Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
I see in this months SHP that Lawrence Waterman has 'hit back - again' at the silly health and safety stories in the media.
Is it just me or are there other people out there that think these responses are doing more harm than good. Comparing the swimming ponds at Hampstead to the construction industry and offering someone a free hi-vi!!
I would personally like to see a bit more thought go in to these responses (if he has to make them at all).
Having read and taken part in some of the better discussions on this board I am sure that there are a large number of (proffesional) out there who would agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
What's all this "better discussions"? You're not a NEBOSH examiner are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
the ones where loads of people join in and argue, sorry discuss, some of the subtler points of H&S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Getting back to the Conkering "incident".
Am I the only one that thinks the teacher issung safety glasses to the kids was right?
Lawrence describes him as a "wrong headed headteacher" -why?
Although it was a long while ago, I remember getting hit in the face (whilst in conker fights)was quite a regular occurrence. Having gone to school with a lad who lost his eye when someone flicked an elastic band at him; I can see outcomes as being serious.
He did not ban conker fights just controlled hazards (and taught the kids about safety).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert (Rod) Douglas
Its not the playing "conkers" that is dangerous, it is the kids climbing the tress or throwing stones or branches to knock the chestnuts off the trees that is dangerous.
I used to play "conkers" at school and I never heard of anyone getting injured whilst playing conkers but a few got hurt whilst climbing trees and throwing objects at the branches!!!!
Assess the Risk......
I am getting old....................
Aye,
Rod D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
No you're not the only person.
Hazard - hard object flying near face
consequence - black eye to loss of sight
likelihood of contact with eye face - depends on skill of players but definetely predicatable
control measures - eye protection, simple, cheap. awareness of risks
And as a bonus the children learn about risk assessment.
No-one is suggesting we apply work-like standards but basic precautions are sensible - I would liken it to a cycle helmet or knee pads when skateboarding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
Stop it, this is not another thread about conkers. It is about Lawrence's responses in this months SHP.
If you want to have yet another debate on conkers then start your own thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert (Rod) Douglas
Touchy.............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Andy,
I WAS reponding to the comments in SHP.
Lawrence stated (in one of those responses he wrote) that the headmaster was wrong headed. I say he (LW) is wrong to say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
Andy, to return to your original thoughts here, I am sure there are many who would agree - but there are probably more that would produce similar responses no matter how much thought they put into it.
Our profession is currently in a flux of development with one of the broadest ranges of people involved, at very different levels of competence and philosophy. This profession does not attract / contain like-minded people like medicine, law, and finance. Nor does it share those professions long history and regulation.
I believe that this variation of interpretation is a consequence -or benefit, depending on your view - of non-prescriptive legislation. A good starting position is to realise that applying "reasonable" to the UK population does not produce a narrow response.
There are going to be very many more such responses and debates - will it benefit us? I doubt it in the short term, but our challenge is to educate people around us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Mark,
You are right here.
Also it is rare that people question, say a GPs judgement, but everyone is a H&S expert (its only common sense, innit?).
Also going back to the conkers -sorry Andy!!!!
if little Jonny was hurt playing conkers, climbing trees etc then the "clarksons" of this world would be the first to start shouting.
As a profession we need to make a measured response - difficult bit is how do you do it without sounding pompous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.