Whilst I am pleased that Malcolm Cole's Blog (See Gritgate Online Debate link on home page) was able to clear up the Telegraph and Mail on Sunday inaccuracies oer the gritting debate another bigger issue remains. The SHP is widely regarded as the voice of the Istitution and it is therefore important that ALL information is accurate- particulary where answers and solutions to problems are offered by "experts" to posed questions. Apparently Croner via the "Just Ask" column was apparently responsible for giving the impression that IOSH were recommending the non gritting of paths etc. This is not the first time that the information give has bordered on the inaccurate and has been either OTT or an incomplete picture of the solution. What is the answer? We could abandon these types of column, require close IOSH control or divorce completely from th magazine! Any thoughts Bob

O'Donnell Yes this is the point I am making - the SHP isrecognised as the voice of the Insitution and a such evey response to a question is going to be interpreted as the official view regardless. Gritting of paths is but one area of concern - can we afford for further responses to be made that again are inaccurately reflecting the views of the Institution? Bob

Surely you miss the point though Bob. SHP is a News Magazine, not a Guidance Document and as such will have opinions in it. Without Opinion Pieces, SHP would be still thinner than it currently is. There is a big difference between an Opinion Piece (in this case supplied by Croner) and official Guidance. The press articles in this case claimed that the former was in fact the latter in order to pursue their current agenda. That is either sloppy journalism or deliberate misrepresentation. PS - Any chance of a link to the piece in the Malcolm Cole Blog?

The link is in the News and Views box on the IOSH Homepage The point I am making is that for good or ill the SHP is recognised by some as the Voice of IOSH and no differentiation is made between this and an HO statement. Give the papers a choice and they prefer controversy to a simple fact. Real point is what can be done? Personally I see no real value in these columns as the answers are often partial and too generic to be of real use so my vote is to abandon them completely. After all why should SHP cut across IOSH members income stream - they do not like us cutting them out of job adverts. Sauce an goose comes to mind!! I would far rather a recognised chartered member provide personalised advice to clients than a magazine gives partial advice that damages the Institutions reputation. Bob

I found the 'gritgate' thing intersting, especially the bit at the end of one of the articles which read "In other words, right-wing newspapers ignored the correct ...... just to have a pop at ‘elf and safety’ experts" - like some of us haven't been saying that on this forum for ages!!! I have to agree with Bob though, in as much as, rightly or wrongly, the SHP is widely seen by many as an IOSH publication, and the 'voice' of IOSH or even an 'emination' of IOSH. I have to say that the 'offending' article doesn't surprise me in the least, when I arrived at my current workplace they were up to their knees in Croner, and it didn't take me long to work out that they provided some very 'iffy' advice in some of their answers to various (contrived?) questions. I haven't used Croner for 10+ years and don't miss it one little bit.

It is unfortunately the case that Jan 2010's SHP reiterates this apparently widely held opinion that to grit areas under the responsibility of others is not a recommended course of action. "For premises where car parks or paths are shared between different companies, it is also very important to agree the boundaries. Partly gritting another company’s property can create an impression that these areas have all been made safe; and the company doing the gritting could then be implicated in creating a greater risk". - taken from Alastair Knight's article "Winter Maintenance: On Thin Ice" SHP Jan 2010 http://www.shponline.co....ures&article_id=9661 IOSH have technically been mis-quoted, this is true - but to argue is simply semantics as their opinion as already quoted is so similar as to be indifferent. Croner say don't grit areas outside your responsibility as if you do it badly you may incur liability. IOSH say do grit areas outside your responsibility but if you do it badly you may incur liability. Forgive me for my simplistic approach.

I think Wotsits justifiably highlights the issues of articles but I feel that there can be a degree of differentiation between these and Q&A columns, but only marginal. If an article or column is departing from IOSH accepted views then the author MUST I feel make this clear within the article or answer at the point of making the statement and not simply rely on blanket disclaimers made somewhere else in the publication. I have been around far too long to trust the press in any form and well recognise that if a half chance exists to bolster their own distorted views they will take it Bob

Dear All 1 Mail Online 11 Jan 2010 ’But the professional body that represents health-and-safety experts has warned businesses not to grit public paths.’ www.mailonsunday.co.uk/n...-safety-chiefs-warn.html In the answer from Croner's 'Just Ask' piece in the February 2009 SHP; an answer from Croner's 'Just Ask' piece in January 2010 made no mention of liability; and in Alastair Knight's feature in the January 2010, none make any reference to IOSH guidance or that their advice is not to grit public paths. This was said to the Mail on Sunday by an IOSH spokesperson before the paper went to print. This is not a 'technical' mis-quote but a deliberate lie. I believe it was done to follow an editorial line to identify stories in the 'elf and safety gone mad' mode. IOSH had their rebuttal letter published in several papers. 2 SHP is the 'Official Magazine of IOSH'. It is not owned by IOSH but United Business Media, who print it and the editor is Tina Weadick who - I understand - is employed by UBM. IOSH are represented on the SHP Management Board and it is my privilege to be an IOSH representative on the Board. If there were articles or information completely opposed to IOSH policy or guidance, it would be raised directly at the time and at the Board meeting. I cannot recall any. 3 Quoting from the small print which is usually in the column beside the SHP editorial: 'IOSH is responsible for the the IOSH Interface section of SHP. The views and opinions expressed elsewhere in the magazine are not necessarily those of IOSH or UBM.' ie Just Ask column by Croner 4 I'm given to understand that most newspapers have 'hot shot' lawyers to help keep them out of court by understanding what the small print in documents actually mean. Equally professional journalists and editors should have a good knowledge of the libel laws. 5 I am one of many people who write articles for Croner. The few publications I contribute to are aimed at non health and safety specialists. I can understand that health and safety specialists may not need such publications. However if criticisms are to be made, it seems to me - in the first instance - they should be made to Croner; that the specific publications should be identified; and what the errors are raised. This gives Croner the chance to remedy any errors. Any technical errors in the SHP should be raised with the editor. I am not aware that any of the advice given in the 'Just Ask' column supplied by Croner has been challenged. 6 What is to be done with the 'Just Ask' column? Nothing it seems to me. It provides general guidance to specific issues. What is factually wrong with the information in SHP, particularly in the January edition? I'm not aware of any Bob. Will the 'usual suspect' newspapers keep promoting their 'mythical' stories? I believe so, as they are feeding into a political party who has taken them on board as 'evidence' for future health and safety policy development. Should IOSH continue to challenge such blatent lies? I think so. Sorry about the length. Sunderland lost today so I'll not be watching Match of the Day: got some spare time. Cheers. Nigel

Bob In the current environment we should promote our successes. I have suggested in several past posts that IOSH members - now over 36,000 - could send case studies of their successes into the IOSH Communication Department. [Over 36,000 case studies should give some stories that would interest the media.] They have not been overwhelmed with the response. The newspapers in question print a quote that states IOSH 'has warned businesses not to grit public paths.’ Nowhere in the 'Just Ask' column - or anywhere else for that matter - is this stated. IOSH contacted various newspapers pointing out the error. All either amended their online webpage or printed IOSH's response. I presume they did this to provide a defence should a complaint be made to the Press Complaints Commission. You are right that Croner 'do not have total infallibility' but then neither does any other organisation. Unless there is something technically wrong with the information, why not keep the 'Just Ask' section which provides generic advice to specific questions. Are you suggesting we delete it on the off chance that newspapers could lie again? Or that the entire magazine is screened so that any views contrary to IOSH policy, guidance etc are highlighted in the body of the text? My preference is just to remain with the small print and challenge the media when they get it wrong, as in the 'gritigate' outrage. Cheers. Nigel

Bob Fair enough. I'll look into the issue a bit more. Cheers. Nigel