Is personal responsibility a thing of the past?
- Thread starter Trifid
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
The complication here though is that it appears its the 17 year olds who took them - not the 15 year old who was then injured.
They threw them on a bonfire. Who sold them the means to have a bonfire, surely we should sue them too.
NOTE: not accessible to unauthorised persons. The most common way of doing this is to use secure cages/cupboards etc.....as I said earlier if the building is solely for the use of storing explosives and is restricted to authorised personnel (as in those with the authority to issue and track the materials, not just use them) then that is fine, however in practice that is generally not the case, particularly for small amounts of materials...buildings are usually multipurpose and therefore to fulfil the requirements they use various methods including cages....(not vaults, a secure cage is not a vault). Cages and secure steel cupboards are used across the transport sector for all kinds of items, particularly those with high value or dangerous/hazardous/or must be kept separate from sources of ignition or combustibles.
Or a store room, you can't seem to get past your overstating on security anyhow you may of ued t do it.
Most rail depots are not made up oflaods of buildings, but you should know that. They don't have the cash, they're portacabin mazes and the more well of ones are brick portacabins. Many buildings, storerooms, shipping containers and other makeshift structures.
What do you not understand about your one sided proper gander, that is what I have issue with. You keep stating cages and massive safe cracking skills. Yet NO WHERE in th law does it ay any of that is required. It's there in black and white.
Most rail depots are not made up oflaods of buildings, but you should know that. They don't have the cash, they're portacabin mazes and the more well of ones are brick portacabins. Many buildings, storerooms, shipping containers and other makeshift structures.
What do you not understand about your one sided proper gander, that is what I have issue with. You keep stating cages and massive safe cracking skills. Yet NO WHERE in th law does it ay any of that is required. It's there in black and white.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;22565973 said:
I am not referring to them as anything like fluffy carefree children...that is a preconception of your own. They are by definition, kids and therefore your issues have nothing to do with me or the use of the reference and are more to do with your own preconceptions.
If they were 18 and 1 day then they would be adults...if they were 41 and 1 day they would be adults......however they are not. In any case, whether they were 17, 18, or 41 they have still the same level of responsibly for their actions....just as NR have the same for their own.
And Network Rail do have a duty of care to everyone, regardless of age or whether they trespass or are visitors....
Last edited:
Indeed or a storeroom....a secure storeroom. A storeroom would be more secure than a security cage anyway. I ma not overstating anything, just explaining how the regulations are manifested practically.
You are under the false impression that a security cage is some kind of steel vault, when it is simply a locked cage....they have them in a wide range of warehouse environments.
Hence the reason why they use security cages as they are easily portable, secure and easy to maintain.
Propoganda?????
Glaucus, you were simply wrong, the law requires that they are stored securely, I have given the reasons and the most common ways of fulfilling those requirements.
Your idea that they are put in flimsy boxes with a tiny padlock and chucked on a shelf somewhere would not fulfil the requirements for storing and disposing of explosives.
That three (or two) kids (young men) could access this material without the use of heavy duty tools such as a decent bolt cropper at the very least suggests that the the material was not secure.
Last edited:
No one is more responsible...the responsibilities are different. NR are responsible for ensuring their premises are secure and safe (even from Trespassers) and the kids have the responsibility not to trespass and steal. The 15 year old got injured as a result of a combination of those responsibilities (including his own) and if NR were negligent then they have a duty of care, and if they were not then they do not.
How am I wrong, ammunition case in a secure building, that is the law and what I said. You are wrong saying it had to be in a cage and would take a proffesional to brake in to that is propergander that is way above what the law requires.then you have this as well
You mean an issued and proper box, that has no more than a standard small padlock on it. Again you seem to think the law requires something indestructible, again this is simply wrong.
Again why even bring up NR may be responsible. I totally agree and have done since forever. If thy left them insecured they broke the law. My issue isn't with that. It's you massively overstating what the law requires, to make it sound impossible for this to happen.
NR has been charged loads of times for insecure detonators, it happens frequently, again that's not the point. It's your propergander drivel, despite you actually posting the reg.
Last edited:
You really believe that? Explains a lot about this thread, and just wow.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
Sounds like these 'detonators' are similar to your average domestic firework. I wonder if the same 17 year old 'kids' had broken in to a corner shop, grabbed some fireworks and blinded a younger associate then the story would have been reported differently?
Although we don't have all the details, saying that they 'found them in a skip' sounds highly dubious to me too. I also doubt if they were unmarked, these things would have warnings printed all over them... Why would they throw them in a bonfire if they didnt think they would go bang? I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing.
Although we don't have all the details, saying that they 'found them in a skip' sounds highly dubious to me too. I also doubt if they were unmarked, these things would have warnings printed all over them... Why would they throw them in a bonfire if they didnt think they would go bang? I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what they were doing.
Last edited:
did you not read the entire post, or are you that childish that you need to quote out of context to prove some point.
Ugh, The liberal hand ringing dripping from that article is nauseating to read. What a sick little wishy washy wet excuse for a human being at journalist is.
Because it is not simply about storing the ammunition cases in a building...it is about making sure that all the regulations and precautions are followed...including the authorised access, that they are not stored with other combustive materials, separation distances, building construction, controls on record keeping, transfer and complying with MSER and COER are all adhered to...the practical way of doing this is by the ways I have explained.
And I think you take the sarcasm in one or two of my comments far to literally......
Of course I read the entire post and there's no need to be insulting.
Then why quote it out of context?
An no of those require a cage. So hard isn't it, when a site is made up of multiple small buildings, to separate stuff and have a lock on it that prevents access. Well maybe not and not really hard to brake in is it to such places.
Maybe I have taken it to literally, but then you could point that out and we wouldn't cover how many pages we have.
Again it's simply not as hard as you state and you come across as one sided propergander, even when the rules are in the same post and don't tally with what you say.
It doesn't matter what is normal in other areas, it's what you must do by law that is important.
Maybe I have taken it to literally, but then you could point that out and we wouldn't cover how many pages we have.
Again it's simply not as hard as you state and you come across as one sided propergander, even when the rules are in the same post and don't tally with what you say.
It doesn't matter what is normal in other areas, it's what you must do by law that is important.
You seem to under the misconception that a locked secure ammunition box is easy to open with your bare hands. It isn't.
No, I am not...you are understating the responsibilities for the overall control, use and disposal of RFS.
It's not propaganda...It doesn't even fit the definition of propaganda as I am not abrogating the responsibility of the kids for their own actions....something that some of you can't seem to fathom.
Where did I say with bare hands? Hmm yeah I didn't
How am I underestimating, it's there in black and white, what is required.
And just becuase you haven't absolved them, doesn't mean it's not propergander. You are on purpose making the kids look better and saying its impossible. It simply isn't impossible. What you are saying is aimed to influence a community and isn't correct, that Is propergander.