LPG Discussion Forum

LPGC wrote:I was suggesting a hypothetical situation where if the Birmingham installer that Speedy referred to WAS to register vehicles

Okeydoke, something completely made up for effect then, understood now.

LPGC wrote:UKLPG's database is little more than a private database which a minority of insurers have access to.

errm every last man woman and child has access to it (you included) ... how are the majority of insurers excluded from that? Is there some survey I have missed? What are the numbers here, to distinguish 'minority', is it 20% ? Of how many total?

LPGC wrote:We have too few comments on this so far to know if Rosko's example of doing minor remedial work included in the £100 is typical or not.

Good lord ... seeking evidence. Two out of two so far, ridiculously small sample and not likely to grow much at all, not many folks reading after 14 repetitive pages I have no idea why you think this is important though?

LPGC wrote:Take a group of installers, one or two of these installers are UKLPG members, the other installers in the group register all their converted vehices through the one or two installers, in many cases on the back of a phone call.

Should we perhaps seek evidence here too?

LPGC wrote: " ...and by the way all my installs will continue to be registered on your database."

Ah, you must have access to some policy that no-one else has seen. Or are we um hypothesising here?

Brian_H wrote:You are also seeming to overlook that the risk of an unsafe conversion being "put onto the register on the back of a phone call" means in the eyes of uklpg that that person has checked the conversion and is saying it is safe. So in the event its discovered unsafe at some later point it will come back to them.

At which point he points out that he can't be responsible for whatever has been done to it since he saw it, "wasn't like that when I checked it over - honest Guv". OK, there's a fair bit where it would be hard to accept it had been altered since the check, but also a lot of stuff where you could never be sure.

Gilbert, The MOT tester certainly would lose his ability to work as an MOT inspector. We don't hear of MOT testers registering vehicles as passing the MOT when someone calls them with a vehicle reg number but this does happen with UKLPG checks. The MOT tester would lose what is likely to be a major source of his work / income - He doesn't install much in the way of aftermarket systems, he doesn't need to 'register' anything for repairs he does but MOTs make up a good proportion of his business. When he has lost the ability to do MOTs he will find it very difficult to find another MOT tester whom he can phone that will register vehicles as passing the MOT on receiving his phone call. UKLPG members that accept payment over the phone for registering vehicles on the database are far more likely to know someone else they can call to register vehicles for them. It would likely be far more damaging for an MOT tester to personally lose the ability to do MOT's than for a UKLPG member to lose the ability to personally register vehicles on the database.

Rosko, You repeatedly avoid acknowledging that you have been told by myself and by another forum member that you trust that vehicles are being registered on UKLPG's database on the basis of a phone call without being checked - and this was a supplier that deals with hundreds of installers! The hypothetical situation I mentioned was hypothetical because I don't know which Birmingham installer was being referred to by Speedy, so I cannot comment on the installer that Speedy referred to - I would not say even if I was aware that this installer was registering vehicles without checking them anyway. Regards everyone having access to UKLPG's database, yes I know we can all check if vehicles are on the database on the internet. I thought many insurance companies banned internet access at work, their computers connected on an intranet rather than an internet - Perhaps I thought insurance companies had a specially setup direct portal to UKLPG's database... I don't imagine workers at the DVLA checking, say, a vehicle's road tax or MOT status using the same DVLA internet site that the rest of us use. I may have given UKLPG's database system too much credit.

Seeking evidence to show what? People that dis-agree with my comments on this thread can list their prices just as easily as people that agree. You say UKLPG inspectors all charge around the same ball park figure for UKLPG checks? Does this include charging a couple of hours for the job that takes 30 minutes? I have said that UKLPG checks are a nice earner and UKLPG registered installers wouldn't like to lose this work, I hoped somebody would be able to justify the time spent doing UKLPG checks, not even you have done that. You make this thread more repetitive by repeatedly failing to acknowledge the failings with UKLPG's system that you have been made aware of by myself and by others - I remind you about what you have been told, you don't say much about it, then a page later after discussing other aspects of what I've said you act like you're pretending not to have had what I said confirmed by someone you trust. Common sense should tell you that even if only one supplier is/was/will be involved, that deals with hundreds of installers, then there will be thousands of unchecked installs on the database. And given the lucrative nature, little chance of getting caught, little in the way of repercussion if they are caught, that there are a great many installers doing registrations without doing proper checks or passing their own work willy-nilly.

Simonhobson, Agreed. Seems to be little chance of being kicked out. I do agree with, might have been Rosko, that there wouldn't be much of an announcement if someone got kicked out, be we in the trade know lots of installers - and who of us knows of anyone getting kicked out of UKLPG? Somebody mentioned once reading in UKLPGs magazine a little about someone getting kicked out.. How many members does UKLPG have? Compared to how many dodgy installs we see? If there are only a few bad apples they must each convert an awful lot of vehicles...

Simon
Lpgc

I don't know actually know anyone at all in Birmingham that would certify without seeing and checking the vehicle themselves.

LPGC wrote:Rosko, You repeatedly avoid acknowledging that you have been told by myself and by another forum member that you trust that vehicles are being registered on UKLPG's database on the basis of a phone call without being checked

That's right, I don't put much faith in it.
I haven't forgotten the one (1) example, no. I simply don't multiply it into hundreds for a witch-burning exercise.
Of itself, all that has little to do with discussing alternate schemes.

LPGC wrote:Regards everyone having access to UKLPG's database, yes I know we can all check if vehicles are on the database on the internet. I thought many insurance companies banned internet access at work, their computers connected on an intranet rather than an internet - Perhaps I thought insurance companies had a specially setup direct portal to UKLPG's database... I don't imagine workers at the DVLA checking, say, a vehicle's road tax or MOT status using the same DVLA internet site that the rest of us use. I may have given UKLPG's database system too much credit.

Eh? Sorry, I can't really follow the reasoning. I can pick out that when you said "only a minority of insurers have access" you meant "I'm making this part up". It's trivial stuff, but just the kind of thing that contributes to my mistrust.
I'm now marvelling how you've twisted your own imagining into a failing of the UKLPG database.

LPGC wrote:Does this include charging a couple of hours for the job that takes 30 minutes?

It's a fixed fee for a service, in our case. I've never managed an inspection in 30 minutes and I'm not going to list the reasons why that may be so. It is most certainly carried out for a profit.
How does this advance your case?

LPGC wrote:Gilbert, The MOT tester certainly would lose his ability to work as an MOT inspector. We don't hear of MOT testers registering vehicles as passing the MOT when someone calls them with a vehicle reg number

Want to put money on it? If you had the correct amount of cash I could almost certainly get you an MoT on anything you are prepared to give me the details for. I can only think of a couple of reasons why anyone would want to, for example, to transfer a number plate from an old car the donor needs to have an MoT (or it used to, I assume it is still the same) so if you were to find a write off that had no chance in hell of getting an MoT but you really wanted the plate from it, then that would be a way of doing it.

LPGC wrote:The MOT tester would lose what is likely to be a major source of his work / income - He doesn't install much in the way of aftermarket systems, he doesn't need to 'register' anything for repairs he does but MOTs make up a good proportion of his business. When he has lost the ability to do MOTs he will find it very difficult to find another MOT tester whom he can phone that will register vehicles as passing the MOT on receiving his phone call.

No, but he can charge his customer £50 for an MoT test, run the car round the corner to his mate who tests it and charges him £25. He can still then charge the customer for any remedial work that has to be done. He's made £25 profit for doing nothing and, while the car is being tested he can get on with work on other customers cars, so he's gaining extra hours in a working day.

LPGC wrote:Regards everyone having access to UKLPG's database, yes I know we can all check if vehicles are on the database on the internet. I thought many insurance companies banned internet access at work, their computers connected on an intranet rather than an internet

You are way behind the times. That may have been the case 10 years ago but now I think you will find that virtually every company has internet access, particularly somewhere like an insurance company. How else would they check online quotes without access to the internet? I work for a Government department and we used to only have an intranet but now everything is done using the internet. We just have a VPN (Virtual Private Network) that can only be accessed using some pretty robust security. Why spend a huge amount of money on private leased fibre optic links between premises when the internet is already there?

Gilbertd wrote:No, but he can charge his customer £50 for an MoT test, run the car round the corner to his mate who tests it and charges him £25.

On the other side of that, if the reason he's doing that is because he's been kicked out by VOSA, then I doubt anyone he uses is going to turn a blind eye to anything dodgy. I strongly suspect that VOSA will keep an eye on kicked out testers looking to see where they take vehicles - and then keep a keen eye on those testers. Given that (on another forum) I heard from a tester "told off" by VOSA over light bulbs*, I've got a fair bit of confidence in the MoT test.

* VOSA picked up that his failure rate for lights not working was below average and checked up. He was told in no uncertain terms that he had to fail the vehicle, then fit a new bulb, then "retest" it - he couldn't fit a new bulb and pass it

SimonHobson wrote:I've got a fair bit of confidence in the MoT test.

I'm right with you there.

But we can "prove" it is a flawed system open to abuse - fraudsters get tried in public court, so we really know that fiddles go on. We can then extrapolate, why, it's only the tip of the iceberg blah, for every one caught there must be hundreds of dodgy examiners passing thousands of dodgy cars ....
And as for profiteering, some folk only charge £15, so those charging £55 must be getting fabulously wealthy etc.
And VOSA have no incentive to sort it out, after all they get their fees from the tester in any case ...
of course that's all cobblers

SimonHobson wrote:VOSA picked up that his failure rate for lights not working was below average and checked up. He was told in no uncertain terms that he had to fail the vehicle, then fit a new bulb, then "retest" it - he couldn't fit a new bulb and pass it :roll:

My local guy had exactly the same. I took one car in and a bulb that was working when I'd checked them before leaving home wasn't when it was tested so he put a new bulb in (free of charge) then gave me a failure and a pass. The same reason, by not failing on bulbs he was skewing the results that showed how many cars go in for test with lights out.

SimonHobson wrote:VOSA picked up that his failure rate for lights not working was below average and checked up. He was told in no uncertain terms that he had to fail the vehicle, then fit a new bulb, then "retest" it - he couldn't fit a new bulb and pass it

Ditto. My car was failed about three years ago because one of the headlight beams was too low. I thought at the time "Why not just adjust them and pass it" but later concluded that VOSA want to see failures from time to time to "prove" that the tester is doing the right job. The outcome is the same (a Pass) but it has to be Test, Fail, Fix, Re-Test, Pass rather than Test, Fix, Pass.

I think all points raised since my last post are reasonable, it makes a change on this thread not to be questioning someone else's point!

Regarding insurance intranets, internets, etc., they of course have access to internal systems that customers cannot access. Tell them your policy number and they can tell you who you are, your address, will know your personal ID confirming info such as mothers maiden name, etc. So do they look this information up on one system but use another system (the same system that customers use) when getting a quote from the company in our homes over the internet? It isn't daft to expect the systems that insurers use that enable them to see our personal information relating to premiums, quotes and information on vehicles to link to UKLPG's database and show up whether the vehicle was registered on UKLPG's database without resorting to visiting UKLPG's website and entering a vehicle's details a second time. To do this the insurance company system could have a direct link to UKLPG's database, or could be set up to automatically enter the reg number on UKLPG's website and automatically retrieve an answer to the question is the vehicle on the database or not. I'm hardly computer illiterate, have been into programming and computers from an early age, taught IT and have developed database systems for companies from theatrical agents to Powergen and taught their staff how to use them. These days my computing interests are more about microcontrollers like the ones in our LPG ECU's but I wouldn't claim to be advanced with them. I have little interest in internet programming.

I think that the MOT system is far less open to abuse and far less abused than UKLPG's system. We have discussed MOT testers who are kicked by Vosa potentially becoming an MOT middle man (still accept vehicles for MOT tests but take those vehicles around the corner to another garage whom will do the MOT). Nobody has said they have heard of an MOT tester who passes vehicles on the basis of a phone call. Even if this happens (I'm sure it will have happened but would expect cases to be few and far between because the MOT system is controlled by Vosa), most of us would find it extremely unlikely that such an MOT tester would know yet another MOT tester who does the same. All discussion about the MOT system has described a situation where an actual MOT test is always done, all discussion has backed up the MOT testing system as a properly enforced, monitored and regulated system. Vosa monitors the system to such an extent that there are expected failure rates for each specific points such as light bulbs and alarm bells are rung / garages placed under scrutiny if those failure rates are not on a par with usual failure rates.

I and at least one other well known installer have brought up the fact that an LPG equipment supplier (without naming a name) that deals with hundreds of professional installers plus thousands of DIY installers, is happy to accept cash for registering vehicles on UKLPG's database without doing any sort of check on those vehicles. I mentioned one example of a supplier's involvement and had it confirmed by another installer. There are other suppliers doing the same and installers that do this are commonplace! Let us consider whom would probably be the last person to realise that this is going on... Would it be people like Rosko who might say things like 'UKLPG is all we've got we need to defend UKLPG's system' and 'If you are aware of this abuse to UKLPGs system happening you should report the UKLPG members and others that do it to UKLPG', or would it be people like myself who say 'UKLPG's system doesn't work and it would be almost impossible now to get it working, however for some customers, thanks to UKLPG, we now need to register vehicles on UKLPG's database. I don't wish to become a member because I don't believe in the system but for this particular conversion I have done will you please register it for me on UKLPG's database and I will pay you'?

Everybody who knows how UKLPG's system works knows that members are not monitored closely once they have gained membership, UKLPG don't do many checks themselves on converted vehicles that have been passed as safe by members, UKLPG record no data on failures, they only record passes - so could not monitor installers whom do not fail enough vehicles (and fail them for specific reasons) even if they had the intention and manpower to do so. Of course, a remote monitoring scheme based on statistical data by UKLPG wouldn't make much sense, because whilst some of their members will only ever register the vehicles they have converted themselves (of course a guaranteed pass every time would be the only sensible outcome...), some will inspect a large number of DIY installs (should expect many failures). The only type of monitoring that UKLPG could do which makes sense is to check passed and failed vehicles themselves. They do some checks on passed vehicles, but not on fails, and there are way too few checks. Then there is the question of whom monitors UKLPG? Vosa is a large government setup and is likely to have internal monitoring procedures to keep tabs on the staff who keep tabs on MOT testers. How will UKLPG compare?

Everyone who is aware of the above should be able to see that the system is open to abuse. Common sense should tell anyone that if there is money to be made by doing checks in the name of a trade body, then if the trade body doesn't police those checks thoroughly people will cheat the check system if they can make more money doing so. Especially when it is so easy to cheat, especially where there isn't much chance of getting caught, especially when trade body membership isn't a mandatory legal requirement and it's rules are not the law, especially where you can make even more money by accepting payment from others in the same trade (or just private individuals) who are prepared to pay you from time to time to falsify checks with a guaranteed pass, especially where if you are caught you keep all the money you have made and can continue to do the same but as an external middle man instead of being a facilitating member. Cheating has happened regularly for a few years, and any vehicle registered on UKLPG's database over that time is probably just as likely to have had no check done as it is likely to have had a check done by a UKLPG member. The chance of UKLPG staff (trade body staff) checking the vehicle themselves is remote. Even if a seemingly legitimate check has been done, since UKLPG don't do much to police members or member standards, who knows what kind of issues an individual UKLPG member will allow as a pass. Adding to the last point, as installers we see around equal proportions of bad installs that are registered as safe with UKLPG and installs that are not registered...

Simon
Lpgc

I'm not sure you can really compare UKLPG with VOSA. The former is essentially a trade body whereas the latter is a Government Agency that is backed by statute. If you fall foul of VOSA, not only can you lose your ability to conduct MoTs, but I suspect VOSA aren't against a prosecution if they feel it necessary and that has a far greater potential for fall out (including the bad publicity) than playing games with UKLPG. There are always going to be people who try to cheat the system; it just so happens that the UKLPG system is easier to cheat than VOSA's. So, as with all things in life, people need to keep their eyes open and apply a healthy dose of cynicism. Do your research, get personal recommendations, never make a decision based solely on what someone who is trying to sell you something tells you, and if it looks too good to be true, it usually is

Active_Lad wrote:I'm not sure you can really compare UKLPG with VOSA. The former is essentially a trade body whereas the latter is a Government Agency that is backed by statute.

Which is something that's been covered already - in fact, it's a key part of the argument for them doing checks/inspections rather than "the trade".

So, as with all things in life, people need to keep their eyes open and apply a healthy dose of cynicism. Do your research, get personal recommendations, never make a decision based solely on what someone who is trying to sell you something tells you, and if it looks too good to be true, it usually is

A key complaint, as I see it, is that the general public do not understand the difference - and UKLPG/its members aren't going to do anything to alter that. It's in their interest for "Mr Public" to think that UKLPG is more than it is, and that their members are somehow more than they are as a result. Their marketing is deliberately worded so as to give that impression.
Thus, when Mr Public goes shopping for a conversion, he's faced with "someone with official approval" vs "an independent who can't be trusted to be safe" - if he's not questioned the UKLPG PR. In effect, the independents are being put at an advantage because there is a group telling the public that their work is unsafe - the "only UKLPG members work is safe" part of the PR.

While we know that there are good independents and bad UKLPG members, Mr Public has no such guidance. He has to rely on the biased PR he sees from what he probably assumes is some officially sanctioned body.

Exactly the same thing goes on in other areas. In the electrical area, a couple of trade bodies have merged to form a new bigger trade body who have called themselves the Electrical Safety Register. Call me a cynic if you like, but that seems like a calculated ploy to leverage the public knowledge of the "Gas Safe Register" which most people recognise as the government sanctioned body regulating gas fitters*. Of course, the ESR don't ever say anything other than "you should only use our members" if you want safe work - even though anyone who knows anything about electrics knows that they aren't the only electrics trade group, nor is membership of any of them a pre-requisite for being able to work safely.

* With few exceptions, if you want to do gas work, you must by law be a member of the GSR.

LPGC wrote:UKLPG don't do many checks themselves on converted vehicles that have been passed as safe by members,

What data do you have for that? (Is this like the minority of insurers thing)

LPGC wrote:UKLPG record no data on failures, they only record passes

What makes you think that?

ActiveLad - agreed! As SimonHobson pointed out, you may have missed that I've been saying there's no comparison between UKLPG's scheme and the MOT scheme all along. You did remind me of something I didn't point out though... Recently on this thread I asked 'What would happen if an MOT tester cheated the system' and Gilbert replied with 'He would be kicked'. I should have replied with 'Yes he would be kicked and Vosa might prosecute'.

SimonHobson - We seem to agree on everything.

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:UKLPG don't do many checks themselves on converted vehicles that have been passed as safe by members,

What data do you have for that? (Is this like the minority of insurers thing)

LPGC wrote:UKLPG record no data on failures, they only record passes

What makes you think that?

Rosko, I am pleased you don't seem to be taking this personally recently! It is a small minority of insurers that require UKLPG database registrations... Most insurers are aware of the law, which doesn't require an LPG conversion to be done or checked by UKLPG, and most insurers don't require UKLPG database registrations. I know UKLPG have persuaded UKI group (UK Insurance group) companies to require UKLPG database registration, and I know 'UK Insurance group' reads like it might involve all UK insurance companies, but the UKI group is a small group of insurers including Admiral, Saga, according to one of my customers who thinks along the same lines only around 8 companies.. They may have persuaded other insurers too, but all those persuaded are still in the minority. Most insurance companies require what is required in law and this means that the LPG conversion has been installed or checked by a competent person. Without any sort of 'certificate', there are many insurers that will not give insurance. I believe UKLPG skew the figures further by giving the impression such insurers require a UKLPG registration or LPGA cert. They do not, they only require proof that the LPG system has been fitted by a competent person. A competent person, by law, does not mean a UKLPG member. So what does denote a competent person? UKLPG would likely dearly like it to mean one of their members, but it is unlikely they will achieve such a situation and to many of us in this trade, such a situation wouldn't make much sense - on this forum and in our workshops we see the same issues on none UKLPG registered and UKLPG registered installs alike, and it is easy to get a UKLPG database registration without any sort of check. Better / experienced / reputable installers are obviously competent persons, but how can they prove it? I submitted my first ten or so installs to my supplier at the time, whom at that time was a UKLPG member. The supplier inspected all my installs and then gave me a cert to say I was a safe and competent installer. Since then I have received many legitimate 'certificates' to say I am a competent installer, but also received many certificates for fitting systems that I have never and will never install. UKLPG can only make money from people whom they class as competent persons, UKLPG is a business and has a vested interest in describing people as competent persons. LPG is inherently safe, they have nothing to lose and little chance of a serious incident shedding light on their scheme's failures even if an install does an install that doesn't meet spec. How many LPG converted vehicles are on the road? How many LPG related incidents are there? An MOT tester, authorised by Vosa, is obviously a competent person at checking vehicles and fuel systems - he may not know everything about multivalve mounting angles and tank venting, but would soon learn and would know that E67 is supposed to be marked on all components fitted...

I don't have any statistics on how many checks are done on converted vehicles by UKLPG staff, do you? I only have quotes from UKLPG members to base my comments on, and since UKLPG members obviously benefit from showing UKLPG in a good light it is likely their comments will exaggerate the number of 'independant' (inverted commas denote not truly independant because UKLPG has a vested interest in a pass) checks that are done. But still quotes from UKLPG member installers give the impression that not many checks are done. 'UKLPG staff' does not include UKLPG member installers, UKLPG staff should only include the people that actually check on installers. How many of these staff do UKLPG have? We only hear about Mike Chapman from UKLPG, one person? How many vehicles are registered daily on UKLPG's database? Do UKLPG have enough staff to check every install? Definitely not! Do UKLPG have enough staff to weed out the installers that register unsafe installs as safe?

Who would sweat the most - A dodgy UKLPG member who is having some of his recent 'passed' LPG installs inspected by UKLPG staff, or a dodgy MOT tester who is having some of his recent MOT pass vehicles inspected by Vosa? The UKLPG installer, if kicked by UKLPG, will continue to be able to convert vehicles, will probably know another dodgy UKLPG installer who will pass his (and his customers) installs, depending on the number of installs he does might even be better off when UKLPG's annual membership is figured in! The MOT tester will be unable to do MOT's, is likely to lose his mechanic / MOT tester job, even if he keeps his job s unlikely to know another dodgy MOT tester whom will pass dodgy vehicles, is likely to be prosecuted by Vosa.

A mandatory MOT check following a new LPG conversion, followed by immediate compulsory and enforced logbook fuel type update, followed by immediate insurance company recognition of a safe install - a viable system... is far more sensible than the voluntary, haphazard, meaningless, biased, profit driven UKLPG 'system' that currently most installers and insurance companies don't pay much attention to. Still not perfect, but a system that makes far more sense from a safety angle, and a system that levels the playing field between installers. Let us be judged on our reliability, neatness and performance results! Why don't we realise that safety issues are common sense? And that membership of a trade body does not qualify us to check safety issues but common sense does? And that UKLPG has no right to say an installer is safe because no one has checked the person who checks installers? Let us leave safety checking to people that are qualified to check for safety issues - The only people who are qualified by law for this are MOT testers and IVA testers.

Personally, most of my work involves converting the 'difficult' vehicles that most UKLPG installers and none UKLPG member installers alike, avoid because they cannot get good results on such vehicles. I get safe and excellent performing results on the notable difficult to convert vehicles. I have no intention of subscribing to UKLPG because I will not pay into a scheme that doesn't work and I will not 'advise' customers that I am a safe or good installer simply because I am a UKLPG member - My work speaks for itself, though...! There is nothing to say that a UKLPG registered install is any safer than a none UKLPG registered install. Even UKLPG don't say that a UKLPG registered install is any good, they only say it is safe, and it sometimes even the the 'safe' claim is stretching the truth. It is the individual installer that makes the difference.

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote:It is a small minority of insurers that require UKLPG database registrations...

How many? We've has this flat statement many times.

LPGC wrote:I don't have any statistics on how many checks are done on converted vehicles by UKLPG staff, do you?

No. Be best not to make assumptions then.

LPGC wrote:A mandatory MOT check following a new LPG conversion, followed by immediate compulsory and enforced logbook fuel type update, followed by immediate insurance company recognition of a safe install - a viable system...

Ah good, back to the point.
You need a legislation change, how are you going to make it happen.

LPGC wrote: is far more sensible than the voluntary, haphazard, meaningless, biased, profit driven UKLPG 'system' that currently most installers and insurance companies don't pay much attention to.

rant rant. How many installers are there, how many then is 'most'?

LPGC wrote: Still not perfect, but a system that makes far more sense from a safety angle, and a system that levels the playing field between installers. Let us be judged on our reliability, neatness and performance results!

Is this modified MoT checking for those now?

LPGC wrote:The only people who are qualified by law for this are MOT testers and IVA testers.

Rubbish. Quote the law.

sure I said that about 5 or 6 pages ago. It's just been going round in circles since then.

Now come on guys , you're supposed to be shocked, outraged, and spurred into action ...

Instead we are bored, nonplussed and accepting