Posted By Exdeeps
If I may play devils' Advocaat for a moment;
Do ads for regional sales reps mention the danger of driving on the roads, is falling out of the sky mentioned as a hazard when airlines recruit cabin staff, and what about the hazards of driving a train or joining the fire service? Sometimes the people who make those comments need to slow down, think for a moment and not shoot from the lip. Not so much nanny state methinks, more self justifying QUANGO's, committees, self interest groups and "commentators" (Usually un named)
Breath in, Breath out, count to ten AND calm
Jim

Posted By David McGuire
NO the Army are not glamorising WAR !!!

It is showing the reality of the job! at the end of the day and after all the perks of an army life ie travel, sking etc the army is there to fight wars and that means killing the enemy!

The risks are managed within operations ie assess the enemy's strength, locations, weapons, and then attack with overwhelming force and fire power.

Seems to me that the comments in the media are made by persons who have never served in the Army and been on offensive operations.

Posted By Rob T
Graeme,

Spot on! Interesting that no-one seems to have taken the MoD on yet on the PPE issues from an H&S point of view.If they can use the HSE in a spurious case regarding a drug taking illegal immigrant at Stockwell, then why not on the equipment issue for decent soldiers on the front line? Any HSE Inspectors out there who wish to comment?

Posted By M Forbes
Correct me if im wrong, but im pretty sure i read somewhere that her majestys forces are exempt from health and safety legislation.

Posted By Robert.
Kevin, as an ex-sapper myself. Number not disclosed unlike another posting, and it is not like the population of China. I have been at the sharp end and carried out the ultimate act like, no doubt, many others.
The Army also taught me how assess risk and to survive!

Posted By Bob Shillabeer
The British army is exempt from British H&S Law, but generally choose not to be. For example if an Army vehicle is involved in a road traffic accident the driver may well be procecuted in the usual way in a civilian court and punished accordingly. If however, he was acting in a war type footing he may well be exempted from prosecution. It is generally accepted that all civilian type activities of the armed forces will result in the same actions covering cicilian people. It is where the activity is not likely to be undertaken by civilians that a procecution would not be possible.

Posted By Kevin Drum
Robert perhaps that grounding for risk assessing every situation is so many of us end up in H&S :)

Posted By Robert.
Kevin--you're spot on. "We" tend to be realistic and address the significant.

Posted By Richie
I have served in the Army (Environmental Health), undertaken the role of SHE Adviser at a Royal Air Force Station and currently hold the position of H&S Adviser at a Fleet Air Arm unit. I have also worked as an Enforcement Officer at District Council level, and can say I have seen both sides of the coin, so consider myself qualified to comment.

This issue was the subject of an address to the IOSH conference by Col Manning (ARMY), the theme was losing crown immunity and corporate manslaughter implications from an Army perspective. He hit the nail firmly on the head in his pre-amble concerning the army safety culture. I have cut & paste a small excerpt to illustrate the Army view as it currently stands:

"In truth, the military safety culture is a profound one. It is paternalistic by modern standards, but we care profoundly about the welfare of our operational units and its people. Soldiers come first. Operational units are given every resource possible when they are training for war, or preparing for deployment. Part of this is a profoundly developed safety culture. Force protection is, and always has been, paramount. Commanders are trained to legislate for the unexpected in battle in order to achieve tactical goals. We have always been thinly resourced, even in imperial days, when the Army garrisoned the empire. We have never had a large standing army for long in peace time, so resources have always been thinly stretched when it has come to wars of national survival. So safety and force protection have always been a significant part of our culture. However, it is true to say that our attitudes to the modern ‘Health and Safety’ culture have reflected, as one might suspect, the attitudes of the public at large. This is because we have imported the practices of modern industry and sometimes endless risk assessments for trivial hazards, without necessarily presenting the measures in context. The context of industrial standards set against the risks involved in delivering realistic military training, when we endeavour to simulate the conditions faced in battle, is a significant communication challenge. Realistic training will sometimes be a hazard-laden activity, which is essential if we are not to transfer risk from training to operations. We are not helped by the fact that the regulations are expressed in industrial terms. These regulations feel counter-intuitive, in an organisation which is looked up to by our allies for being a can-do nothing-too-difficult culture.

The current legal position is that the MOD is subject to the law, but cannot be prosecuted. However, a question must remain as to how long immunity from prosecution will be retained. The MOD is enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, through Crown Improvement Notices, Crown Prohibition Notices, and Crown Censures."

I hope this has been of some help to those who have had little or no experience of the armed forces to form a more balanced view.

Richie

Posted By Pete Longworth
I think it is obvious to anyone that when joining the armed forces you do so in the knowledge that there is a significant risk attached to the occupation. I also agree that in the heat of battle it is unreasonable to expect that documented risk assessments cover every eventuality. However I do think that those people risking their lives are entitled to expect to be provided with the best equipment available, which, if you believe the reports, is not the case at the moment.

RobT - where has it ever been said that JC de Menezes was a drug taking illegal immigrant?

Posted By Rob T


I worked for the MoD in a specialised area and we dealt with various confidential projects. We had regular HSE inspections on some of the more overt projects but had to self inspect the more covert. Yes H&S was involved and Crown Censures were available. My original question though was regarding the personal protective equipment for squaddies not on tactics or getting hurt in battle. The former PPE equipment issue should have had a crown censure as people were sent into battle without sufficient body armour - not a case of H&S getting involved in actual battle conditions as that would be ridiculous.

Hence my question - would any HSE Inspector like to comment as to why no action has been taken against the MoD for not supplying suitable and sufficient PPE?

Pete L,

if you actually read all the information on a subject rather than just what you want to believe then you will have seen that JC de Menezes was found to have illegal drugs and that he had stayed well outside his visa date. This was just an example of how the UK now does the lefty political cases rather than looking after our own troops.

Posted By Jimmy R
"this wasn't what I signed up for...",

Knowing the Royal Marines as I do I'm sure the young Royal Marine had a very large tongue in his cheek when he said this and I'm sure you will acknowledge that there were even more choice comments made once contact was made with the enemy forces.
Every RM who deployed to operations to the Falklands and to operational theatres after this conflict has been left in no doubt as to the possibilities of injury / death.