IanD

If a volunteer does something stupid and kills themselves, the site owner is liable only if they knew about (or should have known about) the risk and didn't put reasonable safety precautions in place.

Same here. Lovely pub, shame about the beer... 😞

Still called "ordinary" down here, it just doesn't taste the same as it used to... 😞

Loads of people have bought them and had no problem -- but a few have had problems like you... I assume you inserted the SIM with power off, then turned on and did a reset? They don't like having the SIM changed or inserted when powered up. DAMHIK...

There has been a lot of FUD about this, AFAIK there is no instance of the router IMEI being blocked -- you could be the first, but it's unlikely. Most of these secondhand routers are ones which were returned to Three, they can't send them out again to new customers so they sell them off cheaply in bulk to resellers like eternalcomms -- this is why it's better to buy from a vendor who has sold lots of them, a single sale might be an end user flogging theirs off against Three's T&C and this could -- in theory! -- lead to it being blocked. A SIM slot problem is much more likely. Did the supplier say that they'd tested it before sending it out? (mine did, and I had no problems) https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/new-three-5g-hub-nr5103e.38663/page-115#post-330407

Young's is certainly not what it was before the takeover/closure, regardless of what they claim... 😞

When you say "doesn't recognise", does it detect that a SIM is inserted or not? Or does it detect the SIM but fail to connect to the network? Are you sure you've inserted the SIM the right way round? It's not very clear which way it should go, and you can easily put it in the wrong way round so it doesn't work. DAMHIK... Also this: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/new-three-5g-hub-nr5103e.38663/page-150#post-352731 Mar 15, 2024 Add bookmark #2,998 The Wee Bear said: I would imagine it might be a faulty SIM slot wagner_1, as the three NR5103E isn't a locked router, any network SIM works in it. Any specific error given? If it just says SIM not recognised with various network SIM's, it does sound like it may be faulty. It turned out that the sim slot is probably defective because I pressed the sim against the pins with an object and it worked, when the sim is in normally it doesn't work. There is no further error only "Sim card Status: None". Anyone else having a similar problem?

That's strange, especially if another SIM works in the 5013E -- have you tried this? Sometimes the router SIM socket can be flaky or damaged...

That's one view. An alternative is that the marina employs and pays for onsite staff and facilities to do maintenance for the benefit of all the boaters in the marina who use them, and it's in everybody's interest to make sure they're fully utilised -- because if they're not there's a risk that the marina shuts them down as uneconomic, or puts the prices charged to boaters up to make them economic. It's just like a pub with a kitchen insisting that you buy their food and don't bring in your own, which I don't think most people think is unreasonable since they have to pay for the kitchen and staff. If you don't want to eat their food, go to another pub you do like, or one without a kitchen that will be happy for you eat your own or order it in... 😉

I never said that was a good thing, I agree with you -- but it's the law we've got and there's little chance of it changing. Why? Because just think how bad it would be for all the company directors and CEOs (like Paula Vennells...) who pay lobbyists and donate to political parties if they risked going to jail, instead of getting off scot-free while the company pays the price... 😞

I agree with both your sentiments, but unfortunately the law is not sentimental... 😞

Because that's not how corporate responsibility works. The court fines the company/trust, if they want to sue (or fire) the individuals (or trustees, or directors) then they can do so -- but it's often difficult proving individual responsibility, it's much easier for the courts proving the company/trust was at fault. It's why the Post Office is in the dock and likely to get a humongous fine, while the likes of Paula Vennells rarely go to jail. Though this may happen later as a separate court case once the PO has been found guilty, I believe it's up to the PO (or the affected subpostmasters) to bring the case against individuals. It's not justice, but it's the way the UK legal system works... 😞

You mean the kind of trad stern where you have to clamber over/around a boxed-in engine to get into the boat? As well as being inconvenient that's not a proper engine room, which is what Mike was talking about... 😉

How? The length which is engine room -- partly/largely full of engine --- is normally just "room" for anything you want, including anything you might put in an engine room -- but more because there's no engine sitting in the middle.

The most unpleasant boating encounters I've had over the years have mostly been with entitled shiny boaters behaving like selfish ar*eholes. I now have a shiny boat, so does that mean I get to do the same? Of course it doesn't -- as pointed out above there are selfish tw*ts in all walks of life, shiny/scruffy/historic boaters, CCers/CMers/HMers, cyclists, motorists, you name it. The reason to be annoyed with them and complain about them is not because of what particular label they have, but because they're selfish tw*ts -- and most people are not, regardless of what label they have.

An engine room -- presumably with a nice trad engine gleaming in the middle of it -- takes more space than a modern engine crammed in under the stern deck. Even if you allow for all the other stuff that can go in the engine room, it still takes more space -- absolutely fine if you can spare it, not so fine if you can't. But maintenance is definitely easier, especially if you need to do more of it... 😉

No I don't. I think that it's up to the court to decide who is to blame based on the law and the facts, which neither you or I are fully aware of. That includes whether the managers or the Trust are to blame -- was the fault a personal error by an individual manager, or a corporate one (yes I know they're a charity...) like not having put in place suitable site safety checks and procedures. It seems that given the evidence the court decided the Trust was to blame, hence the fine. You don't have the full facts, so your personal opinion is just that... 😉

So if you're funded entirely by voluntary donations it's OK to kill someone? Really? The same applies to loads of charities in the UK, including many of the bigger ones, and I can't see how it's acceptable for them to ignore safety regulations just because of their funding source. The situation is clear with employers, they are responsible for the safety of their workers -- including any unpaid interns/volunteers who are working for them, so being unpaid isn't an excuse to be unsafe. So the same would apply to paid employees of a charity (obviously), they're doing a job. IANAL but I assume unpaid volunteers doing work for a charity are in the same legal position as unpaid interns/volunteers working for any other company, the charity is still responsible for making sure their working conditions are safe. Safety at work (or play) is also not something you can agree to sign away, for obvious reasons (e.g. rogue employers) -- even if you're doing something dangerous and sign an acknowledgement of this, there still have to be reasonable safety precautions taken, and if this is not done or they fail the employer is liable. You can agree to clean windows on a skyscraper dangling from a rope, but if the rope snaps and there's no safety line or similar as a backup the employer will still be liable. An individual worker -- for example, whoever did whatever lead to the accident -- may also be found at fault, but only usually if they ignored safety precautions which were put in place. If there were no precautions or policy about them, the employer/charity is at fault. It's why people are made to sit through those boring safety briefings on how to do stuff and sign off that they've done the training and understood it... Building sites -- regardless of whether owned by Wimpey, or CART, or the Wilts and Berks Canal Trust -- all have the legal requirements to take accepted and reasonable safety precautions to protect their workers. If they don't and tragedy strikes and they're found at fault -- as here -- then they'll be fined heavily. The Trust should have known this, and made sure the site was safe...

That helps, but there's also plenty of fairly boring bog-standard mass-produced lager in Germany even though it's brewed according to the rules -- which is why I said "good" lager... 😉 Though even the boring stuff is still rarely as tasteless as UK-lager-piss...

Charities are not excused from having to take care just because they're virtuous -- or a charity, like CART or Eton College... Note that more deaths like this is exactly what those proposing that canal repairs should be done "like in the good old days" should expect... 😉