Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 13 August 2003 11:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Lucas Anyone seen the article in the Daily Telegraph today regarding the HSE announcing plans to divert resources away from accident investigation. According to the statement the HSE plan to divert more "resources" to accident prevention. This statement has allegedly angered the CCA, in that the conditions that caused the injuries may not be addressed with a subsequent reduction in criminal accountability/prosecution. Thoughts? Is this a step forwards/backwards? What will it mean for the OS&H industry and practitioners?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 13 August 2003 11:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson In all honesty mate isnt that what we in H&S are all about anyway - accident / incident prevention. Get it wrong and you then incur the criminal and civil consequences apart from the heartache, suffering and business damage!
Admin  
#3 Posted : 13 August 2003 12:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze No, but I heared an article on Radio 4 recently on the same story which set a whole similar bunch of thoughts running in my head. I concluded that prevention is better than cure (a fairly non-controversial statement I think). However to take resources away from accident investigation in order to fund prevention, was definitely the wrong thing to do. My reasoning was that there are lots of organisations out there whos remit is wholly or partly to prevent workplace accidents (e.g. IOSH, RoSPA, BSC, CCA etc...) However there are precious few organisations with a remit set in legislation which extends to investigating workplace accidents & prosecution where necessary (HSE, LA's, Police). While the regulatory authorities can & should be involved in prevention, who else can become involved in investigation & prosecution? So on balance I concluded it was a bad suggestion but made with the right motives.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 13 August 2003 12:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould I personally Dont like that idea as in my LIMITED experience, think that it is going to give the impression the hse is not fully supporting the workforce. I only say this due to an accident I had 10 years ago. Putting it short I severed the ends of two fingers to the point they were hanging off. I was a night shift supervisor and we never had the keys for the gates to the premices. I had to climb a ten ft spiked fence to get to the ambulance. The police stated they were informing the HSE inspecter and I would receive a visit. When speaking to collegues at work we was all hoping that things around our workplace would be tidied up. We all liked our boss he was a generally good chap, so none wanted him prosecuted and was prepared to put this accross to the inspecter. What we wanted was an improvement of conditions and practices. Did we get that visit? NO Incident was wrapped up by telephone conversation to employer. We all lost faith in the HSE and went straight back to the macho attitude at work. two months later one of the lads got his skin peeled of his hand and the ends of his fingers chopped copletely off. Who do you think we blamed? YES you got it the HSE. That was then and knowing a bit more about safety now I understand what probably happened. Root causes missed bla bla. Today we have to consider the fact that there are a lot of safety proffesionals out there. Companies get updated on requirments by email etc etc. Lots of companies have accident form procedures that are passed to the Safety officer/director/boss before notification. I am just wandering how TIDIED up these reports are. The HSE is overstretched as it is and maybe apart from the serious events dont have the recources to investigate many of the smaller incidents etc especially when they now are getting the perfecct accident forms. Maybe it is better they put their recources into something they can action almost immediatly such as site visits etc. I am not going to blurt on and on but one last thought of mine. As an industrial worker for many years and being involved in many a coflict with managment trying to impose safety in the workplace and face cynics. Would it be good to see HSE site visits, spot checks etc where the inspecter corrects unsafe behaviour of employees a little more which in turn assist the employer a lttle. Lets get in the real world when it comes to work forces. We hate managment imposing safety at times especially when other disputes go on. The macho attitude is a large killer in idustry and need addressing from top ranks right down to the workforce. I have worked with plenty of guys that even in safe conditions are a liability to themselves and others. Thes folk need telling and sometimes I think the best person is the factory inspector. It drives the message to the workforce that safety is being tackled on a national front and they are involved not just management. If only it was that simple which im sure it is not. Sorry for bluting on & on I am waiting for the posting (all comments welcome except from Jason gould)
Admin  
#5 Posted : 13 August 2003 14:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Think you are missing the point here. The HSE / LA 'enforce' H&S legislation and cannot do any more, they issue 'guidance' etc remember 'guidance' in various forms but at the end of the day all they can do is force employers comply with statute as a minimum. They cannot force you to have all singing all dancing safety management systems and be all things to all men as they would be challenged in court, thats why after a visit everything is aligned to statute. If the law don't exist they can't enforce! Responsible employers realise that managing safety is good business and saves them money which increases profitability, its up to the employer to ensure that safety is done not the HSE / LA. Remember that the LA enforce H&S in more work places than the HSE.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 13 August 2003 16:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould Dave I understand all of what you have said. I Agree It comes down to Law, advice and Counter claims against HSE/LA etc etc. The potential Drop in the HSE/LA presence is what worries me. A number of visits to workplaces come from the result of a accident reportings. Some smaller companies had proberbly not had a visit for 12 months to 2 years beforehand. usually the results of these visits lead to other actions being taken (improvement notices advice etc) If the already overstretched recources are further reduced for this role that the HSE/LA cover, and the prevention approach is adopted which to me is usually an appointment being made 3 weeks in advance. Then the underlying causes may not be looked at and this will result in a reduction in criminal accountability etc. So they are diverting recources to prevention. I have not read this article. What are they proposing. More site visits More breach prosecutions Higher penalties Bigger visual presence Dave I am 30 Not an Einstein and most of my working life has been manufacturing. I have never had more than 6 months of work in 16 years (I say 16 cos I started work at 14). I have probably had 20-30 different jobs and I can honestly tell you i have never seen or spoke to a factory inspector or LA. They may have been there Ive just not noticed them. What I have seen is Dangerous workers which the employer sees as superman.(Gets the job done) Appauling work conditions (Blokes in school bins used in paint industry spreading a concentrated paint remover inside. Giggling to themselves cos they are high as hell) Terrible Management decisions (we will give you a £300 loyalty bonus as long as you only have two days of in the year)Never mind the fact you are all on a comar site and are operating safety critical systems with the FLU. Many people are a lttle cautious and behave safely for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is the fear factor of (what if it is found to be my fault)If this demises further I feel we will see an increase in accident unless counteracted. I can go on all day but hopefully you will know where Im coming from. Ken Originally asked for thoughts from safety professionals about this decision. What I am Saying is How the decision may affect the perceptions of the work force as a whole; bearing in mind we are not legal eagles and always perceive the HSE as People who collect Brown envelopes from the our bosses.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 14 August 2003 10:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Bit of a sweeping statement at the end there mate, I would be careful, its a bit emotive! The reality is that its the 'employer' who is responsible for your H&S not the HSE, so if you want to get into a blame culture then it is the bosses and managers who are strictly liable for allowing these practices to happen, Remember 'Contributory Negligence'if you get hurt doing these things. If we lived in the world of Jean Luc Picard where money was abolished then everything in the safety world would be hunky dorey, but we dont and it isn't. Managers manage and if they dont then it is their fault and they will stand or fall by their decisions, "just ignore that because it gets the job done quicker", dont get on the 'Enforcers' back because there is not a factory inpector allocated to every factory, thats life mate, personally I'v never seen a VAT man or and Auditor but they are out there doing thier stuff. Remember the LA / HSE has a statutory legal duty to invetigate complaints made to them! What constitutes 'investigation' is also open to debate, telephone call at one end to prosecution at the other, but only if they are likely to succeed and it is in the public interest. Whistle blow if there are such dangerous practices going on, Piper Alpha was a classic safety offshore before then was do the job and dont make waves or you were moved on, it took a major thing like this to change the offshore culture mate. 'infected with the disease of sloppiness' I think that was from PA Inquiry(corrcet me if I'm wrong)
Admin  
#8 Posted : 14 August 2003 12:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould Aggree with you Dave I Do. But as you say after Piper Alpha the FOCUS was swithched to offshore safety. FOCUS Are we not discussing the HSE;s FOCUS Or resourses switching from accident investigation to prevention. There are going to be Positives and Neagatives of this decision. A freind of mine owns a windows and glass company. Only small it is. He employed some old school freinds to work there. He Done what he could regards to safety but unfortuantly there was an accident. HSE inspector came for visit and lads talking about company getting prosocuted bla bla. Inspector walked round site and found everything was in order and in some cases very well managed. On her way out she spots one of the lads handling glass without gloves on (from what I am told she warned the lad in front of everyone and instructed that he be disciplined) Not sure if she could do that but the result was Immediate. He and the other lads now more readily accepted good safety practices and the gaffer noticed the improvement in the work shop. That inspector left after an accident investigation. Leaving a workforce behaving in a far safer way. Now you could say well the owner should have had all this covered in a policy, discipline procedure etc etc. Well the lad that was warned was the supervisor top dog on shop floor. The owner was out most of the time generating new buisness. He employed him person to watch shop as he was trustworthy bla bla. What I am trying to get at is the fact that many visits after accident investigations are Beneficial to Owners and the workforce. If this is going to be swapped for More telephone call investiagtions due to resources and money is going to be diverted to prevention which does usually come in form of pre booked appointments. Things like this are going to get overlooked. In larger companies I think directors/safety officers and managers from different departments do checks/inspections / investigations etc on each other. So theres less of an excuse. Now Dave from my understanding more fatalities come from smaller companies unless you get Piper Alpher Etc. If the Prevention Tactics is not Thought out correctly we will see a rise in accidents. I am going to keep my eye on this. Good safety management is fine when as you say you can afford it. But HSE/LA investigations do cover smaller comanies and can improve conditions and yes Dave it can also have employees singing and dancing safety managment systems epesially when they are aware they too can be singled out and disciplined etc. Bye the way I watched the documentry on Piper Alpha It was one of the best documentries ive seen. The one where the companies involved refused to let suvivers board the second rig or speak to anyone. Disgusting
Admin  
#9 Posted : 14 August 2003 12:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson I think we fundamentally agree Jason, but it is still up to the employer to ensure safe practices etc. A good embarrasing bolloking from an HSE inspector will help 'at the time' but positive reinforcement of doing things right by employers and in particular management is 10 times more effective. The most effective way to ensure safety is to 'send people down the road' if they blatantly disregard safety in the work place, isnt this written in to everyones T&C as a serious breach of your employment contract not to mention H&S at work Act etc will soon get attention focussed, but like everything, this cost money, probably a lot.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 14 August 2003 12:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker Dave, I think Jason meant that the HSE masters (politicians) are getting the "brown envelopes" from the employers. I've witnessed visits by inspectors that have resulted in friendly advice only and it certainly lifts the H&S priority for all concerned (them & us !!) at least for a time. Lets have more inspectors and more visits. There are too many employers out there brushing H&S under the carpet.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 14 August 2003 13:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze I don't disagree with anything that has been said before, but I think Jim has a point here. Even if govenment has not been paid off by big business, the conspiracy theorists will have a field day. Plus it undermines the safety pro. on the ground who often need both carrot & stick to coax unwilling employers along.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 14 August 2003 14:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Jim & Jon you trying to wind me up here, its not friday yet! As an ex 'enforcement' Officer, there are a range of things at your disposal from 'friendly advice' to 'prosecution' and its at the discretion of the Inspector at the time and they have to take into considertaion load of things, severity, past record, public perception, likely hood of success, commitment and co-opertion from the employer are but a few, also in the LA what poliical power is in the town hall has a bearing as well. Blue half sort at the rotary or lodge / golf course Red half serve notice / proesecute drag through the courts Ever been let off from speeding, broken light? has it stopped you? This will not change things one iota maybe HSE inspections should be done under a 'risk' based system very much like Food Safety and the risk which your business poses will determine how often and by whom you get a visit. Guys I've been on both sides of the fence and the jobs are so fundamentally diffirent in approach, dont need cajolling / charismatic / humour or be pragmatic just need 'do it or I will prosecute as the regs say I can.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 14 August 2003 14:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould Yes in a way People do feel like that Jim. The HSE/LA can only enforce broken Laws when they Know they have been broken or can be result in injury. (Usually the result of accident investigations) Nowadays they have to be on the ball as more and more companies appeal and walk out of court scott free. (It is only a perception a lot of workers have about the brown envelope) Not mine We shoudn't expect the HSE/LA to babysit us at work like a teacher to kids. With the Technelogical boom, internet etc companies have less excuse for ignorance. The HSE campaign based for HSG 65 has had effect on numerous companies I have worked for. The information and guidance is now out there in abundance. The ISO 14001 has had great effect in the self regulatry circles Supplier supplied bla bla. These do cost money. My feeling is that there should be a higher presence of visits though not all leading to penalties. Accident investigations in the most should continue. If resourses are going to be diverted then they should be diverted to enphasising and enforcing Section 7 HSW act. Not just managers, Directors etc but right down to the core, the Employee on shop floor etc. Nowadays I feel we are getting to a (GIVE US A JOB, I CAN DO THAT. EYAR LET ME HAVE A GO) COS if anything goes wrong claim farms will pay me and the boss always gets buggered off the HSE. Individual Accountability Maybe clear in policies etc. I dont think it is clear enough in law. And especially not enforced enough. I know in reality I am reaching to far or barking up the wrong tree but this is what is coming accross to me.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 14 August 2003 15:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Sinclair I have been watching the thread of this article with interest and I will if I may summarise the facts in relation to this matter, before giving my views. The HSE has recently announced it is to adopt new approaches to incident investigation management and revise its incident selection criteria. In short, the HSE's Field Operations Division ("FOD")will spend more time carrying out pro-active inspections and less time investigating accidents. FOD will also streamline its investigation procedures to try and gather more information on a first visit to site. This is in line with the HSE's recently published revisions to its "investigation procedure". The end result will be that the HSE will investigate less accidents, leaving it more time to concentrate on preventative inspections. It does of course also allow it to reduce its costs and stay within its reduced budget. This may appear to some a retrograde step (i.e. less accident investigations, therefore less prosecutions) and I have some sympathy with that view. There are however a number of other factors in play (or about to come into play) that together should ensure that health and safety standards do not drop too much (if at all). The first is that in the Government's recently published review on Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance ("ELCI"), it was evident that in future, companies with a poor accident record will find it difficult (i.e. expensive) to obtain ELCI, if in fact they can obtain ELCI at all. This in itself should prompt companies to improve health and safety and reduce accidents, without HSE intervention. Secondly, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards)Bill is in its final parliamentary stages and it should be law later this year. This Bill will (amonst other things) allow the NHS to recover the cost of treating work-related accidents. Since companies will seek to insure against such costs, there is an incentive on them to reduce their accident levels in order to obtain reasonably priced insurance. Thirdly, there is currently out to consultation proposals which are likely to be enacted in the form of a new Companies Act (probably in 2005). Amongst other things, the Act will for the first time introduce statutory duties for directors. These duties will include individual duties relating to Health, safety and environment. Since a breach of these duties will incur personal liability on the part of directors (and potentially other officers of the company), there is again an incentive for companies to reduce accidents at work. Finally, the HSE is about to consult on the long-awaited removal of the current exclusion of civil liability in relation to employees from Regulation 22 from the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (and thereafter from all health and safety legislation). Once removed, employees will be able to use a breach of the Regulations (without the need for a prosecution) in any civil action for compensation, which is based on the negligence of the employer. The point that I am making in a long-winded way is the HSE's proposal to reduce its number of "reactive" interventions will be picked up elsewhere in the system. The reduction in reactive interventions will however allow the HSE to carry out more "pro-active" interventions (such as those carried out by the Construction Division in the "Construction Blitz" programme). I understand the Blitz programme has been very successful in highlighting health and safety and improving site conditions. Regards. David
Admin  
#15 Posted : 14 August 2003 16:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker I'm not really bothered if ther inspectors are using carrots or sticks (time and place for both). What is desperately needed is more inspectors and more visits so employers know they cannot ignore to law. At the moment it cost effective just to pretend H&S doesn't exist, the odds are you will never get found out and save a bundle on implimenting H&S. A large proportion of small businesses do just that. HSE would appear to have a disproportionate chiefs & indians staffing level. An article in the Times (on Stress) commented that the funding for HSE had gone up 25% in three years but the amount of inspectors had fell by 10%. And that was from a cynical journalist
Admin  
#16 Posted : 14 August 2003 17:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould David I read your comments and they are very interesting. Do you know where on the net I can read more about this. LOOKS LIKE COMPANIES WILL HAVE TO START SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THEIR POLICIES AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AS DAVE.W HAS ALREADY MENTIONED. I am not fully to upto date with current events on the horizon. Are these a definate. Whats happened to corporate manslaughter? I beleive it has missed its turn. I can see claim farms rubbing their hands at the removal of clause for civil liability of management regs. All sounds great If it gets down to the man/woman on the shop floor. Management have the biggest role in influencing behaviour in their workplace. But the presence or lack off presence from the enforcing agencies definatly has the strongest effect. Yes sack the risk takers. Yes management should be actively involed in reinforcing safety in their own workplaces. (Hope they get more support from goverment such as incentives grants etc) Yes companies Think it is cheaper to ignore safety than invest in it.(Hope they get whats coming to them pref larger fines and more prison sentences) Yes employees use safety when it suits them. (Hope more decisions reflect contribution factor alot more than it does now) And Finally is there more industry can do i.e. checking each other similar to when they check for iso 14001. The 18000 from what i am told is a little too expensive to implement(not sure). Its been an eye opener for me folks thanks. Regard Jason (pondering the future)
Admin  
#17 Posted : 15 August 2003 09:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Jarman This change in approach mirrors that in other organisations where the general view may have been that they are there to enforce, or act after an incident. For many years now, the Police have had Crime Reduction / Prevention Officers. The modernisation of the Fire service is changing its focus from fighting fires to helping educate and prevent them. We still have Police to enforce the law, and Firemen to tackle fires. I suggest that it will be no different with the HSE, there will still be inspectors to investigate after an incident. How many inspectors there are performing each function, the ratios etc is, no doubt, another matter. Overall, I think that any effort to reduce risks is good news and it is up to safety professionals and the 'preventive' element of the HSE to work together for mutual benefit.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 15 August 2003 09:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze So from what Mark says, I guess it depends on what your philosphical/ political outlook to crime & punishment is as to whether you're for or against the change. Can I therefore assume that the Daily Telegraph thought it was a bad idea?
Admin  
#19 Posted : 15 August 2003 09:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze And no Dave W, I would never try to intentionally wind you up (it's far too easy to be a challenge.) ;-)
Admin  
#20 Posted : 15 August 2003 16:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Sinclair While most of this material is on the web (try CCA website as a good start), as a law firm we get our information from a range of different sources. Everything stated in my article has been published and all the proposals are making their way through the relevant systems. Whether they will all make it to the end is another matter. My belief is the ones I have mentioned are almost certain to become law. Re Corporate Killing, the current Bill is still in the pipeline (awiating a second reading), but watch this space as new proposals are set to be introduced (against the Government's wishes) later this year. There will also be another Bill introducing ciminal liabiity for directors. Whether they make it through to become law is of course another matter. My personal view is we will not see corporate killing legislation this side of a General Election. Regards. David
Admin  
#21 Posted : 17 August 2003 21:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Personally, I have always thought the HSE (and the Courts) are far too reactive. Whilst investigating accidents and incidents should be important part of the regulators duty, often these are only investigated depending on the seriousness of the outcome. Not exactly proactive. Ideally, there should be a balance between being proactive and reactive, erring on the side of proactiveness. The thinking is that when accident has occurred there is little that can be done afterwards, an obvious statement I know. By prosecuting for example, is merely pandering to societal need to blame, a form of retribution. Which is sometimes needed but not necessarily a philosophy that should be nurtured in the world of accident prevention and aetiology. Ray
Admin  
#22 Posted : 18 August 2003 11:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Raymond, how can the courts be proactive, get dragged in front of a QC and told what a good company you are and given £200k out of the public purse. If you ask any of the relatives of disasters where people have been hurt and yes they do want to 'blame' someone so that the person who was 'responsible' gets taken to task, its part of their grieving process and it is very difficult to come to terms with things if this cannot happen, Look at the 'Lockerbie' scenario to this day the relatives still want justice and more importantly want justice to be 'seen to be done'. Now if any enforcement body wants to get into a 'real' proactive stance then they have my vote anyday.
Admin  
#23 Posted : 18 August 2003 13:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Dave, In response to your points, although I am not sure what you mean in your first paragraph. I am not advocating a 'no-blame' ethos, but just trying to be rational about the whole concept of the regulator, Courts and where punishment lies within the context of health and safety. Yes, disasters where human life is lost are a terrible and often preventable occurrence. Society often seeks 'justice' against those alleged wrongdoers, what Jenkins (1989) describes a 'ritual damnation'. In the example you provide in the Lockerbie disaster, this was no accident per se, but a reckless act of terror. Not too surprising that the relatives want justice 'seen to be done'. If, and this is my point, the HSE were to concentrate on inspections including enforcement notices, many of those accidents that may have occurred will be prevented. Very often if the accident is serious as in a fatality, the HSE will be all over the place, and the Courts will exact a 'suitable punishment'. However, those accidents and incidents that do not by the 'grace of God' result in a seriousness injury, are often ignored or not given an appropriate punishment. This is pure reactiveness. The HSE for example could consult more with employees and their representatives in order to find out more about unsafe working conditions and practices, which we h&s practitioners know exist. That is what I call proactive.
Admin  
#24 Posted : 18 August 2003 14:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Ray, Do agree to a certain extent, 'Lockerbie' was a bad example but it is topical. problem mate is that the purpose of 'regulators' is to regulate and courts punish / opportion liability to people / organisations so how do they become 'proactive'? If the HSE are to start doing what you advocate the amount of Enforcers out there would be astronomical, if they cant get it right at the moment and are snowed under then throwing more resources at it I think may not be the way forward. Its up to employers, their H&S People, workforce and the TU together which can make all the difference, sometimes I feel that the HSE/LA go after big companies for the headlines and in reality it is the SME's who are probably responsible for the majority of injuries and deaths in the UK, so maybe a 'risk' based approach will be needed.
Admin  
#25 Posted : 19 August 2003 18:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Dave, Not wishing to 'hi-jack' the thread, I would add that for the most of your recent comments - I agree with you. Just goes to show that there is a 'middle ground' of opinion. The HSE have a difficult task, getting the right balance between reactive and proactive measures is contentious but also an important 'tolerability of risk' factor. As you rightly pointed out much depends on the resources of the regulator. However, choosing the reactive investigating accidents is in my opinion the 'softer' option. Good luck to the HSE. Ray
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.