In the past, there have been certain discussions on the Forum that have gone "off piste" in some areas, when we've been discussing the language, spelling and grammar used in certificates and reports, or the needs of people in society. For example:
I wonder whether the outcome of the following (very sad, tragic) case might help us to be more considerate ?
but I do not think that the University staff were lacking in compassion.
Agreed.
The impression that I get is that they were out of their depth. They wanted to help, but the deceased would not engage and they were not medical professionals. (Father, who incidentally, gets the money, had already reached a settlement with the NHS.)
It's a really difficult discussion, which has been the bane of many public sector workers - when is it a "medical problem" vs "part of the human condition" etc. ...
It would hardly be surprising if neurodiverse people were over-represented in engineering disciplines just as, I imagine, they are under-represented (but not absent) in the performing arts.
Yes, I agree
I just feel very strongly about the (as I see it disproportionate) number of people I come across in our industry that face huge barriers that ought not to be there for very capable people.
I have been watching Astrid: Murder in Paris at 21:00 on Friday evenings for the past few weeks. It is a bit of a caricature, but does demonstrate what can be done and how capable "different" people are.
One nugget was to the effect, people laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at them because they are all the same. :-)
Back to the recent case: I have not read the whole judgment (nor the one below), but I do not think that the University staff were lacking in compassion. The impression that I get is that they were out of their depth. They wanted to help, but the deceased would not engage and they were not medical professionals. (Father, who incidentally, gets the money, had already reached a settlement with the NHS.)
It would hardly be surprising if neurodiverse people were over-represented in engineering disciplines just as, I imagine, they are under-represented (but not absent) in the performing arts.
It is unfortunate that you started both posts - one as a light-hearted look at the world too.
but we also have a responsibility to call people out.
Agreed ... and it cuts both ways.
Perhaps if the author had dropped me a PM just to advise his intentions, it might have served well in demonstrating the level of consideration he advocates for others.
An interesting perspective.
From what I know about the author, I doubt whether there was any intended malevolence in his post.
I fully apologise if any is perceived.
I just feel very strongly about the (as I see it disproportionate) number of people I come across in our industry that face huge barriers that ought not to be there for very capable people.
We should all be more considerate, but we also have a responsibility to call people out. Not doing so is far more dangerous to our industry and perhaps to our society in general. However, the we go about that can be, and should be, done in a considerate way.
But look at the OP. Two references made to posts that I started and then in some maladroit fashion an attempt was made to connect the content of my posts to the tragic case highlighted. To the casual observer, the references made to my posts might imply that I, or indeed the people who responded to them, lack the empathy or compassion for others that might prevent a similar tragedy.
Yet, the OP was made in total disregard to that consideration. Perhaps if the author had dropped me a PM just to advise his intentions, it might have served well in demonstrating the level of consideration he advocates for others.
From what I know about the author, I doubt whether there was any intended malevolence in his post. It was just a tad clumsy and inconsiderate for my liking.
Luke 6:31.
I wouldn't argue with the points made in that reference.
There are, of course, many other terms of reference in terms of ethics, religion and philosophy that could be used to illustrate the sentiment. Someone whose counsel I value greatly would perhaps put the inverse (adverse?) of the principle as follows: "If you poke someone in the eye with a muddy stick, what do you expect?"
The important point ... is to have a "philosophy" in the first instance, and live by it. It's amazing what that can achieve!
It could request permission to appeal. That would depend upon a real prospect of success and whether the issue is considered to be sufficiently important. It would also depend upon their willingness to spend a lot of money defending their reputation.
ETA: the very last sub-paragraph of the judgment is interesting: "Finally, regardless of any view which I might express, in the event that there is an appeal, the Court of Appeal will be able to address the issues in relation to negligence and duty of care should it consider that it is appropriate to do so."
I think if you read the article, they did appeal ... right to the High Court ... and the judgement was upheld.
The COA is the next level up. (Like going from BS1362 fuse to RCBO to main fuse.)
Yes, I was interested in that too, although that doesn't mean there wasn't one (he just said that in this case it didn't matter)
He said that he did not need to make a decision, which is because the Claimant had already succeeded on other grounds. (i.e. only one circuit protective device needs to open.)
The judgment has now been published here.
All that said, I fully appreciate your sentiment. Luke 6:31.
This is an interesting case and it would not surprise me if the University seeks to appeal the case to the Court of Appeal.
I think if you read the article, they did appeal ... right to the High Court ... and the judgement was upheld.
I think that the Judge has neatly dodged the issue of duty of care.
Yes, I was interested in that too, although that doesn't mean there wasn't one (he just said that in this case it didn't matter), and similarly of course we can't wildly imply parallels with things we've discussed in the threads I linked to.
But it does illustrate that individual needs may need to be considered more across the board?
One of the things which I like about fora is that one can reconsider before pressing, "send" rather than just blurting out whatever comes to mind face-to-face.
This is an interesting case and it would not surprise me if the University seeks to appeal the case to the Court of Appeal.
I think that the Judge has neatly dodged the issue of duty of care. It would be the thin end of the wedge. Imagine if the IET had a duty of care towards anybody who might read our discussions!
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
