Criminal negligence

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:55 pm

Would someone like to tell me that it's too early to know whether BBC News - Radiohead stage collapse kills one in Canada could have been prevented?

There is not the smallest possibility that this was unforeseeable or unavoidable. This is just plain incompetence.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:05 pm

Have you ever seen this one?

Slow Motion Enhanced Footage - Indiana State Fair Stage Collapse - YouTube

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:10 pm

SnoozeAgain;1396669 wrote: Have you ever seen this one?

Slow Motion Enhanced Footage - Indiana State Fair Stage Collapse - YouTube

I'd not seen it but I was reading about it five minutes ago -On Aug. 13, 2011, a wind gust toppled the main stage at the Indiana State Fair, killing five people and injuring 45 other as they were waiting for the band Sugarland to perform. A study determined the stage was poorly designed.

Toronto stage collapse kills man ahead of Radiohead concert - Toronto - CBC News

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:22 am

It was an accident, accidents happen. Accidents are caused by people.

I was present the night seating collapsed at Earlscourt Arena for a Pink Floyd concert, no one was killed, many were hurt, fines were handed out later.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:38 am

So long as it gets into court then. An accident is what happens when nobody intended it, I agree nobody intended it. That doesn't mean it wasn't criminally negligent on someone's part.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:48 am

spot;1396670 wrote: I'd not seen it but I was reading about it five minutes ago -On Aug. 13, 2011, a wind gust toppled the main stage at the Indiana State Fair, killing five people and injuring 45 other as they were waiting for the band Sugarland to perform. A study determined the stage was poorly designed.

Toronto stage collapse kills man ahead of Radiohead concert - Toronto - CBC News

Did you see the weather? That looked like the precursor to a tornado, I don't know how you can design against 'acts of god.'

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:13 am

spot;1396687 wrote: So long as it gets into court then. An accident is what happens when nobody intended it, I agree nobody intended it. That doesn't mean it wasn't criminally negligent on someone's part.
Most of these seating arrangements are built out of ordinary scaffolding as far as I can tell.

Scaffolding, I imagine is only as secure as the person that is bolting it together, one loose fitting in critical place would, I guess, have a domino affect.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:14 am

SnoozeAgain;1396690 wrote: Did you see the weather? That looked like the precursor to a tornado, I don't know how you can design against 'acts of god.'

That doesn't apply to yesterday in Toronto though. From my link,The weather in Toronto at the time of the accident was calm, with temperatures in the high 20s and the forecast calling for light winds. Mihan said the weather was "beautiful. It couldn't have been the weather that attributed to the collapse."As for the Indiana State Fair, of course you have to design your stage to survive the worst storms the area gets. If your stage can't survive the worst storms the area gets then you shouldn't have built it there in the first place.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:15 am

Bruv;1396691 wrote: Scaffolding, I imagine is only as secure as the person that is bolting it together, one loose fitting in critical place would, I guess, have a domino affect.Damn right. It's called criminal negligence.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:16 am

spot;1396692 wrote: That doesn't apply to yesterday in Toronto though. From my link,The weather in Toronto at the time of the accident was calm, with temperatures in the high 20s and the forecast calling for light winds. Mihan said the weather was "beautiful. It couldn't have been the weather that attributed to the collapse."As for the Indiana State Fair, of course you have to design your stage to survive the worst storms the area gets. If your stage can't survive the worst storms the area gets then you shouldn't have built it there in the first place.

That means most of the mid-west should be population free.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:44 am

SnoozeAgain;1396694 wrote: That means most of the mid-west should be population free.

It might mean most of the mid-west should be free of scaffolding structures, but I find that hard to believe. People can erect robust scaffolding stages if they do it properly.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:20 pm

Must admit I thought Health & Safety investigated this sort of incident as a matter of course, and the police too if death or injury are involved. Is that not the case?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:22 pm

Perhaps next year we'll bump the thread with an answer to that. The number of times Railtrack management have walked away from lethal decisions on their part, for example, persuades me that the responsible party isn't always the one who carries the can.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:00 am

spot;1396768 wrote: ..............management have walked away from lethal decisions on their part, for example, persuades me that the responsible party isn't always the one who carries the can.

The fines for the Earls Court Pink Floyd concert seating collapse were handed out to.....

The venue's owner, Earls Court Ltd was fined pounds 12,000, the chartered engineer, David McCallum, was fined pounds 18,000 and Jonathan Smith, a former director of the seating contractor, Arena Promotional Facilities, fined pounds 7,500 after all admitted breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

But unless the people receiving fines had been clambering around on the scaffolding, checking hundreds if not thousands of scaffold brackets how would they know there was a fault ?

The management involved used reputable companies who in turn employed labour that was not competent, so the blame really lies with some guy in jeans who failed to tighten a few bolts.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:12 am

Perhaps a safe scaffolding company would employ an overseer for each team, who randomly checked detail as the job progressed and watched out for untrained practice. Beyond the occasional ill-tightened bolt there's the more lethal poor scaffolding design. Good design can withstand a pre-defined percentage of random loose bolts.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:09 am

Bruv;1396796 wrote: The fines for the Earls Court Pink Floyd concert seating collapse were handed out to.....

But unless the people receiving fines had been clambering around on the scaffolding, checking hundreds if not thousands of scaffold brackets how would they know there was a fault ?

The management involved used reputable companies who in turn employed labour that was not competent, so the blame really lies with some guy in jeans who failed to tighten a few bolts.

Unless of course he hadn't been properly trained to do the job, hadn't been given the right equipment etc etc.

Besides if you run a construction company then you should be clambering all over the thing to make sure it had been built properly, you should be making sure your staff know you will be checking and that you have also made sure they are trained and equipped to do the job properly. With any kind of company for the management to claim not to know what is going on rather suggests gross incompetence.

If you bought a car that had a serious defect would you accept it was the fault of the guy bolting the bit on or would you expect corporate management to accept the responsibility they are being paid for. ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:26 am

gmc;1396815 wrote: Unless of course he hadn't been properly trained to do the job, hadn't been given the right equipment etc etc.

Besides if you run a construction company then you should be clambering all over the thing to make sure it had been built properly, you should be making sure your staff know you will be checking and that you have also made sure they are trained and equipped to do the job properly. With any kind of company for the management to claim not to know what is going on rather suggests gross incompetence.

If you bought a car that had a serious defect would you accept it was the fault of the guy bolting the bit on or would you expect corporate management to accept the responsibility they are being paid for. ?

In the Earls Court case the management of the arena got fined, how could they know of any incompetence involving the actual gang that put it up ?

I can understand the actual construction company being culpable, by using temporary labour with lack of proper training.

Only reason the arena's management can be to blame if it was an economic decision to use a cheaper firm.......so I have just answered my query.

These seating arrangements and staging are widely used, put up quickly, under time pressure and rapidly cleared afterward, I am surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more often to be honest.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:32 pm

The very concept of a fine against a construction firm with hundreds of millions turnover is an outrage, it's cash from the dividend, it has no impact on the negligent parties at all. Jailing the right management level is the only possible way of getting these damned capitalists to attend to their duty. Start at the apex, and if he's behaved impeccably come down a level and repeat until you have someone sufficiently senior and genuinely responsible to slam into prison for an exemplary period.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:49 pm

spot;1396879 wrote: The very concept of a fine against a construction firm with hundreds of millions turnover is an outrage, it's cash from the dividend, it has no impact on the negligent parties at all. Jailing the right management level is the only possible way of getting these damned capitalists to attend to their duty. Start at the apex, and if he's behaved impeccably come down a level and repeat until you have someone sufficiently senior and genuinely responsible to slam into prison for an exemplary period.

And hows that tie in with your theory about too many Laws ?

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:59 pm

spot;1396879 wrote: The very concept of a fine against a construction firm with hundreds of millions turnover is an outrage, it's cash from the dividend, it has no impact on the negligent parties at all. Jailing the right management level is the only possible way of getting these damned capitalists to attend to their duty. Start at the apex, and if he's behaved impeccably come down a level and repeat until you have someone sufficiently senior and genuinely responsible to slam into prison for an exemplary period.

Or forcing to join the police force?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:05 pm

theia;1396888 wrote: Or forcing to join the police force?

Even worse, force them to join an American police force.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:07 pm

Bruv;1396885 wrote: And hows that tie in with your theory about too many Laws ?

It's a single law applicable to all corporate negligence, it's neat. It criminalizes only those with responsibility for the crime. We do agree it's a crime, do we?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:51 pm

Is that the Royal 'We'?

Not necessarily, as it happens.

I believe accidents happen.

If as gmc said, a component in a motor car continually proves faulty and nothing happens to change it, then that is negligence from on high.

But in this instance, if some outside indefinable problem causes a failure, who can say who was to blame?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:55 pm

Bruv;1396912 wrote: But in this instance, if some outside indefinable problem causes a failure, who can say who was to blame?
The accident enquiry and police investigation, surely.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:20 pm

spot;1396913 wrote: The accident enquiry and police investigation, surely.

You would trust a Police investigation and an enquiry of construction amateurs over the men that do it full time ?

The Accident I speak of would be metal fracture in any single one of the many components or the footings giving away due to soft ground, that's an accident.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:25 pm

Bruv;1396920 wrote: You would trust a Police investigation and an enquiry of construction amateurs over the men that do it full time ?

The Accident I speak of would be metal fracture in any single one of the many components or the footings giving away due to soft ground, that's an accident.

I thought an accident meant nobody had intended the result. What you mean there is an unavoidable accident, what insurers call an act of God. I'm talking about a negligent accident - nobody meant it but if someone had done their job professionally it wouldn't have happened.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:30 pm

And then there is ......accidents.

Even space shots with all the professionalism and focus on detail go wrong.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:35 pm

Bruv;1396929 wrote: And then there is ......accidents.

Even space shots with all the professionalism and focus on detail go wrong.

I suspect the word you're looking for is carelessness.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:58 am

spot;1396932 wrote: I suspect the word you're looking for is carelessness.

Please don't suspect anything, I am a big enough boy to know what I think I meant............it is Accident :any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:14 am

Bruv;1396948 wrote: Please don't suspect anything, I am a big enough boy to know what I think I meant............it is Accident :any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

I agree with you!! I'm merely distinguishing between those accidents which happen through negligence and those which could not have been foreseen and avoided even by any reasonable person with the skill to foresee and avoid negligent accidents.