Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Chas I see the profession is now being referred to as the 'H&S Taliban'. Is that what the public really thinks, any comments? I see IOSH has responded http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...m?go=news.release&id=455 however I feel the tabloids will have a field day and the HSE's sensible H&S campaign has a long way to go! I'm glad it's Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Scott d
Hi Chas,
I am not sure whether this is 'public opinion', however, it is clearly the opinion of someone who is in a highly influential position and these comments are very damaging to our profession and the people we try to protect.
As somebody with family and many friends within the Police force, I find this very concerning. An individual in such a position of authority, should be aware of the effect such comments can have on the safety culture of their organisation and worryingly in this case; on the opinions of the public.
This is not however surprising and it explains stories I have heard regarding decisions on protecting the safety of Police Officers.
This comment is in no way reflective on Health and Safety professionals working within the Police force, who I know are fighting on a daily basis to protect the safety of their colleagues. It does however, highlight the size of the task that they have in doing so.
Good luck to you all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RIL
I think this is what a lot of the public feel. The HSE's monthly myth tool, whilst a reasonable effort with good intention is way short...and the HSE can say whatever they like....the gen public will think what the tabloids tell them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GARRY WIZZ
Such comments do not surprise me .
From my experience I think the public does not hold H&S in high regard.Which is a polite way of putting it.
To be honest, I think the H&S profession is not that professional.
Garry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I agree with Garry's statement but would qualify it by saying that in my view, we are not a true profession, although many practitioners are very professional. Anyone can be a H&S "professional" - you just do it for a living. I don't always agree with the way IOSH tackles things, but I agree with the philosophy of trying to raise professional standards and status eg by CPD and tight membership rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RIL
I think a lack of consistency is a big problem with this 'profession'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Considering the number of things the Police have been called in the past I think its nice that they get to call somebody else names for a change ;-)
Most of the stick the profession comes in for comes from the political right; people like Littlejohn, Clarkson, Redwood and so on. I have no time for these people or their opinions, and since I have no respect for them, what they say or what they do I don't suppose I have any right to ask them to respect me.
And as for whether we are a profession or not; I think we are, and we are becoming more so. If you think we aren't professional, then become engaged in ways that will help increase our professionalism,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Julian Wilkinson
More media hype?
just mention 'for reasons of health and safety' and see how peoples' faces drop or eyes roll up in the air.
Why? a question I ask myself quite often these days; i think its because the laws have created a blame culture. We often hear 'there is no such thing as an accident and someone is to blame'. So if someone is blamed then a lawyer sees an opportunity for no win no fee and will fight for compensation.
Maybe rightly so in many cases, however its the worry of 'what if' that is created amongst those whom have h&s responsibilities (especially those who are not professionals i hasten to add).
Apparently in America, out of 10 the number 1 way to make money is to sue somebody (earn it wasn't even in the top 5 on the list! and its happening here.
There is too much 'blaming' going on these days and its making people nervous, pretty soon there will be no more school trips, or after work functions because of the 'what if' factor. And as soon as you stop something the media shouts things like Taliban!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By TBC
Spot on John - totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Julian,
UK law isn't the same as US law and isn't likely to become so; 'suing somebody' is never likely to be the best way to get rich here. I know that joe/jane public thinks it is; this is partly due to persistent media confusion about the origin of various law-suit type stories, and partly due to persistent urban mythology (man being burnt by hot coffee; winnibago driver not realising the thing wouldn't drive itself etc).
the question I ask you to consider is which of your family, friends or close work colleagues would sue over a trivial matter? In my case I can confidently say the answer is 'none of them'. So I have to ask myself; why should the public at large behave in radically different manner to the people I know?
Yes, some people do try it on, but how far do vexatious claims get?
And finally, its not 'the laws' which have the most significant bearing on civil claims, but 'the law'; not decisions reached in parliament or by ministers in our lifetimes, but decisions made in court by judges over a period of several centuries,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AdrianF
Yet another pop at the "Elf & safety blokes" (or girls- not meant to be sexist)
This time by a person placed in a postion of high public office and responsibility.
Amazing therefore that he should find it necessary to make such an irresponsible statement.
Statements such as these do nothing to endear the great british public to what we are all trying to achieve - sensible risk management.
The media induced misconception of this "profession" is driven by the ludicrous claim culture that has blossomed in this country boosted by greedy legal eagles who manipulate the spirit of the law to ensure gain for their clients and therefore payment for themselves and fed by irresponsible comments such as those made by this chief police officer.
("No win, No fee" strike a chord?)
Perhaps the Chief Constable would do well to remember he is there to enforce the law and is not above it!
That includes having to do his part as the person in overall charge of his force to comply with H & S legislation.
Granted his is a specialist industry, with specialist risks - but that's what he is paid for isn't it?
To manage
sensibly
and
reasonably
Or have those words lost any real meaning in the English language now
I find his remarks deeply offensive, as will any "Reasonable" person and he should be disciplined for such a statement as he brings the position of his office into disrepute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tarquin Farquor
John,
The person suing (successfully) for being burnt by the 'hot' (actually superheated and deemed unfit for human consumption, something the company had been warned about on several occasions) is true. The unfortunate person was a woman, stella something.
After being hospitalised by the incident and then left disabled by it for a few years she asked the offending company (who obviously weren't 'lovin it') to cover the medical expenses. When they refused, she sued.
Sorry to detract from the main topic.
Regards,
TF
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil H
Having a number of years in this field I have seen and been a casualty of poor decision making in respect of H+S.It is easy to go to a company with a tick sheet and prohibit anything that maybe slightly risky.These so called professionals only do the H+S industry a disservice and more often than not prevent the Directors in taking H+S seriously.The UK have fought to keep the SFRP condition and this should be borne in mind. I recently visited a site where the previous H+S advisor had, in my analysis cost the firm money requesting PPE that was not required or fit for purpose.Take on the job and take on the responsibility to stand by your decisions but start with ' how can we get this job done ?' rather than'How can I prevent this job from being done?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I note that his even handed approach blithely accepts the DeMenezes killing as though it was just one of those things. I also note that he he defends the two "hobby bobbies" involved in the drowning case.
It appears that he thinks that the Police should just be allowed to get on with it, no questions asked. Above criticism? Above the law? Is that what he wants?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Forster Interesting article http://www.telegraph.co....007/11/07/nsafety207.xmlThe 'Taliban' jibe seems to be a cheap soundbite. Free speech brings with it, its own set of responsibilities. As a H&S Practitioner of 15 years I am very aware of how the general public perceive health and safety and we obviously have a long way to go. No real complaints as to how both HSE and IOSH are addressing the issue but winning hearts and minds will take time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RobAnybody
Without trying to sound all crawly (but I probably will), I am an employee of West Yorkshire Police (& therefore Sir Norman Bettison) as well as being GradIOSH & I feel that it would be right to provide support for Sir Normans' article.
He is fully aware of the benefits of a robust health and safety culture within the Force. Yes, we have problems. Tell me who doesn’t but he employs some very capable, competent & enthusiastic people try to overcome those problems and improve the culture. We are even expanding our number of health and safety professionals. More jobs for the IOSH lot to pick up!
His points are aimed at those in society who seek to use health and safety to emasculate the rest of us. You all know those leather elbow patch, clip-board carrying, autocratic kill-joys who feed the media & claims lawyer frenzies. It is these people who cause bodies like the emergency services a headache. They are as bad as the “head-in-the-ground” lot.
Those of us, who work in the emergency services, in any capacity, will be familiar with how the "frontline troops" behave. These people are usually the kind who will go all out to save a life, stop someone being hurt etc without a moments thought for themselves & the only way we can allow them to keep doing this is to keep on training them to be able to make the right decisions & give them the space & support to do so. Sir Norman, I fear, feels that society is changing in such a fashion that that is not going to happen for long.
What then when my neighbour is burgled & the Police won't attend straight away in case they "bump into a nasty man"? What happens to the old lady who is raped in her own bed & calls the Police to tell them the rapist is still there and is then left alone in case an officer is hurt? Far fetched? Think of the case Sir Norman raised of High Moor Cross in Oxford where the gun victims died because someone had placed a health and safety objection and wouldn’t let highly trained professional firearms officers and paramedics attend in case they were hurt. Ridiculous!
We, as professionals should not be lambasting the comments of a senior policeman when he raises his concerns but asking him in the first instance what his concerns are & if they are legitimate we should be supportive of those concerns. We should be understanding of the needs and requirements of society as a whole and appreciate that some times, someone has to take a risk to make a difference.
I wrote to Sir Norman to give him my support & as to PC Dovey who saved a mans life, you deserve a medal mate.
My final comment goes directly to AdrianF, you had better pray that someone acts sensibly and reasonably to save you or your loved ones should you or they ever be in the unfortunate position to need saving.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The only ral problem is that the General Public tend to read papers not the IOSH and [reference removed]s. So alll the forum stuff is a dead duck in the water!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven bentham
I thought Taliban translated to 'defender'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
Rob are you seriously telling us that someone from "elf n safety" stopped the Police officers in Oxford from dealing with an armed incident??? Aren't the Police in sole charge of such a crime scene? Who took that decision? It must have been someone within the Police force. Lets not blame "elf n safety" for a plain bad decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Forster
Hello Bob.
Hopefully not. I think the range of risks that we now face is different to say ten years ago but the discussions are being had and action taken(look at the discussions within the Education Sector regarding 'Cotton Wool kids') As H&S practitioners we have a vital part to play in shaping the future agenda - no pain, no gain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RobAnybody
garyh
The spectre of "HEALTH & SAFETY" was used more by the press than the police in this one. It was a series of errors in delaying attending & in the ambulancec crews refusing to attend the scene as they were uncertain if the offender was still in the area.
It all goes in the public conscience as yet another health and safety nightmare.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil H
Rob
I have also read the full text of Mr Bettisons article and on the whole agree. However, with friends who have sons out in Afghanistan I find the remark particularly distasteful and would hope for an apology on behalf of all hard working members. I won't hold my breath though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richie
Steve,
Taliban/Taleban literally means 'the seekers'.
Anyway, definitions aside, if the Chief Constable actually came out and stated his fundamental 'between a rock and a hard place' issue, the public might be better informed and able to collect their thoughts.
As I see it his Officers/Constables have the ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT to protect life. Not a 'so far as is reasonably practicable (so long as you don't hurt yourself or any-one else) requirement. This is what makes a mockery of using S.3 of HASWA given the fundamental requirement to save the lives of many tube passengers. So far however I have not seen this argument in the public arena.
It is only a few years back that the Police became fully covered by the HASAW Act umbrella, if memory serves me well. It is a shame these contrary positions were not exercised in conference then rather than in court today.
Richie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
Richie I agree that the Police have an absolute duty to save lives.
Please explain what shooting an innocent man has to do with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
Okay, having read the full text of the article posting anything my own humble views are that although somewhat naive and with the "taliban" quote being ill judged and populist on the whole there is some merit behind what he writes. We are now in a position where some health and safety practitioners include those in the enforcement organisations are doing immense harm. I'm a school governor and was at a governors meeting this week where the head told me about the 175 risk assessment forms that the LEA are insisting they fill out. This has nothing to do with managing health and safety. It is about some clip board wielding idiot trying to cover his employers liabilities if things go wrong. I've seen similar approaches taken by HSE where they have been more concerned about a DSE assessment for a "hot desk" rather than addressing the risks the employers were desperately trying to manage.
Until we get rid of the clip board brigagde and see all enforcement agency perosonel adopting a realistic pragmatic approach the press we get as a profession will only get worse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
OK Richie now you have my blood up!
It is not a cynical statement. You think it is unreasonable to ask the question?
Can anyone answer my post (of course thay can't, so let's stop trying to justify the shooting and admit to a monumental mistake).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richie
Garyh,
Whilst I accept that some comments do occasionally get peoples blood up, I think you may have mistaken the second comment as coming from me. It actually came from Colin Reeves.
I would never needlessly upset anyone.
Richie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brigham
Mistakes were made by the Met but am I correct in saying that had De Menezes complied with UK Immigration laws and the time limit on his Visa, he would have been back in Brazil at the time of the shooting. This to me is the biggest contributor to his killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
GaryH
It was me who mentioned cynical. From the other thread I referred to a single quote, could choose many
"I firmly believe that because of this verdict, we are more at risk of terrorist attack and H&S has taken another body blow in the PR war."
I have read the full text of the West Yorkshire's CC and I can see his frustration and agree with the general aim of the letter (although appreciate the "T" word may have been inadvisable.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer
GaryH
you stated
Can anyone answer my post (of course they can't, so let's stop trying to justify the shooting and admit to a monumental mistake).
I can
The answer is Hindsight.
How many accidents and injustices would have been prevented if people had known what the outcome was going to be before the event,
regards
Edward Shyer. H&S Consultant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Is there a link to Sir Norman Bettisons's original comments ?
I would prefer to see the context before commenting.
I will, for now, admit to having considered declaring Jihad against certain managers but have never actually done so.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
OK, I found the link and have read the greletaphe article.
I totally agree with the Chief Constable.
We have an expectation that the emergency services ; fire, ambulance, police, will do their utmost to save our lives. Even, unthinkingly, putting their own lives at risk.
Running over unsafe roofs to catch a burglar is one thing. Shouldn't have happened.
Non-swimmers diving into a deep pool to retrieve a probably dead body ? It shouldn't happen.
Shooting dead a BELIEVED terrorist who could have killed you in an instant ? You have to do it. (7 times was a bit much, but you can understand) And they, in their minds, were protecting the public.
"Taliban" was perhaps an unfortunate phrase (I don't think we are that bad but we do ask people to cover their hair, not wear make up or personal jewelry and not listen to music. In defined circumstances but who defines what the circumstances are ?)
We all know there are some Jihadists amongst us who will ban conkers and sparklers. But there are many more of us who will be happy to help organise a safe conkers competition or a professional fireworks display.
I'm off to watch Carole Vorderman.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Duell
*...am I correct in saying that had De Menezes complied with UK Immigration laws and the time limit on his Visa, he would have been back in Brazil at the time of the shooting.*
Probably not. If he'd complied with immigration laws he'd have applied for - and almost certainly received - an extension to his visa.
Either way it's totally irrelevant - yes, if he'd been in Brazil he wouldn't have been shot that day. But since he was shot in the mistaken belief that he was someone else, any personal details of J-C deM are irrelevant as far as root causes are concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Unfortunately I must agree there are some, even on here, that could be classed as the H&S "Taliban". Quite often it is those who shout loudest and get very cross that are those who give the more pragmatic souls amongst us that name. Some people need to take a long hard look at themselves and see if they are in the nannying, ban it and stop it brigade. One company who I can't name as the Mod's will remove this, (who may or may not have had a large explosion many years ago)are just one of those who discipline people for not holding handrails, or taking two stairs at a time etc. These are the one's - not the Clarkson's of this world, who give us a bad name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
A novel approach to root cause analysis! "The root cause was that the victim was unwittingly in the wrong place at the wrong time. The method of prevention is for potential victims to stay at home." Er no doesn't quite work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
Rob T
I agree with you. There are some who post here who must be somewhat scary to work with. Perhaps they should stop selling clipboards!
Clarkson is not to blame for the bad press we get. We are, so Clickboard Users of the World come together, take a good hard look at yourselves and the world around you. It's full of risk (or should that be hazards) and always will be, despite your best efforts.
PS Is Top Gear on this weekend, it's one of my favorite programmmes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Cossh,
"the root cause ,,, unwittingly ,,, stayed at home"
No, the root cause was a total cluster at Police HQ.
I do thousands of miles on the motorways, autobahns, auto routes each year. Exposing myself to all sorts of idiot drivers, accident risks and so on. Should I stay at home ?
No way. I have a life and it goes on. Menendez was the unlucky one. Could it happen to you ?
I'm in the "Blair must go" camp. He was/is top. Gotta go. The shooters ? Did their job.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.