Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[ban-all-sheds]

I have already referred to the problem of comments made by people who do not quite understand how plugs and sockets specifications work. There are two methods of shutter opening specified in BS 1363-2 (sockets). Both methods will operate correctly, providing what is inserted meets the specifications for a BS 1363 plug. If an attempt is made to plug in anything which does not meet that standard then the result is completely unpredictable. You appear to be suggesting that a socket manufacturer should anticipate that people will wish to insert non-standard objects, and then ensure that their socket will take them. That sounds awfully like a complete negation of the purpose of the shutters.

I wish you'd make your mind up.

Here you clearly stated that the device would damage particular sockets because of those socket's particular features, not that it would damage all BS 1363 sockets because it does not have BS 1363-compliant pins.

The skeletal line and neutral "pins" on that thing are clearly not made to BS 1363! Do you have any idea what trying to force one of those into an MK Logic Plus socket, or the three pin shutter operation sockets from Legrand and Hagar, would do to the sockets?

I am not disputing that it has non-compliant pins, but, of course, if it did then it would not do the job it is sold to do.

So the question remains, and it it is a very important one.

Will it damage any and all sockets because of its characteristics, i.e. even those which have no shutter features beyond the bare minimum required by BS 1363, or will it only damage sockets which have extra features not mandated by BS 1363?

Because if it's only the latter then you are indeed saying that Manufacturer B should have his product outlawed because it will damage products made by Manufacturer A because A has chosen to add features to it which he was under no compulsion to add.

You are indeed saying that if at any time any manufacturer makes anything new which can be damaged by a tool made by somebody else then it should become an offence punishable by fines and/or imprisonment to sell or posses for sale that tool.

 

[JohnW2]

Ofsted specifically prohibits inspectors asking for their use, or mentioning them in their inspection reports. You can view Ofsted's position on page 11 of this document: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/sites/defa...ions/e/Early years September 2011.pdf[/QUOTE]
Do I take it that you are unhappy with Ofsted's position as stated in that document? Whilst what you mention above is one side of 'their position', the side you don't mention is that the document is also effectively prohibiting inspectors from advising against the use of these items.

Given that you regard some/most of the products as potentially dangerous, and that, with the current situation, a lay person cannot be expected to be able to distinguish between 'safe' and 'dangerous' ones, do I take it that you feel Ofsted is being irresponsible in not advising against their use?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Trevor Ord's petition refers to "ensure that other devices sold for use with13A sockets are compliant with the size requirements of BS1363." It would seem blindingly clear that the standard which does that is BS 1363-1.

I don't know why you've used quotation marks, since that statement, as written, does not appear in the petition.

I put those words in quotation marks because they are copied and pasted directly from the petition as it appears on the e-petition website.

Please read the whole thread, in particular my first post (actually a question, which no-one ever answered) back on page 1.

Is this the post you refer to?

A question. Extension of the legislation, as requested, would obviously only be workable if it could refer to compliance with a Standard. Whilst BS 1363 presumably does deal satisfactorily with the matter of incorrectly sized pins, does it also cover the second part of what is mentioned in the petition (i.e. prevention of inappropriate shutter opening)?

I imagine it was not answered because there is nothing in the petition which actually refers to "prevention of inappropriate shutter opening". I will again copy and paste directly from the petition "This means that there are many devices on the UK market EG socket covers, telephone chargers and other plug like devices which are unsafe to insert into a socket, either because they have incorrectly sized pins which can damage sockets resulting in arcing thus significantly increasing the risk of fires, or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket thereby increasing the risk of electric shock because the shutters of the sockets remain open."

Standard plugs are required by BS 1363-1 to not allow any access to live parts when the plug is in place in a socket. Similarly, BS 1363 sockets must not allow any access to live parts, the shutters are a key mechanism in ensuring this. When a socket cover is inserted into a socket it takes over the protection function which was being performed by the shutters, the socket cover should, therefore, be required to meet at least the same level of protection normally provided by the shutters. Many socket covers do not do this. By holding the shutters open, without properly preventing access to the line and neutral apertures, they actually facilitate access to live parts.

I am quite certain that the responsible department (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) would indeed turn to the BSI, amongst others. But in doing so they should, as a result of the public concern being expressed, inform those bodies that they wished to rectify the situation, and take advice on how to do it.

That is not the real world. You must surely realise how common it is for individuals or groups (including 'pressure groups') to bring 'concerns' to the attention of government, through petitions, media campaigns or whatever, and demand that some action is taken to address that concern. You must also realise that, particularly when technical issues are involved, government's first action in response is not to decide that they wish 'to rectify the situation' and turn to expert bodies for advice on how to effect that rectification. Rather, they turn to the expert bodies for expert advice as to whether there is a concern which needs to be addressed. If the answer is 'yes', then government may then work with the body to achieve some rectification. However, if expert advice does not support (qualitatively and/or quantitatively) the 'public concern' that had been expressed, then government would not usually attempt to proceed with any mesures to 'rectify' the situation. In other words, if one does not first get the opinion of the expert bodies 'on side', it is very unlikely that appealing to government will achieve anything.

I cannot really add anything to this aspect. The petition arises because a group of concerned and responsible electricians, many of whom have dealt with the damage caused to sockets by socket covers, debated the subject and decided to raise an e-petition. This is about concerned citizens who have a specific expertise and relevant experience taking advantage of an official system which allows people to express their concerns, it is part of our democratic system. (It may even be seen as part of our current Governments's "Big Society")

FatallyFlawed has itself not taken the e-petition approach, but we are pleased to support this group in their actions and encourage others to sign the petition. Meanwhile we continue to do what we have been doing for several years, raising awareness of the issues with both users and the authorities.

 

[JohnW2]

Trevor Ord's petition refers to "ensure that other devices sold for use with13A sockets are compliant with the size requirements of BS1363." It would seem blindingly clear that the standard which does that is BS 1363-1.

I don't know why you've used quotation marks, since that statement, as written, does not appear in the petition.

I put those words in quotation marks because they are copied and pasted directly from the petition as it appears on the e-petition website.

Yes, you're right, but by trucating the quote in the way you did, you gave the impression that the government were being asked (just) to "ensure that...". In fact, that quote was part of the introductory background/explanatory remarks, which would become clear if you quote the whole sentence, which starts "However, there is no similar protection to ensure that.....".

Please read the whole thread, in particular my first post (actually a question, which no-one ever answered) back on page 1.

Is this the post you refer to?

A question. Extension of the legislation, as requested, would obviously only be workable if it could refer to compliance with a Standard. Whilst BS 1363 presumably does deal satisfactorily with the matter of incorrectly sized pins, does it also cover the second part of what is mentioned in the petition (i.e. prevention of inappropriate shutter opening)?

Yep, that's the one.

I imagine it was not answered because there is nothing in the petition which actually refers to "prevention of inappropriate shutter opening". I will again copy and paste directly from the petition "This means that there are many devices on the UK market EG socket covers, telephone chargers and other plug like devices which are unsafe to insert into a socket, either because they have incorrectly sized pins which can damage sockets resulting in arcing thus significantly increasing the risk of fires, or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket thereby increasing the risk of electric shock because the shutters of the sockets remain open."

Verbatim quoting is not the only way of writing. Is it not clear that I wrote "prevention of inappropriate shutter opening" to refer to the words highlighted in red above? Anyway, even if you didn't realisethat such was my intent, I have now told you - so what is the answer to my question?

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

I have already referred to the problem of comments made by people who do not quite understand how plugs and sockets specifications work. There are two methods of shutter opening specified in BS 1363-2 (sockets). Both methods will operate correctly, providing what is inserted meets the specifications for a BS 1363 plug. If an attempt is made to plug in anything which does not meet that standard then the result is completely unpredictable. You appear to be suggesting that a socket manufacturer should anticipate that people will wish to insert non-standard objects, and then ensure that their socket will take them. That sounds awfully like a complete negation of the purpose of the shutters.

I wish you'd make your mind up.

Here you clearly stated that the device would damage particular sockets because of those socket's particular features, not that it would damage all BS 1363 sockets because it does not have BS 1363-compliant pins.

The skeletal line and neutral "pins" on that thing are clearly not made to BS 1363! Do you have any idea what trying to force one of those into an MK Logic Plus socket, or the three pin shutter operation sockets from Legrand and Hagar, would do to the sockets?

There is no incompatibilty between the two statements. One is the general case, the other is a specific example which applies to the product you asked about.

I am not disputing that it has non-compliant pins, but, of course, if it did then it would not do the job it is sold to do.

So the question remains, and it it is a very important one.

Will it damage any and all sockets because of its characteristics, i.e. even those which have no shutter features beyond the bare minimum required by BS 1363, or will it only damage sockets which have extra features not mandated by BS 1363?

Because if it's only the latter then you are indeed saying that Manufacturer B should have his product outlawed because it will damage products made by Manufacturer A because A has chosen to add features to it which he was under no compulsion to add.

You are indeed saying that if at any time any manufacturer makes anything new which can be damaged by a tool made by somebody else then it should become an offence punishable by fines and/or imprisonment to sell or posses for sale that tool.

The standard requires that when a plug is withdrawn from a socket that the contacts are automatically screened by shutters. The standard permits two methods of achieving this, neither is defined as an "extra feature" or "the bare minimum". Your assumptions are completely unfounded.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Please read the whole thread, in particular my first post (actually a question, which no-one ever answered) back on page 1.

Is this the post you refer to?

A question. Extension of the legislation, as requested, would obviously only be workable if it could refer to compliance with a Standard. Whilst BS 1363 presumably does deal satisfactorily with the matter of incorrectly sized pins, does it also cover the second part of what is mentioned in the petition (i.e. prevention of inappropriate shutter opening)?

Yep, that's the one.

I imagine it was not answered because there is nothing in the petition which actually refers to "prevention of inappropriate shutter opening". I will again copy and paste directly from the petition "This means that there are many devices on the UK market EG socket covers, telephone chargers and other plug like devices which are unsafe to insert into a socket, either because they have incorrectly sized pins which can damage sockets resulting in arcing thus significantly increasing the risk of fires, or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket thereby increasing the risk of electric shock because the shutters of the sockets remain open."

Verbatim quoting is not the only way of writing. Is it not clear that I wrote "prevention of inappropriate shutter opening" to refer to the words highlighted in red above? Anyway, even if you didn't realisethat such was my intent, I have now told you - so what is the answer to my question?

The answer is already in the standard, just as are the other dimensions. BS 1363-1 defines how a plug's face must cover the line and neutral apertures to a distance of at least 9.5mm from the pin.

 

[JohnW2]

The answer is already in the standard, just as are the other dimensions. BS 1363-1 defines how a plug's face must cover the line and neutral apertures to a distance of at least 9.5mm from the pin.

Of course the answer is in the standard - it's precisiely because I don't have access to the standard that I was asking the question about what was in it!

Are you therefore saying that, in answer to my original question, you would be totally satisfied if socket covers (and other things intended to be plugged into BS 1363 sockets) were merely required to comply with the same requirements as specified for plugs in BS 1363? I think that some of your concerns relate to the flexibility of socket covers - is that also covered by the requirement for plugs in BS 1363?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The standard requires that when a plug is withdrawn from a socket that the contacts are automatically screened by shutters. The standard permits two methods of achieving this, neither is defined as an "extra feature" or "the bare minimum". Your assumptions are completely unfounded.

So do all compliant sockets fall into one of two classes:

a) those which will be either damaged or put into an unpredictable state by that device

or

b) those which will not

?

And is the only determining factor which of the two methods prescribed by BS 1363 the maker has chosen to implement?

 

[FatallyFlawed]

The answer is already in the standard, just as are the other dimensions. BS 1363-1 defines how a plug's face must cover the line and neutral apertures to a distance of at least 9.5mm from the pin.

Of course the answer is in the standard - it's precisiely because I don't have access to the standard that I was asking the question about what was in it!

Are you therefore saying that, in answer to my original question, you would be totally satisfied if socket covers (and other things intended to be plugged into BS 1363 sockets) were merely required to comply with the same requirements as specified for plugs in BS 1363? I think that some of your concerns relate to the flexibility of socket covers - is that also covered by the requirement for plugs in BS 1363?

Kind Regards, John.

I am not sure why you asking me that question.

The petition appears to be calling for the same dimensional requirements which apply to standard plugs to be applied "to include all plug in devices intended for use in BS1363 sockets". I see no mention of anything else. My own belief is that a full specification for socket covers should include rigidity, which is not in the standard and is normally not an issue for real plugs, and insulation specifications, which do form an important part of BS 1363. However, if they were made to comply with the proper dimensions that would be an enormous step forward. It would certainly eliminate the current problem of socket covers (as well as other incorrectly sized plug-ins) causing permanent, but usually unseen, damage to sockets. The other risks would be reduced, but not eliminated.

 

[JohnW2]

I am not sure why you asking me that question.

Because I was asking whether you would be totally satisfied with something - and I presume that no-one else could answer for you.

The petition appears to be calling for the same dimensional requirements which apply to standard plugs to be applied "to include all plug in devices intended for use in BS1363 sockets". I see no mention of anything else.

Well, I certainly see 'mention of something else', namely (in red):

either because they have incorrectly sized pins which can damage sockets resulting in arcing thus significantly increasing the risk of fires, or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket thereby increasing the risk of electric shock because the shutters of the sockets remain open.

...even if it's not totally clear as to what that is referring to - which is why I was essentially asking whether you felt that whatever this refers to would be covered by compliance with a requirement corresponding to that which BS 1363 imposes on plugs.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

I am not sure why you asking me that question.

Because I was asking whether you would be totally satisfied with something - and I presume that no-one else could answer for you.

The petition appears to be calling for the same dimensional requirements which apply to standard plugs to be applied "to include all plug in devices intended for use in BS1363 sockets". I see no mention of anything else.

Well, I certainly see 'mention of something else', namely (in red):

either because they have incorrectly sized pins which can damage sockets resulting in arcing thus significantly increasing the risk of fires, or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket thereby increasing the risk of electric shock because the shutters of the sockets remain open.

...even if it's not totally clear as to what that is referring to - which is why I was essentially asking whether you felt that whatever this refers to would be covered by compliance with a requirement corresponding to that which BS 1363 imposes on plugs.

Kind Regards, John.

“I am not sure” because A) it is actually the same question that I had just answered! And B) it is not my petition.

I had already said:
“Standard plugs are required by BS 1363-1 to not allow any access to live parts when the plug is in place in a socket. Similarly, BS 1363 sockets must not allow any access to live parts, the shutters are a key mechanism in ensuring this. When a socket cover is inserted into a socket it takes over the protection function which was being performed by the shutters, the socket cover should, therefore, be required to meet at least the same level of protection normally provided by the shutters. Many socket covers do not do this. By holding the shutters open, without properly preventing access to the line and neutral apertures, they actually facilitate access to live parts.”

And then clarified it by saying:

“The answer is already in the standard, just as are the other dimensions. BS 1363-1 defines how a plug's face must cover the line and neutral apertures to a distance of at least 9.5mm from the pin.”

The petition makes it clear that is all about the problems caused by incorrect dimensions, it gives some examples of this, and calls for the dimensions to be regulated in the same way as they are for plugs.

I imagine Mr Ord would have liked to have been more explicit in the petition, but a quick count suggests that he was about to exceed the total number of allowed characters. I hope that, should he read this, he will forgive me for second guessing him.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I had already said:
“Standard plugs are required by BS 1363-1 to not allow any access to live parts when the plug is in place in a socket. Similarly, BS 1363 sockets must not allow any access to live parts, the shutters are a key mechanism in ensuring this. When a socket cover is inserted into a socket it takes over the protection function which was being performed by the shutters, the socket cover should, therefore, be required to meet at least the same level of protection normally provided by the shutters. Many socket covers do not do this. By holding the shutters open, without properly preventing access to the line and neutral apertures, they actually facilitate access to live parts.”

So what about devices which are actually supposed to facilitate access to live parts?

 

[JohnW2]

“I am not sure” because A) it is actually the same question that I had just answered! And B) it is not my petition.

That's fine. If you weren't sure about the answer, for whatever reason(s), you could simply have said so. You're seemingly in good company since, despite the fact that I asked the question twice, I got no answer from anyone else, either.

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Ofsted specifically prohibits inspectors asking for their use, or mentioning them in their inspection reports. You can view Ofsted's position on page 11 of this document: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/sites/defa...ions/e/Early years September 2011.pdf[/QUOTE]
Do I take it that you are unhappy with Ofsted's position as stated in that document? Whilst what you mention above is one side of 'their position', the side you don't mention is that the document is also effectively prohibiting inspectors from advising against the use of these items.

Given that you regard some/most of the products as potentially dangerous, and that, with the current situation, a lay person cannot be expected to be able to distinguish between 'safe' and 'dangerous' ones, do I take it that you feel Ofsted is being irresponsible in not advising against their use?

Kind Regards, John.

I am sorry but I missed this question earlier.

I think Ofsted's position is difficult for them. There is evidence that for years, some Ofsted inspectors were writing reports criticising child-care providers for not fitting socket covers. FatallyFlawed challenged Ofsted on this some years ago, and Ofsted confirmed that there was nothing in their inspection guidelines which formed a basis for those criticisms. And, of course, there is nothing from any responsible national body that calls for their use. That is unsurprising as there has never been any evidence that socket covers were required in BS 1363 sockets, and, as far as I know, socket covers have never existed which would fit into BS 546 sockets. So, Ofsted were left in the somewhat embarrassing petition of having a record of marking down nurseries and child-minders for not using something for which there was no official reason that they should. There was only a myth created by the suppliers of socket covers, which some individual inspectors had bought into.

Ofsted are not an electrical inspection organisation, and do not claim any expertise in that area. They have chosen to defer any questions from child-care providers to RoSPA and CAPT. Personally, I do wish that they would simply say that socket covers should not be used, but I can understand why they do as they do.

There is specific advice on the subject from Child Minding Help, who advise how to incorporate the subject of non-use into risk assessments, and risk assessments are what Ofsted really cares about.

 

[JohnW2]

Do I take it that you are unhappy with Ofsted's position as stated in that document?

. Personally, I do wish that they would simply say that socket covers should not be used ....

Thanks.

Kind Regards, John