Posted By Ken Taylor Thanks Geoff. The extent to which questions have gone unanswered in this thread has been quite interesting.

Posted By Ron Young FAO Philip McAleenan Philip, have you ever thought of standing for Council? Having read your postings on various subjects over the years, I'm sure that and Ciaran would achieve a respectable support amongst the "lower level" debating members of the Institution. I for one would welcome the chance to vote in your favour.

Posted By Geoff Burt Jack I'm not knocking your contribution but wouldn't it be better to encourage Paul to answer the comments made by Philip rather than going round in circles. After all it was Paul who talked about the poor quality contributions and it is Paul who is the best person to defend his own comments - as you say it is the intention that counts. If Paul isn't willing to do this, we all have to draw our own conclusions on what he meant. Geoff

Posted By Tim Jack I see you are getting the chance to improve your keyboard skills. All is not lost. :-) Tim

Posted By Philip McAleenan Jack, I tried to take the opportunity to raise in private a point regarding your posting of 16th January, but the e-mails are being bounced back from your address as a delivery failure? Your posting contains a substantial portion which is materially inaccurate and states as true something which is undoubtedly not so. In respect of my posting of 29th November, you state, "You often quote selectively ignoring any qualifying information", and proceed to illustrate an example by quoting a section from that posting. However, for whatever reason you have failed to quote sufficient from my posting that would have showed that not only did I not ignore qualifying information, but on the contrary dealt with it at length. Please re-read the relevant paragraph from Paul's posting that you selected and the several paragraphs that I wrote in response to that specific paragraph. If you had included this in you posting, your point would have been negated in its entirety. I assume an error on your part in the reading of my posting rather than any attempt to mislead the readership, and I look forward to a speedy correction. Regards, Philip

Posted By Tony Birchall Ron, I'd love this thread to be deleted to be quite frank. It's gone on too long. I truly feel that this forum should be for users to post questions relevant to SHE Management, and for members to help these people out. The Chartered Status is in its infancy and we are the lucky ones as we are members of IOSH. I really believe that IOSH are getting it right. However, that's just my opinion.

Posted By Tony Birchall By being positive that's how. I can see where you are coming from Ron but we have seen recent changes in senior staff at IOSH, it's just a case of "watch this space". We really do get value for money although I agree with the inital annoyance about the cost of the flyer which meant nothing to me. Point taken however.

Posted By Ian Minty I thought that I would post this response from the study support forum, by Stuart Nagle. As it poses some very important questions as to the future qualifications route for IOSH, in light of the new chartered status. I would find the answers to these questions very important as I am trying to decide myself whether to go down the NEBOSH Diploma route or the Postgraduate route. "Re: Who's had to pay themselves? Posted by Stuart Nagle on Sunday, 08 December 2002 at 22:06 Dear, All. Thank you all for your honest, forthright and well written responses to the questions posed. As I am sure all of you are aware, there are many questions that need to be asked about the availability and access to routes of qualifications, their standards and the financial costs of attaining those qualifications available. As we are all aware, Health & Safety is an issue that is at the forefront of work activity in the UK, and probably enjoys at this time a higher profile than at any time in the past, and is acknowledged to have benefits for both employers and employees alike. Recently, through much hard work by the Committees and employees of IOSH I'm sure, IOSH achieved the status of becomming a 'Chartered Body' but as yet, not entitled to award the title of 'Chartered' (Safety Professional?) to it's many and various members at corporate level and/or a similar recognised professional title to non-corporate qualified members. Several issues encouraged me to ask the question 'Who's had to pay for themselves', not least the poor availability and high costs of courses, and although hoping for a better response, I think it is clear that in the main self-finance and self sacrifice to attain qualifications is more likely than finding an employer who wholeheartedly pays for and supports employees with time off to attain the qualifications the employer is seeking in his/her employee(s). As far as 'Direct Entry Examinations' or 'Mature Candidate Routes' are concerned, all should be aware that both these options are employed (and likely to be sought by the privvy council in IOSH's case) by other Professional Chartered Institutions. These routes are not meant to detract from the professional standing of those who have qualified via the usual routes (BSc/PgC/MSc etc to indiviual Chartered status etc) but to ensure and enhance the reputation and standing of institutions by: A) Having a mechanism whereby highly experienced professionals who have not had the opportunity to gain qualifications may obtain professional standing equivilent to those who have, and with whom they equate, by having been extensively interviewed by a peer review group at that level, and B) having an examination whereby those who cannot undertake the reconised training can be examined at a set level that equates with those examinations not available. As can be seen from the responses made, attaining qualifications in Health and Safety can often be time consuming, financially difficult to manage, and often involve members having to forego their own time where employers will not allow time off or sponsor employees. I have said it on other threads, but will be boring and repeat myself here (as many members, one must assume, do not fully grasp the whole effects likely to arise by IOSH attaining status to be able to award Chartered Status on members in the future) that this WILL require sweeping changes to the way the Institutions membership is organised, in so much as it awards corporate and non-corporate membership, and to the level of qualifications that will be necessary to attain/achieve corporate and non-corporate membership of the Institution. As stated previously, The likely qualifications for full corporate membership (and you can check this out by visiting the www sites of other Chartered Bodies who can award the title of 'Chartered Engineer/Surveyor' etc to members) will be MSc/PgC/BSc (for MIOSH) I expect, and (at present - with the lack of other qualifications in this field) NEBOSH Full Diploma (1&2) - and perhaps NVQ4 for a Non-Corporate membership (title of, for instance Incorprated Safety Professional - equivilent of Incorporated Engineer). Other persons seeking membership with other qualifications (of less acedemic rigour than the above such as NEBOSH Cert and others) are likely to be offered some form of non-corporate associate membership. Let me state here that I do not have insight into IOSH and I am not aware of what they intend to do, but I do have experience in the standards and routes to registration (SARTOR) for attainment of the titles of 'Chartered Engineer' and Incorporated Engineer, these standards being set by other bodies (Engineering Council under the Privvy Council and in conjunction with the respective 'Nominating Bodies' i.e. the other Professional Chartered Institutions), and we must therefore realise that similar standards WILL APPLY to IOSH if it intends to become an awarding body - and of course it's members need to know this as far in advance as possible. Without going on much more (too long a response already...) there needs to be clear information for all members on: 1) What IOSH intends to do - is it aiming to become an awarding body? 2) If so, all members need to know what is proposed in respect of membership and qualification levels and the criteria for those membership levels 3) There needs to be clear action by the lead professional body for health and safety - IOSH, on improving; (a) the number, location and quality standards of courses available to members to enable study for prospective members at all levels (now and proposed) (b) reducing costs to allow study and perhaps considering bursaries to those who need assistance to study (c) A review and leadership from the highest levels of IOSH on the structure and qualification and routes to membership that are available and that will be available in the future (d) A clear indication also of the structure that will permit highly experienced persons who are not academically qualified to be able to attain membership through a Mature Candidate Route (e) a clear indication that all members will be invited to give their views and allowed a vote on these issues to ensure that the whole of the memberships views are fully represented in the future of the institution. Finally, If you have views on these subjects, as I do, please voice them - whether you agree or not. At this time I think it is vital that all of you with views on these subjects express them. The Institution can and will only benefit from you putting your views and points across. "

Posted By Geoff Burt Ah but Ken - its the quality of the responses that count. The ex President said so! Geoff

Posted By David Johnson Hey Jack is this that irony you English think the rest of the world doesn't understand. By the way Jack you obviously haven't worked out what most of us surely know. The contributor whose alter ego is Tim!!? David C Johnson

Posted By Ron Young Dave, No, but hopefully this is...

Posted By Jack B&*ger got it wrong again.

Posted By Dave Wilson I'm up for that! Do I win a prize??

Posted By Laurie My God Tim, You must be really stressed out! I thought I had problems, but at least I know who I am (I think!) Laurie

Posted By Ken Taylor We seem to be in danger of 'losing the thread' on this one now. As it comes down to an economic choice each year, I tend to favour the Public Services Specialist Group Annual Seminar (formerly MAPS at Keele) to the Annual Conference. So, despite my Glasgow ancestry, I shall hope to see some of you at that venue - that is if IOSH allow me to go this time.

Posted By dim sung Tim You part of problem not solution, Dim: 'OK So who am I? Tim' 'I see you are getting the chance to improve your keyboard skills. All is not lost. :-) Tim'

Posted By Chris Whiston As a H&S practitioner with environmental responsibilities I note that the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment are going ahead with their charter application too.. and they have included the provision for Chartered Environmnentalists. "The Society for the Environment was launched in October 2002, the IEMA is one of the ten founding bodies. The Society's next major milestone is the submission of a petition to the Privy Council for incorporation by Royal Charter and a new qualification, Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv).Preliminary discussions have already taken place with the Privy Council and the Society is aiming to complete the application process by the end of 2003". For further details see www.iema.net It seems they have listened more to their members.

Posted By Laurie Allan Don't misunderstand my reason for resignation - it has nothing to do with this thread or dissatisfaction with Council. Like you, I believe that if you don't like something then try to change it, an operation best carried out from the inside. The reason for my resignation is simply as stated - if I can't even get to Tech SP level after ten years there seems little point in kidding myself that I may still progress upwards, and I might as well give up and let the more competent get on with it! Laurie

Posted By Allan St.John Holt Geoff, I always think twice before I contribute anyway. But I certainly wouldn't class you as a Forum whinger. I'm surprised you find the statement you quoted to be out of touch with reality - I've read it again, and I can't think of anything I'd want to change in it. I really do believe that the average member of Council wants to do a good job in the interests of the membership, and that means keeping their finger on the pulse of opinion. My own view, for what it's worth, is that IOSH has lost an opportunity here and I can't see why they decided not to progress with Chartering individuals. But that's what they, the elected members, decided. If I want to change the policy, I can always offer that as a platform. I could also object to the policy on who gets a vote, but that's an old one and unlikely to change. In any organisation such as IOSH the corporate members are typically those with the voting rights. IOSH has always tried to keep the ratio between elected and non-elected down to 1 or less than 1:1 - without success so far. Geoff, I have no problem with annoying people with my views, but I'd be surprised if you didn't actually share them! Allan

Posted By Dave Wilson Back up here again! Having kept 'tabs' on this thread for a while I may have lost the plot. So can someone answer a couple of questions? 1 If NO Chartered H&S People why go to the expense time effort etc 2. If NO chartered Institute then why as above. 3. Can I have a badge?