Posted By KEVIN O'KANE I thought it was a fair and balanced programme...There are some individuals out there in the H&S world who are seriously letting us down...now must get back to the sopranos, with my G&T..ah thats better

Posted By Richard Hammer Fairly honest and balanced programme. Obviously got a few things wrong about people have to attend ladder safety awareness courses which is rubbish, not sure where they got that from. But agreed with most of the programme, especially about construction and high risk industry being the focus and HSE being undermanned. Sad state of affairs to be honest.

Posted By Raymond Rapp I was hoping that it would be a fair and objective appraisal by a reputable programme maker. Have to say I was disappointed in some of the OTT melodrama - do we really have to put up with everything being 'dumbed down'. That said, certain elements of the programme highlighted the absurdity of today's world. I like the concept that people need to be more responsible for their own actions. There does appear to be a 'claim culture' driven by parasitic lawyers. I am an avid critic of the regulators and 'you know who' did not provide me with any confidence that they have a grasp of the situation. Health and safety has become a joke in most quarters and we need to get back to some sense of the realities of risk and sensible regulation.

Posted By Chris Packham One point that I picked up on was the difference between the EU directive and our own, much more extensive and prescriptive legislation. In my meetings with health and safety practitioners in other European countries they are always perplexed at why we have to "gold plate" EU directives. Not only does this not make sense, but it puts us at a considerable disadvantage compared with our EU counterparts. Please don't get me wrong. I am all in favour of health and safety, but some of our legislation, when compared with what our EU colleagues have to deal with just doesn't make sense. I have just been looking at the Irish equivalent of COSHH (as have to run a course on chemical safety next month over there). Much more practical and realistic compared with our own. When will our politicians stop this nonsense of trying to "improve" on what the EU requires, then blaming the EU for our problems? Chris

Posted By steven bentham I did not watch it all but did the IOSH at a senior level appear?

Posted By warrington I think that the programme does indicate that the health and safety world can go a bit mad at times and there are individuals who take it too far and are not qualified to give advice (even if they do call themselves health and safety practitioners), but the programme made opinions that I am sure may have unfairly marked the health and safety world. I feel that some of the opinions raised made a mockery of all our hard work to try and reduce accidents and ill health within the work environment. There were a number of opinions voiced by Panorama that came across badly, especially 'working at height.' The programme mentioned that a young man fell from height to his death working within a confined space and then moments later Quentin Letts attended a ladder inspection/working at height course, which he undermined the seriousness of this significant issue within the work environment. I feel that Panorama has done it again and not researched their facts and the difficulties associated with the health and safety industry.

Posted By Jimmy Greaves Agree Warrington - it was only going to be what Panorama and Quentin and his team wanted it to be. Lets be realistic, good news doesn't make the news. Some glaring mistakes, gaffs and misinformation, e.g. Noise at Work Act!, of course a trainer having a bump on national tele and then the comment about HSE inspectors being at a level ‘they’ wanted it to be at…..hhhmmm. That said, I think it could have been a lot worse. I stressed in the previous thread the issues I have with insurance companies, whilst they have provided me with a good income; they have been a real problem to our industry not withstanding the HSEs over zealous guidance playing its part. It was mentioned by a responder in the previous thread that it is up to H&S advisers/consultants to take issue with the OTT insurance companies or business senior management. This isn't going to happen is it? We all have an income to earn and bills to pay and if I don’t ‘they’ will find somebody who will - THIS is where I'd like to see IOSH, RoSPA, BSC make more effort and get to grips with the HSE and challenge their approach and the status quo. As JH mentioned, their guidance for cemeteries could have been better. I personally think that is where IOSH can have a big impact - challenge them - don't just pander to them and churn out your own versions of their ideas. For example HSE bring guidance out followed shortly by an IOSH version, HSE bring out an e newsletter out comes an IOSH version. More and more bureaucracy and back patting. The best comment made on the programme was about personal responsibility. From my point of view it is only when 'we' get everyone to realise that they are largely responsibly themselves for their own health and safety that attitudes and beliefs will change - not when rules and regulations are put as a barrier. Lets be honest, legislation is only a safe system of work – and not a very good one at that. I’m off now to put the mallet and stakes in the boot!

Posted By paulfriend Whatever we think about the content of the programme it shows the actual perceptions of health and safety in some sectors of the UK. While these perceptions exist we all have to work harder as a profession to counter these perceptions. When we communicate our recommendations we all need to take more account of how these will be perceived irrespective of the justifications. I think some sectors of our profession have not done a good job in the past. When we get the communication of the message right perhaps the general public will listen to us more on the serious subjects. Paul

Posted By Ron Hunter The pop at WAH Regs and numerous inaccuracies surrounding that issue were particularly disappointing and distracted from what was otherwise(IMHO) a fair and well balanced programme. That said, the WAHR are obviously not the best and perhaps like CDM would benefit from review and reissue!

Posted By DJohnson Don't forget to read the "Have we gone too far" thread to see how we feel.

Posted By mark linton I thought it was a good attempt at the issues around health and safety at the moment, it was over simplified but it was not aimed at IOSH members and they only had 30 minutes to cover a lot of ground. Can someone clarify something for me - my understanding is that noise is unwanted sound, so by that definition does music events / musicals fall outside the requirements of the regs as clearly it is 'wanted' sound?

Posted By Margia Unfortunately I didn't see it - stupidly forgot it was on, so can't comment, so my only contribution is that there's an interview with Judith Hackitt in today's Times (in the Times 2 section)which I think is very fair and does try to put the common sense viewpoint.

Posted By srd I thought that the programme did the profession far less damage than the previous 'Fun Police' which ridiculed the role of health and safety. The programme debunked some of the more popular myths such as hanging baskets, however Quentin 'investigated' a donkey derby that had been banned due to 'health and safety', and concluded that this was true because the cost of insurance had risen to a prohibitively high level. I would argue that the cost has risen due to the increased possibility of insurance claims as a result of the prevailing claims culture, and not as a direct result of health and safety. I would like to have seen Quentin make the point more clearly that a musician's exposure to 'noise' is calculated as an average over an 8 hour working day, and that playing a loud passage, as long as it does not exceed the peak sound pressure level, will not be banned under health and safety. I would also liked to have seen Quentin mention the screens which can be used by orchestras to protect musicians from the noise from instruments being played from behind them. Overall the programme was no worse than I expected. Steve.

Posted By David Passmore As this programme was targeted at the general viewing public, I was a little disappointed that certain aspects raised were not clarified. In particular I refer to the segment of the programme which highlighted the content of the HASWA. I believe that the frequently mentioned 'reasonably practicable' should have been explained in the context of the act. Yes, the ladder training was a little misleading as it did suggest that such intense training was required 'to use a stepladder'. I believe that to redress the balance, it should have been explained that a simple 10 minute toolbox talk may be suitable for many workplaces to use such equipment. On this point I stand to be corrected as I may have misheard or misinterpreted the comment. When referring to the perceived lack of HSE inspectors, I think the programme stated or inferred that some 'building sites' have not been inspected for 10 years. If I heard this correctly, there must be some massive projects going on in the UK that I am not aware of. Indeed, they must be bigger projects than the Olympic site! I think it is a well established fact that due to the apparent lack of inspectors that ALL types of workplaces may not have been inspected in the last ten years - again, if I interpreted this correctly, it was a misleading comment. Yes, it was fairly balanced with a few inaccuracies and not as bad as I anticipated but I had to smile when Mr. Letts asked the fact or myth questions during the programme. I found it ironic that the majority of the myths referred to were actually prominently featured in the Daily Mail! Yes - it could of been worse. DP

Posted By John Richards The "council oficial" was being ironic, not smug. While it may be convenient to blame the "compensation culture" it may be apt, at this time, to point-out that said culture does not exist. What you do have is people taking legal action to obtain compensation for real injury. It may be convenient for health and safety professionals to point their fingers at solicitors as the real culprit in the various health and safety fiasco's around the country, but at the end of the day (and the beginning) they should look in a mirror. Neither council officials or solicitors are "professional" enough at H&S to take action without advice: from H&S professionals. Yourselves, in fact. Removing the No-Win-No-Fee way of obtaining "legal advice" would not solve the real problems, just lift another carpet edge for the broom to sweep more rubbish under. As usual, this forum is seeking to blame others for the all-to-obvious failings in the health and safety industry. Cowboy builders, cowboy employers and cowboy health and safety professionals. Oh, and yes: I did watch the programme. On iPlayer. http://www2.warwick.ac.u...search_finds_spiralling/ An inconvenient truth ? "we" don't need more H&S professional "advisors", "we" need more H&S inspectors ON THE GROUND. Health and safety consultancies advising that dust and fume tests are best carried-out when the guys have gone home ? Well, I never: whatever next !

Posted By Jem Workplace Law have released a brief video discussion on the program. Nice idea! http://www.workplacelaw.net/video/index/id/19709 Jem

Posted By Bob Howden I agree with most of the other posters here. Would have liked to have seen some of the 'myths' explored in a little more depth, but there wasn't really enough time to do this. The ladder safety training and ladder inspection seemed to be overdone without properly explaining what the risks were. Totally agree with the points made about 'gold-plating'. Our cultural desire to keep some prescriptiveness in our legislation (that suits our legal system) means that we seem to have more to comply with than our European neighbours. Whilst I think they tried to be fair, it left me with an uncomfortable sinking feeling.

Posted By JohnV I have watched a number of Panorama programmes over the years and by and large have found them to be fair, balanced and objective. Unfortunately, this one was (for me) very much an exception. Quentin's ill-researched rantings left me with a bitter taste in the mouth. The whole thrust of the programme was to curry favour with the "Elf-n-Safety-Conkers/Bonkers" brigade. Perhaps I should not be surprised, as this is after all the jaundiced view that your average Sun and Daily Mail reader love to hear as it re-enforces their own core beliefs. Where was the praise for the efforts of the many H&S practitioners and legislators who have contributed so much to making working in the UK so much safer than it is in most of the rest of the World?? How can anyone call this a balanced programme when all it did was major on petty errors by misinformed councils and architects who want to put handrails adjacent to a flight of two steps, or on course providers who tell people that they must have a certificate before they can use a ladder?? Incidentally, I don't think Judith did us a favour either. She came across as rather apologetic and weak.

Posted By AMelrose I watched "The Fun Police" so was waiting for the "kicking" this programme would give those working in H&S. Agree Judith from HSE didn't come across all that well and was surprised there was no IOSH interview (or mention) given the number of members. Tone for the most part was still mocking and was expecting some e-mails this morning asking about compulsory ladder training as they'd seen it was necessary on Panorama...none yet so perhaps only those working in safety actually watched the programme!! Think they could have done so much more with it though - interviews with people who HAD been injured at work highlighting why H&S training is necessary (or had saved their lives i.e. by wearing the correct PPE etc). I think they focused too much on the negatives rather than the positives again.

Posted By Haggis JM "Think they could have done so much more with it though... - ...highlighting why H&S training is necessary" But the whole thrust of the programme was not that H & S was unnecessary but that 'we' have gone overboard with it. I thought it was as good a piece as is ever likely to come from a mass audience programme and to my mind it DID stress what H &S should be about - saving lives and preventing major injuries. As has been said before on this thread, the comments of the NT spokesman should be the mantra for the profession - educating people to take responsibility for themselves. The 'no-win, no-fee' claims arise because we live in a culture which seeks to blame someone else for every little thing. I am concerned that too much regulation/signage/complication means that the workers at the sharp end miss the really important points. I fully accept that I do not work in construction or agriculture, but I speak from my own experience within varied industries from both sides of the clipboard.