Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35407207)

The thing is that many people think that a flame or spark has to come into contact with the petrol, and don't realise that it is the vapours that ignite. So for all we know, she could have been decanting the petrol a few feet away from the cooker, and assumed it was safe.

Originally Posted by chris9991 (Post 35407289)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17564277

Would this mean that the drivers will earn more money and will the longer hours be less safe?

If so surely those who voted for a stirke couldn't consciously work these longer hours, as the dispute is all about safety? :dunce:

Originally Posted by chris9991 (Post 35407289)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17564277

Would this mean that the drivers will earn more money and will the longer hours be less safe?

If so surely those who voted for a stirke couldn't consciously work these longer hours, as the dispute is all about safety? :dunce:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35407340)

Health and Safety out the window when "need arises"... just the sort of thing the drivers are against AFAIK.


They should refuse to do the extra hours... I would.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35407328)

Making excuses for idiots like her is the problem .Some people are so used to the government telling them what to do they have forgotten how to think for themselves .I'll bet the stupid bint tries to sue the government for suggesting that it is a good idea to keep petrol in a jerrycan

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------



They can't work too many extra hours anyway due to HGV driving regulations so all that will happen is more agency workers will bought in with the required certification .Which by the way is one of the reasons why they want to strike ,apparently the certification required ,although exactly the same for agency,self employed and employed drivers is not good enough for agency staff,anyone else remember the last time a tanker blew up or a garage forcourt exploded because i can't remember a single occasion

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35406819)

It's not extra money Arthur, people will still use the fuel up at the same rate they normally do, it will just be longer before they need to buy any more.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35407130)

Some bloke was chased by several police cars after he "keyed" several vehicles that were in a half mile queue for petrol near to us... tempers are rising it seems.

They even called out the police helicopter!

Originally Posted by mertle (Post 35407350)

I can only assume there ignoring the takagraph restriction.

Why dont the governemnt get those army lads they tell us they trained.

Now bit two minds on the issue one they literally lugging 40,000 petrol behind there cab once tiredness kicks in could be very dangerous.

They do get break at the refineries but at the destination they got lug pipes fit them discharge the fuel to correct tank. Tiredness here could loosely could make mistakes. Who picks the tab up on those fill up unleaded only get diesel.

Will the government pay for the damaged cars.

Its definate food for thought on this move do we want tired tanker drivers.

Lets not forget it will likely fourth or fifth day as issue goes further down.

Actually would the mmove actually increase the likelyhood strike going ahead as driver refuse to go beyond hours of safety.

Wonder if actually move is government calling driver bluff.

Go ahead it aint about safety all about extra money. Refuse they then left no doubt tanker drivers are concerned.

Originally Posted by mertle (Post 35407350)

I can only assume there ignoring the takagraph restriction.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35407359)

Love the way you start off with an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and then extrapolate wildly from that, whether or not it has any basis in fact.

You sure you're not a politician? ;)

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35407224)

I doubt it would make any difference whether it was tomorrow or a months time, the merest hint that something might be in short supply and the sheeple will still panic buy. At least petrol and diesel will keep for a while unlike perishables that have been hit by panic buying.

Originally Posted by chris9991 (Post 35407289)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17564277

Would this mean that the drivers will earn more money and will the longer hours be less safe?

If so surely those who voted for a stirke couldn't consciously work these longer hours, as the dispute is all about safety? :dunce:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35407328)

Making excuses for idiots like her is the problem .Some people are so used to the government telling them what to do they have forgotten how to think for themselves .I'll bet the stupid bint tries to sue the government for suggesting that it is a good idea to keep petrol in a jerrycan

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35407340)

Health and Safety out the window when "need arises"... just the sort of thing the drivers are against AFAIK.


They should refuse to do the extra hours... I would.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35407438)

I don't think she would get far. As far as I know, no MP has yet told people to decant the petrol from a jerry can into a glass jug in their kitchen :D

.

Originally Posted by mertle (Post 35407350)

I can only assume there ignoring the takagraph restriction.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35407359)

Love the way you start off with an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and then extrapolate wildly from that, whether or not it has any basis in fact.

You sure you're not a politician? ;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35407444)

Oh you can bet there will be a no win no fee parasite parked at the bottom of her recovery bed just waiting to jump

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35407497)

Great placard outside the ale house/restaurant we ate at tonight...

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...2&d=1333143047

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35407497)

Great placard outside the ale house/restaurant we ate at tonight...