Posted By Sean Fraser
Take note of what you say there Michael, but I did think it was a cogent defence of our profession in general and pointed out that decisions should be based on competent advice, not myth and rumour.

However, as TechSP myself, I note your comment. Mind you, as a Scot, i amused to similar slights and ommissions from the anglo-centric media which purports to be "British" and just carry on as normal.

Posted By MICHAEL T
Who are the other co-sponsors - Uvex?

Posted By Matt Wardman
Just to add.

I've chimed in as:

a) A member of the public.
b) A contract public sector project manager.
c) A political blogger.
d) Someone who gets annoyed when my village bonfire is closed down because the insurance is hugely expensive.

Matt

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
In view of the fact that Ray was under a fair amount of interview pressure, I felt that he gave a good defence of our profession. I certainly would not be able to perform as well as he did.

If you did not hear the interview, you can catch it again on http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

Posted By Martyn Hendrie
Well done Ray.

Why do we have to go through the torture of non chartered members feeling victimised just because Ray mentioned seeking advice from a Chartered H&S Practitioner"

This interview was a window on the world for IOSH to promote both sensible H&S management and itself as a professional body. It was therefore appropriate to refer to our Chartered status. (In part it will inform the public that as an institution we have professional status)

It does not mean that non chartered members are not competent at doing their job. There is no single hurdle to jump over to become competent.

A junior practitioner should be competent to operate at his level; a senior at his and a manager at his.

Can't we get past this endless naval gazing

Posted By Martyn Hendrie
Paul,

Thank you for pointing out my typo.

Probably can't see the ships because we are too busy looking at ourselves.

Posted By Max Bancroft
Listened to the interview - I'm now Chartered but if I had heard it when I was a TechSP I would not have been offended - Ray used "for instance" before the word Chartered and the expression "Chartered or working towards it".

Posted By Mart
next week i hope

Posted By John Donaldson
Unless you have actually done a live interview on the radio it difficult to understand the pressures you are under. Ray was there on behalf of IOSH and therefore was entitled to publicise our institution.

Had Ray attempted to list our partners in safety, the interviewer would almost certainly have cut him short. The interviewers often have their own agenda and you have, at times, to be very careful with your answers.

The advice I was given was to answer the question, but do not leave your answer open.

Well done Ray.

Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn
Hi Max,

I have seen many adverts in press/on the internet - that have only asked for CMIOSH.

If that is the basis of your selection than you are going to exclude a lot of people who are more than capable of doing the job.

IMO Chartered status is not proof of competence - it is an indicator that person may be competent, but not proof.

To me the only proof of competence is if you have an incident/court case and you are not successfully prosecuted. However, even that only proves you were competent in that specific area and not the every part of health and safety.

Theoretically speaking a 20 year old could be CMIOSH... would you call them competent?

Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn

If an employer in the communications industry advertised a job saying employees must be a member of the Communication Workers Union, would that not be classed as discrimination?

Posted By Heather Collins
So at the risk of getting shouted at, does anyone know of an interesting H&S blog? I've found quite a few US ones but UK ones seem a bit thin on the ground. Maybe I should start one (anonymous of course...)

Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,

Just on the subject of alleged discrimination in employers asking for IOSH membership; it certainly is. What is isn't is illegal or inappropriate discrimination. We all discriminate whenever we make choices, and in making a choice for IOSH membership in prospective recruits I am discriminating in a perfectly lawful and valid way. To practice as a Nurse you have to be registered with the NMC, to practice as a physio you need CSP membership and to be registered with the HPC, doctors have to be GMC registered and so on. Nobody talks about discriminating against architects who aren't members of RIBA, and would you use an unchartered surveyor? The point about IOSH membership, at any grade other than Affiliate, is that you have to do CPD, and IOSH is the only H&S body where this is the case. CPD may not be everything, but it means something, and to me as a prospective employer it is very very important.

On the point about TechIOSH v CMIOSH, both are fine in my book depending on their specific experience and 'other qualities'.

John

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I have a feeling that sharks are circling round this thread and may strike at any moment, should a certain topic (for which we have a forum specifically set apart) be continued to be discussed.

Heather, do you mean other than the Presidents Blog accessible from the home page of this very site?

Posted By Dave Wilson
Until you have been put under the 'journos' spotlight you will not realise how it works.

I would suggest that anyone in H&S who may perceivably 'interact' with the media either do a 'handling the media' course or keep sthum, as you can make things sound really bad, remember these type of people are only intersetd in one thing 'good copy'.

So put this in the context of the interview, get the message across that H&S professionals give good advice and most of the 'conkers 'bonkers stuff' does not come from H&S professionals! Good interview then.

Dont get hung up on the Tech IOSH angle as this was not the purpose of the interview.

See you are even spinning your own angle! but no where did anyone hint or even say that this grade was no good!

Heather, problem is there still are tweed wearing elbow patched clipboard chin rubbing 'can't do that' stoppers out there. There is always a solution to an issue, just saying no is not good.

CMIOSH at 20 theoretically impossible, so no not competent!

Posted By Matt Wardman
Heather
>Have you any idea how petty this chartered/non-chartered stuff sounds to anyone outside the profession?

It sounds incredibly petty and unprofessional. And also nerdy. Put the infighting on a private forum - this site is full of them.

Ray's pitch should have been subtly different. Rather than saying "this bad advice is x's fault, and we are y", he should have asserted the profession's authority over health and safety.

More like: "b***** managers are not competent in this field, they need their heads knocking together (carefully)".

As a member of the public, I don't give a fig wh o is responsible for stupid H&S advice - I just want it to stop and not happen again, and for a process to be in place that delivers *good* H&S advice.

My perception is that as H&S professionals it is your job to stop anyone who doesn't know their stuff from offering advice - when it comes to your professional area, you (or your appropriate director) have that responsibility (or should have it).

>...the elbow-patch wearing, clip-board wielding killjoys that many of them still see us as regardless of what we call oursleves?

I have to admit that the image I have is more of shiny brown shoes with shiny blue trousers .... I love the elbow patches idea - that just completes the caricature.

My experience of H&S people is that they hate the tick-box mentality more than I do.

>So at the risk of getting shouted at, does anyone know of an interesting H&S blog? I've found quite a few US ones but UK ones seem a bit thin on the ground. Maybe I should start one (anonymous of course...)

I'm looking too.

Pseudonymous not anonymous. The subtle difference is that you need a consistent identity rather than *no* identity. Go for it - I'll review you.

>I have seen many adverts in press/on the internet - that have only asked for CMIOSH.
>If that is the basis of your selection than you are going to exclude a lot of people who are more than capable of doing the job.

I think it is probably OK to recruit on the basis of a qualification if that is in the Job Spec, and provided you apply a consistent process to everyone. I think.

And talking of blogs - the lack of response to me this morning made me blog my views in detail here:

http://www.mattwardman.com/go/10.html

I'm hoping that some of my readers will drop in for a debate - but H&S is hardly a hot button subject.

Cheers

Matt

Posted By Matt Wardman
Heather

Thanks for your response. I won't post it all here - 1500 words is too much for a forum.

Just in case your net nanny is not that thorough, I crossposted to:

www.parishpump.org.uk
www.mattwardman.co.uk

Matt

Posted By Matt Wardman
Yes - I don;t doubt that they

But the answer is not "whac-a-mole" (addressing individual stories), but changing the culture to prevent them occurring.

Would it work? No idea.

Matt

Posted By Matt Wardman
>Now, who has declared that they are personally responsible for the risk assessments of conkers, balloons, soap bubbles, falling fruit, boy scouts camp fires, school trips ? Or do they prefer to remain anonymous ?

Not sure if you intend this one to be taken seriously, however...

The camp fires at least have been risk-assessed by anyone who has taken any boy scouts camping:

Fire risk assessment of campsites is included in the Scout Association "Fire Safety" fact sheet here:
http://www.scoutbase.org.../facts/pdfs/fs320007.pdf

"There should be extra consideration made to
premises with sleeping accommodation, such as
campsites, plus any premises where people sleep. ".

Campfires probably went out with Timmy the Dog.

And as for school trips g>, you are going to regret asking.

This is a list of points for which Head Teachers should have "a clear policy and robust systems":

* Ensuring that leaders and helpers have the appropriate experience and competence

• Checking the objectives of the visit

• Co-operating with governors to ensure that approval has been obtained from the LEA for visits abroad, residential visits or adventure activities

• Balancing the educational benefits of the visit against the foreseeable risks

• Ensuring that suitable and sufficient risk assessments have been done

• Encouraging pupils to take an active part in the risk assessment

• Ensuring that the risk assessment is sent to parents with other information about the visit

• Checking that essential paperwork, such as consent forms, has been completed

• Ensuring that there are contingency plans and emergency plans

• Ensuring that any concerns about school visits are brought to the head teacher and properly investigated

• Ensuring that leaders and helpers are suitable for the activity and are appropriately trained. Risk assessment should be part of that training

• Ensuring that teachers report on completed visits and that there is a specific requirement to list any potential improvements that they may have identified

• Carrying out/making arrangements for periodic “field” monitoring of visits

Source: http://www.hse.gov.uk/sc...rips/pdf/conclusions.pdf

Alternatively, Rospa will give you a 90 page booklet.

I make no judgement (yet) - I merely provide evidence to stimulate conversation...

Matt

Posted By Merv Newman
Matt/Heather

Yes I did go a bit over the top by including scout fires and school trips. I do KNOW that such activities are risk assessed by responsible people working with responsible organisations.

So, if I now limit my question to asking for the original risk assessments for playing conkers, for blowing bubbles, for twisting balloons, is there an answer ?

And may I humbly suggest to everyone that the next time something is banned because of health and safety they ask for a copy of the written risk assessment ?

Merv