This incident was the subject of an earlier topic on this forum. The full judgement of the Sheriff is now available here: http://www.scotcourts.go.../opinions/2011FAI17.html The witness representing the Health and Safety Executive , Mr James Madden, suggested the use of “blanking plugs” (socket covers). This is ill-informed advice from HSE who have adopted the policy that: “if the socket cover is correctly used then it will not introduce danger. It should be remembered that a socket outlet designed to BS1361 (sic) has been designed so as to be safe - hence the shutters - when correctly used and maintained. Similarly, if a socket cover is correctly used and maintained it will not introduce danger. Incorrect use and/or a lack of maintenance to ensure the continuing integrity of the socket outlet and/or the socket cover are liable to lead to dangerous conditions existing.” (quoted from a message received from HSE). The major problem with this is that HSE have chosen to ignore the simple fact that there are no socket covers on the market which have the correct dimensions to allow them to be safely plugged into a BS 1363 socket, so clearly the concept of correct use is a purely theoretical one! All use of an incorrectly sized socket cover (ie, any socket cover currently available) must, by definition, be incorrect. Fortunately the Sheriff was wise enough to realise that the HSE advice was not infallible: “[45] With regard to the third reasonable precaution proposed by the Crown, I am not satisfied that the evidence led is sufficient for me to conclude that I can or should include that in any form in my determination. As a subject of discussion the matter of child-safe blanking plugs did not arise until late in the evidence of Mr Madden when he volunteered it in discussing what might be deemed reasonable precautions. It was not explored with other witnesses, particularly Ms Hughes and Mr Rough. Mr Madden said that it was a precaution to use such blanking plates in houses where there were children of the sort of age that Liam was but stressed that the provision of these plates was not a duty on landlords and it was not for the Health and Safety executive to promote their use. With characteristic precision in vocabulary he described his proposal as an advisory precaution. He did not describe it as a reasonable precaution. Doubtless that is why the depute in her submission described it as a wise precaution again avoiding the adjective reasonable. I am not persuaded that I should or could elevate the proposal to a precaution that was reasonable in the present circumstances because there simply is not the evidence to give me the facts from which I could derive that conclusion.” One must wonder why the HSE should provide such flawed advice?

SocketMan Was it the use of a blanking plug, or the failure to use, that you are basing your conclusions on, because the way I read it is it was a plug with a cable attached, and not a blanking plug that caused this horrific and unfortunate event.

The way I read this is that the disposal of the cable & plug would have been the appropriate control. Seems this child was very capable of plugging and unplugging to/from sockets and it's difficult to see what difference the use or not of a blanking plug would have made. Very sad.

The fact that an HSE expert witness is prepared to give such bad advice in a court is worth noting, surely? Does this reflect well on the general H&S community? What do others think of such non-evidence based assertions being used in an official context?

Fortunately the Sheriff felt differently on the subject of socket covers, which is why he said: "I am not persuaded that I should or could elevate the proposal to a precaution that was reasonable in the present circumstances because there simply is not the evidence to give me the facts from which I could derive that conclusion.” I have reason to question Mr Madden's experience or competance other than his reference to socket covers, I see no evidence that Mr Madden has any actual experience of, or has conducted any tests on, socket covers, had he doone so he would not have said what did. From the comments of the Sheriff it appears that Mr Madden's reference to socket covers was not part of his prepared evidence, but rather a (dangerous) afterthought!

Is it not just possible that it is yourself, SocketMan, who is wrong about the use of socket covers and not John Madden? You seem to think that the fact that socket covers may not have gone through the rigorous safety testing that you have managed to dream up that they are somehow inherently dangerous. Socket covers add a further layer of protection to an already protected device, how is this in any way bad? I am sure there may be brands of socket covers that after a degree of misuse and tampering may cause a theoretical risk of danger but are there not more important things to worry about like the narrow four way barextension sockets that can have a standard plug inserted in the inverted position? The Sheriff did not include the use of socket covers as a reasonable precaution because she was not provided with enough evidence during the FAI, not because she thinks they are unsafe.

I note that no one has addressed my earlier questions, viz: Does this reflect well on the general H&S community? What do others think of such non-evidence based assertions being used in an official context? That depends on whether you regard solid documentary evidence of the facts, which is available in the public domain, as being of less value than an opinion for which no evidence has been offered. This topic is not about the dangers of plug-in socket covers, significant though they are, but about the folly of regarding them as a method of preventing children plugging in dangerous devices. The significant facts in this context are those relating to the dimensions specified in BS 1363, not something which may be so easily dismissed! However, since you have chosen to cast doubt on the safety tests performed by FatallyFlawed you should bear in mind that the tests are based on the report prepared by the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute for ANEC (European Association for Consumer Representation in Standardisation). The report, available on-line, is called “Child protective products – protective function of socket protectors, hob guards, locks and locking devices” The author of this report sets out the basic requirements and proposed test methods which should be adopted by EU Member States to ensure that child safety devices are effective and safe. It is available at http://tinyurl.com/ANECreport . That could be fair enough, but only if you can provide evidence that it is the case. It is notable that those wishing to disregard the evidence provided by FatallyFlawed consistently fail to provide any evidence to the contrary!

What evidence do you have that a socket cover will prevent a child plugging in a dangerous device? Do you doubt the fact that there are no socket covers which are made to the correct dimensions? Do you doubt the advice from MK, makers of the safest sockets on the market, that only devices which conform to the dimensions of BS 1363 should be inserted into a socket? Again, let me emphasize, this topic is not about the additional dangers which socket covers introduce, but about the straighforwardly wrong idea that they can prevent children plugging in dangerous devices. Please recognize thet the only socket covers which will be too dificult for a child to remove are those where the pin dimensions are sufficiently in error to cause damage to a socket!

Mr Edisonian, I am well aware of the article written in the IET and it does not change my opinion. Fatallyflawed are a pressure group which have garnered support from a number of educated and I am sure professional people. Problem is that there are hundreds of pressure groups that hold opposing views on different issues, Mans' influence on climate change, Wind Turbines, cycle helmets etc I can direct you to a pressure group in the Netherlands that has produced a study which shows that wearing a cycle helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one. You can believe this study if you like but you can be sure when my wee boy is old enough to go out on his bike he will be wearing a helmet regardless of pressure group compiled statistics. The socket covers in my home will also not be removed as the fact they may not conform to British standards does not mean that they do not work and any potential for a break in a chain of events that could lead to a tragedy can only be a good thing. I have not tested a huge range of covers for their efficiency but I know that the ones in my house are very difficult to remove without a lot of strength in the fingers and cannot be inserted in the inverted position without a huge amount of pressure(13 stone) or the snapping off of the non earth pins. I am not suggesting that socket covers are a substitute for parental supervision or that we install non shuttered sockets. How many children have been electrocuted through the use of socket protectors in the UK?

Taylor, Dazzling Puddock, as an Engineer (with 45 years' experience) I prefer to base reasoning on fact not an individual's isolated experience. Do you have no understanding of the concept of interoperability, and the reasons that the dimensions of a plug are critical to its safe use in a range of sockets from different manufacturers (which may have been produced at any time since 1947)? Any engineering determination must always start with what can be measured, it is very easy to establish the dimensional facts of socket covers on the market. A plug-in device of incorrect dimensions will either be insecurely held by the socket, or risk damaging the socket. Is it beyond your understanding that a plug-in socket cover must (as MK have stated) conform to the correct dimensions? Do you doubt the fact that there are no socket covers which are made to the correct dimensions? Different sockets may behave in very different ways when they have non-standard devices inserted into them; this is not the fault of the socket but of the non-conforming device. Are you incapable of understanding that a cover with non-standard pins (as all are) that appears to be secure in one socket may be extremely insecure in another socket of slightly different design? What works for you may not work for your neighbour, unless your neighbour's sockets are identical to yours. Do you not understand that to promote the use of socket covers which are not made to the correct size is irresponsible, because their performance is entirely unpredictable? Do you reject the experiences of parents that report that their children can easily remove socket covers? Do you not understand that forcing an oversized pin into a contact (especially if left in for a prolonged time) can result in a loose contact when the socket is again used to supply power? Loose contacts can result in arcing and overheating, have you never heard of fires caused by overheating sockets? As the only socket covers which will be too difficult for a child to remove are those where the pin dimensions are sufficiently in error to cause damage to a socket can you, with a clear conscience, really justify their use? Again, let me emphasize, this particular topic is not about the additional dangers of electric shock which socket covers introduce, but about the mistaken idea that they can RELIABLY prevent children plugging in dangerous devices. If you want to protect children from dangerous electrical devices, whether they be unterminated power cords or dangerous appliances, the way to do it is by ensuring such things are kept beyond the reach of children, this is the point made by the Sheriff, Mr Ian Miller, in this case.

Hey Guys, seems to me that most of you are ignoring the points that SocketMan is making about the importance of not relying on outlet protectors to prevent kids plugging things in. All those replies about socket protectors not causing electric shocks are completely beside the point and suggest that you are not actually looking at the evidence, I pity your employers/clients if that is your normal way of working!

This topic has run its course. Could we remind forum users that the forums should not be used for promoting causes or campaigns. It is now locked. Moderating team