dieseldog999:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TRY HARDER.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 
Why’s the subject dead and burried, it was only brought up on this thread??
It’s like you want to dead and burried as my posts illustrate yet again your theory of not being able to break seals is wrong.
The only way you can reply to my theory’s or questions is to do what a perpetuate child is playground would do, and do the internet equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and wail “la la la Iam not listening”
chester:
dieseldog999:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TRY HARDER.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Why’s the subject dead and burried, it was only brought up on this thread??
It’s like you want to dead and burried as my posts illustrate yet again your theory of not being able to break seals is wrong.
The only way you can reply to my theory’s or questions is to do what a perpetuate child is playground would do, and do the internet equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and wail “la la la Iam not listening”
A bit like yourself on the other thread about seals when two people produced evidence from a government website on the guidelines about picking up a loaded and sealed trailer in a port.
chester:
dieseldog999:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TRY HARDER.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Why’s the subject dead and burried, it was only brought up on this thread??
It’s like you want to dead and burried as my posts illustrate yet again your theory of not being able to break seals is wrong.
The only way you can reply to my theory’s or questions is to do what a perpetuate child is playground would do, and do the internet equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and wail “la la la Iam not listening”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you carried it over from your trolling pish on the container postings where several knowledgeable posters including myself showed you to be spouting complete and utter pish as its obvious you know nothing about container/port security practices hence you just continue to flog your dead horse here.
speaking of playgrounds,is it not time you went back in and got your dinner ticket stamped?
chester:
Why’s the subject dead and burried, it was only brought up on this thread??
No it wasn’t, it was brought up on the “Trailer tragedy” thread and the “Lorry driver charged with manslaughter of 39” thread.
You’re just trolling on this thread.
tachograph:
No it wasn’t, it was brought up on the “Trailer tragedy” thread and the “Lorry driver charged with manslaughter of 39” thread.
You’re just trolling on this thread.
I refer you to page 1 of this very thread, where the subject of seals came up
chester:
tachograph:
No it wasn’t, it was brought up on the “Trailer tragedy” thread and the “Lorry driver charged with manslaughter of 39” thread.
You’re just trolling on this thread.
I refer you to page 1 of this very thread, where the subject of seals came up
The first mention of it was clearly a joke that went over the head of another member, it was later pointed out that it was humorous remark.
Like I said you’'re just trolling
biggriffin:
0
What do I do with this. 
Swap it for some screen wash?
tachograph:
The first mention of it was clearly a joke that went over the head of another member, it was later pointed out that it was humorous remark.
Like I said you’'re just trolling
This forum works in a strange way if posts which carry the vein of the thread discussion are accused of troll posts.
Has this forum adopted the “Mornington Crescent” formula?
not in the least.
its just adopted the " your a boring repetitive obvious troll" formula. hence the number of similar replies directed to you.
the idea of trolling is not to appear a troll…( hint hint) obviously that course of action somewhat seems to escape you…
biggriffin:
0
What do I do with this.
You’ve rolled your wagon as well in solidarity??
biggriffin:
0
What do I do with this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you oblige the warehouse cabbages by offering to attach it to seal the trailer as you leave the factory/shop.
you drive up the road to the nearest layby whereupon you help yourself to whatever you fancy from the trailer.
thereafter closing the seal properly to ensure untampered goods and a clean signature at your next delivery point.
alternatively if your chester,then you can just keep it handy for the next container you pick up if you dont like the look of it… 
biggriffin:
0
What do I do with this.
I’d hang on to it, and wait until you hear of any iffy loads which need shifting.
Nasty ADR stuff, stolen gear, illegal immigrants or heavy machinery not adequately strapped down.
Simply attach said seal to questionable load and give dieseldog999 or any of his gullible fellow truck drivers a call.
They won’t bother to check what’s inside the trailer before venturing out on the public highway.
If by any chance they do get a tug off the ministry they will be in the clear as somebody else loaded and sealed the trailer.
Winner winner for everyone and a big pay check off the NI Gangsters.
The load has survived a ferry crossing and has been tugged round the dock at warp speed on both sides of the North Sea. I did notice it was sort of strapped pulling the shafts to the inner and outer sides so in this case I would suggest that Frankie Vojtíšek was maybe at fault here.
Mazzer2:
A bit like yourself on the other thread about seals when two people produced evidence from a government website on the guidelines about picking up a loaded and sealed trailer in a port.
Guidelines on how the consigner or consignee should transport loads means diddly squat my Dear, in a court of law.
However the legal stance of a LGV driver being responsible for load and vehicle are!
When the two people you give as your example from a government website, who produced evidence from a gov website on “guidelines”
It was never from a drivers point of view, but from what a company “Should” be doing!” as best practice.
Please leave the discussion for the grown ups, and don’t believe everything you read here.
Do you actually believe a Barrister quotes guidelines, as opposed to legal definitions to protect his/her clients?
…out to you
Ps Sealed loads are not only collected in ports.
We’re not all Supermarket drivers doin the same run day in day out
This is where the supposed evidence came from
assets.publishing.service.gov.u … hicles.pdf
Please refer yourself to part 1:4 where quite clearly it states the driver is ultimately responsible for load security.
chester:
Mazzer2:
Ps Sealed loads are not only collected in ports.
We’re not all Supermarket drivers doin the same run day in day out
You’re right, they’re not. So what about this scenario then…
You turn up at our place at 8pm to collect a loaded and sealed trailer of 20t secure air cargo. We finish at 6pm btw.
You pop the seal because you want to check that the load is secured correctly and to your liking. You reseal the load and toddle off to the next consignee in the chain.
When you get there the seal on the trailer doesn’t match the paperwork/manifests or perhaps you’ve crossed the original seal number out and written in the seal number that you’ve applied. No one has informed the consignee the seal has changed because you’ve not told us and given them the new seal number. The consignee then rejects the secure status and all freight has to be downgraded and rescreened at X pence per kilo. Due to this rescreening some freight may miss its booked flights and incur penalty clauses due to it being time critical.
Who would pay those costs? You? Your company? My company?
I suppose its immaterial though, because you’re happy you checked the load.
fatboystu1:
chester:
Mazzer2:
Ps Sealed loads are not only collected in ports.
We’re not all Supermarket drivers doin the same run day in day out
You’re right, they’re not. So what about this scenario then…
You turn up at our place at 8pm to collect a loaded and sealed trailer of 20t secure air cargo. We finish at 6pm btw.
You pop the seal because you want to check that the load is secured correctly and to your liking. You reseal the load and toddle off to the next consignee in the chain.
When you get there the seal on the trailer doesn’t match the paperwork/manifests or perhaps you’ve crossed the original seal number out and written in the seal number that you’ve applied. No one has informed the consignee the seal has changed because you’ve not told us and given them the new seal number. The consignee then rejects the secure status and all freight has to be downgraded and rescreened at X pence per kilo. Due to this rescreening some freight may miss its booked flights and incur penalty clauses due to it being time critical.
Who would pay those costs? You? Your company? My company?
I suppose its immaterial though, because you’re happy you checked the load.
That seems like a in house procedural system.
I would suggest the consignee and consigner make provisions for the driver to be able to check his load before he takes on a public highway.
Do you think a judge is in the little bit slightest bothered about what time you start/finnish how much it costs, or even if Baz on the forklift will be a tad annoyed about you breaking a seal.
When Safety is paramount to everybody who uses the public highway!
There’s nothing “in house” about it what so ever, its regulations as laid down by the DfT and CAA, which we follow to the letter to maintain the security status through out the chain of custody. So given that, you tell me how to circumnavigate the situation so that the driver checks the load?
The trailer cannot be left unsecured.
The driver cannot collect the trailer before 8pm.
We finish work at 6pm.
Bear in mind we’ve been shifting this type of load for 20+ years. Never had a lost or slipped load, never been pulled and fined for an incorrectly restrained load. But still that wouldn’t make you happy eh?
fatboystu1:
There’s nothing “in house” about it what so ever, its regulations as laid down by the DfT and CAA, which we follow to the letter to maintain the security status through out the chain of custody. So given that, you tell me how to circumnavigate the situation so that the driver checks the load?
The trailer cannot be left unsecured.
The driver cannot collect the trailer before 8pm.
We finish work at 6pm.
Bear in mind we’ve been shifting this type of load for 20+ years. Never had a lost or slipped load, never been pulled and fined for an incorrectly restrained load. But still that wouldn’t make you happy eh?
I have never ever said once that a driver needs to break and check every load.
Yes
“The driver is ultimately responsible”
But if that driver is satisfied that load is secure and legal and has knowledge of what he/she is carrying then why would they break the seal?
Jees talk about flying off on one
fatboystu1:
There’s nothing “in house” about it what so ever, its regulations as laid down by the DfT and CAA, which we follow to the letter to maintain the security status through out the chain of custody. So given that, you tell me how to circumnavigate the situation so that the driver checks the load?
The trailer cannot be left unsecured.
The driver cannot collect the trailer before 8pm.
We finish work at 6pm.
Bear in mind we’ve been shifting this type of load for 20+ years. Never had a lost or slipped load, never been pulled and fined for an incorrectly restrained load. But still that wouldn’t make you happy eh?
Stu you’re wasting your breath Chester has lifted nothing heavier than a dinky toy trailer he clearly has no idea what the purpose of seals are or why they are put in place.
