To say, or not to say, that is the question

[ban-all-sheds]

Neither is noseall, despite writing these:

You are sanctimonious and disingenuous and are kidding no one.

And you have the face to criticise other peoples' morals. You are abhorrent.

you are a disgusting, cowardly liar.

Not only are you disgusting BAS, but I bet you are overweight and your breath stinks.

Talk about morals? You are a morality vacuum and you are a coward.

So you should be aware that there is, or has been, more going on here than simply removing posts because of what's in them.

 

[noseall]

Truth v's supposition eh?

 

[JohnD]

I can see a clue...

And you are an inhuman scumbag who is not fit to lick dogs**t off the sole of my shoe.

And you are a disgusting, cowardly liar.

Heat, kitchen.

 

[PBC_1966]

Why don't you try driving around without a seatbelt on, speaking on a hand-held mobile phone, and when you get nicked, tell the police not to go poking there noses in because you weren't doing anything wrong because no incident occurred. See how far that gets you.

Don't confuse what the current law says with what is right. In the first case (seat belt) we have a perfect example of a law which should never have been passed in the first place in what is supposed to be a free country. Leaving aside the fact that in some cases they can actually be harmful rather than beneficial, even if you think they're generally "a good thing" that doesn't mean that they should be forced upon people, any more than there should be a law forcing people to eat healthy foods or dress warmly in cold weather, with penalties for not doing so. If people want to eat badly or go out in a snowstorm in just shirt and shorts and risk the detrimental effects of either, what business is that but their own? The same applies to seat belts.

In the second case (mobile phone) then the distraction certainly poses a risk to other road users, although the way in which the U.K. legislation was drafted is poor and doesn't really address the whole problem, but that's a different issue.

But if you somehow think it's your moral duty to report any violation of the law - any law, no matter how good or bad, and no matter how trivial - then in either of these two cases how do you actually know whether a law is being broken or not?

 

[JohnD]

The seat belt law has been a great blow to transplant surgery.

the number of fresh, warm hearts and other organs from healthy young donors is far lower than it would be without seatbelts.

It has however saved quite a lot of money in Coroners' courts.

 

[PBC_1966]

Not true. The introduction of the law in the U.K. in 1983 saw no measurable decrease in road fatalities which could be directly attributed to it.

 

[noseall]

Not true. The introduction of the law in the U.K. in 1983 saw no measurable decrease in road fatalities which could be directly attributed to it.

What about unrestrained rear seat passengers etc?

 

[Newboy]

Not true. The introduction of the law in the U.K. in 1983 saw no measurable decrease in road fatalities which could be directly attributed to it.

How about the statistics for reduction in injuries?

 

[PBC_1966]

What about unrestrained rear seat passengers etc?

The 1983 law applied only to front-seat driver and passengers. Mandatory use of rear belts, where fitted, was in 1989 for children under 14, and 1991 for all passengers. A large proportion of the cars on British roads didn't even have rear belts in 1983, as the requirement for new cars to have them fitted wasn't introduced until 1987.

 

[SimonH2]

well just one more thing earlier when i asked if the work was complete and did anyone get injured, you replied that the work was complete and nobody got injured, but that wasnt the point and went on to explain why that wasnt the point,

Correct, because you seem to be trying to prove that because something didn't happen this time, it wasn't going to happen regardless - in other words, because no-one fell off the roof (only knowable after the fact) there is no need for any safety measures.

you never added "but that was because i phoned H&S and they made them put up handrails etc", i wonder why? either you rang H&S and they did nothing, or you didnt ring in which case you have the same morals as me.

Err, that was covered in an earlier post. I phoned the company having the work done. From the conversation with their H&S officer it was clear that the contractors had lied to the customer - by supplying a method statement stating that lanyards etc would be used.
So no, I'm not the sort of depraved person who is quite happy to watch people die or get badly injured in the name of "not getting involved".

I did consider calling the HSE - but I figured that's not a lot of use. What could they do ? Investigate post-event when the opportunity to mitigate the risk has passed ?

So I assume that the H&S officer for the company having the work done saw what was going on, and stopped work. The contractors came back a couple of days later - with safety gear. So it wasn't me being a nosey parker that stopped the work - it was the H&S officer of the company having the work done wot done it. So stuff your attitude where the sun doesn't shine.

Through a different route, I heard that the MD of the company having the work done was "furious" with the contractors. I also heard information that leads me to believe that at least one of the engineering companies in our building had contacted them - perhaps in a more official capacity, but certainly with more qualification.

 

[^woody^]

it was the H&S officer of the company having the work done wot done it.

And who snitched to him in the first place?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Truth v's supposition eh?

I could say exactly the same to, and about, you.

 

[kazuya]

well just one more thing earlier when i asked if the work was complete and did anyone get injured, you replied that the work was complete and nobody got injured, but that wasn't the point and went on to explain why that wasnt the point,

Correct, because you seem to be trying to prove that because something didn't happen this time, it wasn't going to happen regardless - in other words, because no-one fell off the roof (only knowable after the fact) there is no need for any safety measures.

i don't need to prove it, nothing did happen, there's ya proof
you prove something did happen, oh wait you cant

and why bother making the post in the first place? not to get opinions but to see who has no morals? you'd already decided yourself what the right answer was, so why not just say from the start?

although looking at your poll im imagining its not the result you wanted
im guessing all the people that voted no are professionals that work on sites all the time and are quite competent about what they do, and the ones voted yes are the ones that look up and see a guy on a high roof and think that looks dangerous ill pick up the phone and report them, it might lose him money but ill be able to watch the drama, or theyre the kind of person that hates sheds and wants to see them banned!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can see a clue...

And you are an inhuman scumbag who is not fit to lick dogs**t off the sole of my shoe.

And you are a disgusting, cowardly liar.

Heat, kitchen.

Oh - have no doubt that I can stand the heat.

And please note:

1) noseall began his series of abusive posts long before I posted anything which subsequently got taken down for rule contraventions. And they are still there.

2) When I used exactly the same words as he, not directed at anyone in particular, and not in reply to any post, just to express what my opinion was of a general attitude to H&S concerns, that post got removed. And noseall's were left.

3) I have reported all of those posts, not to have them removed, but simply to ask the moderator(s) why they removed my post but left all of his. No explanation, not even an attempt at justification from them. And those posts are still there.

So I suggest you do not try and pretend that there is not something wrong with the way that certain moderator(s) are behaving, for if you do it will not reflect well on your intelligence or objectivity.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Don't confuse what the current law says with what is right.

And don't assume that because a law limits what you in your verging-on-madness anarchic zeal would like to do it is wrong.

In the first case (seat belt) we have a perfect example of a law which should never have been passed in the first place in what is supposed to be a free country.

Utter nonsense.

You simply do not want a "society". I'm not sure if you are still in Redding - if you have not headed north to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, you should do so - there are your sort of people there.

Leaving aside the fact that in some cases they can actually be harmful rather than beneficial,

Good grief - do you really think that you can get away with that discredited argument?

even if you think they're generally "a good thing" that doesn't mean that they should be forced upon people,

Yes it does, because it costs society when they don't get used.

But as you don't believe in society I can see why you would object to the jackboot oppression of being forced to wear a seatbelt, and consider it a dreadful imposition, which causes untold distress and anguish to people in cars.

If people want to eat badly or go out in a snowstorm in just shirt and shorts and risk the detrimental effects of either, what business is that but their own?

None whatsoever, for as long as they live on their own and do not partake in anything related to society.

The same applies to seat belts.

I agree. If people can find a way to live, earn money, spend it, buy and drive a car without any involvement whatsoever in society (so, for example, no roads, no police to stop someone bigger or better armed from killing them to take their car, no doctors, no hospitals, no schools, no electricity distribution, no sewage, no water supplies, no food which they don't grow themselves, and so on and so on) then they may.

But as soon as they want one crumb of benefit from being in a society then they give up the right for what they do to be anybody's business but their own. Get over it or go and live in the woods and shoot anybody who comes too close to you.

But if you somehow think it's your moral duty to report any violation of the law - any law, no matter how good or bad, and no matter how trivial - then in either of these two cases how do you actually know whether a law is being broken or not?

I don't, which is why I'm advocating referring it to people who can determine that, and not advocating unilateral action to put a stop to it. Have you decided how many times you can pretend otherwise before you lose what little credibility you have left?