Posted By Cr8r PS - I should add that I'm waiting for more info to come out on this, the news channels don't tell you much. Also, don't get me wrong, it is right that Transco are found guilty, however usually it is annoying that companies with blatant disregard for safety get landed with measly little fines (probably less than it would have cost them to put in place risk control measures), so I'm interested to find out the logic on this one. I wonder if I'm just biaised cos I worked there, or has the precedent been set: You assess the risks, do what you can, have excellent systems in place at all levels throughout your company, then get a massive record breaking fine. Had they been rubbish with H & S I would have thought "good - serves you right". But they're not.

Posted By Bill Bircham Cr8r I don’t know much about this except what I can glean from the news channels, but it would appear that Transco may well have excellent systems etc in place in your experience, but in this instance they seemed not to function. It would also seem that Transco tried to say that they were not responsible and their defence was rather vigorous in this area. Add to this the views expressed by Lord Carloway in his judgement:- "That aspect of the defence by the company serves only to demonstrate that the corporate mind of Transco has little or no remorse for this tragedy which, they ought at least now to accept, was exclusively their own creation” Given this approach by Transco and their very healthy financial situation, £390m profit for 05, the amount of £15m is perhaps very well justified, resenting as it does a very small amount of the above figure. Bill

Posted By Cr8r Bill I agree it's probably linked to the profit level, but does this mean that if your company is just breaking even you won't get a fine? Hope not! I don't know any more than anyone else about the exact circumstances, and if it's true that they tried to wriggle out of it by saying it wasn't their responsibility, well shame on them and as a defence - pretty desperate. I'm not arguing at all that they are guilty, I just find it interesting that after years of pathetic fines we have suddenly gone to the other extreme. I look forward to finding out more of the reasoning for this and perhaps this is the dawning of a new era of real deterrents - after all, isn't that what a fine should be?

Posted By Soter Daimones One has to agree with Michael. Fines imoposed on companies where a fatality has occured are often an insult to the bereaved families left behind. The directors of Transco should count their blessings that this tragedy did not happen here in Ireland after September 1st next week when the new SHWW Act becomes law. Under the new Act the directors could have been fined up to (only) €3 million, but faced a term of imprisonment of up to two years on each breach of the Act for such a serious occurance. Salem

Posted By MichaelM It would also be good if the Scottish Executive would get their finger out and stop sitting on the fence until something is put into place under English Law. This sends out the wrong H&S message. Michael

Posted By John Webster Getting a finger out on the corporate manslaughter issue is long overdue, however even the Law Society of Scotland supports a common UK wide approach, as I quote from their May journal "it is vital, as a matter of public policy, in this important area involving fatalities, that the laws of Scotland and England are identical, particularly given the fact that the HSWA is identical across the UK and was reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act. It would clearly be absurd if those responsible for a train crash which occurred in Scotland were prosecuted differently to those responsible had the crash occurred south of the border". Meanwhile the unlimited fines and/or imprisonment provisions of the HSWA ought to be sufficient, if correctly prosecuted. On the issue of the £15m Transco fine, I accept from earlier posts that the workforce safety culture may have been excellent. But we are talking about a company's failure to adequately deal with a known corrosion problem with certain types of pipe in certain soils, putting the public at risk. The Court appears to have carefully studied Transco's response to the problem and concluded that they could have and should have spent far more on tackling the problem, but instead chose to return a higher profit. The Judge would also appear to have considered a much higher fine, but took into account the fact that Transco had subsequently spent some £350 million in replacing dodgy gas mains. And we should not ignore that Transco continued to blame the householder's own gas fittings for the tradgedy, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and still do not appear to have accepted that it was their fault. Given the size and profit of Transco, £15m will still be but a slap on the wrist, and lets see if they manage to get it knocked down to 1 or 2 million on appeal.

Posted By Salus Do all know where the fines for breaches of H & S go to? H & S Training for SME's The HSE Help putting the H & S message over No they do not.

Posted By Steve Wood Could someone post a link to some information - I can't find ANY on the net!! (call me techno-incompetent!)

Posted By MichaelM Steve You could got to thenewsagents.downthestreet.andpickupanewspaper.com This is a good site for technophobes!

Posted By MichaelM I'm restricted by Iliveinscotlandanditisalwaysraining.com and IfIgooutsidethemidgeswilleatmealive.co.uk However there is always turnonthetelly24hournews.com

Posted By Robert K Lewis wotwhenthetouristsareabouttodescend.rain.uk

Posted By MichaelM Now it is Monday I will be serious again. I read in the Sunday Mail yesterday(and I know we are all agreed that newspapers and journalists tell us nothing but the truth) that Transco were made aware that the pipeline was too near the houses. Their lawyer supposedly tried to stop the engineer, who was giving this evidence, from giving this information! It appears that they have been trying to cover up this information, allegedly.