Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Merv, maybe a little premature to suggest that; but an encouraging example of how the law can see things the way that many would think it ought to. I note that the HSE were nonetheless "disappointed".
So the enforcers are yet to be convinced that kids don't need to be protected every minute of the day, eh? Doesn't that conflict a little with their public statements on the subject?
Why is it that our government and its servants can no longer just say simple things like "we got it wrong, we will need to look at what we have learnt from this failure and think about the criteria we use in the future"
This case needs to be emblazoned across the front of every journal and mag that IOSH can get it into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Personally i feel that the HSE could have been playing to public pressure over this and it is perhaps symptomatic of the new Policy Spirit of we are enforcers. We will never know the political pressures behind the prosecution decision and must be grateful for the independent judiciary.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Sorry Merv, If you look at the recent appeal of Chiltern Flowers Vs Piccolo reported yesterday, this may not be the case, however this case does look similar to Tesco Vs Ward 1976. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...gland/london/7408606.stm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stephen C
I am pleased the appeal court saw this for what it was, kids are kids. I have a three year old who thinks he is a parkour champion. He goes to preschool 4 days a week and over the last 6 months I’ve had at least one accident report a month. Even though the preschool are responsible for his care, I know what my son is like and what kids do or in many cases try to do.
On the flip side of that coin I have been to collect my child when another parent has been told their child has had a bump, the reaction was explosive to say the least. The parent could not see further than immediately blaming a staff member and the preschool.
I hate the term blame culture, however, in many instances the shoe fits
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
It is a shame that the HSE's reported statement didn't include a promise to rid the hospitals of MSRA ... the recent news of a potential 'cure' is very welcome.
I understand fully the causational links, but really, which is the worse? An injury caused in play on an every day feature, or contracting a deadly disease in a place of healing?
The short report does not give the whole picture, of course .. but I do wonder if the hospital's management faced any peril?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Sorry for the typo (MRSA)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew M
Merv,
To an extent I agree. It is a victory for commonsense.
But, I also see the HSE's point of view. I imagine a fatality from horseplay in a normal workplace would have been upheld, and from the HSE's point of view that is exactly what a school is. The legislation does not allow them to discrimintate between types of workplace.
As for slipping on a petal? Don't get me started!
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
I see it as a victory for common sense, and thank whoever for that
I trust the judges comments won't result in all IOSH members in the education sector losing their livelihood!
"Lord Justice Moses said that anyone wanting advice from an expert on safety in schools could do no better than to seek the advice of someone like Mr Porter."
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
If I remember rightly there were 100 children ranging in age from 3 to 10 being supervised by 1 adult in a playground that had a steep set of concrete stairs and lots of blind spots. The school acknowledged that the steps were a problem - the children 'knew' they weren't allowed to play there. Can we now use adults not being allowed to stick there fingers in moving parts of a machine as a defence as they have been told not to?
I think this judgement has swung too far in the opposite direction. This was a simply and cheaply preventable incident - very much 'reasonably practicable'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By db
Sally has it spot on. You have to remember that there is a large amount of information that is not in the public domain that is used in the decision to prosecute or not.
It's not just HSE who thought this was a fair and just prosecution as the initial result was guilty - and just because it has been turned over now does not in any way weaken the case. The sppeal system has commented and they are the only one's who can comment. The appeal judge has not said "This should never have come to court".
That is why our legal system has been copied the world over - and the how's-why's and I told you so's are pretty pointless. As is blaming HSE for taking the case. Only they have all the facts and the due process of law has taken place which casts a different slant on the evidence.
As for HSE ridding the world of MRSA and HSE playing to political pressure....
well those comments don't justify a response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
But everyone seems to have forgotten that the accident didn't kill him - MRSA did. He would probably be happily playing around now having learnt a useful lesson in risk assessment and injury avoidance if it wasn't for that!!
The hospital should have have been taken to court for negligence and the Labour Government vicariously!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.