Youtube comments of Derek Taylor (@derektaylor2941).

  1. 47
  2. 46
  3. 24
  4. 23
  5. 23
  6. 23
  7. 20
  8. 15
  9. 13
  10. 13
  11. 12
  12. Like Estonia, most accidents do not occur due to a single event, but many. Even an inch of water on the car deck won't automatically sink the ship. One inch of water on a RoRo 575 ft long, 100ft wide (about the Estonia or a Mariella class size) is about 130 tons of water. On a calm day with little movement, you'd not even notice that in the handling of the ship. Even on a violent sea, 130 tons is not going to capsize the ship- that's going to make it handle about the same as a badly loaded deck with 3 lorries on one side... With a ship weighing 37,500 tons (as with Mariella- don't know about Estonia) you won't sink from that. In any case there are drains all over the deck- named scuppers- which will either drain straight to the side or will have active pumps which switch on when detecting water. A clearer example of multiple events leading to a RoRo sinking is MV Herald of Free Enterprise... there were so many failures that happened and if only one failure had been detected and prevented then it would never have capsized- same with Estonia, perhaps (HOFE: bow door open, bow trim tanks flooded to match the linkspan, shallow water, increased speed, turning to port... take away any one of those and accident avoided). Re being trapped: I took part in a crew training event on Olympia (sister to Mariella, though just changed fleet) right after Estonia. When you're down on the lower decks, below water, with the power off, using torches because they even deactivated the emergency lights, with dry ice to simulate smoke and trying to get up to the top decks... that was not pleasant and that was in port and not on a ship in a storm. HTH.
    11
  13. 11
  14. 10
  15. 10
  16. 9
  17. 9
  18. 9
  19. 9
  20. 9
  21. 9
  22. 8
  23. 8
  24. 8
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 6
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. Already I disagree with BBB at 0:48. I do not think we should support UK police- and I write that as someone who used to support them fully, but not now. Let me briefly explain why you shouldn't either. Recently I was the victim of police error and was detained, my property confiscated; it was a simple error of identity on their part and had they agreed to learn the lesson from it then I would have let it drop, but they tried to cover it up. Then the abuse started. Please people, if you ever find yourself on the wrong side of these thugs- always resist arrest, keep in view of CCTV and make sure you tell someone- anyone- where you're being taken. In my case, although not an armed-response grade incident, it was armed officers. I politely offered them documentation to prove who I was and my property was legitimately mine. It was refused and no amount of reasoning- politely- would do any good. They had their orders and they would obey them come what may, with hint of Nuremburg about it. What sort of a copper is let loose with a gun who cannot stop and think "hang on a moment, something is not right here, I think we should listen." After all, when the police murdered Jean Charles de Menezes, didn't the inquiry make the point that armed police need to stop and think? No firearms were used here but the same mentality applies. More generally, the police have not resisted the desire from politicians to make motives into the crime. In days gone by if you, for example, beat up a black man because you don't like black people, the crime is assault or GBH and the motive for the crime is racism. That way people were all punished equally for the crime. But then when the motive became the crime itself we saw the birth of two-tier policing and if we are to believe in policing by consent then we must all be equal before the law, which we are not. If we are not all equally protected by the law why should we equally comply with it? Policing by consent is dead in UK. Do not trust police- ever. Yes, I know there are good police officers doing a damned difficult job, but the other 99.9% give them a bad name and until they have you alone without witnesses you can never be sure whether you've got a good or a bad one- remember they all wear the same scruffy bin-man-like uniform, with no badges saying good cop or bad cop. PS I should add that the above is Northants and not Leics police. In Northants they were led by a compulsive liar who fought at the battle of Trafalgar and singlehandedly sank the Bismarck and Belgrano.
    2
  105. 2
  106.  @unclecarl5406  if I had read your comment last year when you wrote it, I would have suspected you were lying. Now though? I believe you entirely. I had an experience where the police wrongly seized property from me (motor vehicles) based upon erroneous intelligence. Even though I proved this was a malicious lie at the time, they refused to listen to me or look at the evidence I showed them. That was bad enough. They did return the vehicles (with a vague apology) after a few hours, but I complained and that's when the lies and abuse started. What makes this all the worse is that these were ARMED coppers, although it wasn't an armed event and they were just the nearest unit. Now think about that for a moment... armed police who go into a situation with advance warning of what to expect but when confronted by something entirely different, refuse to listen or even look at evidence. This is the same sort of mentality that saw a London Underground carriage decorated with the brains of poor Jean Charles de Menezes when the Met Police murdered him. This incident above, whilst at the time just an unpleasant event started a chain of other events that brought my life to the point of near collapse, losing me my business, my other half and nearly lost me my house. I got very lucky on an unrelated matter and am building back up. But THANK YOU, Carl. After reading YOUR comments and those replying to you I realise that I CAN do something- not just for myself but for all the other wronged victims of these corrupt thugs in uniform. I have come into a bit of money, which is why I'm rebuilding my life and I think part of that money might well be used to bring about a legal complaint against the police.
    2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. I have experience of ICL's Point of Sale systems from when I was a petrol station manager and at one time I was 100,000s of litres short and was under investigation. Fortunately an internal auditor used a calculator and cleared me. This begs the question why the Post Office was not notified by ICL when something similar happened there. BELOW IS HOW IT 'WORKED' AT MY COMPANY: 1. start with 25,000 litres of fuel in your tanks 2. Take a delivery of 25,000 litres from a tanker. You physically have 50,000 litres but until you tell the computer about the delivery, it thinks you have 25,000 litres only. 3. Sell 35,000 litres of fuel. You physically have 15,000 litres of fuel but the computer *SHOULD* think you have -10,000. BUT a bug in the software makes -ve numbers absolute, so it thinks you have PLUS 10,000 litres. 4. So now you enter your 25,000 litre delivery notice from the tanker. You still physically have 15,000 litres of fuel in your tanks but according to the computer you should have 35,000 litres. Where is that 20,000 litres? You stole it and sold it, didn't you? No, actually... It was easily cleared up by listing ALL transactions of fuel sold to customer's cars and comparing against delivery notices in. The same would apply to Post Office accounts and my bet is at some point this same bug occurred in their software, turning negatives to positives and inventing incorrect accounting. No accounting package is trustworthy if it doesn't have double entry systems. I am lucky for that one auditor (Mike Morrell) and if he ever reads this then thank you for not letting us go the same way as the Post Office.
    1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. CLIP 1: If it is of interest, I can confirm the first clip found its way to DVSA and the Traffic Commissioners- both branches of the commercial vehicle licensing and enforcement. If you look closely you can see that the bus approached the junction much as a car would and then there was some heavy handed braking at slow speed and you can see the nose of the bus dropping down suddenly. This bus is an E200 and the brakes are Wabco PAN 19- they're OK but direct acting, no S or Z cams, so to get them to snatch like that you've got to put your foot down hard. Both of these are signs of a novice driver. S/he then seems to become confused and become so focused on completing the turn that nothing else momentarily matters. Some people might think that this amounts to me excusing the driver, but they would be wrong. The law says that once you pass a driving test then you are legally competent to make these judgements. But my issue is why a clearly inexperienced driver is in a 11.5 metre Enviro 200 on a school run with no mentor driver to assist. A mentor driver, if present, would have immediately recognised s/he had approached the junction poorly and would have recommended waiting until the oncoming cars had cleared to give more room to complete the turn and any competent mentor driver would have been shouting "STOP" when the bus went up on the kerb. Although I do not routinely teach people to drive buses, every one of our drivers when joining our company goes out with me or a similar manager for assessment, no matter their experience. I show them this video as a perfect example of how a minor lapse of concentration can, if not properly corrected, turn into a potential danger.
    1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. As much as I respect BBB's viewpoint and knowledge of the law- as well as the fact that sometimes he can be seen to tread a very fine line between what is fair and what is just. However, when it comes to road transport law I can often disagree with him. I am sure he's right and I would lose in Court if up against him, but when bad legislation is inflicted upon people he cannot be surprised when people rebel against it. If you think what the consequences of these new laws mean- and I'll use my real World translation: "If you even THINK that a pedestrian might step out in front of you at a junction then you must stop, block the road and even in this case block what amounts (or should) to a defacto box junction. At what point does a driver have to stop? When a pedestrian is crossing (fair enough), one foot on the kerb (hmmm...) but now it appears when they are walking anywhere in the vicinity of a crossing- as this bloke was doing when the van driver started his turn. This is bad legislation and what BBB needs to remember is that in a Western democracy the law exists only by consent. We are already seeing bad laws being ignored on a daily basis and that will continue to get worse. Incidentally, the company I work for has a similar policy that if the company (or its expert advisors) think our drivers are in the right then they'll underwrite legal costs of defence. I take issue with the claim that this company could be breaking the law- they never claimed they would give legal advice, only supply legal support which could be engaging someone like BBB. Caveat: I do note he said "might".
    1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. BBB is indeed a formidable lawyer. For he has taken consumer protection legislation right to the extreme to try and prove his point. No criticism intended- that's his job. But aside from the fact that this exploding paint theory can be demonstrably disproven, the argument of fitness for purpose, for example: surely this comes down to what a reasonable average person would expect and what would be expected of them. For example if you were transporting home some dangerous chemicals it might be expected that the amateur would need some specialist guidance- but carrying PAINT? As 100,000s do successfully each year? Come on BBB, you're pushing it a bit. The paint tins ARE designed to be fit for purpose; perhaps BBB has never done any DIY but if he did then he'd know those lids do not open easily at the best of times, let alone accident. CAVEAT: IF SECURED PROPERLY BY STAFF WHEN BEING MIXED. There's one question I'd really like BBB to elaborate on: As I understand it if in any situation a person is partly held to have contributed to their own loss (for example, a pedestrian who doesn't look where he's going and trips on someone's badly laid paving slabs) then they can see their compensation reduced. Well if I sell someone a tin of paint and the lid is not sealed properly and is clearly not and they take it and stick it on the passenger seat of their car, are they too not partly negligent? Checking a tin lid is secured does not require any expertise and I would argue it is in the ability range of any normal person.
    1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1