Jump to content

itiba

Regular Members
  • Posts

    254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Member Status
    Working in the industry
  • Current Employment or place of study
    Lighting Technician for TV and Events
  • Professional organisation membership
    BECTU
  • Full Name
    Dan

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gravesend

itiba's Achievements

Deputy Chief

Deputy Chief (8/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

  1. itiba

    Odd Pulsing

    Sounds like you need to turn off RDM on the Nomad. The RDM discovery packets (if that's the correct term) can confuse fixtures.
  2. The Costs and Case Management Conference was heard this afternoon before HHJ Saunders. The judge said this was a "moderate to severe brain injury case" and despite the claimant having gone back to work, there is a "suggestion his life has been affected by quite a nasty incident". The Judge approved an increase of the value of the claim up to £150,000k following recent medical evidence and he agreed the following costs budgets: Claimants: £182,515.12 Defendants: £104,955.97
  3. The case details for the HSE litigation is here: https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions-history/case/case_details.asp?SF=CN&SV=4486939And the breach listed here: https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions-history/breach/breach_details.asp?SF=BID&SV=4486939001 No real detail though. Does show £2k fine and £2.5k costs
  4. As reported by the Metro A drama teacher is suing one of the UK's top all-girls schools after breaking his neck falling 12ft off a ladder while adjusting theatre lights. The School's barrister says "Any training which the claimant did not receive but should have received would only have dealt with matters of which the claimant was already aware, by reason of common sense and experience." Reported that the matter is going to trial so I'll keep an eye out and post how to obtain a link to watch remotely the day before. County Court at Central London Case F01YM039 Mr Harry Wilkinson v Queen Elizabeth's Girls School
  5. I recall the Aggreko incident during the Olympics covered here - https://www.lsionlin...-safety--huwmd6 _ There's a huge golf between the management tool purporting to be H+S in some workplaces and the actual requirements set out by H+S legislation. _ The budgets and numbers of H+S inspectors have also been slashed over the years- so there's roughly one inspector for every 63,500 people, contrast that with one doctor for every 229 people, or one police officer for every 529 people and you'll see how rare they actually are.
  6. Well I note in Nov 2020 "FOURTH DROVE LIMITED" was incorporated with Company number 13003533. Purporting to have a purpose of "Operation of warehousing and storage facilities for land transport activities" Both directors are common with Le Maitre - Ms Karen Cornacchia and Mr Richard Wilson Nothing should be inferred from this statement of fact
  7. I like to think I make a reasonable effort to keep up with politics and current affairs. But I don't remember hearing any concerns about the Irish border situation until after the referendum. "The public only pays attention to a tiny subset of issues that politicians and the media bang on about."..."Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way" - Dominic Cummings Blog
  8. As with anything it depends on the proposed end user. If it's for professional use then they'll be an expectation of Skypanels or Gemini's as a 2x1 soft light rather than some shonky knockoff. A £4000 Skypanel S60 will go out for £150/day I've just seen "some of what's going on is essentially product photography". Photography lighting is completely different and is mainly strobe based (ie for flashes) - https://broncolor.swiss/products Just to explain that often with fashion or product commercials you'll often have two completely different teams for 'video' and 'photography' lighting using different lights from different companies etc.
  9. (1) That's because there's a material difference between the following two questions:a - At the time of the insurable event was there a valid MOT certificate?b - At the time of the insurable event would the brakes have complied with an MOT? Ignoring that an MOT is a statuary mandated test were an insurable event to occur where a vehicle were to answer yes to A and no to B then the issue returns to 'how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim'. In which the burden of proof rears it's head. (2) if the insurers name a specific test or standard then yes. We are talking about the grey area where such a test or standard isn't named. This results in the burden of proof applying to any claim. (3) The best of interest of shareholders would also include complying with regulatory standards
  10. And yet that is what our insurers are telling us is what they expect to be doing going forward and warn us to take remedial (and expensive) actions so that we don't suffer as a result? And the high court / appeals court business interruption case all came about because of insurance companies grasping at a very very thin straw in the way you keep saying won't happen again. And of course the problem is not that there's a new set of protocols and requirement. The problem is that insurance policies require we comply with legislation standards and protocols that currently aren't defined or clarified, arbited and enforced by testers and regulatory schemes that currently don't exist in a framework of absolutely no one knowing what the actual rules are thus making it, by definition, impossible to fully comply and thus creating a huge grey area that insurance companies will try to exploit if it saves them serious money. It's regretful the issue of the Business Interruption test case (ie clarifying the parameters of an insurable event that has not occurred in over 100 years) has polluted discussion of how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim (ie insurable events that occur on a day-to-day basis). Two distinct issues that those who can identify nuance will appreciate. Might I suggest a more apt comparison is:"You can't prove your brakes were working when the car crashed"Or"You can't prove that light would pass a PAT test when it caught fire"Which are both examples of statements that could never succeed in a English or Welsh court as a defence to preventing an insurance claim.
  11. Are you perhaps missing the point that however well (some) insurers may have reacted in the past (which as we all know "is another country"), from tonight they have every right to demand adherence to a whole world of "standards" which do not yet exist? Whatever the theory may be, Tom seems to be patiently describing one of the realities of this brave new world. I accept that insurance companies have "every right to demand adherence to a whole world of "standards"" the area of contention is how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim. Unfortunately the method proposed simple isn't how it works. It is not a new issue as we've always been able to import items of different standards. Eg an American product or a Chinese product. The courts in this country have never approached such a problem in the proposed bizarre reverse burden of proof way. We keep swerving off in different directions but I repeat the issue is "how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim" which is not and never has been in the way described.
  12. As much as I enjoy these wild detours into new and exciting areas of ramble my consistent point has been "You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe." You may hate the institutions in this country, and you may hate the processes that exist but please find at least legitimate areas of attack. Like I said previously: If you're interested in how insurance companies deal with fire claims in theatres of an unknown cause I'd point you here: https://www.aviva.co...ea-arts-centre/
  13. 1 - The appeals are how any fair legal system should work and indeed works in both ways. The FCA have funded all the legal action on behalf of the insured so far. The FCA have instructed insurance companies to pay out where they can. 2 - "is just one legal claim" - no it's a test case for 21 separate clauses and at least 8 insurance companies. (b) That's why we have the Financial Ombudsman service 3 - As previously stated that's not how the burden of proof works. You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe. If you're interested in how insurance companies deal with fire claims in theatres of an unknown cause I'd point you here: https://www.aviva.co...ea-arts-centre/
  14. Again we're talking apples and oranges comparing the Arch Insurance case and your proposed "I want a list of every item in your now fire damaged premises and it's corresponding regulatory mark" case. Well wrt timescale we locked down in March and the trial was heard in July, with the courts 85,000 word judgement handed down some 6 weeks later. I don't consider that slow given the complexity of the task. (Don't look at how long cases take at your local Crown Court if you disagree) Wrt "the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year" the FCA represented the interests of the insured in this case and indeed paid all their legal costs. Thank you for giving me an example of why our system is widely respected around the world. Whilst we were in the eu it was slow. Now we're outside the eu it will be significantly slower. Please tell me how that is an advantage? I'm sorry you've completely lost me. Perhaps that response was meant for someone else?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.