Discussion:
Public Liability Insurance - anybody? (Not really OT)
(too old to reply)
HotEL34s
2008-06-06 18:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.

We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.

Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.

Sorry about the dullness of this post.

Many thanks in advance
Steve Robinson
2008-06-06 18:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by HotEL34s
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
I use Hiscox for my business
www.hiscox.com/

I find them very straightforward to deal with.

Steve.
Grant
2008-06-06 20:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
Sorry about the dullness of this post.
I think joining the Musicians Union either gives you automatic insurance or
a discount.
William Black
2008-06-06 21:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
Join the MU.

If you want it cheaper then Zurich does cheap 'public liability insurance'.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Adrian Legg
2008-06-06 23:26:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:27:16 +0100, HotEL34s wrote
(in article
Post by HotEL34s
Bit of an unexciting topic,
I suppose that depends on where your p.a. collapses or your amp catches fire,
or even who gets electrocuted.
Post by HotEL34s
but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance[...]
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
The Musicians' Union welcomes simple guitarists for goodness' sake.
It knows we're simple, so it provides public liability cover with lots of
noughts as part of membership, along with sorting out people who might take
advantage of us, advising us about complicated things, and arguing our corner
with the unprincipled rogues and expenses fiddlers who govern us.
Sooner or later we all need someone less simple than us on our side.

www.musiciansunion.org.uk/


Best,
Brother Adrian


.....we'll keep the red flaaaaaag flaaaaahying heeeeerrrrrrrre.
--
www.adrianlegg.com
HotEL34s
2008-06-07 17:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for the suggestion Adrian - I shall make further investigations
forthwith and see if they can cope with this paticular guitarist's
hopelessness in respect of matters legal and monetary (except when it
concerns buying kit).

Cheers

Tim
Post by Adrian Legg
The Musicians' Union welcomes simple guitarists for goodness' sake.
It knows we're simple, so it provides public liability cover with lots of
noughts as part of membership, along with sorting out people who might take
advantage of us, advising us about complicated things, and arguing our corner
with the unprincipled rogues and expenses fiddlers who govern us.
Sooner or later we all need someone less simple than us on our side.
www.musiciansunion.org.uk/
Best,
Brother Adrian
.....we'll keep the red flaaaaaag flaaaaahying heeeeerrrrrrrre.
--www.adrianlegg.com
Frank Jones
2008-06-06 23:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
Sorry about the dullness of this post.
Many thanks in advance
Going off topic a little bit ... for several years I've been sending
off my annual cheque to musicguard to insure the few guitars I've
gathered together over the years. I've never had to make a claim and
hope I never have to. But, in case the worst does happen, does
anybody have experience of making a claim from musicguard and was the
experience more or less what you would have hoped for?
Jon Boyes
2008-06-07 08:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
I use these people:

http://www.musicguard.co.uk/home.asp

It comes as part of package when you insure your gear. The premium depends on how
much gear you want to insure, so it can work out very reasonable. You can get an
automatic quote from the website.

I have found them great to deal with, they even cover me for busking.
--
Jon
www.jonboyes.co.uk
George Weston
2008-06-07 10:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
Sorry about the dullness of this post.
Many thanks in advance
Lots of questions spring to mind here:
Do you gig often enough to warrant Musician's Union membership and/or public
liability insurance?
Why hasn't the venue got its own public liability insurance? I'd be
concerned if they didn't have any. For instance, our village hall has public
liability insurance.
Has any other venue you've played in before asked you a similar question? If
not, ask yourself why this one has.
Looks to me as if they're trying to pass the buck, or are maybe being a tad
over-cautious. The hackneyed phrase "health and safety gone mad" springs to
mind.
Have you tried saying "No we haven't" and seeing what their response is?
You might also be cheeky and ask to see their premises licence and a copy of
*their* insurance policy?

George
MC
2008-06-07 14:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Weston
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
Sorry about the dullness of this post.
Many thanks in advance
Do you gig often enough to warrant Musician's Union membership and/or public
liability insurance?
Why hasn't the venue got its own public liability insurance? I'd be
concerned if they didn't have any. For instance, our village hall has public
liability insurance.
Has any other venue you've played in before asked you a similar question? If
not, ask yourself why this one has.
Looks to me as if they're trying to pass the buck, or are maybe being a tad
over-cautious. The hackneyed phrase "health and safety gone mad" springs to
mind.
Have you tried saying "No we haven't" and seeing what their response is?
You might also be cheeky and ask to see their premises licence and a copy of
*their* insurance policy?
George
I think that you'll find they're offsetting at their own insurers
request. If a venue requests PLI then their own premium is reduced. The
venue's own insurers can go after the musicians if it's their fault,
and seek recompense from the musicians insurers.
--
MC
George Weston
2008-06-07 16:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Weston
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
Sorry about the dullness of this post.
Many thanks in advance
Do you gig often enough to warrant Musician's Union membership and/or
public liability insurance?
Why hasn't the venue got its own public liability insurance? I'd be
concerned if they didn't have any. For instance, our village hall has
public liability insurance.
Has any other venue you've played in before asked you a similar question?
If not, ask yourself why this one has.
Looks to me as if they're trying to pass the buck, or are maybe being a
tad over-cautious. The hackneyed phrase "health and safety gone mad"
springs to mind.
Have you tried saying "No we haven't" and seeing what their response is?
You might also be cheeky and ask to see their premises licence and a copy
of *their* insurance policy?
George
I think that you'll find they're offsetting at their own insurers request.
If a venue requests PLI then their own premium is reduced. The venue's own
insurers can go after the musicians if it's their fault, and seek
recompense from the musicians insurers.
I understand about the offsetting bit but I still ask myself - why?
I could understand their attitude if the act or performance had inherent
risks, like perhaps a fire-eater or hypnotist, who might inadvertently cause
damage or injury to the property or the audience.
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.

George


George
HotEL34s
2008-06-07 17:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for all of your contributions - very welcome and helpful.
You've given me some very useful leads which I'll follow up on.

Cheers

Tim
Post by George Weston
George
I think that you'll find they're offsetting at their own insurers request.
If a venue requests PLI then their own premium is reduced. The venue's own
insurers can go after the musicians if it's their fault, and seek
recompense from the musicians insurers.
I understand about the offsetting bit but I still ask  myself - why?
I could understand their attitude if the act or performance had inherent
risks, like perhaps a fire-eater or hypnotist, who might inadvertently cause
damage or injury to the property or the audience.
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.
George
George- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
littleroots
2008-06-07 18:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Weston
Post by MC
Post by George Weston
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
Many thanks in advance
Do you gig often enough to warrant Musician's Union membership and/or
public liability insurance?
Why hasn't the venue got its own public liability insurance? I'd be
concerned if they didn't have any. For instance, our village hall has
public liability insurance.
Has any other venue you've played in before asked you a similar
question? If not, ask yourself why this one has.
Looks to me as if they're trying to pass the buck, or are maybe being a
tad over-cautious. The hackneyed phrase "health and safety gone mad"
springs to mind.
Have you tried saying "No we haven't" and seeing what their response is?
You might also be cheeky and ask to see their premises licence and a
copy of *their* insurance policy?
George
I think that you'll find they're offsetting at their own insurers
request. If a venue requests PLI then their own premium is reduced. The
venue's own insurers can go after the musicians if it's their fault, and
seek recompense from the musicians insurers.
I understand about the offsetting bit but I still ask myself - why?
I could understand their attitude if the act or performance had inherent
risks, like perhaps a fire-eater or hypnotist, who might inadvertently
cause damage or injury to the property or the audience.
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.
We got asked for PLI a year or so ago - a local authority venue. No-one in
the band was in the MU (I lapsed my membership a couple of years ago when
they had to change their gear insurance deals, meant the only benefit I was
getting from them was removed). The venue declined to increase the fee to
offset the cost of PLI (even offered them 50/50) and so we reluctantly
pulled the gig.

Tim
SteveShark
2008-06-07 19:07:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:01:01 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
I think that you'll find they're offsetting at their own insurers request.
If a venue requests PLI then their own premium is reduced. The venue's own
insurers can go after the musicians if it's their fault, and seek
recompense from the musicians insurers.
I understand about the offsetting bit but I still ask myself - why?
I could understand their attitude if the act or performance had inherent
risks, like perhaps a fire-eater or hypnotist, who might inadvertently cause
damage or injury to the property or the audience.
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.
I reckon it's a sign of the times.

Like the fact that PAT testing is becoming inreasingly obligatory.

Within the framework of H&S, EC regulations, etc, etc, you can see the
point - a badly-maintained or faulty piece of electrical equipment is
a risk. Not a risk I've ever seen cause any damage or physical harm
whatsoever, but within the parameters set by those who make the rules
and also enforce them a risk nonetheless.

So, potentially, if you follow this argument, a band has equipment
that has the potential to cause some sort of problem. With increasing
costs, it may well be financially prudent for a venue to insist on
PLI.

I'm not saying I like all the rules, but they still exist if you want
to carry on playing the 'game'.

IOW it's all bollocks, but it stops those in authority fucking things
up even more than they are already ;)

Steve.
George Weston
2008-06-07 19:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveShark
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:01:01 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
I think that you'll find they're offsetting at their own insurers request.
If a venue requests PLI then their own premium is reduced. The venue's own
insurers can go after the musicians if it's their fault, and seek
recompense from the musicians insurers.
I understand about the offsetting bit but I still ask myself - why?
I could understand their attitude if the act or performance had inherent
risks, like perhaps a fire-eater or hypnotist, who might inadvertently cause
damage or injury to the property or the audience.
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.
I reckon it's a sign of the times.
Like the fact that PAT testing is becoming inreasingly obligatory.
Within the framework of H&S, EC regulations, etc, etc, you can see the
point - a badly-maintained or faulty piece of electrical equipment is
a risk. Not a risk I've ever seen cause any damage or physical harm
whatsoever, but within the parameters set by those who make the rules
and also enforce them a risk nonetheless.
So, potentially, if you follow this argument, a band has equipment
that has the potential to cause some sort of problem. With increasing
costs, it may well be financially prudent for a venue to insist on
PLI.
I'm not saying I like all the rules, but they still exist if you want
to carry on playing the 'game'.
IOW it's all bollocks, but it stops those in authority fucking things
up even more than they are already ;)
Indeed it IS all bollocks - and even the Health and Safety Executive have at
last realised that.
They even do a "myth of the month" now on their website, to try and get
people to see sense.
See the one about PAT testing at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/july.htm
There's also a good one about kids playing conkers!
It's over-zealous jobsworths misinterpreting safety regulations who are
causing all the problems.
The HSE now takes the stance that, provided you've done a risk assessment -
which doesn't have to be a long, complicated document - and you take steps
to ensure that you and others are safe, then that's OK.

George
SteveShark
2008-06-07 22:42:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:20:04 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
Post by SteveShark
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:01:01 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
I think that you'll find they're offsetting at their own insurers request.
If a venue requests PLI then their own premium is reduced. The venue's own
insurers can go after the musicians if it's their fault, and seek
recompense from the musicians insurers.
I understand about the offsetting bit but I still ask myself - why?
I could understand their attitude if the act or performance had inherent
risks, like perhaps a fire-eater or hypnotist, who might inadvertently cause
damage or injury to the property or the audience.
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.
I reckon it's a sign of the times.
Like the fact that PAT testing is becoming inreasingly obligatory.
Within the framework of H&S, EC regulations, etc, etc, you can see the
point - a badly-maintained or faulty piece of electrical equipment is
a risk. Not a risk I've ever seen cause any damage or physical harm
whatsoever, but within the parameters set by those who make the rules
and also enforce them a risk nonetheless.
So, potentially, if you follow this argument, a band has equipment
that has the potential to cause some sort of problem. With increasing
costs, it may well be financially prudent for a venue to insist on
PLI.
I'm not saying I like all the rules, but they still exist if you want
to carry on playing the 'game'.
IOW it's all bollocks, but it stops those in authority fucking things
up even more than they are already ;)
Indeed it IS all bollocks - and even the Health and Safety Executive have at
last realised that.
They even do a "myth of the month" now on their website, to try and get
people to see sense.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/july.htm
There's also a good one about kids playing conkers!
It's over-zealous jobsworths misinterpreting safety regulations who are
causing all the problems.
The HSE now takes the stance that, provided you've done a risk assessment -
which doesn't have to be a long, complicated document - and you take steps
to ensure that you and others are safe, then that's OK.
George
But now that PAT testing exists, people are bound to insist on it.
Some festival organisers certainly do. Chester Folk Festival has for
the past 7 years to my knowledge.

We played it in 2001 and 2005 - when we were asked if we had PAT
stickers, to which we replied in the negative. So an electrician had
to test it.

However, we played it again last month, all had PAT testied gear, but
weren't asked about it.....sod's law, really ;)

Steve.
FatBoySlimFast
2008-06-08 01:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Both PAT testing and PLI are, as I understand it, required by law.
Also as I understand it, this is true regardless of whether you're
asked to have them / show them but the promoter, venue, customer or
whatever.

Whether you think it's bollocks is irrelevent as to whether you need
them. If you gig without them you are breaking the law. If you choose
to break the law then it's your choice and your responsibility.

When I last checked into PLI, I was told that if you buy insurance for
a particular band then you are only covered while working with that
band. For this reason I decided to join the MU. This means I'm covered
with any band (regular or depping) and when I'm doing sound or
teaching or whatever.

Cheers,
Steve W
SteveShark
2008-06-08 10:42:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:18:43 +0100, FatBoySlimFast
Post by FatBoySlimFast
Whether you think it's bollocks is irrelevent as to whether you need
them. If you gig without them you are breaking the law. If you choose
to break the law then it's your choice and your responsibility.
Well, yes, I'm not disputing that and I think I stressed the fact that
no matter what one's opinion was of the regulations then failure to
comply with them or, indeed, sheer ignorance of them was really no
excuse.

But aren't we touching on something vastly more significant here?

It seems to me that over the last 10 years or so - not an entirely
coincidental period - our personal liberties have been eroded by a
series of laws, rules and regulations foisted upon a largely apathetic
public by a government and a 'public' service infrastructure seemingly
hellbent on controlling the population with sticks rather than
carrots.

Let me take a recent incident, council officials in a London borough
have banned dustmen from putting teddy bears on view in their vehicles
in case a child dashes out into the road to grab one.

Now, I appreciate that it would be tragic indeed if that happened, but
it doesn't seem to have yet, so we have a regulation that is being
applied pre-emptorally (is that a real word???) without any basis for
doing so.

Thus bad rules are introduced and there's a real danger that with so
many rules coming into force, the good ones will also be seen as bad,
too.

On a more serious level, take the 42 day detention in custody debate.
No-one's ever needed more than the current 28 days before, but yet
again an untested need has 'justified' the actions of the supporters
of the 42 day law and polls suggest that the British public actually
supports this move.

In the final analysis you have to reach some sort of compromise
between protecting the public from risk and harm and creating a
society in which personal liberties are upheld. My contention is that
the balance has shifted to such an extent that we are now but a few
steps away from a police state and that by and large people seem to be
happy to allow this to happen.

I'd further assert that this is being done with the full knowledge of
the government and with its blessing. An underclass has been
successfully created which is quite content to allow the government to
do anything it likes as long as it is fed a steady diet of reality TV
and cheap Stella.

The supreme irony of all this is the fact that to a great extent the
authorities are allowing this group to behave largely as it wants
without enforcing the law. After all, it's a cheap price to pay for
population control.

And no, I'm not sporting a tin foil boater this summer ;)

Steve.
Woody
2008-06-08 11:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveShark
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:18:43 +0100, FatBoySlimFast
Post by FatBoySlimFast
Whether you think it's bollocks is irrelevent as to whether you need
them. If you gig without them you are breaking the law. If you choose
to break the law then it's your choice and your responsibility.
Well, yes, I'm not disputing that and I think I stressed the fact that
no matter what one's opinion was of the regulations then failure to
comply with them or, indeed, sheer ignorance of them was really no
excuse.
But aren't we touching on something vastly more significant here?
It seems to me that over the last 10 years or so - not an entirely
coincidental period - our personal liberties have been eroded by a
series of laws, rules and regulations foisted upon a largely apathetic
public by a government and a 'public' service infrastructure seemingly
hellbent on controlling the population with sticks rather than
carrots.
Let me take a recent incident, council officials in a London borough
have banned dustmen from putting teddy bears on view in their vehicles
in case a child dashes out into the road to grab one.
Quite right. I am glad someone is finally cracking down on the teddy
bear bin-men scourge that has plauged us for too long.
Post by SteveShark
Now, I appreciate that it would be tragic indeed if that happened, but
it doesn't seem to have yet, so we have a regulation that is being
applied pre-emptorally (is that a real word???)
No, but pre-emptively is :-)
Post by SteveShark
without any basis for doing so.
I am still of the opinion that there is a basis. 10 years ago if a kid
did run into the road to grab a teddy bear from a bin truck it would
have been a tragic accident that noone could have forseen. Now it would
be a multi-million lawsuite about the fact the council didn't stop it.

Whereas I agree the government are controlling, in the same time the
population have become needy and controllable.
Post by SteveShark
On a more serious level, take the 42 day detention in custody debate.
No-one's ever needed more than the current 28 days before, but yet
again an untested need has 'justified' the actions of the supporters
of the 42 day law and polls suggest that the British public actually
supports this move.
Of course they do. It will only be used on terrorists won't it, like all
the other anti-terrorism laws.
After all, the great british public is annoyed that people are covered
by the human rights act, and it would be better if we didn't have those,
or better still, only the good humans should have rights.
Post by SteveShark
In the final analysis you have to reach some sort of compromise
between protecting the public from risk and harm and creating a
society in which personal liberties are upheld. My contention is that
the balance has shifted to such an extent that we are now but a few
steps away from a police state and that by and large people seem to be
happy to allow this to happen.
I would say I find it embarassing how much of a police state we are now,
and the fact that noone really cares. The youth don't seem to do what
the youth used to do. Where are the protests? It seems the youth are
more plugged into the media than anyone else.

I thought william gibson was more a warning than an aspiration!
--
Woody
FatBoySlimFast
2008-06-08 21:22:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:42:23 +0100, SteveShark
Post by SteveShark
But aren't we touching on something vastly more significant here?
<snip>

Sorry Steve. I wasn't having a dig at you.

I share your concern but I think there is another side ... a public,
spurred on by the media, to think it has an absolute right to be
completely protected from anything and everything ... not just danger
but also anything they themselves consider to be unacceptable or a
nuisance.

It is the public who are just as complicit in creating the atmosphere
we find ourselves in. They (we?) are apathetic and easily led, not
only by the politicians but by the media too.

Now, when someone gets stabbed you don't hear people say "oh my god,
which nutter did that" ... when someone gets run over you don't get
people on the news saying "the driver was going too fast" ... you get
numpties saying what are the government doing about knives and what
are the council doing about our dangerous roads.

... my 2 peneth.
Cheers,
Steve W
GS
2008-06-15 12:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveShark
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:18:43 +0100, FatBoySlimFast
pre-emptorally (is that a real word???)
No, but "pre-emptively" is. HTH
--
GS
reverse ***@graham to reply
Grant
2008-06-08 11:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by FatBoySlimFast
Both PAT testing and PLI are, as I understand it, required by law.
Google says neither is a legal requirement, do you have a source for this?
George Weston
2008-06-08 11:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant
Post by FatBoySlimFast
Both PAT testing and PLI are, as I understand it, required by law.
Google says neither is a legal requirement, do you have a source for this?
My point exactly - and also that of the HSE (see my earlier post).
Having said that, PAT testing is of course a good way of complying with the
PUWER regs, but there are many other sensible solutions.
Also, PAT-testing only shows that the equipment was OK on the day it was
tested. It could develop a lethal fault later the same day. A bit like an
MOT test. You can still get done for having a dangerous car that has passed
its MOT.
We can all fall into the trap of believing well-meaning individuals (or
jobsworths) who tell us that "You can't do that, mate - elf 'n' safety 'n'
all that" - without question.
A few pertinent questions in response to such directives might reveal the
truth.
Such as:
Can you show me the particular regulation that prevents me doing that?
Who told you that?
In many cases - as the HSE Myth of the month site shows - it's over-zealous
managers who bring in unnecessary restrictions in the hope of protecting
themselves against (probably remote) chances of being sued. They put in
their own in-house rules, which have no basis in law.
Common sense and reasonable precautions are all that are needed to comply
with the law - and successfully defend yourself in court if need be.

George
FatBoySlimFast
2008-06-08 21:32:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:33:49 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
My point exactly - and also that of the HSE (see my earlier post).
Having said that, PAT testing is of course a good way of complying with the
PUWER regs, but there are many other sensible solutions.
Also, PAT-testing only shows that the equipment was OK on the day it was
tested. It could develop a lethal fault later the same day. A bit like an
MOT test. You can still get done for having a dangerous car that has passed
its MOT.
We can all fall into the trap of believing well-meaning individuals (or
jobsworths) who tell us that "You can't do that, mate - elf 'n' safety 'n'
all that" - without question.
A few pertinent questions in response to such directives might reveal the
truth.
Can you show me the particular regulation that prevents me doing that?
Who told you that?
In many cases - as the HSE Myth of the month site shows - it's over-zealous
managers who bring in unnecessary restrictions in the hope of protecting
themselves against (probably remote) chances of being sued. They put in
their own in-house rules, which have no basis in law.
Common sense and reasonable precautions are all that are needed to comply
with the law - and successfully defend yourself in court if need be.
Dead right. We have a responsibility to ensure that the stuff you use
and the way you use it doesn't put other people (band mates, punters
etc.) in harm's way.

Regular PAT testing, does not protect against every scenario, but it
shows a bit of due diligence and ensures that the stuff you has been
looked at by an expert in the not too distant past and passed some
well defined tests.

Cheers,
SteveW
William Black
2008-06-08 12:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by FatBoySlimFast
Both PAT testing and PLI are, as I understand it, required by law.
Also as I understand it, this is true regardless of whether you're
asked to have them / show them but the promoter, venue, customer or
whatever.
Not quite.

The people 'at the top' are required to have a 'safe system of work'.

This usually means 'risk assessments'.

The promoter of the event is technically liable, but they usually push the
responsibility down onto the performers and equipment providers.

The promoter should make sure that risk assessments exist because they have
a 'duty of care' towards their sub contractors (that's you)

But they're passing responsibility for that down to you.

Most 'risk assessments' which include the use of electrical equipment say
they should be tested for electrical safety periodically, and usually at
least once a year, and more frequently if they're subject to heavy use or
are used as 'mobile' equipment.

All this should be in writing. If it isn't then you don't have to do
anything and the person at the top is liable.

But if it is in writing then if you get dragged thought he courts you'll
have to show them the written risk assessments and show that you did
something.

Doing something that is not considered 'good practice' isn't necessarily
negligence, but the chancres are that it will be considered so.

So people do PAT testing once a year
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
FatBoySlimFast
2008-06-08 21:43:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:49:37 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Not quite.
Thanks William.

The following link seems to have the pertinent information.
http://www.pat-testing.info/

I'm no lawyer so it's about as clear as mud to me.

Seems to me that most musicians taking paid work of any type would
likely come under the heading of "self-employed" and therefore have a
legal responsibility to protect anyone else who may come into contact
with them or their gear ...

Cheers,
SteveW
Woody
2008-06-08 21:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by FatBoySlimFast
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:49:37 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Not quite.
Thanks William.
The following link seems to have the pertinent information.
http://www.pat-testing.info/
I'm no lawyer so it's about as clear as mud to me.
Seems to me that most musicians taking paid work of any type would
likely come under the heading of "self-employed" and therefore have a
legal responsibility to protect anyone else who may come into contact
with them or their gear ...
I would have thought so. I am a contractor working on site at a large
employers site, and I have to have PLI, I don't see why a musician
wouldn't.
--
Woody
William Black
2008-06-08 23:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by FatBoySlimFast
Seems to me that most musicians taking paid work of any type would
likely come under the heading of "self-employed" and therefore have a
legal responsibility to protect anyone else who may come into contact
with them or their gear ...
Not quite.

The musician is actually a sub contractor.

Their Health and Safety is the responsibility of the 'chief executive' of
the location where they are working. They have what is called a 'duty of
care' for everyone on the site.

Usually the chief executive delegates the responsibility for health and
safety to their various sub contractors, but they're supposed to make sure
you're doing it.

Which is why people come round asking for your 'risk assessments'.

You have no legal liability, except for your own actions unless specifically
asked.

But on the other hand if your amp fries someone you're in the deep dodo
whatever happens...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Adrian Legg
2008-06-09 09:21:21 UTC
Permalink
The Electricity At Work Regs 1989 are on line at
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19890635_en_1.htm>


Adrian
--
www.adrianlegg.com
Woody
2008-06-07 23:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Weston
Post by SteveShark
I reckon it's a sign of the times.
Like the fact that PAT testing is becoming inreasingly obligatory.
Within the framework of H&S, EC regulations, etc, etc, you can see the
point - a badly-maintained or faulty piece of electrical equipment is
a risk. Not a risk I've ever seen cause any damage or physical harm
whatsoever, but within the parameters set by those who make the rules
and also enforce them a risk nonetheless.
So, potentially, if you follow this argument, a band has equipment
that has the potential to cause some sort of problem. With increasing
costs, it may well be financially prudent for a venue to insist on
PLI.
I'm not saying I like all the rules, but they still exist if you want
to carry on playing the 'game'.
IOW it's all bollocks, but it stops those in authority fucking things
up even more than they are already ;)
Indeed it IS all bollocks - and even the Health and Safety Executive have at
last realised that.
They even do a "myth of the month" now on their website, to try and get
people to see sense.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/july.htm
There's also a good one about kids playing conkers!
It's over-zealous jobsworths misinterpreting safety regulations who are
causing all the problems.
Well, not really it isn't. It is an indication of the sort of society we
have become.
You only have to look at the TV and you see it. Woman walks across a
marble floored room with high heels and falls over and hurts herself.
Three options - be careful when you are walking on a slippery surface,
wear better shoes, or sue the owners of the floor for £5000.

There is no such things a personal responsibility for many people.
something goes wrong and the first reaction is to look for who you can
sue.

The conker example. Although far fetched that it is a problem, when the
freak accident does happen and little johnny gets a conker shell in his
eye, regardless of the wrongs or rights of it, if johnnys parents have
good solicitors they can not only get a lot of money from the school,
they can probably get the teacher who let them do it kicked out. They
are also almost definately the ones complaining how there are no
activities for the kids to do, and saying 'political correctness gone
mad'.
It is alright for the HSE to say that it is ok to get a competant member
of staff to check a piece of electrical equipment, but where is the
proof when something goes wrong that anyone checked? The pat test at
least says it was done, otherwise it is just someones word that so and
so looked at it, which is almost certainly not going to be enough for
the person prosecuting (which obviously won't be the HSE as they are
about as toothless as it gets).
--
Woody
Steve Dix
2008-06-08 13:26:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:20:04 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
It's over-zealous jobsworths misinterpreting safety regulations who are
causing all the problems.
And the more unscrupulous exploiting it to increase their business...
--
http://www.cdbaby.com/sinistrals http://sinistrals.stevedix.de/
http://www.stevedix.de/blog http://www.snorty.net/
<***@stevedix.de>
Adrian Legg
2008-06-08 08:51:42 UTC
Permalink
[....]Not a risk I've ever seen cause any damage or physical harm
whatsoever, but within the parameters set by those who make the rules
and also enforce them a risk nonetheless.
It's worth a look back to see how things were and where the Health & Safety
At Work (Electricity) Regs came from. I was involved in a discussion in 1996,
and before that (88-89-?), in some writing as these regs arrived on the
scene.
Most of the thread, including material from much better qualified people than
I, has been helpfully preserved at
<http://eeshop.unl.edu/text/shock.txt>
[...]
IOW it's all bollocks, but it stops those in authority fucking things
up even more than they are already ;)
The difficulty lies in differentiating between regs that protect humans from
human sloppiness and regs that enable powerful interests to manipulate us for
their own ends - google codex alimentarius and read the peripheral stuff for
an example of corporate creep that's similar to, but vastly bigger than,
Nestle and breastfeeding. If you've read Naomi Klein beforehand, what's afoot
will leap out at you.

Regs are indeed a mixed blessing.

Best,
Adrian
--
www.adrianlegg.com
christofire
2008-06-08 09:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Legg
[....]Not a risk I've ever seen cause any damage or physical harm
whatsoever, but within the parameters set by those who make the rules
and also enforce them a risk nonetheless.
It's worth a look back to see how things were and where the Health & Safety
At Work (Electricity) Regs came from. I was involved in a discussion in 1996,
and before that (88-89-?), in some writing as these regs arrived on the
scene.
Most of the thread, including material from much better qualified people than
I, has been helpfully preserved at
<http://eeshop.unl.edu/text/shock.txt>
[...]
IOW it's all bollocks, but it stops those in authority fucking things
up even more than they are already ;)
The difficulty lies in differentiating between regs that protect humans from
human sloppiness and regs that enable powerful interests to manipulate us for
their own ends - google codex alimentarius and read the peripheral stuff for
an example of corporate creep that's similar to, but vastly bigger than,
Nestle and breastfeeding. If you've read Naomi Klein beforehand, what's afoot
will leap out at you.
Regs are indeed a mixed blessing.
Best,
Adrian
--
www.adrianlegg.com
Sadly, even using an 'ELCB' (also known as an RCD) in the mains feed to
one's own rig doesn't guarantee freedom from instant harp playing unless all
the band's gear is fed the same way. For the scenario described in the text
linked above, if the bass player's rig isn't fitted with an RCD and he hands
you his bass while the earth wire in his mains plug wanders over to the live
pin: zap! No substitute for checking the connections in plugs and
distribution boards - better still, use the non-re-wireable types that have
crimped or spot-welded connections and check periodically for lack of
external damage/wear.

Putting resistors and capacitors in audio earth paths is surely no solution.
In the above scenario, if your guitar doesn't get you something else that's
properly earthed could - kind of Russian roulette!

Chris
Adrian Legg
2008-06-08 11:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by christofire
[...]
Sadly, even using an 'ELCB' (also known as an RCD) in the mains feed to
one's own rig doesn't guarantee freedom from instant harp playing unless all
the band's gear is fed the same way.
Indeed. Running all the gear from the same outlet and/or ELCB is mentioned a
couple of times by various people in the thread. Nonetheless, and in view of
the thread's chaotic unfolding, you are absolutely right to emphasise it.
Post by christofire
No substitute for checking the connections in plugs and
distribution boards
Again, absolutely right. I'm not convinced that kind of check happens as
often as might be desirable, so an ELCB is one more safety element that
helps protect in the event of sloppy maintenance or a random trip-up that
pulls a cable hard.
Post by christofire
Putting resistors and capacitors in audio earth paths is surely no solution.
In the above scenario,
It would take someone more qualified than I to speculate usefully on what
might have befallen Donald if one or both of the guitars he was holding had
some kind of flow inhibition built in, or if one of the amps was plugged in
via an ELCB.

The cap and resistor on the string earth is one of a series of options for
the broader scenario of possible problems. The man who carried out the
electrical measurements then ran Rose,Morris' electronics department, had a
wall full of qualification certificates, and the item he tested was the first
example I saw; in a guitar put together for a trade show by Dimarzio. I know
Steve Blucher and his colleagues are very experienced, so I paid attention to
what they'd done.

The need for a string earth in an electric is debatable - that particular Avo
wielding engineer argued that if the guitar's electronics had been properly
shielded, a string earth would be unnecessary. That seems to be supported by
many people's use of a soundhole magnetic in an acoustic without string
earthing, but in an electric, cheap manufacture and tonal issues can combine,
so if you do need to connect the strings to earth, istm to make sense and
cost little to inhibit a possible electrical flow on that route -
particularly in the US (whence that guitar came, of course), where I have
found grounding in venues somewhat haphazard.
Post by christofire
if your guitar doesn't get you something else that's
properly earthed could - kind of Russian roulette!
A helpfully suspicious survival approach :-)


Adrian
--
www.adrianlegg.com
George Weston
2008-06-08 11:40:41 UTC
Permalink
"Adrian Legg" <***@adrianlegg.com> wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

<snip>
Post by Adrian Legg
The need for a string earth in an electric is debatable - that particular Avo
wielding engineer argued that if the guitar's electronics had been properly
shielded, a string earth would be unnecessary. That seems to be supported by
many people's use of a soundhole magnetic in an acoustic without string
earthing, but in an electric, cheap manufacture and tonal issues can combine,
so if you do need to connect the strings to earth, istm to make sense and
cost little to inhibit a possible electrical flow on that route -
particularly in the US (whence that guitar came, of course), where I have
found grounding in venues somewhat haphazard.
Probably due to the fact that the US mains voltage has historically been set
at the "non-lethal" level of 110 volts.
European voltage (nominally 220 volts) kills!
Hence the need for good grounding/earthing on this side of the pond.

George
GS
2008-06-15 12:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Weston
<snip>
Post by Adrian Legg
The need for a string earth in an electric is debatable - that particular Avo
wielding engineer argued that if the guitar's electronics had been properly
shielded, a string earth would be unnecessary. That seems to be supported by
many people's use of a soundhole magnetic in an acoustic without string
earthing, but in an electric, cheap manufacture and tonal issues can combine,
so if you do need to connect the strings to earth, istm to make sense and
cost little to inhibit a possible electrical flow on that route -
particularly in the US (whence that guitar came, of course), where I have
found grounding in venues somewhat haphazard.
Probably due to the fact that the US mains voltage has historically been
set at the "non-lethal" level of 110 volts.
European voltage (nominally 220 volts) kills!
Hence the need for good grounding/earthing on this side of the pond.
Pedantic intrusion - voltage doesn't kill (static sparks are often over
1000V) - current kills. (speaking as the recipient of more than one mains
(UK) shock in my time, and still not dead yet.)
--
GS
reverse ***@graham to reply
George Weston
2008-06-15 14:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by GS
Post by George Weston
<snip>
Post by Adrian Legg
The need for a string earth in an electric is debatable - that particular Avo
wielding engineer argued that if the guitar's electronics had been properly
shielded, a string earth would be unnecessary. That seems to be supported by
many people's use of a soundhole magnetic in an acoustic without string
earthing, but in an electric, cheap manufacture and tonal issues can combine,
so if you do need to connect the strings to earth, istm to make sense and
cost little to inhibit a possible electrical flow on that route -
particularly in the US (whence that guitar came, of course), where I have
found grounding in venues somewhat haphazard.
Probably due to the fact that the US mains voltage has historically been
set at the "non-lethal" level of 110 volts.
European voltage (nominally 220 volts) kills!
Hence the need for good grounding/earthing on this side of the pond.
Pedantic intrusion - voltage doesn't kill (static sparks are often over
1000V) - current kills. (speaking as the recipient of more than one mains
(UK) shock in my time, and still not dead yet.)
Agreed - hence my quotation marks and use of the word "historically".
110V was *believed* at the time of Edison to be "safer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_electricity

George
SteveShark
2008-06-15 14:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by GS
Post by George Weston
<snip>
Post by Adrian Legg
The need for a string earth in an electric is debatable - that particular Avo
wielding engineer argued that if the guitar's electronics had been properly
shielded, a string earth would be unnecessary. That seems to be supported by
many people's use of a soundhole magnetic in an acoustic without string
earthing, but in an electric, cheap manufacture and tonal issues can combine,
so if you do need to connect the strings to earth, istm to make sense and
cost little to inhibit a possible electrical flow on that route -
particularly in the US (whence that guitar came, of course), where I have
found grounding in venues somewhat haphazard.
Probably due to the fact that the US mains voltage has historically been
set at the "non-lethal" level of 110 volts.
European voltage (nominally 220 volts) kills!
Hence the need for good grounding/earthing on this side of the pond.
Pedantic intrusion - voltage doesn't kill (static sparks are often over
1000V) - current kills. (speaking as the recipient of more than one mains
(UK) shock in my time, and still not dead yet.)
Quite.

I remember going to the Science Museum when I was a kid and playing
with a machine that produced a static charge of something like 60 000
volts which passed into your knuckle through a little hole in the
perspex case put there for the purpose.

I know it wasn't a Van de Graaff generator - great band! - so it may
have been a Wimshurst Machine. We had one of the latter at school
where the arcs of static between the balls - damn those nylon
trousers! - was very impressive to someone born in the 1950s....

Steve.
icarusi
2008-06-15 22:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveShark
I know it wasn't a Van de Graaff generator - great band! - so it may
have been a Wimshurst Machine. We had one of the latter at school
where the arcs of static between the balls - damn those nylon
trousers! - was very impressive to someone born in the 1950s....
A Wimshurst machine has 2 counter rotating glass discs to build the charge.
The VdGG has a belt and dome above. We had a step-up coil and buzzer with 2
brass 'marbles' on rods, in the physics lab, which did a similar job of
generating HT sparks.

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply

Steve Dix
2008-06-08 13:24:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:01:01 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.
George
Always better to be safe than sorry, especially in the current
ambulance-chasing climate in the UK.

Say, for example, someone leaps onstage uninvited, - trips up on a
lead, goes headlong, everybody dives out of the way and he lands,
breaking his neck, ending up paralysed, and sues the venue. The
venue's insurers will then look to defray their own costs - possibly
by suing the band.

There's a classic case I heard of where Renault mis-printed the oil
required for services : 4 litres for all models of a particular car,
when the turbo diesel only required 3.5 litres. This meant that there
were a lot of turbo diesel Renaults that ended up in the workshop
needing new engines because of all the little bits of turbo blade
evenly distributed throughout the old one. The owners claimed their
policies, the insurance companies sued the dealers, and the dealers
sued Renault.
--
http://www.cdbaby.com/sinistrals http://sinistrals.stevedix.de/
http://www.stevedix.de/blog http://www.snorty.net/
<***@stevedix.de>
George Weston
2008-06-08 14:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveShark
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:01:01 +0100, "George Weston"
Post by George Weston
But a band?
Sounds like a load of cheapskates to me.
George
Always better to be safe than sorry, especially in the current
ambulance-chasing climate in the UK.
Say, for example, someone leaps onstage uninvited, - trips up on a
lead, goes headlong, everybody dives out of the way and he lands,
breaking his neck, ending up paralysed, and sues the venue. The
venue's insurers will then look to defray their own costs - possibly
by suing the band.
He'd be unlikely to get away with that now, unless negligence
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negligence could be proved
against the venue or the band (which would be difficult to prove if he leapt
on stage uninvited).
There have been a few test cases recently in the UK which resulted in the
Law Lords holding that persons are responsible for their own reckless
behaviour[1] and this has resulted in quite a few "ambulance chasing" cases
to be thrown out lately.
The wheel is slowly turning back towards common sense

[1] Cant find a reference for this right now but I've read a copy of it. If
I find it, I'll post it if anyone's interested.

George
a***@contractorcom.com
2008-06-12 16:06:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:27:16 -0700 (PDT), HotEL34s
Post by HotEL34s
Hi,
Bit of an unexciting topic, but my band's been booked for a big
function and the organiser has requested that we have public liability
insurance, which I guess hasn't come as a complete surprise (no doubt
others will be seeking this too in future) but it's a pain
nonetheless.
We've had a look at a few providers but it looks like a nightmare -
small print and lots of it; I'm only a simple guitarist for goodness'
sake.
Does anyone here have any experience of this type of thing or, better
still, a recommendation for an insurer that won't cost me limbs.
Sorry about the dullness of this post.
Many thanks in advance
Join the Musician's Union - if you earned less than £15k last year
playing live it'll cost you £12 a month and you get £10m public
liability insurance whilst you are playing, rehearsing or in transit
(amongst other things).

Pete
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...