Talk:2012 United Kingdom fuel crisis

90.196.203.138 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Article name
Just noticed this article, and am wondering if it shouldn't be renamed something like 2012 United Kingdom fuel crisis. The title assumes there will be a strike, and it isn't clear at this stage whether it will go ahead. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent point.JoelWhy (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If everyone agrees I'll perhaps move it a bit later on. We can always move it again if they do stage a strike. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree.Wipsenade (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Has it reached crisis level already? 90.196.203.138 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's certainly approaching it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, have moved it to 2012 United Kingdom fuel crisis although thinking about it that in itself isn't ideal. Could go for 2012 United Kingdom fuel dispute or 2012 United Kingdom fuel tanker driver dispute or if anyone else has another suggestion feel free to add to the discussion. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Medical Issues
I removed this section because the incident listed was just an anecdotal account. Dan's addition regarding the average number of burns per week correctly points out that you cannot link safety issues with a single incident. On the other hand, 5 burns per week -- is that what the protestors are protesting? In any case, we should probably provide more concrete info to indicate what the medical issues are, as opposed to individual incidents.JoelWhy (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really I guess safety issues would be a more realistic title. We have one minister suggesting the use of jerry cans and the FBU advising that isn't such a good idea - and of course the unfortunate householder who was dispensing petrol in her kitchen, so there's plenty of scope for a section on this topic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess my point was simply this: in the five year period from 2003-2007 (inclusive) there were 1382 petrol burn accidents reported (ranging from minor to serious with complications). That works out as an average of 5 petrol burns per week, in the absence of questionable petrol storage advice given by politicians.  So, given the relatively high frequency of petrol burns in the UK, it's very hard to assert that Thursday's petrol burn was caused by recent political events because on a normal week (without political intervention) we'd expect 5 petrol burns.  The burns data are available here: http://www.ibidb.org/downloads-mainmenu-28/cat_view/913-ibid-reports The petrol burns figures are on page 39 of the PDF, row 4 of the table.  Please check my maths. Dan aka jack (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. It may just be an unfortunate coincidence and unconnected to this issue. But the media have seized on it to emphasize the folly of the advice. I guess really we should know if the two events are connected before adding it to this article as there are lots of people who already stored petrol in jerry cans for use in lawn mowers, etc. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be left, but marked as what it was- An axident thar the press and goverment hijacked for political gain.82.18.202.218 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)