Rank: Guest 
|
First up, page 1, Tina Weadick's "comment" concerning David Cameron's proposals - IOSH joining the band wagon with (FACK, UCATT and others) slating the idea before even a review has taken place (and of course they have to get elected). Second a whole page spread, page 6 which I can only conclude condemns the man before he is even given a channce. And finally page 23 "More questions than answers" which details the chargot judgement and the Appeal Court overuling the judge but failing to distinguish between what is a hazard and what is a risk.
I think it pretty foolish of the Editor of SHP to allow 3 articles to stand side by side which amplifies the state of H&S to be overzealous (in some areas), gold plated (in some areas) and totally contradictory in others whilst of course highlighting that most health and safety organisations (IOSH included), and not forgetting the unions have their own axe to grind. I'm all for H&S touched with common sense - that's why I do the job. BUT:
If the great and the good cannot agree what chance do us mortals have at the sharp end in being subjective and / or objective?
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Joe,
I'll ignore your dig at my surname (believe me, I've heard it all before) but would like to take issue with your suggestion that I, or IOSH (although I can only speak for myself here, and not for the Institution) are "slating" Mr Cameron's proposals. I am merely interested in how he is going to do the things he says, and am suggesting that, when push comes to shove, he won't (because he can't, for various reasons) do all of them. I am not (and did not, in my comment) slate/condemn/rubbish the proposals themselves. Neither did IOSH - president John Holden actually welcomed the fact that Mr Cameron had opened up a much-needed debate.
As for our "spread" on page 6, this is a major news story and thus, in my professional journalistic opinion, is worthy of a comprehensive report. And if my opinion is not good enough, then please do check out the 80+ comments we received on the same story on our website (http://www.shponline.co.uk/article.asp?pagename=archive&article_id=9558) around 80% of which were similarly suspicious of the Tory leader's motives and proposals.
I'm really not sure why you have taken issue with Michael Appleby's article on the Chargot case. It is an expert analysis of a very important legal development and, as such, is - like the Cameron story - worthy of significant coverage. Yes, it is about the fact that - as you put it - the great and good cannot agree but that's not SHP's, or Mike Appleby's fault: that's just the way it is, I'm afraid!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Tina - I think the swear filter has your surname marked rather than Joe!
Joe - the examples that David Cameron gave as evidence for 'excessive' health and safety rules were from the Daily Mail. It included the standard 'children wear goggles to play conkers' historic story that turned out to be a wind up by one headmaster in Cumbria.
Recently Tory MP Julian Brazier submitted a paper to the inquiry stating that the so called 'compensation culture' was partly responsible for the increase of young people in gangs. This, apparently, was due to compensation worries limiting adventure activities etc.
I would suggest that these may be the reasons why the inquiry has generated a great deal of scepticism.
However, it seems to me that - as IOSH have said - it gives us an opportunity to put to the Tory party views, suggestions, propsals etc that they might want to consider, should they actually make it into Government. If 36,000+ IOSH members responded to the inquiry with evidence of their successes at the workplace and recommendations for improving health and safety standards in the UK I'm sure they would be appreciated by Mr Cameron. This would help ensure that their conclusions are based on more than the 'Elf and Safety gone mad' stories of the Daily Mail etc.
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tina
Unlike many, including many publications, I contacted Ken Clark concerning this item of news and surprise surprise most of the comments in SHP including the p6 item were not based on what he actually believes should be done. Fact finding before printing to keep up with the Jones' potentially a more accurate andultimately profitable route. If I as a private inidividual can get answers why does the press distort he stated facts?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bob
I thought it was David Cameron making the speech about health and safety and the review was going to be by Lord David Young. Is Ken Clark carrying out the review?
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Certainly is led by Ken Clark as any journalist could have found out if they had bothered to ask!!
Still it sums up nicely the state of the press and the many left wing biases that exist in many establishments. I think many forget that but for a quirk of history the HASAWA 1974 would have been a conservative act. The wording is totally as drafted by the conservative government the incoming labour government merely changed the title from the Safety and Health at Work Bill to what we now know.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Tina - I am sorry you may have been upset by the part deletion of your surname. I am 58 years old not 18 and would not even have thought to insult you in such a way.
As stated by another reply this was down to the IOSH software filters which I suggest they look at.
I christened my son Ricahrd and all through school he was known as Dick by his friends. So with IOSH's sensitivities being overly cautious how would they send out anything addressed to a "Dick".
Seems stupid to me and not what I want to answer and have to comment on, on a Monday morning.
Joe (annoyed)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator 
|
All, nobody insulted anyone. The swear filter is not perfect (not seen one that is yet). We are looking into possible alterations to the parameters at the moment.
Many thanks and carry on with your discussions.
Mike
IOSH Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Morning all – hope you had a good weekend.
Nigel (and Mike!) – thanks for letting me know about the over-zealous swear filter. Joe, if that is the case, then I accept you weren’t having a go at my surname – though it makes one hope that Arsene Wenger, Jarvis Cocker, or anyone called Dickinson never have reason to comment on here : ))
Bob – our story is about David Cameron because it is he who gave this speech, not Ken Clarek, or anyone else. Why would we ascribe what he said – in public and on record – to another person, regardless of whether we knew or not that the ideas had first been outlined by Ken Clarke?
And we did know that – as you will see if you revisit the News sections in our November and December issues (‘Public largely supportive of regulation’, and ‘Self-regulation plans polarise industry’).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I hope the swear filter doesn't start translating Russian otherwise my surname doesn't stand a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Oh dear, it seems we now have to contend with an over zealous expletives filter as well as...Scunthorpe City Council had exactly the same problem but no one could figure out why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As a Scutthorpe resident I do smile when receive mail fom the States where they have them even on address labelling systems!!:-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My sister-in-law is an attorney out in the States and had a similar problem with their email system. Made the issue of receiving case martial hugely problematic especially as she prosecutes on sexual assault, domestic violence &c. I suppose this is not entirely diff to when number of local councils in Britain have banned their staff from using Latin words http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7705922.stm. Quite curious considering much of the structure to the English language is based upon Latin. With this whole issue of language sometimes I left wondering who is actually protecting us from exactly what. As we say in Gaelic: chan eil aon chànan gu leòr. B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: Andrew Bö  ......... As we say in Gaelic: chan eil aon chànan gu leòr. or Tha mo bhàta-foluaimein loma-làn easgannan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Alan Haynes wrote:
Tha mo bhàta-foluaimein loma-làn easgannan
You smooth talking devil - yes I would !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bob Thanks for letting me know Ken is leading the review, I'll forward my comments to him. From the Conservative Party website - 1st December 2009 under the headline 'Reducing the burden of health and safety' they state: 'Cameron also announced that Lord David Young will lead an extensive review for the Party with a focus on some specific questions...' Reference: www.conservatives.com/Ne...f_health_and_safety.aspxPerhaps you could have a word with Ken and get the inforamtion updated. Cheers. Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.