Just grabbing me pitchfork and a burning firebrand, Sorry watertight I totaly disagree, firstly working with no public liability should in itself be a criminal offence, secondly he knew he was not Gas Safe therefore under no circumstances should he have touched any Gas end of. I notice that the plumber in question has now retired, well bully for him the fact that he has a nice little nest egg to be able to retire on, and I still maintain that if this was a Gas Safe registered engineer that did this they would be doing time
Yes I think I'd agree it probably should be an offence to work without insurance. But since it isn't, it doesn't change what the verdict should have been. And even if it were illegal I think the penalty for no insurance would be quite lenient and wouldn't involve imprisonment. And yes he knew wasn't gas safe and he would therefore have known he shouldn't touch gas. But is that evidence enough that he knew the risk he was putting people at? Which is where the difference between being a complete moron and a dangerous criminal lies. The reason you quite rightly say that had he been Gas Safe he may well have been jailed is that - had he been - it would have stood as proof that he DID know what he was doing and that despite his training and knowledge of the risks, he
chose to be reckless.
a plumber of his age should be aware of the dangers of gas even if hes not gas safe
Should be yes. Very difficult to prove he was. If you're able to tie your shoelaces you're able to call yourself a plumber and swap taps and change WC syphons. How often do you need to move a meter to change taps? I suspect it was a one off. And the first time a buffoon had an opportunity to push the limits of his buffoonery. And like I said I agree he probably was aware to some extent. But I don't see any more reason to suspect that he was aware he was leaving people in mortal danger than to suspect he was a blithering idiot who thought what he was doing, though not legal, was fine - because, hey, he knows what he's doing.
There should be a minimum sentence for this and I believe that it should be the same as attempted murder as that is what he has done, attempted to murder these people, wether it was intentional or not, he has still done it.
at the very least it should be arson.
Whether it is intentional or not is the whole basis of the legal definition of the crime of murder. Attempted just means it wasn't successful. Manslaughter might be the best word to use since it, by definition need have no intent. And arson? Seriously? Did reading that article make you believe he took the job with the intention of starting a fire?
retired? I guess this is for 12 months untill his suspended sentence is up and he can work on somebodys gas without the chance of going to prison.
Even though my whole argument is based on only paying attention to what can be proved I would wager heavily that after this incident this man is in little danger of re-offending with regards to illegal gas work.
I
Now put simply, if you were to work on somebodys brakes and the car crashed, you are liable.
if you were to work on somebodys water pipes and it leaked and the house fell down, you are liable,
if you were to work on scaffolding and drop something on somebody's head, you are liable,
so why hasn't this guy got a harsher punishment.
Liable, yes. Guilty of, respectively, of murder, deliberate demolishment and murder..? No. Those are actually quite good examples of other things people might do because they are untrained, inexperienced, stupid or not paying attention. The world really isn't full of normal people attempting to kill other people through negligence.
i dont think you can compare it to an accident, a gas fitter may accidently forget to leak detect a nipple after a tightness test for example, but he/she is qualified to do the work and it would be an accident he/she missed it.
I personally don't think it was an accident in the strictest sense of the word. At some level he probably was aware that what he was doing contained a level of risk that he was not qualified to manage. We can't know what extent that was. But on the sliding scale from completely unaware, blissfully ignorant accident all the way over to total cognizance of all risks involved I'd hazard a guess we're closer to accident territory. Even if it was an accident based on astounding levels of stupidity.
I mean it is of course possible he just didn't care. It is possible he knew there was a decent chance everyone might die but that wasn't sufficient deterrant for him to pass up his £125 tap change. The court's job is either to prove that or let him go.
It turns out that if you want a very good alibi for dangerous work in any field, try having no relevant qualifications.
I'd also like to mention that I personally suspect he is, if we could see into his soul, guilty of sufficient crimes against decency to warrant locking up. But it is important, more important than any death or explosion, that without sufficient proof - he is not.
I'd also like to mention I'm so fond of the occassional in depth debate that I'll often argue points I don't even believe in just for the sport.
and am a bit of a nancy liberal I'm afraid. To be honest I've always had a bit of a problem with the idea of punishment itself, beyond where it might be used to reform or teach. As in punishment for "justice." But I can't defend that feeling because it doesn't make much sense. It just feels like a crossed-wire with me. I can't "get it" In an ideal world I'd rather the bad people just go somewhere else so we don't have to reduce ourselves to their level.
