Posted By Rob T Great article in this month's SHP on page 6. I think that this is what some of us have been saying for a long time. Maybe some people should have a look at this article and refresh their outlook. Best quotes - "Health & Safety pedants should get a life" and "concentrate on saving lives, not stopping them"!

Posted By Jonathan Breeze I particularly enjoyed the irony of it appearing next to the article regarding the European "Reasonably Practicable" Court Case. We could end up Risk Assessing the safety of paperclips yet!

Posted By Jim Walker Pendant is not the correct word in the context it was used in the acticle.

Posted By PH On the back of this, has anyone seen the article in a couple of papers about the risk of pears falling from trees and hitting people? Another classic example, although the chap interviewed does try to justify the actions by saying he'd rather barrier the area off than get sued!! I can see the headlines this year, children made to wear hard hats in case of falling conkers!!

Posted By Jeffrey Watt JB We listen to everything the Heath and Sooty Exasperate say, finger on the pulse, I resent the implication we aren't on the ball. Who's Gazza by the way? Jeff

Posted By sagalout I agree that the initiative is a good one with a "sensible" message that I think is about saying this is not being driven by h&s. When challenged by people about such cranky examples, I simply rebuff the challenge as being nothing to do with h&s. A decision has been made to limit liability and it is not based on any H&S methodology that I recognise. Please go and talk to a liability assessor, insurer or legal representative about why they might recommend such a course of action. However, there is another thread to the initiative which is important to us all as a professional group. That is the ability to separate and manage the legal duty to complete suitable and sufficient (s&s) assessments from an obvious need for sensible risk MANAGEMENT. I see the two as mutually supportive and not somehow separate or different. If you take the example on the HSE site (MVR example), they show a simple process but it is couched in limiting statements that if you do not pick out and read clearly could leave you thinking that the example is pretty good and therefore “sensible”. If you chose to use it without making sure that it covers all the work at your premises, has some serious back up data, information or paper, you are unlikely to find it suitable and sufficient if it is challenged. We all know that there will always be risk assessments that are best filed under "just in case the inspector calls" or "open only when pear shapes appear". The important thing is they belong in the file, not on a managers desk for daily use! So, we have • The need for suitable and sufficient which we as professionals are placed to advise on, determine and often produce. • The fear of prosecution and/or litigation, both of which will tend to generate paper for use in defence. • We all agree that the more sensible the "working" systems the better. The sooner we find a working methodology to manage these apparently conflicting demands, the quicker the stigma will disappear.

Posted By sagalout Paul, was that so that you didnt scald yourself until you got back to your seat and opened the bag to find it spilling out over your lap?? At least no other pasenger could claim damages that way I suppos. Pete

Posted By Rob T Stuart, I agree with you but at least it's a major move in the right direction. Rob

Posted By ddraigice I'm a bit confused as to why people think they need a paper trail for inspectors or for defence in court that is different to what they'd normally use. Can someone explain this? Stuart, you mention that you don't think "bullet point" assessments would satisfy in the event of an accident. Surely if the bullet point covers forseeable risks then it is a s&s assessment. If something blatantly obvious is missed (by that I also mean something for which there is guidance, accident history and/or specific regulations covering it)then reg 3 of the management regs has been breached and we havent done our jobs. Many people have made comments like this - what evidence is there? So as for bringing out risk assessments for inspectors... if that is different to the actual activity then that would surely be more evidence of a failure of the management system? I've also seen a lot of comments through this chat room about inconsistency with inspectors. I havent seen this myself- nor with the approach of HSE (Maybe I've been lucky) - so again what evidence is there?

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, Well, well well, nothing like yesterday's news to get people excited, is there? Agreed, by and large its not H&S professionals who cause the problems; it was a headmaster who banned the conkers after all. I take issue with the comments in the article about 'simple as a school trip'. School trips I have known and heard about: Night ferry to Hook of Holland and train across North Germany; Winter snow walking in the Cairngorms; Collecting geological samples from Snowdonia's slate quarries; Sampling transitional vegetation in overgrown millponds. These I submit are not simple activities, especially as they involved groups of up to 20 teenagers, John

Posted By ddraigice Funnily enough I have quite a lot of experience with HSE. And you've done the same thing - just quoted what everyone else has and insinuated that HSE prosecutes people who, by nothing other than misfortune, have had an accident which was not foreseeable. I dont believe it happens and I'm asking what evidence do people have for it. The courts certainly wouldn't convict (and so HSE wouldnt take cases where evidence is dodgy). I'll ask again - give me a situation where this has happened. Otherwise we'll be in danger of demonising the enforcers and the legal process by spouting falsehoods.