|
|
Post by Zany on May 11, 2024 14:24:20 GMT
So another thing that is dangerous at work but not at home. And compulsory gas boiler checks on rented homes but not private ones. How about linked fire alarm systems? Its beginning to look like your safety first stance is not quite as committed as you claim. Perhaps you should refine it to safety first if someone else pays. Perhaps you could actually read what is being posted instead of reimagining false accounts of it sorry I didn't realise you had exclusive rights to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 11, 2024 14:27:23 GMT
The “boiler” question is the same as the “floor” issue or any other similar “question”. In a private home, the occupier is responsible for and control his own safety. In a rented home or commercial premises , the person controlling safety is not the same person as is impacted by safety failings. While the majority, probably the vast majority of landlords and business owners are responsible, rogues do exist, hence society’s decision to insist on checks to protect those unable to protect themselves. While I am sure there are unnecessary rules, I have to say the rules you have highlighted as unfair seem proportionate to me. So your tenant is important but not your children friends or relatives. Nice.And the owner is responsible so doesn'tneed to have the boiler checked.hmm should that rule apply elsewhere? Should we drop seat belt laws in family vehicles. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on May 11, 2024 20:56:48 GMT
You are not unintelligent Zany. I am sure you know by now the answer to the question you continue to ask.
Not sure this thread reveals the Zany I have seen previously. I hope you are OK.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 21:29:45 GMT
A scene from Chez Zany?  |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 12, 2024 8:18:03 GMT
You are not unintelligent Zany. I am sure you know by now the answer to the question you continue to ask. Not sure this thread reveals the Zany I have seen previously. I hope you are OK. Keep dodging Dappy. Your really good at it. Practice practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 12, 2024 8:19:30 GMT
A scene from Chez Zany? This your house? Don't worry as a home owner you have safe electric. Not at all like that dangerous stuff at work. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on May 12, 2024 9:04:07 GMT
You are not unintelligent Zany. I am sure you know by now the answer to the question you continue to ask. Not sure this thread reveals the Zany I have seen previously. I hope you are OK. Keep dodging Dappy. Your really good at it. Practice practice. Cor blimey Guvnor. You’ve got me bang to rights. That is exactly what is happening here. Not sure I see any point in continuing this thread. I’ll leave it to others to judge which of us is making sense….. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 12, 2024 17:40:37 GMT
So far Dappy, You have failed to address :
Why your wife and children are are not important enough to require a compulsory annual boiler test, yet your tenant is.
You've tried to imply that a home owner instinctively knows when a boiler needs to be checked and yet a tenant lacks this ability. (Do you know some secret way of knowing if your boiler is releasing Carbon monoxide into your home without a professional check.
Yet avoided answering the questions directly.
1,If a boiler needs checking annually to see that its safe WHY is it not necessary to check ones in private homes.
2, If a private home owner is not required to carry out basic safety checks because he only effects himself and his family, WHY must he fit car seats and where seat belts in his private car where he only effects himself and his family.
I can see why you want to dodge the questions and then run away, but surely the decent thing to do would be to admit maybe you are wrong.
That's the kind of forum you claim to be looking for.
And bye the way, you lead the insults yet again on this thread. By page 2 you had personalised the insults with a lie.
You claim the forum is as bad as the other. Well I wonder why.
|
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 12, 2024 19:16:00 GMT
So far Dappy, You have failed to address : Why your wife and children are are not important enough to require a compulsory annual boiler test, yet your tenant is. You've tried to imply that a home owner instinctively knows when a boiler needs to be checked and yet a tenant lacks this ability. (Do you know some secret way of knowing if your boiler is releasing Carbon monoxide into your home without a professional check. Yet avoided answering the questions directly. 1,If a boiler needs checking annually to see that its safe WHY is it not necessary to check ones in private homes. 2, If a private home owner is not required to carry out basic safety checks because he only effects himself and his family, WHY must he fit car seats and where seat belts in his private car where he only effects himself and his family. I can see why you want to dodge the questions and then run away, but surely the decent thing to do would be to admit maybe you are wrong. That's the kind of forum you claim to be looking for. And bye the way, you lead the insults yet again on this thread. By page 2 you had personalised the insults with a lie. You claim the forum is as bad as the other. Well I wonder why. I think the answer is relatively straightforward. If an individual or organisation is involved in employing staff, making supplies to the public or engaging in a licensed activity, we/our governments have chosen to regulate those activities to protect employees, consumers or those affected by those engaged in licensed activities. Occasionally, we make rules that affect the private lives of citizens, an example might be a parent with a history of child abuse may be prevented from keeping a new baby. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a move to have compulsory boiler checks carried out in the homes of private individuals (makes sense to me) but, generally speaking, I don’t think the British are keen on paternalistic intrusion into our private lives and the way we choose to live them. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 12, 2024 20:05:56 GMT
So far Dappy, You have failed to address : Why your wife and children are are not important enough to require a compulsory annual boiler test, yet your tenant is. You've tried to imply that a home owner instinctively knows when a boiler needs to be checked and yet a tenant lacks this ability. (Do you know some secret way of knowing if your boiler is releasing Carbon monoxide into your home without a professional check. Yet avoided answering the questions directly. 1,If a boiler needs checking annually to see that its safe WHY is it not necessary to check ones in private homes. 2, If a private home owner is not required to carry out basic safety checks because he only effects himself and his family, WHY must he fit car seats and where seat belts in his private car where he only effects himself and his family. I can see why you want to dodge the questions and then run away, but surely the decent thing to do would be to admit maybe you are wrong. That's the kind of forum you claim to be looking for. And bye the way, you lead the insults yet again on this thread. By page 2 you had personalised the insults with a lie. You claim the forum is as bad as the other. Well I wonder why. I think the answer is relatively straightforward. If an individual or organisation is involved in employing staff, making supplies to the public or engaging in a licensed activity, we/our governments have chosen to regulate those activities to protect employees, consumers or those affected by those engaged in licensed activities. Occasionally, we make rules that affect the private lives of citizens, an example might be a parent with a history of child abuse may be prevented from keeping a new baby. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a move to have compulsory boiler checks carried out in the homes of private individuals (makes sense to me) but, generally speaking, I don’t think the British are keen on paternalistic intrusion into our private lives and the way we choose to live them. I think you phrase that well Equivocal. The people see businesses as non people, they get no vote, no rights, no consideration. They are things, items, not deserving of any of the humanity we award each other. I find it sad how hard it is to be a business, its like you are the minority group no one cares about. That's just the way it is, some things will never change. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 12, 2024 20:48:02 GMT
I think the answer is relatively straightforward. If an individual or organisation is involved in employing staff, making supplies to the public or engaging in a licensed activity, we/our governments have chosen to regulate those activities to protect employees, consumers or those affected by those engaged in licensed activities. Occasionally, we make rules that affect the private lives of citizens, an example might be a parent with a history of child abuse may be prevented from keeping a new baby. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a move to have compulsory boiler checks carried out in the homes of private individuals (makes sense to me) but, generally speaking, I don’t think the British are keen on paternalistic intrusion into our private lives and the way we choose to live them. I think you phrase that well Equivocal. The people see businesses as non people, they get no vote, no rights, no consideration. They are things, items, not deserving of any of the humanity we award each other. I find it sad how hard it is to be a business, its like you are the minority group no one cares about. That's just the way it is, some things will never change. I think the problem is that businesses are in business to make money and the temptation to make more money by compromising safety or unfairly exploiting employees has been a problem over the years and probably explains where we are today. I can't say may people have complained to me over H&S issues but the opposite is the case over employment legislation. I have to say most of the employment complainants have had my sympathy.
On the brighter side, you can look forward to monetising your 20 or so years of work building your business and leave the problems to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 12, 2024 22:07:34 GMT
I think you phrase that well Equivocal. The people see businesses as non people, they get no vote, no rights, no consideration. They are things, items, not deserving of any of the humanity we award each other. I find it sad how hard it is to be a business, its like you are the minority group no one cares about. That's just the way it is, some things will never change. I think the problem is that businesses are in business to make money and the temptation to make more money by compromising safety or unfairly exploiting employees has been a problem over the years and probably explains where we are today. I can't say may people have complained to me over H&S issues but the opposite is the case over employment legislation. I have to say most of the employment complainants have had my sympathy.
On the brighter side, you can look forward to monetising your 20 or so years of work building your business and leave the problems to others.
The mistake I have made is using personal examples. Everyone, you included, assume this is a personal plea, which kept being reinforced by my desire to defend myself. But I was really trying to gain sympathy for small businesses groaning under tons of costly and pointless supposed safety. But every example was corrupted, lied about, changed. And none questioned those lies. I say I object to perfectly good fire extinguishers being thrown away because its cheaper than paying for the compulsory pressure test even though the said fire extinguishers come with a pressure gauge showing they are OK. Dappy turns the into I object to having fire extinguishers and you don't miss a heart beat in agreeing. Its scary just how close this feels to those who condemn Muslims as being the cause of our issues without blinking. I once warned the extreme wokeism strengthened the racists. Now I say, the picture is clear, it is US and THEM, you really do consider all bosses to be suspect and anything we say to be deceitful. I have mistakenly treated my workforce well even to ensuring their pay before my own, my business colleagues think me a fool, and now I see they are right. Thank you all for the clarification. I'm am freed of the responsibility of those 146 souls who work for me. When Covid hit, I put nearly all my staff on furlough even though there was a cost involved for the company, when we were finally allowed to re-open I asked my staff to rally forth and get the centres up and checked and open. More than 60% said no, that they had taken my furlough but also other jobs and couldn't come in. To date I haven't reported them to HMRC I thought I was a fool then but somehow hung onto my ideals of the ordinary man. Now I am broken, for it seems they really saw me as just boss, and probably believed I made some sort of tax gain from furloughing them. Thank you.  |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 13, 2024 6:47:35 GMT
You may care to read my posts again. My first response to you referred only to hanging baskets, mice in kitchens and speed limits. I read your reply to me as dripping in sarcasm. My reply to that post only personalised the issue only to the extent of saying that perhaps allowing someone like you to apply common sense might be OK, but that it wouldn't be generally appropriate. The rest of my limited contributions to this thread were to distinguish the business environment from the personal. Frankly, your final sentence (above) is offensive. I have very little to say in response to your lament beyond, and this is from memory, there was no statutory bar to furloughed employees taking other jobs. So, unless you suspect they failed to declare some income, there would be little point in making a report to HMRC. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 13, 2024 7:33:28 GMT
You may care to read my posts again. My first response to you referred only to hanging baskets, mice in kitchens and speed limits. I read your reply to me as dripping in sarcasm. My reply to that post only personalised the issue only to the extent of saying that perhaps allowing someone like you to apply common sense might be OK, but that it wouldn't be generally appropriate. The rest of my limited contributions to this thread were to distinguish the business environment from the personal. Frankly, your final sentence (above) is offensive. I have very little to say in response to your lament beyond, and this is from memory, there was no statutory bar to furloughed employees taking other jobs. So, unless you suspect they failed to declare some income, there would be little point in making a report to HMRC. My lament was addressed to all, but your comment. "I think the problem is that businesses are in business to make money and the temptation to make more money by compromising safety or unfairly exploiting employees has been a problem over the years and probably explains where we are today." Would sit neatly alongside. "I think Muslim countries have produced more than their fair share of terrorists which probably explains why we don't want them here today." Such a statement would be ridiculed (And rightly so) for the sweeping way it condemns the majority for the few. A Muslim complaining they had to spend thousands of pounds every year proving they weren't a terrorist on an annual basis would illicit much sympathy for the brutality of the system. No so the small business man. Even the ridiculous safety checks I highlighted are considered necessary because we are so untrustworthy. Presumably we glue the fire extinguisher pressure gauge in the right place. My point about the furlough is that my staff did not inform me they were able to earn elsewhere, and when it came time for them to repay my loyalty to them 60% refused. Don't care so much about the issues my accountants say it caused. As for my last sentence. I so no sign of you correcting Dappys errors or lies, even when I highlighted them. Tacit agreement is still agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 13, 2024 8:38:28 GMT
You may care to read my posts again. My first response to you referred only to hanging baskets, mice in kitchens and speed limits. I read your reply to me as dripping in sarcasm. My reply to that post only personalised the issue only to the extent of saying that perhaps allowing someone like you to apply common sense might be OK, but that it wouldn't be generally appropriate. The rest of my limited contributions to this thread were to distinguish the business environment from the personal. Frankly, your final sentence (above) is offensive. I have very little to say in response to your lament beyond, and this is from memory, there was no statutory bar to furloughed employees taking other jobs. So, unless you suspect they failed to declare some income, there would be little point in making a report to HMRC. My lament was addressed to all, but your comment. "I think the problem is that businesses are in business to make money and the temptation to make more money by compromising safety or unfairly exploiting employees has been a problem over the years and probably explains where we are today." Would sit neatly alongside. "I think Muslim countries have produced more than their fair share of terrorists which probably explains why we don't want them here today." Such a statement would be ridiculed (And rightly so) for the sweeping way it condemns the majority for the few. A Muslim complaining they had to spend thousands of pounds every year proving they weren't a terrorist on an annual basis would illicit much sympathy for the brutality of the system. No so the small business man. Even the ridiculous safety checks I highlighted are considered necessary because we are so untrustworthy. Presumably we glue the fire extinguisher pressure gauge in the right place. My point about the furlough is that my staff did not inform me they were able to earn elsewhere, and when it came time for them to repay my loyalty to them 60% refused. Don't care so much about the issues my accountants say it caused. As for my last sentence. I so no sign of you correcting Dappys errors or lies, even when I highlighted them. Tacit agreement is still agreement. Your analogy would be fine if you believe the majority of small businesses had due regard to safety issues and paid proper rates of pay before the existing health and safety and employment legislation came into force. An examination of the safety record of small businesses in construction, mining and running factories in, say the, 1970s would, I suggest, not support your argument.
A quick anecdote for you - I spent a couple of summers working in my uncle's smallish metal hardening business 1970/71. There, if one two gallon (I think) demijohn of God knows what was required from upper racking, it was standard practice for someone (me on several occasions) to jump on the end of the forklift to be lifted up to bring the bottle down. Why? because it was faster than putting the forks into the pallet, bringing the pallet down and putting it back.
It is not for me to correct another poster's errors on an issue I (1) know very little about, and (2) have no knowledge of how it may apply to your own working practices. In fact, beyond setting you potentially above any employer who might do the wrong thing, I avoided personalising the issue. As such, I maintain your remark was unfairly and needlessly offensive.
|
|
