Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#41 Posted : 16 August 2007 08:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Matt Wardman
>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 ?

Now I am silenced g>

Although a balloon allergy is just the sort of thing that I can imaging prompting a case in the Appeal Court with corresponding Daily Mail "Health and Safety Loophole Scandal" headlines...

On a different note than you for those who have a taken time to respond substantively to my blog article http://www.mattwardman.com/go/10.html.

I'll reflect then reply in detail later.

I have even found a cartoon that is nearly Health and Safety for this morning's opener on the blog (up now).

Matt
Admin  
#42 Posted : 16 August 2007 11:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Matt Wardman
And a post-script to say good on the Chief Exec for responding to my comment on her blog quickly.
Admin  
#43 Posted : 17 August 2007 14:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Fraser
Matt,

Must say, you are quite welcome here as we, the profession, have nothing to hide but having read your blog, I have a question - are you deliberately trying to misconstrue the message we are trying to put out?

As an illustration, you claim that Ray was making a distinction about H&S advisors and H&S managers. No. It's managers in general, most of whom may have an H&S responsibility in their remit but are definitely NOT H&S managers as their primary role.

The other thing is about your quoting from this forum here - this is a discussion forum, where people discuss things based on their different levels of knowledge, experience, position and personality. It's always a risk to allow non-IOSH people onto the site, as they may not grasp the nuances involved or could use it to prove a predetermined point which is actually opposite to what the real situation is. But then, as I already said, we have nothing to hide and an intelligent and open-minded individual would soon realise that we are all just trying to reduce risk to as low as reasonably practicable, allowing people and organisations to go about their lawful business with minimum disruption.

Probably one of the best quotes I've seen that sums it all up - "If you think the cost of safety is high, try having an accident!"
Admin  
#44 Posted : 17 August 2007 15:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Matt Wardman
Sean - thanks for your response.

No - I'm not trying to misconstrue anything. When I listened to the interview, I understood Ray to be talking about manager responsible for Health and Safety. I'm happy to note that that was not the intended impression, and will add a note to the article.

To be fair, I had the substance of my post on the forum here for more than half a day before I published anything on the blog - and it was not answered in that time.

I'd like to know what impression was actually gained by other members of the public listening - but I do not have time to research that this afternoon. I'll have a look at the weekend.

I'll come back substantively when I've absorbed all the comments made (aiming for Monday).

However, I have had a detailed response from IOSH itself which I am posting verbatim this afternoon.

I'm certainly trying to:

a) Generate some conversation between "the profession" and "the public". I think that is sorely needed, and IOSH has the same aim.
b) Aiming to provoke responses - that is how debate gets started.

I'm happy to quote what individuals say in public, as long as I am using the quote in an editorial context (i.e., I'm not plagiarising others' work to generate an article) - and I am happy that I am being fair.

I did also strongly recommend that the public come and enter the conversation here. Unfortunately it didn't work.

I'd be more than happy to publish a critique if you would like to make one - or you could comment on the article.

Thanks for the comments, and for your willingness to ask pointed questions.

Matt
Admin  
#45 Posted : 17 August 2007 16:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Fraser
Matt,

Good answer and tactfully put - my wording was somewhat abrasive and I appreciate the reasoned response.
Admin  
#46 Posted : 21 August 2007 15:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Matt Wardman
A quick note that I have done the weekly "Pods and Blogs" roundup on Radio 5 and mentioned the Health and Safety debate.

The written version of the roundup is here:

http://www.mattwardman.c...20/britblog-roundup-131/

The audio segment (about 5 minutes) is here:

http://www.mattwardman.c...dup-130-audio-podcast-2/

MAtt
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
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.