How many injuries or deaths have been caused by the use of socket covers?
The UK government does not collect statistics on the causes of death by electric shock in the home, we have been unable to find any reliable UK statistics on the subject.
Our position is simply that the possibility of electrocution caused by the use of socket covers in UK sockets is clearly demonstrable, while we have identified no benefit attributable to their use."
Liams death is IMHO a reason for using socket covers. Using correctly fitting covers would be even better.
Socket covers are like RCDs in terms of saving lives. We do not know how many lives have been saved because of them.
But the Sheriff, on the basis of the evidence, disagrees with you, therefore Liam's death does not in any way support your argument. Whose are the other deaths you refer to?
Why do you continue to ignore the facts?
And how many people will force in and out a plug on an appliance for years as the pins on the plug are bent causing similar damage to the socket as the socket cover.
I see lots of electrical dangers at work. I put the socket covers (even the crap ones they sell ATM) pretty low down on that list of dangers.
There you again, lots of highly ignorant statements, with nothing to support them. What piece of our evidence do you wish to dispute?
To sell an incorrectly sized plug is an offence which may result in 6 months imprisonment. There is no law to prevent the sale of incorrectly sized socket covers, and no one sells correctly sized ones. Is that not cause for concern?
Your professional standards leave much to be desired.
You have no "evidence". You actually admit this on your website. You have a lot of statements that are personal opinion presented as fact.
Once again, a completely misleading statement with no basis in fact, we pro= vide a lot of information which has been very well researched by profession= al engineers, we provide the results of tests and measurements. What we do= not have, because the government does not collect it, is any statistics. = You should not confuse statistics with facts.
You, on the other hand, have no data to offer whatsoever.
PlugSafe wrote: [snip]
Libel.
Yes. But not a major concern compared to what I see at work.
You have never seen my work and you know nothing about my professional standards.
You have left so much evidence on the internet that your standards are very easy to evaluate. Professionalism involves many aspects.
I'll happily break the odd law or rule. I'll also happily leave a socket cover plugged in. My work however is always safe.
So give the details then.
And of course no recognition that in this case a socket cover may
Dare one slide a word in edgeways for risk of being hit by flying toys... (coming from multiple sides!)
Each of you have valid points it seems to me, however there is danger of them being lost in the noise...
The fundamental difficulty with any discussion of this nature is that the numbers we are dealing with are so low. The numbers of deaths in this country per year from electrocution are vanishingly small whichever way you look at it. This makes it exceedingly difficult to spot significant trends. It has already been mentioned that we already have the safest electrical wiring standards and accessories in the world as a starting point.
Are plug covers worthwhile? In my opinion (based on no hard data - so just that, an opinion) they serve no benefit and probably their risks are more significant than their benefits. However it is important to note that even if they halved or for that matter doubled the number of deaths resulting from toddlers playing with sockets each year, the nett effect would be near enough zero either way as to make no difference. As a percentage of causes of infant mortality these accidents will be well down in fractional percentages. Far greater numbers will die each year at the hands of the medical profession, their parents, or even just cot death / SIDS etc. As Adam mentioned, compared to the things he will see during the normal course of working on customers existing installations, the presence of plug covers will be pretty well down the list of primary concerns... lack of earthing, no RCDs, missing EQ bonding, exposed live metalwork, dangerously overloaded circuits, and bodged extension work etc, will certainly figure as more pressing matters.
Hard numbers for serious injury rather than death due to electric shock would actually be a far more useful metric, and perhaps allow a more rational assessment of true risks and benefits.
Does the fatally flawed site intend to give the impression that it was all the mother's fault in this case? No I don't expect it was intended that way. However the proximity of the various statements could certainly give that impression, and I have no doubt that in its current form it will be read by many as implying it was simply a failure of parental responsibility. I am sure the site could be better split up into sections that don't attempt to cover these various things in a way that could conflate them in people's minds. (it is also worth remembering what any parent will tell you - even with the best will in the world, you can't be aware of everything that they do every day all the time with 100% reliability).
I see no need to "spin" the story about Liam. Even mentioning that a cover may hay helped in this particular case does not detract from the problems presented by the socket covers. Presented with both bits of information, parents could be allowed to form their own conclusions.
Highlighting the risks of unshuttered sockets on the end of flying mains leads is worthwhile in my opinion, but again it does not need to be done in proximity to the article about the comments about the flex with unterminated ends. (the risks from lamp holders however are probably less worth mentioning since gaining contact with a live BC socket for long enough to cause serious injury is actually quite difficult in practical terms)
It strikes me that strong promotion of RCD protection for all accessible sockets in houses with kids would also not go amiss.
I always found them to be a pain in the arse.
No chance.
His own postings show that his treatment of apprentices is not professional.
I live in the real world.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.