Posted By Paul Oliver Anyone know of any H&S reasons why you can't adorn your childs grave with toys and flowers? http://www.gazettelive.c...-s-grave-84229-22690391/ Typical local authority response, knee jerk reaction, not thought out. :-(

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 Very sensitive issue and should have been dealt with in courteous manner. I think the current situation could have been avoided providing more time and publications educating any H&S concerns, hence giving more time to aggrieved families. (But again, council is claiming to have informed the concerned families). I would suggest council to offer counseling services to concerned families prior to any such action.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 Dave, As mentioned in my early post, council should have pinpointed H&S risks publically and educating members of public of those risks. The point I want to make here is that unlike you, most members of public would not be aware of any potential risks and especially the aggrieved ones. The main issue here is the sentimental values of the aggrieved families and that can only be resolved by adequate counseling.

Posted By Fornhelper Well said Neil....the usual sensationalism when nothing better to write about. Still waiting for a headline that states 'families treated with utmost respect by council employees when visiting cemeteries / during funeral services'... but then that only happens every day doesn't it!!! FH

Posted By Ian Blenkharn Interesting issue, and largely one that I don't really sympathise with. I think these adornments are rather tacky, but each to their own. With many Polish and other ex-Eastern block nationals in this part of London the council cemetary near my house positively glows with remebrance candles (not sure of their real name - colourless or red glass jars with candle inside., burn for up to 3 days). First time we saw then, close to all souls night, it was a considerbale shock, but cerainly not a fire risk! And elsewhere, I have been aware of the distress caused by councils concerned about the risks from toppling memorials that they test them, by pushing them over even if that breaks teh stone! At least it saves the local yobbs doing the same. Sensitivity and compassion, with an awareness and understanding of religous and other preferences are obviously essential. But I can't see why LAs should concern themselves with matters of liability. If I erect a stone in a graveyard, I have to pay for it. Family bereavments have proven that in several parts of the UK there are some quite extensive contract terms involved and a hefty rental charge. I as the customer am liable for maintenance and compliance with style, size and other standards including, I assume, maintenace and safety standards. If I fail in those responsibilities I have no doubt that it will be me who will be liable. Ian

Posted By Neil R Gary Im of the other opinion to you, I have a job to do. I have no intention of pandering to the opinions of others. They may see us as humourless but hey... I will not water down my approach to suit the mindsets of those who have been brainwashed by TV shows and Newspapers. I couldn't care less what people think about the safety profession. My employer pays me very good money to make sure the company is compliant with the law and accidents are avoided and thats what i do, What the daily rag says does not interest me. Perhaps its time people changed their approach, as soon as the media print an article about safety everyone jumps in to pick the holes and try to disprove it. but the media don't care. All the letters that IOSH/ HSE have sent to the rags disproving these articles have never been printed. So why do we keep trying to pander to it? Why are we entering conkers competitions? Thats how you become a joke. I was not crass i was merely stating a fact, at the end of the day the council own the land and pay for its upkeep and maintenence they can do what they want, if they believe that loose items on plots create a hazard then its their responsibility to control it.

Posted By Joe McCluskey Pauly - Howdy - Hows things! Neil - Oooyah!! Being the long term self confessed cynic that I am, I might think that the LA made the decision on the grounds of easy maintenance and commercial viability but used the excuse of H&S as its an easy target to justify. Not that theres anything wrong with trying to make things better and more streamlined - just dont blame H&S ......again Unfortunately the newspaper article fails to highlight the "meat on the bones" of the LA's statement. If they filled the blanks (what are the health and safety concerns etc) people could make informed decisions on what is always going to be an emotive subject. On the subject matter itself, maybe its time to make a forward plan for the future? -why not make an area especially for children graves that will allow grieving parents and families to put down the mementos and toys their beloved children played with etc. - Peoples feelings have to be taken into consideration in this kind of thing - we're not talking about about a hairy A$$ed labourer failing to wear a hard hat here!! Its maybe correct that some things do look tacky, but if we were all the same - what a boring world this would be (just have a look at the Channel 4 fun police documentary!!)- and I remember what I wore in the seventies too!!! I personally like the straight, structured, coiffured lawn look, sometimes found in American cemeteries, but again - just my taste and opinion but Iam an engineer to trade and like straight lines etc(stands back and awaits the deluge) Unfortunately I think its a common trait with the papers - throw a wee chaos grenade into a specified forum and wait for the fallout.It might be interesting to see a report on the same subject from "Council Friendly" newspaper to see the spin they put on it. Joe

Posted By A Campbell I agree... I would rather excpect it is more likely to be a cost or public liability issue

Posted By Dave Merchant The point some people are missing is that it IS a "Health and Safety Issue". They may not be handling it in the most suitable way, but their concerns relate to people being injured or increased risks from fire, etc. If you don't think it's an H&S problem, what else would you call it? Artistic? Political?

Posted By Ron Hunter It is not a health and safety issue it is an operational one. This is what we should be fighting against folks, and this is what HSE and IOSH are trying to fight & right with their Myth of the Month, Conkers Bonkers campaigns and letters to the Editors of National and Local Papers. Any and all tasks, activities and operations will have associated safety risks (And sometimes health risks), but those who have difficult problems to address are all too fond of wrapping the issue up as "health and safety" as a convenient excuse - we've discussed this problem ad nauseam on this Forum.

Posted By Graham Bullough Like some other responders I am somewhat puzzled as to why teddies, enclosed candles, etc. left on graves in infant areas of cemeteries are thought by the local authority involved to pose such a significant risk to health & safety that they reportedly threaten to remove such items and turf over the graves. Could the real reasons for the proposed action include the following? 1. Use the link at the start of this thread to have a look at the photo which accompanied the press report. Do some people think that the motley collection of items on infant graves are unsightly, and overlook the nature of the areas involved AND the grief felt by bereaved parents and other relatives, etc - for whom the placing of such items might be or seem to be the only way of expressing their feelings. 2. Related to suggestion 1 above is the fact that infant grave areas are usually unsupervised and thus vulnerable to vandalism and/or theft. The number and nature of the items in such areas might even act as a lure for warped vandals and thieves. If such areas are enclosed, any locking of security gates outside normal cemetery staff hours is likely to cause upset about restrictions on access by people who wish to visit them for legitimate purposes. Toys left on graves will mean little to most people, but could be very significant to bereaved parents, etc. in cases where such toy/s had been used by the babies or infants while alive. Thus, if such toys (no matter how soggy or dishevelled they actually are) are stolen, damaged or even just picked up and thrown elsewhere in the vicinity, the bereaved will experience even greater distress but can do little other than complain to the cemetery management and tell the local press. As I can only guess what losing a baby or infant is like for parents, I wonder if a press article about vandalism and/or theft at its grave has any therapeutic effect for them. Neither of these two probable reasons really involve "health and safety". In the apparent absence of similar press reports from elsewhere, perhaps other local authorities are managing their infant grave areas better/more sympathetically. Are there any such areas which are effectively enclosed? If so, do they have gates which can be locked when cemetery staff are absent but have security codes to allow legitimate access? Also, are there any other ways in which the above issues relating to infant grave areas can be tackled tactfully and effectively?