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

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

3 Pages123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ruth Doyle
Dear members,

Many of you will have seen the Channel Four Cutting Edge documentary last night called “Fun Police”. I know lots of you will have strong opinions about the programme and these forums are a good place for this debate.

You should know that IOSH was in contact with the film makers over the last six months, in an attempt to try to steer the film in a positive direction. To this end, we suggested interview subjects, locations, and key issues for the film makers to cover.

Ultimately though, we always saw this as a damage limitation exercise as we have no editorial control over what is produced or broadcast by any journalist or film maker. As you would expect, we have been making contact with the media this morning to make it clear that this programme does not represent the work of the health and safety profession as a whole. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that the film does contain some positive messages about the profession in the closing moments of the film.

I would encourage members to contact Channel Four directly with any complaints. In the meantime, feel free to express your views about the programme here, but please refrain from any personal attacks on the programme participants - let’s keep the debate professional and respectful, however robust.

Thank you,
Ruth Doyle
IOSH Communications Director
Admin  
#2 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By T Birchall
Ruth, could you put the Channel 4 contact details on here?

Tony Birchall CMIOSH CCP (Asbestos)
Admin  
#3 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ITK
The programme did no favours to our profession. It just perpetuated the myth that safety officers are dull beaurocrats.

It was clear the aim of the programme was to deride the safety official with the comedy music in the background.

Best to just ignore the programme and move on with more relevant matters.

ITK.



Admin  
#4 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Merchant
The tone of the programme may not sit well with people here (and I presume the HSE is equally unimpressed), but let's not forget it was entirely as expected.

The program was produced by a team at October Films known for offbeat subjects and a mockumentary style to their to CA/doc-ents output (I actually like them - don't get me wrong), and commissioned by a channel with a target demographic unlikely to switch over from Apparitions or Buzzcocks to watch a factual discussion of the history and value of the HSE. Commercial TV is about ratings, and irrespective of the 'honesty' of the program from our point of view, it got them - the more controversial/insulting/laughable something is, the more people watch it. I'll put money on the More4 repeat clocking figures far higher than the other episodes in the series purely because we're all talking about it, so like it or not Nick Hornby delivered his remit.

fyi the director was not 'the' Nick Hornby - it was the other one (the Hornby with hair).
Admin  
#5 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By bill reilly
there is a discussion forum on C4 which you could use


http://community.channel...orums/a/frm/f/5796002921
Admin  
#6 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By DM23
I completely missed "Fun Police" last night, does anyone know if it will be repeated at any time??

Thanks

D
Admin  
#7 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Bartlett
I spent 2hrs with the director and a research assistant from the company that made this documentary discussing the 'issues' we all face.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Another lost opportunity
Admin  
#8 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sen Sar

D

You can watch it via Channel4 website:

The link below will take you directly there

http://www.channel4.com/...?vodBrand=the-fun-police
Admin  
#9 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By philip john
Watch it online here

http://www.channel4.com/...?vodBrand=the-fun-police
Admin  
#10 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sharon
Channel 4 offers a free catch up of programmes from the past 30 days:

http://www.channel4.com/tv/

Admin  
#11 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By philip john
Sen beat me to it

Admin  
#12 Posted : 05 December 2008 10:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By DM23
Thanks people! By the sounds of it, I'll be watching it through my fingers....and gritted teeth!!!

D
Admin  
#13 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Simon Priest
Careful, their viewing figures could reach hundreds...
Admin  
#14 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By M Bastone
This really was 'a game of two halves'. It started off following the approach we have come to expect from the media, following the pack and trying to make a poor joke of the subject. However, towards the finish the mood clearly changed and the 'Fruit and nut' tune disappeared, as the darker elements came into play. The first part was clearly heavily edited, set up for laughs at the expense of someone who obviously set out to provide the makers with safety training from bare basics. It would have been interesting to hear the questions they put to him before the cut scenes we were shown.

I think that in the end the facts took over from the fiction and the documentary makers reflected that to a reasonable extent.
to my mind, all those anti's out there eagerly anticipating a further drubbing of the 'Elf & safety Nazi's' will not only have been bitterly disappointed by also enlightened. So on the whole 6/10 for channel 4.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brigham
I think this programme set our profession back 10 years. Not just by the main characters but also IOSH itself by trying to dispel the "bonkers conkers" mob and failing miserably in the attempt. It was embarrassing to watch and the analagy that sprung to mind was the 50 year old man trying to be "hip".

Sometimes it's better to ignore the ignorant than try and reason with them!

Every profession has it's "characters" but we seem to excel!
Admin  
#16 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Michael j Byrne
As a Safety Advisor in Construction i took this programme with a pinch of salt as it was entirley what i expected.

Out of all the people i have spoken today, on many different sites, not one person saw this programme, so i think we can thank "im a celebrity get me out of here" for taking the majority of the viewers.

It will be forgotton about within a few days, best to concentrate on real issues and not give it the attention it so desperatley needs.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
I too had a meeting with the production team and expressed my hopes as to what the programme should attempt.

I watched the actual programme with some bewilderment. There did not seem to be any underlying theme but a series of virtually disconnected cameos, none of which was really putting any real message across. I was hoping that at the end there would be some form of summary to explain what the programme was trying to achieve, but nothing came. In my view it seemed to be something of a non-event.

It certainly will do little, if anything, to dispel the current image of the health and safety practitioner being a bumbling and ineffective bureaucrat just getting in the way of people trying to do their job. I am sure the participants are not that, but it was the way in which the cutting was done and assembled.

Chris
Admin  
#18 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete Chidwick
Whichever way you see the programme, in my view IOSH members and other H&S professionals who feel frustrated / aggrieved / disappointed need to be more specific, factual and objective about the reasons for their concerns (without making derogatory comments against individuals who, all else aside, appeared committed to their occupation).

What is being objected to and why? Comments like "The programme did no favours to our profession. It just perpetuated the myth that safety officers are dull beaurocrats" and "It was clear the aim of the programme was to deride the safety official with the comedy music in the background" are not really the basis of a reasoned argument.

Could the other side of the coin as easily be that the programme highlighted the importance of manual handling, machinery guarding and unusual hazards in nail bars, in addition to demonstrating that health and safety is a passion that often begins in the home?

Probably not to most readers of this Forum, but the real issues need to be identified and faced up to, not just obscured behind a series of generalised comments.

Admin  
#19 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Mac
From the hour this was advertised, the title of "Fun Police" provided an indication which route that C4 had intended to take.

After watching this programme, they did the job they intended to.

If we digest its contents and how the programme was constructed, it produced nothing more than a comical swipe at our profession.

Should we rise to such a programme is entirely up to the individual, however, will this play entirely into their hand?

I for one, perceive it as a piece of an unbalanced journalism at its best and not worthy of getting too hot and bothered about as it will not affect my work as Health & Safety professional.


Lee
Admin  
#20 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tarquin Farquor
You can use this link to a form to contact C4 with complaints, comments etc about their programs.

http://help.channel4.com...ew,Kb=C4_Author,Company={2EA1BB9C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669},T=CONTACT_VE,VARSET_TITLE=CONTACTUSl
Admin  
#21 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Michael j Byrne
It was made to entertain, it did exactly that.

There will never be a programme showing the real issues or the real scenarios, problems and challenges we face as the entertainment value would be dull for the mass viewing public.

They will move on to someone else next.
Admin  
#22 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tim Briggs
For those who did not see the programme the full URL is
http://www.channel4.com/...?vodBrand=the-fun-police
Admin  
#23 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By tmg
A reasonable review of the programme can be found here:

http://www.theherald.co....spensable_jobsworths.php
Admin  
#24 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Youel

The 30 seconds or so that I watched before I turned off confirmed completely my thoughts as to how the program would be presented and that the last 30 years or so of effort from the 1974 act onwards would be thrown away as far as most individuals are concerned and confirm to most that H&S professionals are just what the press indicates

My comments are not made lightly and I know what damage can be created from a 30 second advert noting that I was in national and international marketing and sales for many years and that the professional companies that advertise on the telly know exactly what can be achieved via a 30 second advert that is why they use that media because most people are very easily swayed

There may have been a positive part included. However the reinforcement of the image the press put across was effectively carried through by the producer thus any positives were probably not picked up

Unfortunately following / shadowing an effective professional H&S adviser as against a simpiler work area etc is probably almost impossible as the work is so 'different' to other areas and very confidential etc in most respects

This week I played thr role of 'BOB THE BUILDER' to a reception class to asist in a building project and within 1 hour of that action I showed a business how to progress whilst certain works were underway [they were thinking of closing for a week!] and later in the day stopped a job because of the poor set up - I allowed it to restart after people put things right

In all cases quoted the work was of a confidential nature and mostly unplanned and I doubt very much that a camera crew would have the flexibility to shadow properly nor been allowed entry to some areas/discussions as they like neat script boxes with everything pre set up - I know because I have worked before with such crews! The only part of my day to be shown would have been the 'stop work' bit

PHEW!
Admin  
#25 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Victoriana
I watched this show last night with trepidation but even though I work in health and safety (and therefore should be interested), I found I had to force myself to watch it. Not only did it fail to represent the majority of our work, it wasn't entertaining either.

I think by complaining about the content to Channel 4 we may well fulfill the stereotype image they wish to give us. It was not a quality programme and therefore we shouldn't waste our valuable time.

I would also like this opportunity to congratulate those who were brave enough to take part - even though they must have known what the likely result would be. None of them came accross as people desperate for their 5 minutes of fame (i.e. I'm a H&S Professional, Get me Out of Here!)- just people who believe they are doing a worthwhile job, even if the filmmakers did try and edit it to focus on some off-beat hazards (e.g. slips on acorns).
Admin  
#26 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CW
I received the following mail back in August regarding the making of this film...

"Hi,

My name is Tara Nolan and I work for an independent television production company called October Films. We are making a documentary on Health and Safety for Channel 4 and would like to speak to independent Health and Safety consultants. Whether you work on your own or in a small business, I am interested to hear about the work that you do and the stories you have to tell. I am interested to hear what a day in the life of a health and safety consultant entails.

If you would like to have a chat or know of anyone that would be interested in talking to me about this film, please contact me on 07901 955 226 or email Tara.nolan@octoberfilms.co.uk

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Tara Nolan
October Films"
Admin  
#27 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John J
The program makers could have made a much better program by actually following up some of the cameos they made.
For example the custard/flour explosion had no apparent purpose but could have emphasised, through using an example, how safe and dangerous this can be in various situations.
Equally they could have focused on the excellent work done on the Kings cross.
A real opportunity missed but on the plus side nobody I have spoken to has watched it.
Maybe the next program should have a load of safety managers dropped into the jungle.

Admin  
#28 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Merchant
Just to reply to Chris Packham - the Cutting Edge strand is tagged by C4 as 'observational' and so is not supposed to have an educational 'message' to convey, like say Horizon does. The programme makers show something in an entertaining way and have a theme in their own heads that drives the filming and editing, but aren't commissioned to lecture to the audience. If they assume people already think H&S is daft, they'll make a program that shows it as daft.
Admin  
#29 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoffrey Laycock
Thank you for your comments Ruth.

Yes, I feel very strongly about this. I have copied a email to SHP below. I don't expect it to be printed as it's negative and I seem to detect a editorial trend against my type of communication. Your comments make me even more despairing, so much involvement and that was the result?

Dear Editor

How many other safety professionals sat, probably squirming in their seats, for an hour on Thursday 4th December to watch ‘The Fun Police’ on channel 4. At best the word naïve springs to mind, certainly on the part of the two main representatives of our profession involved. When programme makers have a view they want to put across they will manufacture situations and manoeuvre those involved to allow subsequent editing to do just that.

Rather than present a logical, and most importantly practical approach to safety I shrank into my seat watching a group being shown how to pick up a cardboard box, as training for manual handling in an environment where that is about as useful and a chocolate teapot (risk assessment is don’t use as will melt and cause burn injuries!). How to clean up a water spill in a kitchen probably reinforced many peoples concepts of a safety professional. An opportunity was missed but as suggested earlier, not attributable directly to the person involved who is very experienced and highly regarded, but through not having any imagination as to what the programme makers were going to do with the material they filmed (for example, going on about acorns on the driveway, yes they are a hazard so perhaps we should introduce the ‘Health and Safety (Clearing Acorns) Regulations next. In contrast, the December issue of SHP contained an article discussing what I have been trying to put across for years, the true cost of workplace injuries and ill-health. Forget 200 deaths at work the reality is probably at least 15,000 or maybe even the 50,000 suggested by Hazards Campaign. And we are shown talking about acorns and picking up boxes.

Of even greater concern, featuring a local Government inspector who obviously did not know the law (for instance what the HSW Act 1974 section 3 says about self-employed people, nor what risks any visiting customer may be exposed to), did nothing to enhance the appearance of we practitioners.

The IOSH involvement was obvious, and again did they not think about how the material may be used; they allowed themselves to be made fun of and it did nothing to help our cause.

I despair at the inability of our profession to put itself across as a reasonable, knowledgeable, human one carried out by normal people. As an ex Inspector of Factories and a very long term consultant I wonder how much damage we have caused for ourselves with this programme?

Geoffrey Laycock
BSc(Hons) EurErg CFIOSH FRSH MErgS IMASSE
Admin  
#30 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gannaway
There were positive messages which unfortunantely will be over looked. I think most harm will be done by the likes of Harry Hill on Saturday who won't be able to resist such an easy target, and that will reach a much larger audience. We can either get morbid or be confident in our own abilities and objectives and treat it in good humour.
Admin  
#31 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ray Hurst
Perceptions, views and opinions everyone has one. Personally I think Malcolm’s posting yesterday said it all.

In my view IOSH and HSE was absolutely right to become involved in this project from the outset, risky though it might seem to some based on hindsight (a very precise science I might add). Perhaps it was unrealistic to expect a more robust and positive portrayal of the profession but this is the “entertainment” industry not a company making OH&S safety training videos. The original title by the way was to be “Slips. Trips and Safety Tips” changed by Channel 4 to “The Fun Police”.

Of course the media team at the grange has, as indicated by Ruth, already responded, as it always has in an attempt to balance the stories that appear.

IMHO IOSH did not come out of it badly (although other posters clearly disagree as is their right) and in fact was only mentioned when it came to the world conker championships and perhaps the expectations of some (me included) would have hoped for a far more positive approach to the profession as a whole. But hey, if we are unhappy about how we are portrayed in the mass media (as I am and have tried to counter over the last 12 months) do we just continue to ignore it and fume away or take a calculated risk with programme makers who want to do something and help and co-operate wherever we can and get as much of the message across as we can realistically or “so far as is reasonably practicable” achieve.

What would have been worse in my view was to have a programme about OS&H aired without any opportunity to balance the argument and to have to rely on a programme maker’s standard statement “we asked the professional body to take part and comment - but they declined.” What would that say about us as professionals?

I seem to recall similar debates within the CIEH when “Life of Grime” was first aired, some were for and some against some thought it a negative portrayal and others took a more positive view.

The Times ran a piece on Thursday on the lead up to the programme and they said: “The health and safety industry in the UK is often ridiculed in the media, with indignant opinion pieces deploring the rise of the nanny state and defending the rights of children to fall out of trees. But this wry, gently teasing documentary meets the much-maligned people who dedicate their lives to the safety of others. The joy of the film is a chance to meet these extraordinary characters. Health and safety workers are industrious, dedicated and totally sincere. One of them talks about his anger at “the waste of human life”. But at the same time there is a level of eccentricity that is simply off the scale”.

Britain has always celebrated and loved its eccentrics and there are some of those in every profession (and they generally make for good TV) and don’t we always love to see them (except it seems when it is our own profession under fire of course.)
As to some earlier postings in the week I have to say that I would now have to agree that, yes, it would seem as if some of the best bits (at least as far as we were concerned) were left on the cutting room floor (although since having made this programme maybe they will have swept them up by now and put them in the bin so as to eliminate the potential for a slip/trip accident in the studio). Certainly a whole segment dedicated to the presentation of a Workplace Hazards Awareness Course to a group of year 10 pupils in a school was dropped in its entirety.

The Times have subsequently reviewed the programme and said (among other things) “the makers held a whimsical and beautifully filmed mirror up to our prejudices about health and safety inspectors and their busybody image”.

I think the final segments were quite telling and positive, again this is picked up by The Times who say “….and felt passionately, despite the tabloid headlines accusing his profession of crazy rule-making, that health and safety was very much for the public good. His father had suffered burns as a foundry worker and had inhaled gas when working in a factory. It was a time, Ed said, when workers were exploited through their ignorance. One of the inspectors said he gets angrier and angrier at the “absolute waste of human life” presided over by lazy companies. His job meant he was an “expert in human misery”. There would never be a recession in “health and safety” — sadly”

As someone who has shared a similar experience to Ed, in that my father lost both his legs as a result of a workplace accident I have a passion to ensure good top quality OH&S advice is available and that the dafter decisions are eradicated or at least minimised and that they are not made by OH&S professionals.

There was some debate on another related thread (locked temporarily by the moderators) about OS&H decisions made by local authorities, having been a safety adviser in a large County Council, a district and in London Boroughs and employed in the public sector for 41 years. I have to agree a lot, but not all of the “daft” stories that lead to another rant from Littlejohn et al do originate within the public sector but in my experience very few have originated from a dedicated professional OH&S adviser. More often than not they come from local managers who don’t check it out first.

I sometimes feel as if I get a double “whammy” criticised by the media for being an ‘elf and safety Nazi and by my own professional colleagues for being a safety adviser in a local authority, because from some of the views expressed in that now temporarily locked thread we clearly can’t be competent – but perhaps that’s just my paranoia showing through.

I have no doubt the HSE will also be making some comment on this programme and overall I feel that Frank came across well, his (at least to me) ironic comment about people dropping like flies because of hanging baskets was clearly taken out of context and probably graphically illustrates advice given by our media team “there is no such thing as a closed mike or an off the record comment”.

In my opinion (and I am sure there are many who may well take the time to disagree with me) we need to continue to take every opportunity to put our case as a profession be that through continuing press rebuttals or by facilitating and taking part in programmes like this when offered the opportunity.

I am disappointed in some of the views expressed about this programme in the various threads (and not simply because I was in it for about 30 seconds) although I agree that they need to be aired fully and discussed if that is how people feel.

Yes, perhaps the programme didn’t give us all what we would have liked but this isn’t a perfect world. However, was it not telling when the discussion with Frank took place about having to go and talk to a wife and daughter about how their husband/father had been killed, was not the passion felt and expressed about the outrageous comments made by some in the media where we are described as ‘elf and safety Nazi’s/stasi etc, that anger that most of us feel when we read them. Did we not feel for Pauline as she received abuse when carrying out her enforcement role? Did we not all roll our eyes when we saw the appalling state of the garage (surely that was a made up name he gave).

Comment was made in an earlier posting (temporarily locked) in another thread about “….practitioners who work in real companies trying to manage real risks and help their organisations turn a profit”. Maybe the programme makers didn’t feel that it was worth filming the day to day activities of practitioners who only interact within their own organisations. Were not the small window factory/garage/nail shop/boat builders “real companies” then, also trying to turn a profit?

Was that contributor also saying that activities illustrated in the programme were not “real” risks or were trivial? What about the badly guarded spindle moulder and the router, the poor standards in the garage, moving traffic on a site with pedestrians, (I would hazard a guess from the comment made by Ed when the security guard made an appearance that this segment was set up by the film crew and was not part of an official visit as part of his consultancy role to look at potential pedestrian/vehicle conflict). There was also explosive dusts, noise, HAVS, (I too felt they could have done more with the HSL) a banned nail adhesive (at least in the US) with the potential for causing damage, manual handling issues (and let’s face it how many of us have had an audience just like that depicted when doing a tool box talk, just this time they could play to the camera. There but for the grace of God, I say.

Perhaps the approach used to illustrate slips/trips, sharp objects e.g. using the home environment isn’t one that you or I might use but how many accidents occur in the home every year (I know that’s someone else’s job) but with a little more explanation this could perhaps have been transposed into how it all applies equally in the work environment.

The point made by Ed about lack of a “safety culture” made towards the end of the programme was quite clearly illustrated by the attitude of the manager of the window factory who said “...obviously we don’t want to do it (H&S) but it’s part and parcel of everyday work. Everybody is trying to cover everyone’s a**e, (sorry moderators but a direct quote from the programme) basically this is what it is all about.” That attitude is going to permeate right from the top through the small workforce and therefore in my view Ed was onto a loser before he even started and in just 15 minutes he was really going to have to struggle to get them to come on board.

I am certain there are those out there who are going to pick over this response word by word to find out, and point out where I have got it wrong, but I would ask you to remember that like you I too have an opinion which is as valid as yours even though it may not be the same. So to summarise I think that if you look at the programme again in further detail, much like a Monty Python Sketch if you drill down you will find more layers which do make for a positive message, it all depends on your frame of mind when you receive that message and whether it met your expectations or prejudices.

So glass half full or half empty? Personally I go for the half full.




Ray Hurst
Immediate Past President





.





Admin  
#32 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Craven
Don't worry folks - no-one watched it. Most people were watching "I'm a Celebrity" - I know I was! (David Van Day - used to be a pop singer - got voted off, leaving Joe Swash, Martina Navratilova and George Thingy off Star Trek in tonight's final). I did flick channels during the adverts but only to watch the Aston Villa game in the UEFA Cup (they lost 2-1 despite a nail-biting finish, but still qualify for the next stage of the tournament).

Just in case the mod's think that I'm making this contribution purely to breach AUG 1, can I say that I am looking forward to our Group H&S Committee next week when I will be pleased to present and discuss reports on Asbestos, Legionella and Fire Safety updates, the 2008 Annual Training Report, accident statistics and progress made on the Group H&S Action Plan. I have no doubt that the Group Chair (Company Secretary and Director Of Corporate Services), the management, trade union and staff rep's will all make their usual worthwhile contributions.

Don't let disappointments like a TV documentary that you didn't particularly like get you down. Lets carry on with sensible risk assessments, helping people to DO things in a safe manner and looking at people's real health and safety at work issues.

As one well-known contributor to these forums might say, let's not get unduly worried by a TV programme, move forward and "CRACK ON" !!!

Mike
Admin  
#33 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By max lines
About what I expected.It did the profession no good at all,but anyone who has given tool-box talks must have raised a laugh as they recognised the body-language of the lads in the work-shop.
Admin  
#34 Posted : 05 December 2008 11:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By James P W
What's all the fuss about?

I've been in the game for 15 years and consider those on the programme to be the antithesis of everything I do.

But please get a grip, the editors were bound to spin it in the way they did. Programmes about dynamic, innovative and co-operative safety folk just don't make good TV.

The programme was hilarious, we e-mailed 1,000+ people in the company to tell them it was on. They, as well as I, know the programme depicted the opposite end of how we do things.

Instead of wasting time moaning about the injustice of an obviously unbalanced TV programme get out there and prove your point!

And have an acorn-free weekend!
Admin  
#35 Posted : 05 December 2008 12:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By bob safe
Bit of practical risk assessment on knife storage - buy one of those blocks the blades fit into, far safer, also those sorts of accidents don't occur with knives if you put them in a dish washer.

Other than that why would anyone be surprised about the image portrayed so why get upset.
Admin  
#36 Posted : 05 December 2008 12:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Lucas
Same here Mike - I think it would have been naive in the extreme to have expected anything else from such a programme, regardless of the provider or media format. Let's be honest, good news doesn't make the news, whatever industry 'you are' in. IOSH, HSE and H&S Professionals were never going to be viewed the way we would have liked - what is they say 'damned if you do and damned if you don't?

Have a good week-end and take it easy....
Admin  
#37 Posted : 05 December 2008 12:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RBW100
I watched last night's 'The Fun Police' expecting to see a series of skits designed to ridicule the concept of H&S and (with the exception of a couple of points) this is what I saw.

I would have to agree with the previous poster that the naivety of those being filmed seemed remarkable. Whilst clearly the editing had a great deal to do with the way the main participants were portrayed, I find it staggering that the HSL thought that allowing the film makers to shoot footage of the FLT rolling backwards on a slight incline would be a good idea. Such footage simply add weight to the argument that that H&S is a waste of taxpayers money. If film makers to to be given access to facilities like the HSL then the HSL should demand to approve the edit before broadcast.

The conker bit was little better. I feel that IOSH should now end its sponsorship of that event as the original concept of 'turning the tables' on the 'bonkers conkers' lot appears to be wearing a bit thin now.

Rob
Admin  
#38 Posted : 05 December 2008 12:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By .e
Did anyone watch never mind the buzzcocks? Was good!
Admin  
#39 Posted : 05 December 2008 12:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper CFIOSH
I was initially approached by October films in the Summer and also met the production team. I was selected to be filmed over a fortnight, (shows how much footage is needed for an hour programme) and found them to be very genuine. However think a little of some aspects of the profession are actually quite boring. Reference to other documentaries such as axe men and trawlermen are great programmes , who’s going to watch me audit the confined space permits over a morning followed by a review of contractors method statements?

They did want to see real safety professionals, but they did tell me their list was a bit thin. They also said it was going to be a bit of some of the safety bonkers conkers, then a reflection of a “real” safety situation, we talked about asbestos removal, a cantilever scaffold over a busy public street, and so on. They were genuine people I believe, but have to have someone to film. Not knowing others who were contacted by the company and potential subjects, are they interesting enough? (This is not my comment but perhaps theirs?)

I was asked if I would be prepared to have some editorial input to which I agreed (at no fee), but was never asked after filming took place. Remember we can never take editorial control until we have our own tv channel!

Complaints will not necessarily show us in a good light either, we need to build bridges with such organisations. If Fun Police 2 is made we need to be able to influence it, I for one would volunteer. If they asked me again I would jump at the chance.
Admin  
#40 Posted : 05 December 2008 12:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CFT
Was anyone other than our own or affiliated profession actually watching? Oh I suppose a few did, and will forget the programme content just as quickly as why exactly they watched it in the first place.

ENTERTAINMENT sells advertising slots on independent TV; a quality documentary telling the total truth? Yep that would be us watching again, leaving others to watch something entertaining.

CFT
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
3 Pages123>
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.