Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
I have just read that Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has called for an independent enquiry into why the HSE decided to prosecute both himself and Lord Condon over alleged breaches of health and safety law when two employees fell through fragile roofs in two separate incidents.
Well, why shouldn't they? There are plenty enough articles of people being individually fined and companies being found guilty for exactly the same sort of accidents - what puts the Metropolitan Police above the Law? Yes, their job is difficult and contains unknown quantities - but then, so do a lot of others, surely this comes down to basic common sense type training - if you are not 100% certain that a roof will hold your weight, then you don't walk on it - how difficult is that?
Additionally, how much is this enquiry going to cost and who is going to pay?
I should welcome your views on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zoe Barnett
Hear hear.
What precisely will an enquiry reveal? Not a lot, I suspect...unless it is that employers are failing to foster a culture in which it is okay for staff (or officers) to take responsibility for their own health and safety.
I for one have seen far too many examples of pettifogging prohibitions of perfectly acceptable working practices for wholly spurious health and safety "reasons" based on an exaggerated perception of risk - the type that won't allow a hatstand in the office in case someone trips over it. These are the same people who fail to unlock fire doors, decant bleach into lemonade bottles and tell their staff that they'll be okay with the asbestos as long as they hold their breath.
Of course the police have a difficult and dangerous job and they have to accept that there is a higher degree of risk facing a PC on the beat than there is to the average HSE inspector checking out the local building sites. But in my view the Met should have been training their staff to make rational judgements and valid assessments of risk - I know not always easy in the heat of the chase - and to be stressing that it's okay to back away. Better an escaped burglar than a dead copper. But I doubt that this is ever going to happen in an organisation where the most senior managers demand to be told why they should have to obey the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Thompson
It may be that the argument being put forward is that the Commissioner or chief constable is merely the holder of an office under the crown and that the real employer is the Police Authority which in the case of the Met. would be the Home secretary.
The 1998 Police H&S Act as amended may be of assistance.
JT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Think you answered your own question.
If it wont hold your weight then dont run on it, common sense - so why prosecute these individuals as the two officers who tragically died were not showing this 'common sense'! bit emotive, wouldnt it be better for the HSE/CPS to try and prosecute real H&S Criminals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Allen
I hate to disagree with everyone here but what exactly is "common sense"?
If safety was just a matter of "common sense" then there would be no accidents, no regulations and no safety practitioners.
Common sense can have no possible definition other then what a person with full knowledge of the facts would have done in hindsight. Check GCC vs Christmas. Workers have to make decisions where the appreciation of danger has been dulled by repitition etc.
There would certainly be no requirement for risk assessment if all that was required was common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
I like that John.
I always try to use the words good sense as common sense is quite rare in my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I suspect that this is a case(no pun intended)of tit-for-tat. Personally, I think both the HSE/CPS and the Met are at fault.
Charging Condon and Stevens was an error of judgement. How can senior officers be accountable for all actions of their officers. clearly, in a chase sscenario it may not be possible to examine all the risks that are so obvious in the 'cold light of day'. The CPS should only bring charges where it is the public interest. I do not believe that this case does fulfil that criteria.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane Johnston
I don't know the history of events leading to the incident, so forgive me if I deviate from the facts.
From what I understand, the officers made the decision to chase a bugular across a fragile roof. The roof did not take their weight and they fell to their death.
The question is did the officers receive any training in how to identify a fragile roof? If the officers had not received such training, then I think the HSE were right to prosecute the offices in charge. If, however the Officers had been trained then the employer had, in my opinion, done all it reasonably could have done to reduce the risks and the HSE should not have taken the issue further.
Shane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Gray
The debate is interesting but where the HSE or CPS were right or wrong to bring the action against the high profile police officers is not the issue, if you look at the HSE website of enforcement notices for the Metropolitan police you will see that they relate mostly to management and training issues, therefore as the court action was for management and advice/awareness training, were not the HSE right to take this action. The police had a blank canvas to start from in 1998 when the Police Health and Safety Act came into force and we were required to put in policies, and identfy high risks to staff, and provide risk assessments and awareness training accordingly, we are not perfect and are continually writing risk assessments for police operations, but they must be done. If we highlight a training or awareness need the we must action it or give advise on the best and most effective control measures.
The dinosaurs of the police service are gradually retiring, but some see health and safety as a barrier to effective policing and do not want their role to be dictated to by H&S legislation. I personally and many of my collegaues would not want to interfere with the policing but would want the senior managers to take note and think about how they respond to policing, (i.e. if you are attenting a domestic incident should you not send 2 officers, if attended before and person was violent towards the police then consider the need for additional officers). It will take time and the threat of the litigation against the Senior Officers in the Met has certainly made waves in many police forces and made the managers and staff think about health and safety issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Young
Well said Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
If anyone cares to look at the fine print of legislation as far as the Police are concerned, and specifically,
I have taken the liberty of including a couple of paragraphs from a recent HSC Consultation.
About the ‘Employer’ of police officers
The Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 allocated the health and safety duties to chief police officers individually; the chief police officer became the employer of the police officers in their force for health and safety purposes. Any prosecution for alleged health and safety breaches must therefore be brought against chief police officers individually.
This is unusual under health and safety legislation, as the health and safety duties in respect of an organisation normally fall on the body as ‘the employer’ rather than on any individual.
The Commission(HSC)understands that making chief police officers the employer was intended to reflect the fact that legislation on policing gives chief police officers direction and control over police officers.
The intended change in duty holder should not alter the requirements placed on the designated employers of police officers to safeguard health and safety, nor should it alter the standards of provision which the law requires. It is also vital that any changes continue to provide for effective enforcement of health and safety legislation relation to the variety of olice activities.
In case of the Metropolitan Police, the so
called employer" at that point in time was not an organisation, but "The Metropolitan Police Commissioner" and it is the position rather than the individual that the HSE prosecuted.
What is strange is that some orhganisations representing the police are against the change suggested!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.