Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Taff2
I happened to switch on the telly during lunchtime & the promo for the One SHow was on - they simply said "... and tonight we will be looking at why health & safety has gone mad..." or words to that effect.
Is IOSH aware of the program - ready to respond?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane J
What channel is that on.
Should be good for a laugh.
Health & Safety?
What ever next? Security and Peace of mind?
I'll take pain and suffering any day. Keeps me on my toes.
(that's all sarcasm by the way)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jean
BBC 1 @ 7 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
Unfortunately, it seems the once well respected bbc (at least I respected them) have fallen foul of this poor research/jumping-on-the-bandwagon swipe at h&s. It started with the dumbing down of breakfast news and possibly the advent of news24 (again my own thoughts but it still knocks socks off ITN!)
A few weeks ago I was watching news24 and was dumbfounded when the newscasters were talking to the organisers of the Scout Jamboree. One of them said "Of course, schools are not allowed to organise trips anymore because of health and safety" closely followed by "of course, the scouts are not allowed to have campfires because of health and safety law".
Brilliant. Buth then, thats what QVC news has come to - just finding things to say to fill the gaps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
Damn, clashes with Hollyoakes on E4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane J
you wanna get yourself a sky+ box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By joanne doherty
hmmmm, well the safety side of me says compliant with nrswa but yep is a bit over board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pugwash
A case where the blind eye can be useful - which is what the woman wanted from the council. However what do you then do if another member of the public complains about the absence of yellow jackets, signs etc while the woman is doing her gardening. Damned if you do and also if you don't.
On balance it would have been good if she could have been left alone to get on with it as she has been for many years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
Apart from the lazy digs at 'elf n safety' - it was not as bad as I expected.
There was a collision hazard present and her life was at risk - albeit very small & in my opinion not significant. Pity local councuil did not have the guts to defend its decision - but lambs to slaughter ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
can I just ask - what did the organisers of the scout jamboree say about the comment about campfires?
I'm intrigued as I'm a scout leader and definetely still have campfires.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adam Hammerton
Sally,
As a fellow Scout leader I was about to ask the same thing. Maybe if a few more people got involved with Scouts and Guides they wouldn't make such daft comments.
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Cartridge Don't just complain about it on this forum! do something........... follow this link to the BBC & let your feelings be know to these faceless bureaucrats who blame everything on health & safety http://www.bbc.co.uk/the...2007/08/stu_safety.shtmlI feel soooo much better now :-) Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Oh dear, I'm going to get slammed.
I don't know about the three metal signs (what is the legal basis for that ? Or the Risk Assessment ?) but I do feel that someone working at the side of a busy road, with their back to the traffic, should make some effort to ensure their visibility to oncoming drivers.
Perhaps some councillor could donate (personally, not on behalf of the council) a hi-vis vest (and a few packets of seeds ?)
So, let's have a reasonable compromise here.
Merv (ducking below parapet)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
It is quite proper that an employer cannot duck the responsibility for the safety of an individual (so no signing an indemnity form).
It is quite proper that a council responsible for a road feature should not ignore the risk to someone working on that feature.
I am not sure it is proper for the council to do anything more than ask her not to do it, and not to put others at risk when she is doing it.
And ask her again if they see her doing it again.
I am not sure of their authority to stop her doing it beyond pursuing a charge of criminal damage - which might be difficult to prove (is improving a flower bed criminal or damage?).
It is not reasonable to see this progress any further than they ask her to stop and she choosing not to.
Maybe long term, we should as a society look to see if we can ask magistrates to issue exemptions licences (similar to an indemnity form) based on risk assessed situations and common sense - where adults can accept that they forgo the protection of the law for personal reasons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
But if she is hit by a driver while doing it that is putting someone else at risk.
I haven't commented as without knowing the full details its not possible to tell if they are being reasonable or 'conkers bonkers' but if she was hurt or caused an accident I'm very sure the council would be critisised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By db
In response to the posts about the scoutmasters - they didn't comment on the remarks made by the presenter - I think campfires may have been prohibited at the event, which is fine but not when (as with the One Show again tonight!) it's attributed to "h&S legislation", "h&s inspectors" rather than just a decision by someone in charge of the event.
The One Show tonight had another go saying how ridiculous H&S rules were as social services prevented an old woman having rails around her bed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman I've just looked through the "reader's comments" to this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/the...2007/08/stu_safety.shtmlYou have to scroll down. Very encouraging comments for us from (nearly) everyone. It does seem that the general public are beginning to understand that it is not the H&S professional that is going bonkers, rather some manager going over the top perhaps for fear of litigation or from a lack of perspective. Haven't found the one about the bed rails yet. is there a link ? Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
In my view the council has been badly advised. Not that there is no risk; there may be, but in my view the woman is not a volunteer, and has no employment relationship of any kind with the council. In cases where a duty of care for volunteers has been established its fairly clear that the duty of care depends crucially on the particular terms of volunteering (in the case of the Prince's Trust the deceased were being fed. lodged and provided with expenses, for example). In this case the woman is taking the task on with no sort of volunteer arrangement or contract. She isn't a volunteer, therefore very much less duty of care: therefore I blame the council's lawyers,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.