In my experience the usual 'socket safety covers' are not manufactured to a standard suitable for use in such sockets so they in themselves may be damaging /allow a hazard and if supervised properly those at risk do not need such things and BS1363 socket outlets are designed in the UK to be inherently safe and have to be actively intered with to put people at risk

link read and make up your own mind http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/

Paul, Agree that we have the safest sockets going and that ought to be recognised. I came into general H&S via electrical equipment safety design. I know I generalise but throughout my career(s) I've noticed a general ignorance of electrical safety controls amongst H&S folks. That would not be a problem if it wasn't allied to the fact that many think they fully understand. Like most fields a mark of competence is knowing your limitations. I advised a nursery (owned by my sister in law) not to use these, but she said OFSTED inspectors would want to see them and she could not (financially) risk her rating.

so............you don't think they make a good item any less safe? by 15th, 16th or 17th Edition I assume you refer to BS 7671? Can you point me to where the design of sockets is specified there?

Maybe they are clueless because they are not competent. Let's be honest companies can appoint just about anyone as a 'Safety Advisor'; quite often it's Sheela the HR Manager who has the part time responsibility or John the Quality Manager or Jim who has 4 other jobs as well. They probably also get Tom, Dick and Harry making mountain out of mole hills, with regards to health and safety, and who themselves cannot accept any level of risk above zero. Oh my god Sheela we must absolutely do something urgently because someone may trip and bounce off the wall, hit that table and roll 6 metres and along the way pick up a screwdriver and then by chance poke it into that socket. Now if we fit a cover.......:-) Only joking of course but I am sure we have all come across this type of thing 'occassionally'. Quite often some of these silly suggestions did not come from H&S and instead they came from someone who said it was for H&S and that gets lost somewhere along the way. It's what gives our area a bad name and the damage that does is rather frustrating. Regards

I'd personally recommend pointing the general population towards the RoSPA page, slightly more gravitas that the FF page I think: http://www.rospa.com/hom...-statements/electricity/ We can all play a part in educating others that these things are wholly unnecessary and that they tend to defeat what is already the safest socket design in the world.

Not to the great British public. MK are merely a company flogging their wares whilst RoSPA command some respect and are perceived to be the voice of safety in UK.

You appear to be suggesting that inadequate advice (no mention of the dangers of using socket covers) trumps expert advice (the leading technical authority on the subject) if the inadequate advice comes from an organisation which has a high public profile. RoSPA's involvement in home safety dates back to 1932 when Caroline Haslett CBE was appointed as first chair of the Home Safety Committee of the National "Safety First" Association (the forerunner of RoSPA). In 1942 Miss Haslett was appointed as the only woman on the Electrical Installations committee which produced Post-War Building Study No 11, the report which called for an entirely new system of UK plugs and sockets whose first design criteria was "To ensure the safety of young children it is of considerable importance that the contacts of the socket-outlet should be protected by shutters or other like means, or by the inherent design of the socket outlet.” This was subsequently implemented as "British Standard 1363 : 1947 FUSED PLUGS AND SHUTTERED SOCKET OUTLETS". It is to Miss Haslett (subsequently Dame Caroline Haslett) that we owe this recognition of the primacy of child safety. Sadly, the 21st century RoSPA is not the same organisation which owed so much to Dame Caroline, or to the great David Jenkins who for many years was RoSPA's full time product safety advisor. Following Dr Jenkin's death 10 years ago, RoSPA did not replace him, but instead relied on product safety advice from an outside source, a trading standards officer. Some years ago I was involved in attempting to explain to RoSPA that its then advice on the subject of socket covers was wrong because it referred to “Modern 13-amp power sockets made to BS 1363:1995” when, thanks to Dame Caroline, the reality is that ALL UK 13 amp sockets are safe, there was never a BS 1363 socket which did not have shutters. Because the point was not understood within RoSPA I was referred to the external advisor. To my horror that gentlemen said he did not believe that all BS 1363 sockets had shutters, because he could see nothing on the face of the sockets within his own home as he looked at them during our phone conversation. He actually believed that integral shutters would be clearly visible on the exterior of the socket if they were present! Despite that, and after some considerable further communication, RoSPA did concede the point and removed the inappropriate qualifications in their advice. However, what RoSPA have consistently failed to do is recognize the simple fact that no socket cover intended for use in the UK is made to the correct dimensions of a plug, and they have refused to accept the advice from MK that incorrectly sized devices inserted into sockets can cause permanent damage to sockets, reducing the safety of the product. The reason for this is that modern RoSPA is driven entirely by statistics, and not by analysis of the fitness of products to perform a function. Because the damage caused by socket covers is hidden until there is a catastrophic failure, and such failures can only take place when the socket cover is no longer present, then statistical evidence for the damage caused by socket covers does not, and will not, exist. How then, can we take the words of RoSPA as having validity in this product area?

This particular part of the conversation is in response to: I fully understand that this is a forum for professionals, but the important question is: If you, as a safety professional, are asked for advice on this particular subject, what is the professional thing to do? Is it to refer to a well known organisation which has no particular expertise in electrical engineering, and very little to say on the matter, including nothing on the subject of dangers introduced by their use? Or is it to refer to a lesser known organisation which consists of fully qualified electrical engineers (three Fellows and two Members of The Institution of Engineering and Technology) and related professionals, plus doctors and child care specialists, plus two eminent broadcasters on technical matters. All supported by the leading socket manufacturer.

It is because the use of socket covers REDUCES safety. It does this in two ways. 1. BS 1363 sockets are subject to regulation and are required to conform to a detailed specification. Socket covers are unregulated with no applicable standards. It cannot be sensible to replace the protective features of the regulated socket with an unregulated substitute. One simple example is that many socket covers actually expose live parts to access by small metal objects such as pins and paper clips, as shown in my avatar. 2. In the BS 1363 standard the detailed dimensions and shape of plug pins, and their relationship to the body of the plug, are precisely defined. The socket is specified as a device which will accept a plug as described. It follows that a socket is not required to accept anything which does not conform to the plug dimensions. No socket covers on the UK market conform to the dimensions specified for a plug. Some examples of problems caused by non-standard sizes and shapes: A) Pins which are oversize are often used in socket covers in an attempt to make them more resistant to removal by a child. However, leaving oversize pins in the socket contacts can, over time, strain the contacts to the point where they no longer make satisfactory electrical contact with a real pin, this leads to high contact resistance, consequential overheating, and possible fire. B) Pins which are incorrectly shaped are sometimes incapable of operating the shutter mechanisms of sockets. There is a widely held misconception that all BS 1363 shutter mechanisms are the same, i.e. that the insertion of the earth pin operates a cam which pushes the actual shutters down and exposes the line and neutral contacts. In reality this is only one of at least seven different (compliant) mechanisms which are used. Three methods require only the insertion of the earth pin, but as well as well as pushing the shutters down there is a method of lifting the shutters, and another of moving them aside, each of these is dependent on a different aspect of the profile of the earth pin for correct operation. The patented method used by the high-quality socket which was most commonly installed from the mid-50s to about 2000 does not involve the earth pin at all, but relies on the simultaneous insertion of correctly shaped line and neutral pins. Non-patent infringing variations of this also exist. The 21st century has seen the introduction of at least three (different) patented methods of shutter operation which require the simultaneous insertion of all three pins. In these the earth pin is used in various ways to open a form of latch which will then allow the actual shutters to be opened by simultaneous insertion of correctly shaped line and neutral pins. In one of the latter methods (as an example) the latch is lifted by the insertion of the earth pin. There are a number of socket covers in which the profile of the "earth pin" is not rectangular as required, but severely cut away in the form of a trapezium. Insertion of this malformed pin will not lift the shutter latch, and thus the line and neutral pins will not be able to cause the shutters to open. Applying sufficiently greater force will result in permanent damage to the shutter mechanism when the L & N pins are forced in. A couple of quotations from reviews of this cover on an internet retailer: "The top prong is tapered at the top, therefore when try to insert them into the socket the will not go into the socket." "I bought these for a toddler group and had to throw them out. They needed a hammer to put into sockets and very difficult to remove" It is this type of socket cover (which also has oversize pins) sold by the largest high street pharmaceutical chain! I hope that this helps to explain just why socket covers should never be used in British sockets.

As a postscript Paul; you suggested socket covers must comply with the Toy Directive? I would disagree with that as they are not marketed or supplied as toys. I suggest that any you have seen on the market purporting to be certified to the Toy Directive are reported to Trading Standards.

Well, aren't there a lot of 'Knickers in a Twist' on this topic. Quite frankly, so much written it was hard to follow in places. I'm not going to try and be a smarty pants and quote a particular date, version of a Reg or BS etc., because I might make a slip and bring the wrath of the righteous down on myself. But the fact is that in general terms, UK squared pin plugs and sockets have been around for some 50+ years and to British Standards. They were and still are the safest sockets/plugs in the world for general use. I personally have never seen any of these alleged 'safety covers' which has claimed to have any quality testing or standard applied, be it CE marking, BS kitemark or whatever; so why would any safety professional recommend their use! I don't believe referring to is justified, whatever your personal beef might be. How you can so vigorously oppose these items, and yet deride 'the FF Psyco' is quite confusing. Although the people involved with the site may be overly enthusiastic, they are qualified engineers and have a lot of highly qualified support. http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/about_us.html I don't have a copy of BS1363, since I refuse to pay the extortionate prices, but I feel safe to assume that it would never be possible to make a safety cover to the standards, since it would be nonsensical; the standard requires an integral safety mechanism, why would it then include an additional safety cover?

Paul, there is a behavioural safety issue here as well. The presence of these covers seems to lead some parents to believe that the socket-outlets are a plaything. I've seen a toddler removing a socket cover with his/her teeth, in my local doctor's surgery! One of my daughters used them until her son broke one while removing it, put the broken part in his mouth, and nearly choked on it. My other daughter is a registered child minder, and was told to install socket covers by her Ofsted inspector. I wrote to them but didn't get a reply. My local vet has them in the waiting room, having been told to fit them by their insurance company. I've advised the Practise Manager to request a written instruction from said insurer that they must fit a non-standardised item, thereby interfering with the safety device that forms part of every socket-outlet.

paul.shyme yes, I totally apologise as I misread what you had written - I had not realised it was a reply to a User named 'Psyco'. It did not read as though it were a first person response. It certainly explains why I couldn't understand your position. A reminder for myself and others that this is not the most user friendly of formats for a forum, lacking many of the text enhancements found elsewhere. That aside, my other comments are still valid -these covers cannot logically be made to any standard, especially BS1363.

Well, I did put some public posts on Facebook over the Christmas break, against my normal habits, pretty much the same as my having time off work!!! These posts were solely to promote FF, and some of the recalls issued by Electrical Safety First over these stupid "hover boards"! So if anyone wants to publicly promote the FF website, I'm sure they won't mind. I am actually putting together a "paper" to give to a national optician (dispensary) chain at the moment on why these things are so dumb. I also like the idea of getting a written instruction.

I agree SocketMan, but it was difficult to argue the case. Good news from the Edinburgh nursery.

Socketman, Awesome result, congratulations. Time to spread the word far & wide. Now the whole if the NHS estate is to be rud if these things, perhaps other organisations will see sense!