Posted By Cathy Ricketts
Did anyone else hear the "who runs Britain" item on Radio 4 this morning (about 7.45am). There was a very academic sounding woman talking about how health and safety had stopped her and others carrying out activities and that it was health and safety that runs Britain by preventing things taking place with rules and regulations. She really made me want to scream - it was very disheartening for those of us who believe in educating in risk management and encouraging good health and safety management to be an enabler and not a disabler. Its attitudes like this one that make our job so challenging - however onwards and forwards eventually the message that sensible health and safety management makes good business sense will get through. If she had planned health and safety into the work she was carrying out she probably wouldnt have needed to climb the ladder at the last minute to hang her stage signs!!

Posted By Cathy Ricketts
Totally agree - come on IOSH - Can Neil Budworth respond to this unbalanced and biased view - bet Jeremy Clarkson was smirking

Posted By IT
Ed,

Nice response, agree we all should respond and let them know that we are offended, but there must also be a measured responsible response from our Professional Organisation.

When the response to their bias is from individuals they can make comments that some safety people have been upset by our story, when the organisation responds they respond on behalf of us all and say ALL Safety professionals are upset with the miss representation and Bias IMO.

We should also email,phone and write to the BBC as individuals to ensure the message gets through as you have clearly mentioned , good suggestion.

Now lets do it ,remembering Ed's point NO sniping nor whinging

Can anyone find the link and post to email the BBC ?

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
If you want to complain about the item go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/; click on 'Newswatch' on the left hand side, then in the 'contact us' panel, click on 'radio', then 'Today'. If enough of us register our disapproval, then they must surely respond.

Paul

Posted By stephencarey
I fully agree with previous posts but i must put forward something that happened this morning.
We have purchased a new hand cleaner for a trial period. While making out the coshh assessmnet on the essentials site, being hand cleaner is not a question, the suitable controls required for the information of the MSDS including the risk phrases are gloves. Now this is either not good hand cleaner or there is something wrong with the system. The point i am trying to make is that the opinion that people, without suitable knowledge see, ridicles H and S in general not necessarily the package that caused it.

Posted By bigwhistle
I read it was the Freemasons!

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Jonathan

It is always the protestants who initiate the rabble rousing - they are now called the liberal elite. I gave up trying to communicate with the BBC as a producer will have some carefully prepared defences before the programme/item goes out. They are setting out to be contentious as there is a belief that more people will listen.

I think we will need to find a way through to the Brodcast Standards Authority to try and turn this round - I suspect that they have remained within their charter boundaries though.

Bob

Posted By Patrick Guyomard
Heard the article - heavy sigh - however will download (thanks Jonathan) as an example of how not to manage, going to use it for discussions - prior planning, risk management, Mantenace Manager - caring H&S or jobsworth etc, etc.

Thank you BBC for free training tool

Pad

Posted By George Wedgwood
It has been interesting to see and hear all the reports on the Hemel Hempstead Oil Terminal fire, where the main theme seems to be it was due to "an accident" - not a cheep from the press or media about COMAH risks or good maintenance standards! So now it has been said by the HSE that they will be investigating once the fire dies down and it is safe to go in. I wonder what those H&S disclaimers' views would be on that disaster? It has been quoted in terms of cost, since no lives were lost (yet), but nevertheless, there were injuries. The damage was quoted (if I remember correctly) to be around £135M for a new terminal, £35M for replacement oil and about £160M for surrounding buildings repair - and that does not account for any environmental cleanup! I wonder when the last COMAH Site risk assessment review was carried out and was an IOSH Member involved?

I agree with the last two respondents in that to enter 'battle' with those critics will not win us any converts. We just need to continue doing the right things in a professional way, by reducing risk and demonstrating that this prevents disasters like Hemel as well as improving the longer-term 'bottom line'. Then we need to shout about it. Regards, George

Posted By Anne Smart
Dear all,

IOSH president Neil Budworth has responded to the programme - please see the latest news section of this website for details.

Anne Smart, IOSH media and marketing assistant

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Neil Budworth's response was reasonable and diplomatic.

Actually, what I heard was Lisa Jardiine speaking as an IRRATIONAL academic generalising without the slightest logic from one incident of criticism about her behaviour.

It was a shame that the programme presented did not appropriately challenge her bias about her own lack of competence as well as the depths of her ignorance about practicalities of injury prevention.

Posted By Philip McAleenan
John,

Your remark, “Some people just aren't WORTH saving”, is very offensive and as a publicly stated one, brings disrepute to the profession.

But imagine for one moment that what you say is true, by what criteria should the unworthy be selected for elimination? Who should be charged with the task of making the decisions on the criteria and who charged with the implementation of this policy? And at the end of the day, if you or a member of your family were selected under such criteria as being unworthy of saving, would you cheerfully accept your/their fate?

Whatever Ms Jardine opined in this program, no-one seems has recalled her advocating the elimination of safety people. As with Ms Jardine, you have the right to your opinions and the right to be offensive, but do not imagine that those in the profession with an ounce of integrity will flock to your banner craving the blood of those with whom they disagree. All people are worth saving, even the offensive.

Regards, Philip McAleenan

Posted By Cathy Ricketts
I am pleased with Neil's response and even if the BBC decline ignore it someone somewhere along the line will know who IOSH are. It is a shame that Ms Jardine, who obviously holds a post of some responsibility, fails to lead by example - I feel sorry for the university's health and safety officer who has some challenging times ahead; but we all rise to a challenge and I know Ms J would have been on my list of "needs improvement in attitude" - various devious methods would be used to get the message across. Good luck to you all and lets keeping taking health and safety onwards and upwards on everyone's agenda. Happy Christmas and new year

Posted By stephencarey
I think the word relevant in the last post is commonsense and the lack of it. If people have not been traind to understand hazards and risk then i suppose they can not be expected to see them, basically the same as a child would react.
As adults we have to take responsibility for our actions and use the commonsense that we learn and continually add to as we grow, and not just forget about it when the mood or what we want takes us.
We should certainly know that when we place our self at risk that a part of that is our responsibility.

Posted By Graham Bullough
Here are some further thoughts about this issue: A major snag with the media is that press and radio/TV editors have absolute control over what is printed or broadcast. Also it appears that a standard but unwritten adage for most journalists is "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

However, I think that individual IOSH members and representatives of IOSH as a body should try to influence journalists and make a difference in their perceptions, and ultimately those of readers and listeners, about health and safety. If we feel strongly enough about the aims of our profession (and value our status as chartered practitioners or association with IOSH, we should be contacting the media when appropriate to make known our opinions about cases where sensible health and safety has been overlooked or someone has publicised bad or warped versions. If editors keep receiving responses, they might ultimately think to ask practitioners to take part in programmes or respond later to items. It's worth a try.

It's worth providing an example of balance: This morning I heard part of Allan Beswick's morning phone-in discussion programme on Greater Manchester Radio. He enjoys being controversial, but one of this morning's topics was about the recent fuel depot fire in Hemel Hempstead, including risk assessment in relation to the debatable level of precautions provided for an emergency at the depot. The discussion covered the fire brigade response, including how fire-fighting foam is made and why it is used for oil/petrol fires, and water alone is ineffective or worse. In order to avoid funny looks from other passengers on the train I was travelling on at the time, I restrained myself from giving an audible cheer for what struck me as sensible discussion of a highly topical subject.

I make no apologies for repeating a theme I raise via this forum from time to time. If we want to help spread the message of sensible, pragmatic health and safety - in relation to work (and also leisure, home and travel, etc.) we shouldn't just respond to media items. On some occasions when people learn what I do for a living, I get an askance look, sometimes accompanied by a comment like "Oh, one of them". If you ask such people about their negative or hesitant responses, you will usually find that they have experience of bad/misused health and safety issues. Therefore, take the opportunity, if when appropriate and feasible, to have a discussion about pragmatic health and safety, and explain that it should be positive and enabling. If you feel unsure about this, have a read through the editorials of back numbers of the IOSH magazine for the past year or so to get a feel for what Lawrence Waterman and others have been writing and saying for some time about this theme.

The recent fuel depot fire also presents an opportunity for discussions with family and friends, etc. I find increasingly that the education system has failed people who don't know the crucial difference between petrol and paraffin/diesel/heating oil. For anyone who isn't sure, petrol gives off a very easily ignitable vapour but the others don't - under normal temperature and pressure conditions: They need to be suitably heated and/or pressurised in order to emit a useful ignitable vapour which can be harnessed by jet engines, diesel engines and heating boilers. Anyone who has ever coaxed a paraffin stove into life probably appreciates this fact. Don't be boring - relate the issues to real life and what your relatives and friends do. For example, in relation to travel, it's useful to comment that if you find yourself in the vicinity of a petrol tanker spillage, it's a good idea to get well away as soon as possible. By contrast, diesel may be smelly but it won't go bang - unless it is confined in a tank and being heated by fire - which brings us back to the scenario of the flaming fuel depot!

Posted By John Murgatroyd
With respect to diesel fuel and its non-ignitability. It does it very well indeed in an oxygen enriched atmosphere...
With respect to the not-worth-saving statement...there may be a point in the criticism of me, but I care little for that anyway. Some people, as others have stated, go out of their way to avoid protecting themselves. So much so that their actions can be taken as being dangerous to others not working with them. If the guy HAD fallen he may well have impacted upon anyone walking under him...When the CSCS scheme is working properly anyone ejected from a site for unsafe working will find themselves unable to get onto another site, this may well make the cowboys change their attitude somewhat.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
So who does run Britain - Today it was the turn of the CBI which just about demonstrates the level of debate in this preparation for a poll of the conspiracy theorists of the UK, and other global parts, R4 listeners.

Personally we ought to thank Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I and II, Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange for the current mess. Note I have deliberately missed out some names in this litany - question for today is why?

Bob

Posted By Richie
Seeing as this institution, government, industry and the public all dance to their tune, it seems obvious to me that it is the Media (Principally Radio 4) who runs Britain. I say Radio 4 because the 'movers and shakers' listen to Radio 4.

The days of the media reporting on events are long gone. It seems to me these days most events are manifest by the media (save for disasters).

On the subject of raising the profile of IOSH, I see less need for this than some other members. I don’t recall RIBA (for instance) seeing the need to raise their profile. Why is this? The reason is that if you want your planning passed then you get a RIBA architect. Until the HSE demand employers use a chartered professional to ensure robust systems (even if only periodically), there will be no solid requirement for chartered status. In my view it will remain a ‘nice to have’ item, with no employers’ hands being forced, especially SMEs.

Before any Tech IOSH/ TechSPs out there start kicking off, this post was not designed to antagonise. I can simply see no further logical reason for such a huge effort to become chartered, at a time when the safety industry is screaming for the Management Regs to define ‘competence’. Call me old fashioned and all that….

Merry Christmas one and all,

Richie.