Three people injured in two separate incidents at Southampton docks (From This is Hampshire)

Southampton Cruiser wrote:
Which terminal? City or Mayflower? I thought the report would at least include that.

Brite Spark wrote:
I like the caption to the photo on the link, 'A worker at the scen said the crane was 200ft high' ... not any more its' not. Southy you were wrong again.

Bahons wrote:
Crane on a barge? Could it be the docks floating crane? Perhaps someone in the know can tell us before (or if ever) the Echo does.

Bahons wrote:
Crane on a barge? Could it be the docks floating crane? Perhaps someone in the know can tell us before (or if ever) the Echo does.

Brite Spark wrote:
I like the caption to the photo on the link, 'A worker at the scen said the crane was 200ft high' ... not any more its' not.

Southy you were wrong again.

southy wrote:

Brite Spark wrote: I like the caption to the photo on the link, 'A worker at the scen said the crane was 200ft high' ... not any more its' not. Southy you were wrong again.

no i was going on what was known at the time. and just pointing out to you that the cruise terminal is at 105 berth, i know theres one at 101 berth to but thats gets little use and seems to act more like a over flow cruise terminal.

southy wrote:

Brite Spark wrote:
I like the caption to the photo on the link, 'A worker at the scen said the crane was 200ft high' ... not any more its' not.

Southy you were wrong again.

no i was going on what was known at the time. and just pointing out to you that the cruise terminal is at 105 berth, i know theres one at 101 berth to but thats gets little use and seems to act more like a over flow cruise terminal.

stay local wrote:
Southy could it be the escaped SBS men using their air rifles whilst attacking an unseen ice rink, or perhaps the wash from the sunken **** barge, or is it a plot by Thatcher to undermine the workers which will back fire to cause a revolution.. With one man one job no one unemployed, but everyone on benefits, could it be sabotage by the workers as a forefront of the coming uprising of the peasants. Was the original concrete mis-mixed by subversives in an effort to bring the dock to its knees and once again employ the people who used to unload the boats by hand? Or is it as usual you are spouting drivel and not bothering to read the story before commenting and then not correcting your errors once they are pointed out. I just wonder with your alleged knowledge of the psychiatric wards were you a resident? ( I found your spouting forth on that story most distasteful, so did not offer any comment there)

stay local wrote:
Southy could it be the escaped SBS men using their air rifles whilst attacking an unseen ice rink, or perhaps the wash from the sunken **** barge, or is it a plot by Thatcher to undermine the workers which will back fire to cause a revolution.. With one man one job no one unemployed, but everyone on benefits, could it be sabotage by the workers as a forefront of the coming uprising of the peasants. Was the original concrete mis-mixed by subversives in an effort to bring the dock to its knees and once again employ the people who used to unload the boats by hand?


Or is it as usual you are spouting drivel and not bothering to read the story before commenting and then not correcting your errors once they are pointed out.

I just wonder with your alleged knowledge of the psychiatric wards were you a resident? ( I found your spouting forth on that story most distasteful, so did not offer any comment there)

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:
Striving so hard to appear important and well informed but continually getting the facts wrong. Oh dear, what would Stalin or Castro do in these circumstances? Shoot him?

southy wrote:

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:
Striving so hard to appear important and well informed but continually getting the facts wrong. Oh dear, what would Stalin or Castro do in these circumstances? Shoot him?

where have i got the facts wrong. i stayed very open on this. i now know it was indeed the cory shipping ship helen. that has been confirmed to me in the last hour and she is berth at 103 berth
in between the 2 cruise terminals

warness wrote:
Cyber bullies we can deal with / ignore as required.

Cyber irrelevants who pretend to be well-informed, but who are just crying for attention - need to STOP GOING TO MEETINGS.
Going to meetings does not make you well-informed. Using those skin-flaps on the side of your head may be useful.

southy wrote:

warness wrote: Cyber bullies we can deal with / ignore as required. Cyber irrelevants who pretend to be well-informed, but who are just crying for attention - need to STOP GOING TO MEETINGS. Going to meetings does not make you well-informed. Using those skin-flaps on the side of your head may be useful.

going to meeting makes you better informed in what is going on. not going to any you miss out on information that you cant get other wise. please keep to the subject on this article

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:

southy wrote:

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:
Striving so hard to appear important and well informed but continually getting the facts wrong. Oh dear, what would Stalin or Castro do in these circumstances? Shoot him?

where have i got the facts wrong. i stayed very open on this. i now know it was indeed the cory shipping ship helen. that has been confirmed to me in the last hour and she is berth at 103 berth
in between the 2 cruise terminals

****abpj knew the cranes need replacing when they took over from abp, some of those cranes have been there since the docks first open. and it might be time now to do what was suggested back in the late 70's and that was to renew the whole off the quay wall and crane rails,****
Should we start with the post where you thought that you would be able to do your usual attempt at a hatchet job on a company boss who you believe exploits his workforce with the aid of Dennis Thatcher who used to steal buckets of oil from the North Sea when no-one was looking blah,blah,blah,blah. When someone points out that the accident was on a barge and there won't get any mileage out of that one, you quite happily drift off on another tack to try and retain some credibility but end up pointing out all sorts of facts that are irrelevant to the story. After two hundred versions of your unique political outlook that all go down exactly the same road but are so far clear of the truth, you're not only wrong but are becoming quite boring.

warness wrote:

southy wrote:

warness wrote: Cyber bullies we can deal with / ignore as required. Cyber irrelevants who pretend to be well-informed, but who are just crying for attention - need to STOP GOING TO MEETINGS. Going to meetings does not make you well-informed. Using those skin-flaps on the side of your head may be useful.

going to meeting makes you better informed in what is going on. not going to any you miss out on information that you cant get other wise. please keep to the subject on this article

And those skin-flaps on the side of your head?

southy wrote:

warness wrote:

southy wrote:

warness wrote: Cyber bullies we can deal with / ignore as required. Cyber irrelevants who pretend to be well-informed, but who are just crying for attention - need to STOP GOING TO MEETINGS. Going to meetings does not make you well-informed. Using those skin-flaps on the side of your head may be useful.

going to meeting makes you better informed in what is going on. not going to any you miss out on information that you cant get other wise. please keep to the subject on this article

And those skin-flaps on the side of your head?

well its some thing you get to use at meetings is it not. maybe if you went to meeting you to will be able to use them.

southy wrote:

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:

southy wrote:

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote: Striving so hard to appear important and well informed but continually getting the facts wrong. Oh dear, what would Stalin or Castro do in these circumstances? Shoot him?

where have i got the facts wrong. i stayed very open on this. i now know it was indeed the cory shipping ship helen. that has been confirmed to me in the last hour and she is berth at 103 berth in between the 2 cruise terminals

****abpj knew the cranes need replacing when they took over from abp, some of those cranes have been there since the docks first open. and it might be time now to do what was suggested back in the late 70's and that was to renew the whole off the quay wall and crane rails,**** Should we start with the post where you thought that you would be able to do your usual attempt at a hatchet job on a company boss who you believe exploits his workforce with the aid of Dennis Thatcher who used to steal buckets of oil from the North Sea when no-one was looking blah,blah,blah,blah. When someone points out that the accident was on a barge and there won't get any mileage out of that one, you quite happily drift off on another tack to try and retain some credibility but end up pointing out all sorts of facts that are irrelevant to the story. After two hundred versions of your unique political outlook that all go down exactly the same road but are so far clear of the truth, you're not only wrong but are becoming quite boring.

did the echo say it was on a barge no, and saying it happen on a barge was wrong to, it was a ship and not a barge, thats was why i was waiting on info to come in so i stayed open on it. staying open on a subject is some thing you need to learn.

southy wrote:

warness wrote:

southy wrote:

warness wrote: Cyber bullies we can deal with / ignore as required. Cyber irrelevants who pretend to be well-informed, but who are just crying for attention - need to STOP GOING TO MEETINGS. Going to meetings does not make you well-informed. Using those skin-flaps on the side of your head may be useful.

going to meeting makes you better informed in what is going on. not going to any you miss out on information that you cant get other wise. please keep to the subject on this article

And those skin-flaps on the side of your head?

well its some thing you get to use at meetings is it not. maybe if you went to meeting you to will be able to use them.

southy wrote:

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:

southy wrote:

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:
Striving so hard to appear important and well informed but continually getting the facts wrong. Oh dear, what would Stalin or Castro do in these circumstances? Shoot him?

where have i got the facts wrong. i stayed very open on this. i now know it was indeed the cory shipping ship helen. that has been confirmed to me in the last hour and she is berth at 103 berth
in between the 2 cruise terminals

****abpj knew the cranes need replacing when they took over from abp, some of those cranes have been there since the docks first open. and it might be time now to do what was suggested back in the late 70's and that was to renew the whole off the quay wall and crane rails,****
Should we start with the post where you thought that you would be able to do your usual attempt at a hatchet job on a company boss who you believe exploits his workforce with the aid of Dennis Thatcher who used to steal buckets of oil from the North Sea when no-one was looking blah,blah,blah,blah. When someone points out that the accident was on a barge and there won't get any mileage out of that one, you quite happily drift off on another tack to try and retain some credibility but end up pointing out all sorts of facts that are irrelevant to the story. After two hundred versions of your unique political outlook that all go down exactly the same road but are so far clear of the truth, you're not only wrong but are becoming quite boring.

did the echo say it was on a barge no, and saying it happen on a barge was wrong to, it was a ship and not a barge, thats was why i was waiting on info to come in so i stayed open on it.
staying open on a subject is some thing you need to learn.

isitcoziisblack wrote:

southy wrote:

warness wrote:

southy wrote:

warness wrote: Cyber bullies we can deal with / ignore as required. Cyber irrelevants who pretend to be well-informed, but who are just crying for attention - need to STOP GOING TO MEETINGS. Going to meetings does not make you well-informed. Using those skin-flaps on the side of your head may be useful.

going to meeting makes you better informed in what is going on. not going to any you miss out on information that you cant get other wise. please keep to the subject on this article

And those skin-flaps on the side of your head?

well its some thing you get to use at meetings is it not. maybe if you went to meeting you to will be able to use them.

Southy, sorry to correct you but it is definitely the crane barge Cormorant that the crane has collapsed on and not the Helen, which is a general cargo ship discharging grain alongside 102/3 berths.

southy wrote:

isitcoziisblack wrote:

southy wrote:

warness wrote:

southy wrote:

warness wrote: Cyber bullies we can deal with / ignore as required. Cyber irrelevants who pretend to be well-informed, but who are just crying for attention - need to STOP GOING TO MEETINGS. Going to meetings does not make you well-informed. Using those skin-flaps on the side of your head may be useful.

going to meeting makes you better informed in what is going on. not going to any you miss out on information that you cant get other wise. please keep to the subject on this article

And those skin-flaps on the side of your head?

well its some thing you get to use at meetings is it not. maybe if you went to meeting you to will be able to use them.

Southy, sorry to correct you but it is definitely the crane barge Cormorant that the crane has collapsed on and not the Helen, which is a general cargo ship discharging grain alongside 102/3 berths.

i still going to stay open on it, if thats ok with you

Iw61 wrote:
While the children here continue to play their silly games , lets not forget that this crane collapsing was a very serious incident in which thankfully nobody got hurt. It goes to show that Southampton docks, that has experienced three crane collapses in the last few years is still a very dangerous place to work. I expect the H&S executive to do a full, thorough enquiry and pass on the appropriate recommendations that need enforcing.

Iw61 wrote:
While the children here continue to play their silly games , lets not forget that this crane collapsing was a very serious incident in which thankfully nobody got hurt. It goes to show that Southampton docks, that has experienced three crane collapses in the last few years is still a very dangerous place to work. I expect the H&S executive to do a full, thorough enquiry and pass on the appropriate recommendations that need enforcing.

mr focus wrote:
i think you all should get your facts right, a crane never fell on the ship nor was this crane on the quayside it was a floating crane called the cormorant which collapsed, this was nothing whatsoever to do with ABP, DP world or crumbling concrete.

mr focus wrote:
i think you all should get your facts right, a crane never fell on the ship nor was this crane on the quayside it was a floating crane called the cormorant which collapsed, this was nothing whatsoever to do with ABP, DP world or crumbling concrete.

Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:

Iw61 wrote:
While the children here continue to play their silly games , lets not forget that this crane collapsing was a very serious incident in which thankfully nobody got hurt. It goes to show that Southampton docks, that has experienced three crane collapses in the last few years is still a very dangerous place to work. I expect the H&S executive to do a full, thorough enquiry and pass on the appropriate recommendations that need enforcing.

I was wondering when Punch would attempt to rescue his chum.

Iw61 wrote:
While the children here continue to play their silly games , lets not forget that this crane collapsing was a very serious incident in which thankfully nobody got hurt. It goes to show that Southampton docks, that has experienced three crane collapses in the last few years is still a very dangerous place to work. I expect the H&S executive to do a full, thorough enquiry and pass on the appropriate recommendations that need enforcing.

warness wrote:

Iw61 wrote:
While the children here continue to play their silly games , lets not forget that this crane collapsing was a very serious incident in which thankfully nobody got hurt. It goes to show that Southampton docks, that has experienced three crane collapses in the last few years is still a very dangerous place to work. I expect the H&S executive to do a full, thorough enquiry and pass on the appropriate recommendations that need enforcing.

Recommendations need considered. Enforcement Notices need enforcing.

mr focus wrote:
i was aiming my comment at that person abp get enough flack as it is the floating crane was called the comorant terneuzen holland thanks for youre comment derek

Iw61 wrote:

warness wrote:

Iw61 wrote:
While the children here continue to play their silly games , lets not forget that this crane collapsing was a very serious incident in which thankfully nobody got hurt. It goes to show that Southampton docks, that has experienced three crane collapses in the last few years is still a very dangerous place to work. I expect the H&S executive to do a full, thorough enquiry and pass on the appropriate recommendations that need enforcing.

Recommendations need considered. Enforcement Notices need enforcing.

When I work out what you are trying to say I will let you know.
As a favour , to help you out, do you want me to let everyone else know as well?
(you and Derek live quite close to each other. Do you come from the same gene pool?)

Ben Doone wrote:
Dear old Peter (aka Southy)
So much supposition, so few facts.
I have been an admirer of his vast range of outline knowledge (far more than mine I have to say) but he scores some spectacular own goals with his wildly incorrect assumptions and downright fabrications.
Still I suppose someone has to keep us all amused

warness wrote:
Me and Southy are staying open on this "the world is round" affair. There is a meeting of the village council next week, we are going along to ask all the right questions.

southy wrote:

Brite Spark wrote: http://www.southampt onvts.co.uk/files/po s.pdf Berth 101 area I guess, next to Mayflower Park SW firm-fail ... absolutely.

106 berth or 104 berth, more than likely 106 where the grain and wheatmeal is off loaded for animal feed. abpj knew the cranes need replacing when they took over from abp, some of those cranes have been there since the docks first open. and it might be time now to do what was suggested back in the late 70's and that was to renew the whole off the quay wall and crane rails, the idea back then was to extend the quay wall out into the river more another 50 feet.

Brite Spark wrote:

warness wrote: Me and Southy are staying open on this "the world is round" affair. There is a meeting of the village council next week, we are going along to ask all the right questions.

The world is round? Don't be daft what a preposterous idea, I've got a wall map of the world and that's flat.

ex sch worker wrote:
Having only just read some of the comments on here.....I can tell you it was at 102 berth...and Southy 101 berth City Terminal is not an overflow terminal, it was part paid for by Royal Carribean when they signed the contract with ABP when they have a ship alongside it is their terminal.....also the Mayflower terminal is 106 and not 105 berth

Redback wrote:
"...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Ben Doone wrote:

Redback wrote:
"...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Redback
Can understand your point but there is a significant difference between the fixed quayside cranes, which are the responsibility of the port/terminal operator and a shipside crane which is the responsibility of the vessel owner.
Suppose an analogy here is if you provided a window cleaner with a faulty ladder to clean your windows, and it led to injury, then you would have some responsibility. If he provided his own faulty ladder then you would have no responsibility. There is a difference in this Docks crane incident

Ben Doone wrote:

Redback wrote:
"...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Redback
Can understand your point but there is a significant difference between the fixed quayside cranes, which are the responsibility of the port/terminal operator and a shipside crane which is the responsibility of the vessel owner.
Suppose an analogy here is if you provided a window cleaner with a faulty ladder to clean your windows, and it led to injury, then you would have some responsibility. If he provided his own faulty ladder then you would have no responsibility. There is a difference in this Docks crane incident

Linesman wrote:
Is this an economy measure by The Echo?

All the old comments are being added to, what appears to be, a new story!

Health and Safety at Southampton Docks are going to be clocking up the overtime today!

Redback wrote:

Ben Doone wrote:

Redback wrote: "...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Redback Can understand your point but there is a significant difference between the fixed quayside cranes, which are the responsibility of the port/terminal operator and a shipside crane which is the responsibility of the vessel owner. Suppose an analogy here is if you provided a window cleaner with a faulty ladder to clean your windows, and it led to injury, then you would have some responsibility. If he provided his own faulty ladder then you would have no responsibility. There is a difference in this Docks crane incident

That sounds fair enough to a point. But in such a dangerous industrial environment, do the port operators not have some responsibility for all activities taking place? If not, then that's an unsafe situation in itself imo.

X Old Bill wrote:

Linesman wrote:
Is this an economy measure by The Echo?

All the old comments are being added to, what appears to be, a new story!

Health and Safety at Southampton Docks are going to be clocking up the overtime today!

If you look carefully then you will find that the Echo have removed all the posts which had links on them.
So if anyone wants to see pictures of lots of different barges and cranes then they will have to go and find them.

Redback wrote:

Ben Doone wrote:

Redback wrote:
"...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Redback
Can understand your point but there is a significant difference between the fixed quayside cranes, which are the responsibility of the port/terminal operator and a shipside crane which is the responsibility of the vessel owner.
Suppose an analogy here is if you provided a window cleaner with a faulty ladder to clean your windows, and it led to injury, then you would have some responsibility. If he provided his own faulty ladder then you would have no responsibility. There is a difference in this Docks crane incident

That sounds fair enough to a point.

But in such a dangerous industrial environment, do the port operators not have some responsibility for all activities taking place? If not, then that's an unsafe situation in itself imo.

Iw61 wrote:

Redback wrote:

Ben Doone wrote:

Redback wrote: "...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Redback Can understand your point but there is a significant difference between the fixed quayside cranes, which are the responsibility of the port/terminal operator and a shipside crane which is the responsibility of the vessel owner. Suppose an analogy here is if you provided a window cleaner with a faulty ladder to clean your windows, and it led to injury, then you would have some responsibility. If he provided his own faulty ladder then you would have no responsibility. There is a difference in this Docks crane incident

That sounds fair enough to a point. But in such a dangerous industrial environment, do the port operators not have some responsibility for all activities taking place? If not, then that's an unsafe situation in itself imo.

Quite agree. I notice you are not being criticised by the Tory faithful here for saying so. Be careful. You will be next!!

warness wrote:

Iw61 wrote:

Redback wrote:

Ben Doone wrote:

Redback wrote: "...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Redback Can understand your point but there is a significant difference between the fixed quayside cranes, which are the responsibility of the port/terminal operator and a shipside crane which is the responsibility of the vessel owner. Suppose an analogy here is if you provided a window cleaner with a faulty ladder to clean your windows, and it led to injury, then you would have some responsibility. If he provided his own faulty ladder then you would have no responsibility. There is a difference in this Docks crane incident

That sounds fair enough to a point. But in such a dangerous industrial environment, do the port operators not have some responsibility for all activities taking place? If not, then that's an unsafe situation in itself imo.

Quite agree. I notice you are not being criticised by the Tory faithful here for saying so. Be careful. You will be next!!

Blah Blah Blah
Cutbacks
Blah Blah Blah
Evil management
Blah Blah Blah
Exploitation
Blah Blah Blah
Conspiracy
Blah Blah Blah
They were warned
Blah Blah Blah
There is politics in everything
Blah Blah Blah
IW = Idle Woman

Iw61 wrote:

warness wrote:

Iw61 wrote:

Redback wrote:

Ben Doone wrote:

Redback wrote: "...port bosses insisted it was a very different type of incident to the one which injured Jay, a 33-year-old father-of-two from Woolston, because that involved a quayside crane." What slopey-shouldered rubbish. The fact remains that there have now been 4 serious incidents in recent memory. Safety is clearly not being prioritised, and for 'port bosses' to shrug it off by dismissing it as different TYPE of accident is unacceptable.

Redback Can understand your point but there is a significant difference between the fixed quayside cranes, which are the responsibility of the port/terminal operator and a shipside crane which is the responsibility of the vessel owner. Suppose an analogy here is if you provided a window cleaner with a faulty ladder to clean your windows, and it led to injury, then you would have some responsibility. If he provided his own faulty ladder then you would have no responsibility. There is a difference in this Docks crane incident

That sounds fair enough to a point. But in such a dangerous industrial environment, do the port operators not have some responsibility for all activities taking place? If not, then that's an unsafe situation in itself imo.

Quite agree. I notice you are not being criticised by the Tory faithful here for saying so. Be careful. You will be next!!

Blah Blah Blah Cutbacks Blah Blah Blah Evil management Blah Blah Blah Exploitation Blah Blah Blah Conspiracy Blah Blah Blah They were warned Blah Blah Blah There is politics in everything Blah Blah Blah IW = Idle Woman

Blah Blah Blah Health and Safety gone mad Blah Blah Blah Politically correct Blah Blah Blah Nanny State Blah Blah Blah The Liberal Elite Blah Blah Blah Im not racist, but..... Blah Blah Blah Silent majority Blah Blah Blazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zz zzzzzzz!! The lunatics have taken over the asylum. And sexist as well!!

Brite Spark wrote:

warness wrote: Me and Southy are staying open on this "the world is round" affair. There is a meeting of the village council next week, we are going along to ask all the right questions.

The world is round? Don't be daft what a preposterous idea, I've got a wall map of the world and that's flat.

Brite Spark wrote:
It strikes me that a very high proportion of industrial accidents happen at weekends (per number of people actually working), be it Flixborough, Buncefield, or these crane accidents.

Do people become more complacent at weekends because the boss isn't around. Possibly coupled with a few beers on a Friday or Saturday, or even a couple at lunch time on Sunday then go in for the night shift? I am not saying that this is the case this weekend I don't know do I, and I hope those involved are okay.