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 : 06 April 2004 21:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Brede
In the April issue of SHP there was an article relating to the above incident.

As Chair of the Railway Specialist Group I have to express our collective disappointment at the somewhat one sided presentation of the issue reflecting the views of the RMT and very little from anyone else. Whilst their opinions may have some merit they are far from the whole story and the investigations that are proceeding should uncover the many other issues involved.

The initial view of our group is expressed in the Press release on our pages of this website and was issued on the day following the tragedy.

As you may be aware the SHP indicates on the contents page that 'the views and opinions expressed elsewhere in the magazine are not necessarily those of IOSH or CMP Information'.

Whilst this may be true the magazine is also 'The Official magazine of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health' as stated on the cover. Therefore it is reasonable that IOSH views should have a place in the reporting contained in the publication.

These views have been expressed in direct terms to the Editor and also will be taken up by Liz Spencer on our behalf in future discussions with the editorial team.

David Brede
Chair Railway Specialist Group

Admin  
#2 Posted : 11 April 2004 21:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle
David.

I take it that IOSH does not own or operate the SHP magazine, but simply has an agreement to get a limited number of pages printed in it each month, as it is a safety practitioner magazine....a convenient vehicle for our items and for members.

With this in mind, I take it the magazine has an editorial board who vet the articles to some degree, but place articles in respect of their content and or relevance to the issues at hand. In view of this I am a little taken aback that an IOSH specialist group, for whatever reason, would object so strongly to another point of view apart from their own being in the same magazine issue.

This is for me, a matter of principal, and nothing to do with the articles (theirs or yours) whatsoever. The right to free speech, so far as I am aware is still the right of all in the UK (one would hope), and in those immortal words of wisdom, whilst I may not agree with the what is said, I would defend, to the death, the right to say it...

Surely, if we, IOSH or member groups, want to start saying who may, or may not comment, and that comments can only be in line with what we think, or should be excluded or otherwise be ignored, it is time to get our own magazine and not rely on the free press... good customer or nough...

Stuart
Admin  
#3 Posted : 12 April 2004 20:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Brede
Stuart

The point I am making is that SHP as 'The Official magazine of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health' should contain the views of that organisation i.e. us, as well as the views of other organisations and persons.

I share with you that there should be free speech but it is also very clear to me that the views of IOSH on major safety incidents and stories such as this, by and large go unreported. Part of my role as I see it is to start to change this.

David
Admin  
#4 Posted : 12 April 2004 21:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp
David,

Not sure what point you are trying make. However, I am in accord with Stuart in that all parties are entitled to a view, whether we agree or not with them. Reality is socially constructed.

Furthermore the RMT would not be representing their members best interest if they did not show some dissent. Afterall they have been consistent in arguing that the the fragmentation of the railway industry would lead to a less safe industry and not many people are arguing with that now.

Incidentally, there was an almost identical incident resulting in two fatalities at Rickmansworth a decade or so ago. No one has mentioned this but it does put into perspective that overly used cliche, lessons will be learnt.

Finally, just a Stuart suggested I see no good reason why SHP cannot express the views of all those concerned. We do not want to end up with a one-sided IOSH PR magazine.

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.