Posted By Richard See my response to "IOSH Chartered Status" on 16 July! Richard

Posted By Shane Johnston Originally posted on the Study Group Forum but thought it applied here also: I'm not putting the NEBOSH Dip down or suggesting it is not a useful qualification. I found it provided me with more H&S knowledge than any other course I have ever done (NEBOSH Cert, Old style NEBOSH Dip, Environmental Dip and currently studying for an MSc). What I am saying is that employers don't recognise the "level" the Dip is set at. As you point out employers do ask for a NEBOSH Dip in the SHP, but then some also offer a salary of £16k to go with it. This suggests that employers don't always associate the Dip with a professional qualification. Employers and other professionals understand the level of a BSc/MSc. How many times have you had to explain to other professionals what NEBOSH Dip is, or MIOSH or RSP? I'm afraid other professionals recognise an BSc/MSc and I'm sure they would also recognise "Chartered Safety Practitioner". I know this just demonstrates how shallow some people are, but this is the world we live in. What I was saying is that if you are going to self fund a course, better to do one that is recognised outside of the safety circle. < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Posted By Geoff Burt Copy of email to website co-ordinator Angela Under the thread Chartered Status, a statement was made by the elected President which has been challenged by a number of members. Could you assure me please, that Paul is aware of the concern caused by his statement and that a response will be forthcoming. Geoff Burt

Posted By Peter Vintner As the President of this organisation you should not be fielding personal views, rather the views of the individuals who elected you. I truely think that a retraction is made along with an appology to all concerned so as we can all coalesce and move forward together. Pete

Posted By Ron Young Amazing, our president was sad at the level of debate on this subject and offered (at length) what was on the face of it, more than an opinion. Now that the standard of debate has been "raised" and members concerns are, more than ever, being expressed about chartered status, Paul Faupel decides that he has nothing else to say. For Paul to make the comments he did and to be so eloquently challenged by the very able Philip McAleenan, should have resulted in him either apologising and retracting his comments or backing them up by fact. To do neither does nothing for the standing of the Institution which he serves.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Quite true Jack - It is because the AGM has been removed from the Conference that it is barely noticed generally.. Heigh- Ho here we go again. The problem is the lack of communication. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Allan Is there a new grade of member here - The "Lurkers" who pounce on the unwary and get them to say things they perhaps wish they hadn't. What is a chartered Lurker? - A Mugger perhaps. Just a few more days and the nights become shorter and we can recharge a few batteries for next round in the new year. Bob

Posted By Ken Taylor I thought a lurker was a type of dog - a sort of cross between a greyhound and a wooly mammoth. [No reference to members of IOSH of course]

Posted By George Wedgwood Quite an interesting but 'shallow' debate, in that few Council Members have commented! The issue is a long one as you now know and most Council Members have as little time as the rest of you to research and spend time in Committees etc. So bear with an imperfect Body - it really is doing the best it can for you as Members. I have spent more than a decade entering and taking part in debate in various Committees to help make IOSH what it is today - make of it what you want but one thing is certain (now that I am in a position to select staff) it has made its mark in establishing definite criteria for the standards of professional H&S practitioners in the UK and noticeably, world wide! This is no mean achievement and would not haver been achieved without energy, dedication of IOSH Staff and commitment of volunterrs from Branches, Specialist Groups and the wide range of Committees plus the 'Council' - who really rubber stamp the pre-discussed topics debated at length in prior meetings. Sometimes we actually get a heated debate! Join us if you are stimulated and get elected! It is a type of 'fun' and does achieve something. Keep up the debate but try and understand some of the processes that we have to stick to (we also lead a business and are Directors with all that responsibility) so IOSH can function as a Charity and also a Limited Company. Yes, some of it is serious (there are disciplinary hearings occasionally) and a lot of it is very responsible as we understand the depth of some of the decisions we take. The Chartered status will shake down eventually and is a typically slow British process, which does not need to be reflected in our title, but takes time to get into the actual competencies that we purport to support for professionals. That is really what IOSH is about - professionalism - and I for one, have fought to have it as an 'inclusive' Institution rather than an academic one. For those who aspire to high degrees of professionalism, (viz doctors, lawyers, accountants etc.), yes, you need to be well qualified in the eyes of the Institution and that usually (but not always nessessarily) means a high degree of academic achievement - after all, would you have an intern take out your liver for a transplant? So it's horses for courses and IOSH will support and encourage them all to make all Members feel special and worthwhile. Everyone can't join in the debate or be at all Committeee meetings so the decisions may not (as in politics) be the most perfect, but they are all made in the best interests of you, the Members, come hell or high water! So try and trust the Council, supported by well-meaning Committees - made up of Members like you! Join the debate and respond to the questionnaires and mail-shots as they all count. If we don't get responses, then we make an educated guess as to what we think Members actually will benefit from. Our new President, Eleanor Lawson, deserves your support and has been elected by Council to serve you, so let her know what you feel and she will lead us into 2003. Thank you for your time and energy in the debate. Kind regards, George Wedgwood, Nationally Elected Council Member, Chair of Specialist Groups Management Committee, Member of Corporate Strategy Committee.

Posted By Tim George By the use of the term “shallow” which of the synonyms did you really mean? “Superficial, trivial, petty, small-minded, one-dimensional, inconsequential, minor, trifling” and in that comment where you referring to the contributors so far, or is the debate superficial, trivial, petty etc because so few council members are participating? Tell us George! Who are you attempting to disparage? Your plea to join us is akin to the ex-Presidents plea on November 14 when he like you tried to create a smokescreen, one assumes to avoid addressing the concerns presented on this forum. I note from your signature that you are presenting a Council view and therefore are we to infer that the assertions of Ron, Geoff and Philip et al are correct? Council demanding trust is not how it works. You need to earn it. You could start by addressing the questions raised here in an honest and forthright manner. That might impress us more than mere rhetoric. Finally…for now! You said “Our new President, Eleanor Lawson, deserves your support and has been elected by Council to serve you, so let her know what you feel and she will lead us into 2003” Let her know how we feel! What do you think the thousands of words above you have been? Council have got to sort this one out. Properly. Tim

Posted By Ken Taylor That's an interesting arguement, Arran. So brand loyalty outranks reference to chartered status! I have not found so much estimation of the acronym myself over many years of membership - but, rather numerous enquiries as to what it stands for and a few disparaging jokes based upon alliterative or rhyming pseudonyms - none of which I care to repeat here in the interest of perpetuating them. However, I am pleased to note your view that it might have been nice to have the word 'Chartered' in the title. This is a step in the right direction. It's notable that the environmental health fraternity hasn't been so shy about its status and, from my years in an EH department, the comparison with IOSH is well made.

Posted By David Brede As a member of the Chartered Institute of Transport as well as IOSH we had a problem in that when we merged with the Institute of Logistics we had a number of members entitled to 'Chartered' status and others that were not. This Institution is moving to raise all its members to Chartered status so my post nominals will change from MCIT MILT to MCILT! My view is that Chartered status is recognition as to where a profession such as ours has come so I will be looking to have this status acknowledged in some way for the members. If we were not as good as we are we would not have got it so in my view the council should be mapping out the process of change bearing in mind that we are where we are.

Posted By Jack What on earth does Philip mean by 'Secondly, as Paul held such poor opinions of the organisation, and remained as President - - '. In his earlier posting there is mention of 'evidence'. Where is Philips evidence for this statement about Pauls 'opinions of the organisation'. I can’t see it in the thread; have I overlooked something? Tim, too, is being a little hard on George. My reading of his point was that he meant 'shallow' in the sense (as he said) that 'few Council Members have commented!'. Ie his comment was about the size of the response in relation to the size of the membership not about the quality.

Posted By Peter Vintner A lovely new labouresk response there by the President. It reminds me of when the lady, concerned with her husband’s condition and treatment, accosted the PM outside the hospital. He tried to engage into a private meeting and she was having none of it. It can be seen that this thread has been viewed on some 8000 occasions. I don’t think that the normal communication channels, branches or council would actually cope with the level of correspondence if a written response was required. As said this forum is not intended to be a formal communication of policies and positions, however with such strong opinion and interest of many members, this is an exceptional opportunity to put the record straight. Pete

Posted By Stuart Nagle I was sadened by the comments of George wedgewood in that he though the deabte in this thread was shallow (have you read these comments?) and that in essence his thought are that IOSH Officers are far too busy to rewad and perhaps listen to the concern of members. A great shame !! ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted By Philip McAleenan With regard to the removal of Ron Young's posting...it strikes me that when you disagree with a statement of fact the correct approach would be to challenge the truth of it rather than cry foul and have it deleted. If Ron's statement about parochial comments is wrong, challenge him to substantiate it or provide information that negates his statement. On the other hand if it is true, accept the truth of it and move on. What concerns me more though is that the statement by Ron was deleted. Was it because he stated that the comments of another contributor were parochial? What makes this insulting or rude, and, more to the point, is it any more rude than statements by others that the debate by contributors to this thread is of "poor quality" or is "shallow"? Does the deletion only of Ron's comments and not those by ex-presidents or council members signify a partisan approach to the removal of "disagreeable" postings? Or was the deletion because Ron expressed a hope about whether he wished someone to be/or not be a member of council? Surely such an expression is the essence of democracy (and at elections is what we are asked to express in a formal manner), where-as censorship, even when remarks are downright rude and insulting, is the expression of paucity of argument coupled with power; a negation of democracy. In response to Jack, yes you have overlooked something. best wishes for the New Year folks, Philip

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith I have replied privately to the previous posting.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith I have again replied privately to the previous posting.

Posted By Tim Dear Jack Unlike past presidents or present council members I do not consider that you or any of the contributors are either "shallow" or engaged in "poor quality debate". I am a little surprised therefore, that you can not read a simple piece of text as presented by Philip and understand its meaning. if it helps I will highlight a couple of the points raised although there are others and indeed there are many questions posed by Philip, Geoff and others that remain unanswered. When Paul stated, "We will not gain the respect of other professions which already have achieved chartered status if we continue to engage in such poor quality debate". Philip responded, “The "poor quality debate" issue aside, there is a second point in this statement that is of note, namely that the inference is that IOSH currently does not have the respect of other chartered professions. If this is indeed the case, then there is much to concern us here but first what we need to see is the evidence of the lack of respect. Paul, you have said it in your official capacity, so now produce the facts that support this contention.” When Paul said “If we seek to be chartered as individual practitioners, then we must demonstrate that we merit such a status.” Philip asked, ”Do we not merit that Paul? What is it that we must demonstrate? Does the Privy Council have higher OSH standards for individual qualifications and practice than IOSH has, or the universities and companies who qualify and employ us? Are we as individuals operating below acceptable standards? If IOSH, after five decades, has not brought the profession to an acceptable standard, surely it is time to disband rather than to seek elevation to a "higher" position in society.” Hope this helps and maybe when you have reread this thread you will understand that "...people might think think it's a case of 'no facts to back up this statement, just pronouncement, and that is far from sufficient" Of course I am not setting out to speak for Philip as the evidence of his abiliy to speak, most eloquently, for himself is regularly on display on this forum, but I do wish to help you Jack since I sense you are having a little difficulty following what has become a very interesting if a little lengthy debate. One final comment for now If IOSH would answer the questions posed on this forum "Openly" not secretively {Note to current President}then the debate would have ended weeks ago. Tim

Posted By Ken Taylor I note that your replies to Peter and Geoff have been sent privately to them. As the instigator of this thread, I should be interested to hear of the content in as much as it was raised in the interest of the advancement of IOSH in its chartered form in the estimation of others.