Posted By Ken Taylor A fair point, Richie - although some of us with interests beyond H&S at work have called for the sale of fireworks to be restricted to licensed displays. I'd certainly not want a ban on November 5th celebrations though and don't see that fireworks are a necessary part of these. We had our usual event in the local school grounds again this year with a bonfire, hot-dogs, cakes, mulled cider, etc - and a good time seemed to be had by all despite the lack of fireworks.

Posted By Richie Merve, We all want to do the right thing, and who wouldn't campaigne for the things that are right, as citizens. My point was regarding our guise as Safety Practitioners. To any readers, sorry for my slip on the original posting, I meant to say motor enthusiasts, not motor sport... I realise motor sport is an entirely proper thing to be involved with. Richie

Posted By Peter Leese Absolutely right Martin, I'm with you all the way about reducing injuries and fatalities. But could we change direction a little. Let's change the word 'fireworks' to 'alcohol'. And then start looking at the misery it causes, the violence, the illnesses, driving whilst drunk etc etc etc. We've hit the smokers hard, now let's go for a real ongoing menace in society, not just the few who enjoy the odd firework over the course of a year. Agreed?

Posted By Merv Newman Bugger that got on to the wrong thread. Is there a problem here ? Merv

Posted By Tony Brunskill Like most things it is not the firework that causes damage in most situations it is the idiots that handle them. These things are already licensed and controlled by regulation amybe its the age limit that is wrong. Tony

Posted By Chris Knagg This thread refers to my posting of Faulty Firework. I would just like to make it clear that it was not, nor is it my intention to start beating the drum about banning fireworks although as a pyromaniac in a previous life I can see both the enjoyment and the dangers, my sole concern was the prevention of harm of occuring to others. As it was my brother who was injured it was personal, he looked to me for advice and our overiding concern was that the firework could be from a faulty batch and that it was our duty of care to inform all concerned, supplier and manufacturer etc. about the incident in the hope that they would take action. Dissapointingly and in reality 3 days after the incident there has been no positive response. Probably because of the fear of litigation or the commercial cost of recalling the product after all if they leave it long enough most of the fireworks sold for this weekend will have gone up in smoke. We will probably never know how many accidents were caused by faulty fireworks if indeed there were more. In respect of choosing our battles well. I think rather than keeping to Core Business I prefer to stick to Core Principles!

Posted By Richie I admire the enthusiasm of some thread-posters regarding their perception that H&S professionals have some sort of moral duty to reduce non-workplace accidents. I do not share it however. As individual citizens obviously we should do what we can. As SHE professionals, and as an organisation, no, there are limits to our remit. I feel the line of distinction should be discussed due to the overwhelming urge some in our fold have to enter arenas which, however well intentioned, should really be far beyond our radar. Such issues as 'alcohol in society' are pure politics which should be left to the politicians. Richie

Posted By Aidan Toner A fair point Richie and I would concede some safety discussions leading to the development of safety standards 'outside the workplace' are possibly best left to organisations such as ROSPA the AA or a host of relevant others.BUT -BUT BUT-There are many safety professionals attempting to operate in the sphere of public service delivery.Systems must be devised to protect public employees and the persons they are serving.(The young,old,sick,mad,bad,careless and stupid)IF a PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONAL sticks to the common trusty path of 'Removal or avoidance of risk at source'then the process of social engineering or nanny statism begins. Sadly I really don't think it can be avoided. I would add that if a public sector safety professional gets it wrong by over egging the risk assessment,ie conker bonkers, then the rest of us safety professionals in BOTH the public and private sectors are going to suffer credibility loss.The PUBLIC SECTOR SAFETY professional just happens to be the individual with capacity to do most damage to the safety profession.Possibly it is this class of safety professional who should be called to boot ASAP, by the professional body IOSH ,as and when they bring the profession into disrepute-Stip off their Chartered status,retrain them,send them off somewhere terrible etc etc.

Posted By Pete48 Merv, great idea, put me down for that one. You must agree to be the cook however. And I bags being in charge of dangerous things like how to write a risk assessment with no paper and without a pencil. Or perhaps we should just do it dynamically? Chris, you remark in your response. that "Disappointingly and in reality 3 days after the incident there has been no positive response". I venture to suggest that all this tells you is that you do not know whether any action has been taken. Many things may have happened which do not need to be shared with you (as you say maybe because of legal concerns , whether real or not). Why assume the worst simply because you do not have any information and then draw conclusions that might take you down the wrong path completely? Richie and Aidan, I almost wrote a similar post to yours Richie. It was my first thought when I read the thread. But I decided against it on the grounds that we should not draw lines around how our professional body operates for improving H&S wherever it is needed. I agree that as individuals we can only do what we can do but as a professional body we have members who work in those organisations such as ROSPA and others and they must apply their skills to that area. IOSH must also have a position on matters that interest the public re H&S as much as they have on matters that our professional opinions tell us are important. If members can make it their business to know what that is and to represent it whenever appropriate to the situation, we will change things more quickly. The bigger problem for me, which I think I share with Aidan, is the perception thing. When we speak and act, whether as individuals or as an organisation we do so as "safety people" not accountants or engineers or .... People expect us to be control freaks and we often do not disappoint them. Perhaps we should consider that more often before we respond with demands full of controls, controls and controls on the controls. Yes we do! How frequently do we rush to condemn those who do not follow our wisdom to the letter; hang the sword of liability over everything; assume and speculate with no supporting facts and go on to suggest that failing to conform to every last paragraph of every rule and regulation on the books is the ultimate sin? Pretty frequently on this forum at least. I can easily recall some recent examples, the comments about the beeb and the Top Gear accident, supermarket car parks, mobile phones, fireworks, Christmas parties.... Wisely chosen battles or ammunition for the knockers?? I think that was the point that started this thread.

Posted By Richie Yes, I absolutely 100% believe that alcohol in society is not something I should, as an Occupational Safety & Health Practitioner, recognise as core business. If alcohol becomes a hazard in my workplace, yes it is my issue. My justification? - The fact that I cannot see, other than as an individual citizen, how my input could change the agenda or influence the sufferer. Which is my exact point - we need to choose our battles well. Naive? Now lets not get personal here. I try not to let anyone upset me on a friday! Richie