Posted By Steve Cartwright After reading many posts on this forum it is quite clear that there are many who post on this site who have limited knowledge of the law, whether it be H&S law or any other law for that matter. What do others think?

Posted By Jane Blunt Don't forget that this site is open to all. I, for one, didn't realise how little I knew until I studied the subject. Many others are probably in the same situation. Jane

Posted By Anderson8 Hi, Very true, but it is a chance for those with little knowledge of a subject to ask the people with the know how. It gets on my nerves when people ask a question on here and "Mr know it all" comes along and gives them the third degree, no one should be afraid to ask a question on here, people need to understand that it's an open forum. For all we know it could be someone who owns a little corner shop asking the question and not a Health & Safety practitioner all, so why would they be expected to know it all. I'm not having a dig at you Steve, I'm sure you have seen threads like that though mate. Sean

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 agree (but improvements have been seen lately)

Posted By Pete Longworth I'd be interested to know where you see yourself in relation to your posting Steve. I certainly agree that there are a number of people who post questions that to some would seem to have an obvious answer, but any answer is obvious if you know what it is. Surely that is the point of asking a question in the first place, to get the answer from someone who knows. Unfortunately sometimes on these forums you may get an "answer" from someone, usually given quite confidently or even pompously, that is based on nothing but guess work. The problem then is the original poster has to decide between what is correct and what is just so much hot air. From the point of view of the law, it is not the be all and end all of health and safety. In my view, the practitioner who relies on "quoting the regs" misses the fact that the law provides a foundation only which can then be built upon, and even then is often open to interpretation.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 I can see this thread going towards a different direction here. I think Steve raised a very interesting point here and he’s only talking about H&S law. (not experience)

Posted By David Bannister Many lawyers have a limited knowledge of the law but access to gigantic libraries and sufficient competence to know when to use them or seek assistance. Some H&S practitioners fail to grasp that the law is open to interpretation in many instances, that's why there are loads of lawyers and judges.

Posted By Phil Rose Agreed! Do bear in mind that judges/courts get it wrong as well hence successful appeals overturning judgements and appeals overturning appeals

Posted By Steve Cartwright On H&S law regarding the area's I cover I'm pretty clued up, but other areas my knowledge is limited. That is one of the reasons I am studying it. However as one of the main functions of a H&S Manager/Advisor/Consultant is to advise employers on H&S law it surprises me how little some H&S Managers/Advisors/Consultants actually know about the law. I'm not just talking about quoting regulations, but a basic understanding of how the legal system works, especially as I believe it is an important part of the role. Just interested to know what others thought.

Posted By Graham Bullough To echo some responses, those of us working in occupational safety and health (OS&H) should know the general gist of the law relating to our particular fields of work. However, if we want or need to deal with a specific aspect of law, it's more important that we know how and where to look up the detail. It's impossible for any of us to remember law in detail. This prompts me to mention a medical analogy I heard many years ago when I met an occupational health doctor. He had previously been a GP so I asked how he had managed, while a GP, to remember all the different diseases he might encounter in his patients. He said he didn't! He knew the umpteen most common ailments in great detail and could give direct advice and/or prescribe appropriately for them. As for other ailments, he noted the symptoms and advised the patient to come back within a week or so if the symptoms had not subsided. In the meantime he could look up detailed information in his medical textbooks. If the patient returned, he would have the requisite information and thus be able to deal with the likely cause and nature of the patient's condition. No doubt the medical textbooks are supplemented these days by specialist medical websites. I think he added, jocularly, that if a patient subsequently got rapidly worse, then it was a case for the local hospital to deal with and not him! The gist of this tale seems about right as an analogy, but please don't get hung up about its detail, especially if you visit your GP and are advised to pay a further visit! In any event, it's possible that nowadays GPs make use of online diagnosis systems on their computers during consultations. (Anybody out there related to or friendly with a GP who could tell us how GPs operate these days?) Even during my 10 years as an HSE inspector I didn't need to store a detailed knowledge of OS&H law in my head. If I needed to quote law in a letter, and certainly in an Improvement or Prohibition Notice (superb tools introduced by the 1974 Act) or a report recommending prosecution, I would look up the details, usually in my copy of "Redgrave", a handy, small (though 3 inches thick) book issued to each inspector and containing details of all the relevant legislation. No doubt police officers and people in other enforcement organisations do the same with their respective legislation. Talking of legislation, I rarely quote it while leading training sessions because it's a major yawn and turn-off for trainees. At the start of a session I tend to tell trainees that I know that the law requires people in cars to wear seat belts. However, I don't know which specific law requires this and don't really care. The important thing is that people in vehicles bother to wear seat belts. The same goes for the requirements of OS&H law. However, if anyone is desperate to know what specific OS&H laws require them to do what they need to do, I am always willing to provide the information. Not suprisingly, few people take up this offer! Hope this helps.

Posted By Steve Cartwright Thank you all for your responses. Its just that since starting my law studies it made me realise how little I knew and just wondered what others thought. Thanks again.

Posted By Gordon P After reading through most of this interesting post may I put the following to you all... "In what piece of legislation does it say we have to wear seatbelts?" And I would say that the answers will show just how a lot of people think they know the law but don't

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 In conjunction with Road Traffic Act 1988 and its section 14(3) RTC 1988 schedule 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988 Again, this piece of legislation is not relevant to H&S professionals. However, I would expect the relevant law enforcing agencies to have knowledge of this. Vice versa, a police man would not (no need either) know 1999 Management Regs as this will not be required by him/her. Professionals should be aware of the relevant laws without having to know word by word as it is laid. P.S. not knowing the law is not a defence and you should never always trust wikipedia for answers.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 I agree Richard

Posted By John Bartlett Max Hastings recently wrote another 'have a go at h&s' article on the 29th December in the Daily Mail but he did make some good points, in particular the issue of judgements in the courts: The article can be found quite easily using a search engine. Of course he is talking about the Civil Courts but it does raise the question what standards should companies be meeting? You would like to think that if they keep the HSE happy then that would suffice for the Civil Courts. Sadly not it would appear and I am now convinced that insurance companies are now dictating the ridiculous amounts of paperwork and bureaucracy that some organisations have to deal with. Its a fact that if you a pursue a civil claim your chances of success are very high. Something wrong here surely but as the Balance of Probabilities has been around for centuries its not going away. Anyone got any ideas with regard to this very fundamental aspect of the law? JB

Posted By Raymond Rapp ...indeed you did Kirtsy, very interesting responses as well. If I was writing or delivering a training course I would not mention the law, Acts or Regulations if I could possibly help it. I would rather focus on good health and safety management, industry best practice and looking after your fellow beings. Food for thought?

Posted By Roly Buss What an interesting thread. As a NEBOSH Dip Tutor, I have always believed that a good understanding of H&S law and how it is interpreted and applied is key for a H&S Professional. When new legislation is introduced (or even proposed) it is often the case that the H&S professional is the ONLY person in the company who is able to determine what changes are needed to ensure the company is not in breach. If the H&S professional only has a slender grasp on legislation, then the company may be put at risk, and questions about the competency of the H&S professional may be raised by management. Roly

Posted By Gordon P As a H&S practitioner for over 10 years now, I find nothing more annoying than when someone says "Can't do that mate, it's against Health and Safety". Where as if you say that it's an offence under Section 2(2)(b) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, then people take notice.

Posted By jom Interesting that discussing law can be so convoluted. Yet the law is what we all in our societies "agree" to abide by. That should mean that we all know what the law requires of us. How can it be otherwise? Why does it get convoluted? Maybe it's not so much the law itself that's tricky, but the judicial processes that are somewhat opaque to the public. John.

Posted By Alan Hoskins Not cynical at all, that Dickens chap...