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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wazimu0  
#1 Posted : 04 December 2009 11:48:03(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Just to ask if anyone has noticed the HSE Myth of the Month for December! I've just read on their website about the myth "you can't throw out sweets at pantos". Although I agree with them that if the risk is managed, then there shouldn't be a problem, I am totally shocked though at their insensitivity at calling this a "Trivial Risk". To highlight just how trivial it is, there follows the names and ages of 181 (of the 183) people who died at Sunderland's Victoria Hall on 16th June 1883 after toys and small treats were thrown to the audience at the end of a Children’s show. Margaret G Adams, 10 years old, Parade Charles John Algren, 8 years old, Parade Michael Allan, 5 years old, North Bridge Street Margaret Cook Allan, 7 years old, North Bridge Street George F Anderson, 7 years old, Brougham Street Jane Athey, 9 years old, Wayman Street Ruth Athey, 11 years old, Wayman Street Thomas Bailey, 8 years old, East Street James Beale, 8 years old, Ford Street Isabella Bell, 7 years old, Norman Street James Bell, 6 years old, Pemberton Street William George Bell, 8 years old, Bridge Street Barbara Blakey, 10 years old, Page Street William Bland, 10 years old, Hedley Street Robert W Booth, 9 years old, St Lukes Terrace Newrick Briggs, 4 years old, Blandford Street William James Briggs, 9 years old, Blandford Street John William Brodie, 8 years old, Buxton Street Emily Browell, 9 years old, Gilsland Street Margaret Ellen Brown, 12 years old, D'Arcy Street Margaret Brown, 4 years old, Lisburne Terrace Dorothy B Buglass, 3 years old, Thornton Place Thomas Butler, 9 years old, Thompson Street Charles Henry Carr, 8 years old, Trinity Place Sarah Jane Chandler, 7 years old, Wilson Street Thomas H Chandler, 10 years old, Wilson Street Barker Ramsay Cogdon, 8 years old, Flag Lane Mary Jane Conlin, 10 years old, Burleigh Street George H Coulson, 8 years old, Watson Lane Andrew Coupland, 10 years old, Queen Street John Curry, 8 years old, Back Whitburn Street Alfred David Curtin, 5 years old, Clanney Street James Fred Curtin, 9 years old, Clanney Street John C Davison, 6 years old, High Street Martin H Davison, 8 years old, Tweed Street Rosanna Davison, 6 years old, Thomas Street Charles Dixon, 7 years old, Willow Pond Terrace John Edward Dixon, 7 years old, Howick Street Charles Foster Dodds, 6 years old, Victor Street Mary Downey, 7 years old, Back Sussex Street Charles Dring, 8 years old, Roker Avenue John Robert Dring, 11 years old, Dock Street East Elva Dumble, 7 years old, St Mark's Road Mary Ann Duncan, 11 years old, William Street Thomas H Dunn, 9 years old, Colliery Row Elizabeth Watt Elliott, 8 years old, Burleigh Street James Oliver Elliott, 10 years old, Burleigh Street Charles Evans, 9 years old, Thompson Street John George Evans, 11 years old, Thompson Street James Fairgreave, 10 years old, Brougham Street Peter Fairgreave, 7 years old, Brougham Street Kate Falley, 9 years old, Cornhill Road Cuthbert M Fenwick, 6 years old, High Street West John Fenwick, 7 years old, Wear Street Thomas W Fleming, 8 years old, Vine Street George Fox, 6½ years old, Gilsland Street N Robert Fox, 9½ years old, Gilsland Street N William Fox, 4 years old, Chester Terrace North John G Gibson, 11 years old, Tower Street John R Gillies, 5 years old, Dame Dorothy Street Fred W Graham, 11 years old, Bramwell Street Thomas Graham, 7 years old, New Grey Street John Thomas Greener, 7 years old, Eglinton Street Robert Henry Grey, 7 years old, Hawthorn Street Mary Ann Hall, 8 years old, Deptford Road Thomas Hall, 8 years old, Alexandra Terrace Eliza Halliman, 8 years old, Grey's Buildings Thomas Harrison, 9 years old, Abbs Street James Hayhurst, 7 years old, High Street West Cicely Henderson, 11½ years old, Hopper Street James Henderson, 10 years old, Hopper Street Joseph Henderson, 9 years old, Nicholson Street Margaret Henderson, Jane, 7 years old, Hopper Street Richard Henderson, 7 years old, Nicholson Street Robert P Hilton, 6 years old, Emma Street Eveline Hines, 6½ years old, Booth Street William Arthur Hines, 8 years old, Booth Street Robert Hall Hogg, 8 years old, Harrison Street East John Howard, 7 years old, Pemberton Street Thomas Edward Hughes, 5 years old, Swinbank Street Thomas Hughes, 7 years old, Clanney Street Laura V Hutchinson, 6 years old, Hendon Road Thomas Jefferson, 9 years old, Gosforth Street R Jewitt, 10 years old, Foyle Street William Johnson, 10 years old, Pickard Street William Kelty, 10 years old, Dock Street East William Kemp, 7 years old, Henry Street East A Edward Kirby, 10 years old, D'Arcy Terrace Elizabeth Kirton, 9 years old, Carr's Yard George W Knox, 9 years old, Brougham Street Johnson Lackenby, 4½ years old, Queen Street Charles H Lane, 10 years old, Clanney Street James W Lane, 6 years old, Clanney Street Isabella Lawrence, 7 years old, Addison Street John Lawrence, 5 years old, Addison Street Edward Liddle, 8 years old, Burlington Road William S Longstaff, 7 years old, Coatesworth Street Kate McCann, 8 years old, Silver Street John William McKeever, 5 years old, Society Lane Nellie Maconkie, 10 years old, Christopher Street Fred Maddison, 5 years old, Kingsley Street Sarah Maddison, 5 years old, Kingsley Street John Marley, 5 years old, Tees Street James Meek, 8 years old, Villiers Street Hannah I Milburn, 9 years old, Alderson Street Charles Miles, 9 years old, Catherine Street Emily Miller, 9 years old, Gilsland Street William Miller, 8 years old, Burlington Road Alice P Mills, 10 years old, Ann Street Elizabeth A Mills, 12 years old, Ann Street Frederick Mills, 8 years old, Ann Street Richard Mills, 6 years old, Ann Street Emily Morris, 7 years old, Glebe Cleft Villas John Morrison, 7 years old, Richmond Street Jane Muse, 6 years old, Biss Street Catherine Newton, 9½ years old, Carter Street George Stokeld Nipper, 9 years old, Howick Square John Waller Noble, 11 years old, Winchester Terrace Margaret Orrock, 12 years old, Covent Garden Street Mary Paget, 10 years old, Lisburn Terrace Edward Paley, 6 years old, Garden Place Alfred Patterson, 7 years old, Matlock Street Louis A Paxton, 8 years old, Dunning Street Ann Marie Peace, 7 years old, West Stanley Street William Pearey, 9 years old, Bright Street Mary Eleanor Pescod, 8 years old, Burleigh Street William Henry Pescod, 10 years old, Burleigh Street Emmerson Phillipson, 11 years old, Dame Dorothy Street Ann M Pringle, 9 years old, Southwick Road Maggie Pringle, 7 years old, Southwick Road George Prior, 12 years old, Kingsley Street John T Proudfoot, 8 years old, Burleigh Street Robert Ramsey, 11 years old, Covent Garden Street Annie Redmond, 14 years old, Booth Street Catherine Richmond, 7 years old, Grey's Buildings Thomas C Ritson, 9 years old, Mordey Street Annie Patteson Robertson, 10 years old, High Street East Ethel Robertson, 7 years old, High Street East Eleanor Robson, 6 years old, Tyne Street Margaret Roper 8 years old, East Cross Street Elizabeth Rowell, 7 years old, Gladstone Street Mary Helen Russell, 6 years old, Lawrence Street William Rutherford, 8 years old, John Candlish Road James H Scott, 10 years old, Vine Street Eugenie Scrafton, 8 years old, Handel Street Walter G Shipley, 10 years old, Griffin's Buildings Abraham Simey, 8 years old, Silver Street William Simpson, 7 years old, Sans Close George Sleightam, 8 years old, Hendon Street William Sleightam, 6 years old, Hendon Street Carrie Smith, 5 years old, Northumberland Street Elizabeth Snaith, 8 years old, Fowler Terrace George Snaith, 8 years old, East Street Tiney Solomon, 9 years old, Henry Street Thomas Southern, 8 years old, Catherine Street Joseph Spence, 10 years old, Howick Street John Thomas Swinney, 6 years old, George Street John James Taylor, 6 years old, Coatesworth Street Margaret Ann Thompson, 6 years old, Norman Street Margaret Thompson, 3 years old, Palmer Street Mary Ann Thompson, 11 years old, Palmer Street Annie M Tomlinson, 4 years old, South Durham Street Ada Ann Topin, 11 years old, Emma Street Nora Topin, 6 years old, Emma Street Thomas Toward, 9 years old, Coatesworth Street Margaret A Turnbull, 8 years old, Norman Street John George Thomas Venus, 7 years old, Eglinton Street Grace Newton Vowell, 8 years old, Norfolk Street Lilly Vowell, 4 years old, Norfolk Street Elizabeth Wanless, 7 years old, Dock Street Florence Edith Ward, 6 years old, Back Charles Street Amy C L Watson, 13 years old, Wayman Street Annie Emily C Watson, 10 years old, Wayman Street R C Watson, 12 years old, Wayman Street William R Weighill, 8 years old, Vine Cottage Robert Wilkinson, 7 years old, Addison Street John Henry Willan, 11 years old, Zetland Street John Robert Williamson, 11 years old, Johnson Street John James Wise, 10 years old, Moor Street Andrew Wright, 7 years old, Bright Street Mary Wright, 5 years old, Willow Pond Inn 'Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of God.'
martinw  
#2 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:02:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

Wazimu0 you obviously know that the sweets did not kill the children, but that the deaths were caused in the main by the children trying to leave en masse through a narrow doorway after being told that other prizes were to be claimed by those with particularly numbered tickets. Crushing and smothering. The sweets did not kill them. Stampeding, low adult supervision levels and a door too narrow all played their parts. The risk alluded to by the HSE is that of impacts by small objects, perhaps being hit in the eye. Trivial. What is that at the end of your post? How is quoting the bible helpful in the field of H&S?
kev3152  
#3 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kev3152

I think we need more data. How many fatalities were humbug-based, how many were struck by rocking horses and how many were trampled in the rush to claim sweets or toys? Do these sorts of incidents recur on a centennial basis, or a bi-centennial basis? Come on, don't be coy, what's the real story here?
Richard Rose  
#4 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:06:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Richard Rose

Yeah, the listed names and bible quotation is a bit odd. I think most folk's nowadays would think more of objects getting in eyes, or more importantly, an excuse to sue the theatre for compensations, which the media has got most folks believeing, HSE = compensation culture.
Twinklemel  
#5 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:33:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Twinklemel

Well, it really is friday, isn't it? I've got to say that is the weirdest post I've seen on here in a while. I'd call it deliberately misleading in fact, as it's worded in such a way as to infer that the people were killed by the throwing of sweets, which clearly isn't the case. I agree with the HSE that sweet-throwing has a trivial risk associated with it.
redken  
#6 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:40:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

But isn't it good to know, under the new system, that the original poster is not an IOSH member?
grim72  
#7 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:53:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
grim72

Wazim your talents are wasted, you should get in touch with the Daily Mail/Terry Wogan, I'm sure they will have a job as a journalist/script writer for you.
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:43:28(UTC) IanBlenkharn  
#8 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:57:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
IanBlenkharn

16th June 1883? Tragic of course, but not exactly a frequent occurence is it?
martinw  
#9 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:02:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

I have to admit that I did not know that this was the original cause for Parliament to pass laws which form the basis for a lot of safety requirements today. 'An inquest into the tragedy was held, but it failed to blame anyone. This caused a public outcry and a second enquiry was held, but it too failed to find out who had bolted the door and who was responsible. However, as a direct result of the disaster, Parliament issued laws that required all places of public entertainment to have a sufficient number of exits, and that all exit doors must open outwards and be easy to open.' From http://www.sunderland.go...an%20Hall%20Disaster.pdf if you want the full story.
ScotsAM  
#10 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:38:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ScotsAM

I agree with the HSE on this one. The throwing of sweets at panto is trivial. Most parents, I believe would be aware of this 'hazard' when going to a panto with there children, and just by going in are accepting the risk. At the very very most (if one were really to worry about being sued) information of the 'hazard' can certainly be provided before hand. I think the incident of 1893 (116 years ago), while very tragic, is completely seperate from the issue mentioned on the myth of the month site.
MarcusB  
#11 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:43:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MarcusB

I think the link between the incident in 1883 and this month's myth of the month is tenuous but it was interesting to find out that this tragic event lead to the requirements for doors to open outward etc. Thank you martinw for the link to the pdf.
martinw  
#12 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:53:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

No problem, I did not know and came across it by accident. It is strange that some of the most commonly known disasters are still popularised by film makers - eg. Titanic - but that other disasters of other times are largely forgotten. I had no idea that about 2000 people died when a tsunami hit the Bristol Channel in 1607! Bizarre. But for those with a historical interest, or even if you are macarbre(joke) have a look at http://www.absoluteastro..._disasters_by_death_toll
Moderator 3  
#13 Posted : 04 December 2009 14:59:34(UTC)
Rank: Moderator
Moderator 3

General Point of Order; In a debate where you profoundly disagree with what has been said, please be careful to attack the issue and not the person. Thanks. Jon
broadvalley  
#14 Posted : 04 December 2009 20:58:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
broadvalley

Just scrolled through this post and the names of the children. In retrospect it would appear that a lot of young children lost their lives innocently in an era where great progress in Safety at entertainment venues was needed. Maybe that was the point of the original post. Whatever your religious disposition the incident was very sad. On the positive side the progress has been made and we can take our children to pantomines etc in the knowledge that they are in the main very safe. (and hoping to be a recipient of the odd low flying treat from the stage).
messy  
#15 Posted : 04 December 2009 23:53:59(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Just for the sake of balance, I am compiling a list of all the children who have had sweets thrown to them at Pantos in the 123 years since this disaster and have lived to tell the tale. It might take a while! It is bad enough when the media exaggerate and spin elf & safety stories, but to have this sensationalised thread originated by someone (presumably) from within the H&S industry is a little disappointing
martinw  
#16 Posted : 05 December 2009 08:53:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

Agreed Messy that was one of the reasons why I included the link to a list of disasters which are listed by numbers lost. The 1883 hall disaster was indeed appalling, but mainly I feel due to the fact that it was all children lost, which in itself is heart rending. And it was well beyond anyone's memory who is alive today. No-one alive knew anyone who died so to list the children's names, as if by doing so it accentuated the scale of the loss, was doubly bizarre as an approach. But maybe this is to be expected. Once politicians get front page coverage regarding health and safety - eg David Cameron - and those who commented on that want some of the spotlight, it is not surprising that others will want to make their point, however that point is made. This is a public forum so we should not be surprised. But I would make the point again that to invoke any higher power on a thread on this forum will bring ridicule from those intent on finding fault with H&S. We have a tough time in the sensationalist press as it is without giving out free ammunition. Martin
pete48  
#17 Posted : 05 December 2009 11:49:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Quote "Although I agree with them that if the risk is managed, then there shouldn't be a problem, I am totally shocked though at their insensitivity at calling this a "Trivial Risk". This statement is simply an emotional response based in social outrage. It has nothing to do with sensible risk assessment whatsoever. Could the same thing happen in the 21st century?? Well err yes it could. How likely is it? Much less so than in 1883 one might successfully argue. Would the consequences be the same? Unlikely again given all the advances since 1883. So even if you accept the validity of the reference to an event in 1883 you must also accept that the risk will be totally different in 2009 and most likely much less than in 1883. Thus the severe risk that may have existed in1883 could quite easily be trivial in 2009.
Canopener  
#18 Posted : 05 December 2009 16:46:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Bizzare thread indeed. Messy - I love your response and look forward to your list!!! Hope IOSH increase the sites bandwidth to accomodate!!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.