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 : 25 October 2004 10:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Slater Sorry to sound like a kill joy, but does the recent series of toilet paper advertisements illustrate poor thinking in relation to Health & Safety? People stepping off walkways without handrails and landing onto packs of toilet rolls is madness!- being as falls from height are a major source of fatalities!
Admin  
#2 Posted : 25 October 2004 10:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adam Jackson It pales into insignificance compared to that VW advert where a bloke drives blindfolded over a bridge which just has a narrow road and no kerb or barriers! Just wait until some impressionable 17 year old chav drives his burberry-clad Nova off some bridge or other, then VW will be sorry.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 25 October 2004 10:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark R. Devlin Lee, this is a television advert for toilet roll, not a site induction video. Why don't we call the RSPCA about unnecessary cruelty to Hyenas in the making of a chocolate biscuit advert.......
Admin  
#4 Posted : 25 October 2004 10:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adam Jackson You have a point there. And how many horses did Lloyds kill in that advert where they make them jump from one high rooftop to another just to get that one sucessful shot. We deserve to be told.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 25 October 2004 11:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jez Corfield Folks, Its the old Killjoy Vs Enabler argument - is there any evidence that humorous 'unsafe' activities on film/TV cause people to behave dangerously? I have not seen any. However, is there potential for criticism of the H&S profession if we are seen as being a bunch of humourless killjoys, banning ads on the basis that they might encourage poor safety? Advert's are usually insignificant anyway, they probably wont even persuade people to buy the item, let alone behave differently. Jez
Admin  
#6 Posted : 25 October 2004 12:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By James Byatt Not so Jez, Although happy with my current choice of bottom paper, I am now going to go out the local cash and carry and buy a pallet of the advertised product to use as a fall arrest system outside my office window for those suicidal Mondays....A carefully placed load ('scuse the pun) will help me reach Tuesdays safely... Personnaly, I think it's a nice, well produced piece of film which made me say "wow, cool!" as opposed to "AAAGGHHH...where's the risk assessment for THAT!" Does that make me a bad Safety dude? James
Admin  
#7 Posted : 25 October 2004 13:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Slater Well boys its certainly been a provocative theme, I appreciate that adverts are usually better than most programs! Can't wait for the next installment - hopefully it will show scaffold guys jumping onto bog rolls that are being lifted by forklift trucks. That would be really amusing especially during the ad breaks for the X factor.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 25 October 2004 13:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Bywater I feel I must respond to Mark R Devlin. I can assure you that as an employee of the said "Hyena / biscuit" advert that we had 214 vets, 5,473 vetinary assistants and Rolf Harris on standby whilst shooting this commercial. We had all the hyenas checked for nut allergies and made sure that each one had received full voice training from Simon Cowell's coaching team. All this and more documentation is available for close scrutiny at our head office in Chocolate Land if you wish to see it. In short all the hyenas had a great laugh. Can't speak for the Lloyds ad - I think they're flogging a dead horse there - oops! Mark
Admin  
#9 Posted : 25 October 2004 14:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob There seems to be a little class conciousness creeping into this thread. I have never heard of bottom paper. Toilet tissue, toilet roll, bog paper, loo roll, the Sun, I'm familiar with them but-----------------bottom paper!!!!!!!
Admin  
#10 Posted : 25 October 2004 14:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By James Byatt Well there you go Bob, one more derivative to add to your already extensive list.... :-) To keep on-thread... I think those Tango adverts are fantastic. Bizarre, but funny. And the guy rolling down the hill in a carpet followed by ?concrete? tubes has got to be a better case for teaching kids what NOT to do...than the twa-lette tis-hew one. Seriously though, I find spotting the really really obvious hazards quite hard sometimes. We often spend so long searching for the smallest of dangers in order to cover all the bases that we run the risk of missing the glaringly obvious? Your thoughts? If some of us out there can instantly, and accuratley spot hazards (potential/foreseeable/fictional or not) then surely that's good testiment to our/your skills...even if they do get the TV remote bounced off their heads following a well placed lob from the missus for interupting the ads with "work stuff" My head still hurts... James
Admin  
#11 Posted : 25 October 2004 15:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David J. Hi.. Mark By... couldn't you just have "shot" Rolf Harris..now that's a message for all of us to help make it through xmas..no more "dig er a do" stuff.. no more "little boys on horses"..why did Rolf not get asked to consult on the Lloyds advert? Why did anyone start this thread? Why am I wasting happy moments replying? hmm hope this doesn't prompt a thread on the danger/risk of pondering.. and anyway what is the meaning of life. .or is that too risky? I suppose I should refer such questions to the horse in the Lloyds ad, as opposed to the donkey that started this thread. Is it toooooo early to start on the Xmas malt whisky?
Admin  
#12 Posted : 25 October 2004 16:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Slater Well David, the original purpose of the thread was to source feedback from safety 'professionals' in relation to current hot topics (falls from height). Guess i was wrong given by the nature of replys. Maybe these people do not work in dangerous environments - guess they work with David Brent.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 25 October 2004 16:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Heather Aston Lee You said "the original purpose of the thread was to source feedback from safety 'professionals' in relation to current hot topics (falls from height)." Was it really? I think you might have phrased it a bit differently if that's what you really wanted! I agree with many other posters that there's a real danger of safety professionals being seen as dull killjoys. Frankly if that's how we are seen by our co-workers then we'll never get anything done. I prefer the "common sense" approach, which realises that there is a difference between adverts on the idiot box and real life. I certainly don't expect anyone in my workplace to follow an example they've seen in an advert. Yes I do work in manufacturing industry. Yes we do take "falls from height" seriously. No I don't think that this advert will have a significant effect on the population at large (except to make them buy more loo roll. But yes I do think there's a perception by those not involved in safety that we are a bunch of humourless nanny state nutcases, hell-bent on spoiling all their fun and wrapping them up with red tape so they can't move. Should we do all we can to dispel that myth? Well I think so.... But perhaps that's just me. Heather
Admin  
#14 Posted : 25 October 2004 16:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By fats van den raad Your intention was to provoke argument by deliberately posting a controversial (if rather silly) statement. When the argument that you tried to provoke did not take place, you revert to questioning people's experience and proffesionalism in order to create argument. This is typical TROLL behaviour. The fact that the "proffesionals" saw right through you from the start and treated your post with the light-hearted contempt it deserves, and your subsequent response to that just shows who the real "proffesionals" are....and it aint you!!!
Admin  
#15 Posted : 25 October 2004 17:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Bywater All, Steady on guys - although Lee has provoked comments of all types and I myself have been guilty of providing light hearted comment, I don't feel it is right to call each other trolls, donkeys or whatever. Sometimes we who are making the jokes are less than perfect but let's not diss anyone for having an opinion. Yes, let's be serious / joke / advise etc when the situation demands but don't abuse someone you've never met. Written words can so often be read with the wrong inflection by the recipient and misconstrued. We are not here to judge others, if you wish to do that you can watch X-Factor on Saturdays but Lee was just "making a point". I do feel that some of us are just taking an opposite point of view just for the sake of it sometimes. Tolerance is the key, love and peace to all, Jesus loves you..........whoa! Hang on that's going too far, but treat each other with a bit of respect - would you say these things to his face if he were in the same room as you, I think not. Time for some soul searching. Lee - carry on mate, I like a person who speaks their mind. Don't let this put you off - keep posting and replying to others, but unlike some others please be polite at all times. Regards, Mark
Admin  
#16 Posted : 25 October 2004 17:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Gently fats. I don't think that Lee is trolling on this one (at least not nearly as bad as mSm) I think they were trying to get over the message that their bog rolls are soft and absorbant. Which they might have done except I can't remember the brand name ! (but do they care ?) The question really should be "Were any animals or people killed or injured in the making of this ad ?" If the answer is "No" then I would really like to meet whoever did the risk assessment and injury prevention plan. (if you can, take a good look at the ad and count the rather neatly timed cut and pastes they used) And no, I do not think it encourages young children or even work experiencers to throw themselves over the balcony onto a pile of toilet tissue. It might even make them wince and think what would have happened if the loo paper was not there.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 25 October 2004 17:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard L Jeremy Clarkson would be eating his hair at this thread, and judging by the original post he would have cause to. Does anyone remember the advert for a fizzy orange drink where an employee was strapped to an office chair with a compressed air bottle strapped to him and subsequently propelled at great speed, head first, into a strategically placed barrel of oranges. I nearly fell off the settee laughing. Could it be that advertisers should issue the statement “please don’t attempt (for health and safety reasons) the stunt that you are about to see……". I think not and I don’t believe that it would have the same effect somehow. Besides, I’ve never heard of anyone attempting such a stunt. Come on fellow practitioners lets not make ourselves look silly! Lets do the job in hand and look after our colleague’s well being. Richard
Admin  
#18 Posted : 26 October 2004 12:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Marcus Pereira The posts may show how little effect advertisments have as the 'driving along the narrow bridge' advert is not for a VW - it's a Citroen! Good brand awareness is the advertisers dream - now which loo roll is the fall from heights advertising? Marcus (at VW UK!)
Admin  
#19 Posted : 26 October 2004 15:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Anita Parkinson personnaly i would love to have taken part in that advert jumping off walkways landing on loo roll (not bottom paper, its loo roll up north) we are guilty of taking things too seriously sometimes and we shouldn't forget people have been falling from heights since they built ladders, lighten -up peeps
Admin  
#20 Posted : 26 October 2004 15:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Katie Hoyland it is possible to negate the potential risk of falling from a ladder with the completion of a suitble and sufficient ladder inspection prior to the use of it. Also remeber that ladders are for access and not working platforms.
Admin  
#21 Posted : 29 October 2004 11:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Out of intersst I can relate a real situation here.... Whilst away from home I struck up a conversation in a pub/hotel bar with a chap who was watching the same TV programme on the 14" TV in the bar as me. The TV programme was a comedy, and the scene involved climbing up a ladder to a roof - in a somehat unsafe manner - and the hilarious results... Following this, in conversation with the chap, it turned out he was a roofer - also working away from home at the time, and he went on to explain what a pain health and safety was and how many times he had fell of roofs and was perectly OK!!! I thought the better part of valour at the time was not to explain what I did, but to ask why he did things this way if it was obvious there was risks involved... He explained that to go through all the H&S bit required would slow his work and cost him money.... and clients it appeared were more interested in getting the job finished, and not how good he was at observing H&S procedures!! As a footnote, I can add that I bumped into this chap again somtime later..on the shop floor of our factory (he now works on our production line). He was of course a little suprised to see me. When I asked why he had given up the roofing business, he said 'too dangerous - I had another fall'.... he then asked what I did for the company... When I explained I was the group H&S guy you could see him visibly change colour.... Funny how things come back to haunt you on ocassions eh!! Stuart
Admin  
#22 Posted : 29 October 2004 13:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By fats van den raad To Mark Bywater Point of order Mark.. I did not call anybody "donkey" or any other name. What I did was accuse Lee of trolling behaviour. Since you obviously are unfamiliar with this term (which unfortunately didn't prevent you from posting) I'll explain. Trolling is a term used for people that go on forums such as this purely to post a comment/statement that is deliberately designed to cause conflict/arguement among the regulars on the forum. There are whole websites dedicated to the explanation of trolling and how to recognise it. Put "trolling" in to Google and take your pick. Oh, and yes, I would actually say that to any ones face, as anyone that knows me would testify. Now, if I can get them to put a pallet full of bogroll below my office window.......
Admin  
#23 Posted : 29 October 2004 20:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Touraine 'Well boys its certainly been a provocative theme' - I think you should get out more. There seems to be a little class conciousness creeping into this thread. I have never heard of bottom paper. Toilet tissue, toilet roll, bog paper, loo roll, the Sun, I'm familiar with them but-----------------bottom paper!!!!!!! Actually it's lavatory paper.
Admin  
#24 Posted : 29 October 2004 21:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karen Todd I see we've found a control measure for stress then? Have pallets of loo roll around the place for employees to jump into when it all gets a bit much. I suppose it's the adult version of kiddies' ball pits. Hey, to make it safer instead of jumping into the loo rolls, you could have a slide instead, and slide down into the loo rolls! Sounds like great fun to me. Wonder what HSE would think. Karen
Admin  
#25 Posted : 30 October 2004 18:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Re stuart nagle's story of the roofer : In France companies pay an "accident tax" based on their accident rate (last 3 years) and their wage bill. If you are really really good (no recordables for three years) then you only pay 1% of the total wages. If you are average you may pay 2 or 3%. Roofers pay the highest of all rates - 17% of the wages. Typical profit margins in the building trades are around 5% Any reasonable sized company has done it's sums and invested in edge guards. Only the small, family sized firms rely on the adhesive qualities of nikes. Fortunately this practice is dying out.
Admin  
#26 Posted : 01 November 2004 18:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor We have a problem in schools whereby pupils (usually boys) wet sheets of absorbent toilet tissue (bottom paper) and throw them at ceilings with the result that they adhere and ruin the decor. It has been suggested that a non-absorbent type of lavatory paper (bog roll) be provided as this will be less likely to adhere. Does anyone have any experience of this - as I would like to get to the bottom of this issue? One concern would, of course, be whether it would have the same fall-arrest quality.
Admin  
#27 Posted : 02 November 2004 09:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Ahh, you mean Izal, the original medicated toilet paper. That brings back some horrible memories of outdoor unheated WC's and other painful memories which are imprinted on my ...er... mind. Suffice to say it made an effective substitute for tracing paper if any was required.
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.