Re link below - if not familiar with story the person who died was left down a disused old mine shaft for 6 hours because the fire fighters were not allowed to use a specific piece of equipment. Given that the organisation is called 'Fire and Rescue' I tend to think it is poor H & S management as opposed to 'bad legislation'...be interested in the thoughts of others. http://www.heraldscotlan...-costing-lives-1.1047192 FH

My thoughts exactly. From reading the report I couldn't be sure if they had the equipment available to use at site or whether it was equipment they had requested which was still awaiting approval from the powers that be.

Morning All, I would be interested to know from Martin Williams (the reporter) exactly "What Regulation" prevented this rescue. It would also be interesting to know how the lady fell down the mineshaft. Don't land owners have a duty of care to prevent such accidents? As always "health & safety" is the easy target. Take Care

It wasn't even a regulation, read below: Christopher Rooney, the first senior fire officer at the scene, told the FAI it would have been possible to pull her from the shaft had it not been for a health and safety memo. Solicitor Gregor Forbes asked Mr Rooney: "On the basis of the manpower and equipment you had available, is it your view it would it would have been possible for the firefighters to have brought the person to the surface before the mountain rescue team?" The now retired fireman said the memo was circulated around Strathclyde Fire and Rescue stations in March 2008 - just four months before the tragedy. Mr Rooney agreed with Mr Forbes, representing Ms Hume's family, that the restrictions placed on the crews that night prevented them from acting as they may otherwise have done. Mr Forbes said: "Your position is that while you were supplied with safe working at height equipment, while this could be used to bring up firefighters it could not be used to bring up a member of the public?" Mr Rooney told the court: "Yes, that's correct." He added that all 18 firefighters at the scene were trained and capable of using the equipment

Grim, Courtesy of the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/...gow_and_west/8545876.stm

A shameful incident if the facts are correct. I did notice in the article an implication that extra incentives were not in place for working with harnesses. Hate to think that this was a 'policallly' motivated incident and I would like to know why it was mentioned at all. Sometimes things are not quite what they seem. 'He added that, as some firefighters who trained in ancillary operations such as water rescues were paid extra for those duties, the implication was that personnel who used the harness would also qualify for increased pay.'

Ruth can make the call as to whether IOSH get formally into this. Hopefully imwaldra will contribute in his usual brilliant fashion.

Evening All, Interesting to see where this eventually goes in deciding the root cause. Is it the poor lady in taking a short cut that may or may not be trespassing? or Is it the landowner who did not take appropriate action to ensure trespassers were not harmed? (not sure if Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 - duty of reasonable care/neighbour principle or BR v Herrington - duty of common humanity to trespassers in common law would be applicable but I would have thought so) or is the root cause the delay by the Fire Service and their memo? or did the poor lady have a health problem which was exacerbated by her experience? In the end it will be interesting to hear the result and then see what the papers and politicians say Take Care