http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...-england-humber-11590909 Perhaps it keeps us all in a job!

And Lord Young's report also goes a long way to explaining this....... http://www.shponline.co.uk/

All premises and companies manage their own H&S at the moment, with a little help from those more knowledgeable and the law. Precisely how are you going to change that ? Exempt some ? Who decides ? Which ones ? Small biz ? Frequently, if not always, the highest risk...even if only because they care less than big biz. Offices ? Shops ? Building/construction ? Engineering ? I know, let's do it the right way....we'll look at which businesses have less accidents and then exempt them. So we'll look at the RIDDOR reports... Ahhhh......less than 50% bother to report more-than-three-day accidents... So, we'll exempt self employed...they must be better.....much less accidents than the employed lot.... what..... 80% not reported. Better. We'll exempt our mates: Problem solved.

I understand that the facts but who appealed and for what reason - not the poor injured Council worker I expect. So, if our forces were hit with the same costs propotionally every time one of our lads/girls were injured then Lawyers would be the new Bankers. We would then have to issue the Army with a catapult and a bag of stones as their budgets would be used on litigation. Mad!! Surely the costs of the case should be in proportion to the injury - not wishing injury on anyone but is it cheaper to lose a finger than have one not function? The sooner those making money on those suffering is curbed the more we can use on prevention in the first place. Are the constituents in Hull aware they are paying for this instead of one of their services?

Points well made John. Tigers - it appears the injured worker did appeal. Otherwise he would have got nothing. OK, as expected when the Appeal Court Judgement ([2010] EWCA Civ 1147 Case No: B3/2009/2715) is read, Hull City Council did not comply with Regulation 6 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations. Despite knowing that workers such as Mr Thelwell were at risk of cuts from sharp objects and that cut resistant gloves were available, they did not provide them. Thus again highlighting that many employers think that PPE is straightforward and they do not need to bother about looking at the specific risks of a job and then making available suitable PPE to help avoid or reduce the risks in question. I have taken the liberty of posting some quotes from the judgement given by Lady Justice Smith, with Lords Justice Jackson and Ward in agreement in the Appeal Court judgement. ‘As the only instructions the claimant received were to take care, the judge accepted that the work entailed a risk of injury by contact with sharp objects and that the giving of instructions could not adequately control that risk.’ ‘I would accept that the risk assessment which the Council (now the respondent) carried out was manifestly defective when compared with the requirements of regulation 6. [PPE Regs] Regulation 6 requires an employer to give specific consideration of the risks against which it was intended to provide a form of protective equipment. This risk assessment should have specifically dealt with the risk of laceration and the type of protective gloves required in the light of that risk. It was not open to the judge to base his conclusion on the result of so inadequate a risk assessment.’ ‘ …….. also because physical examination of the gloves (available to both judges as it was to this court) shows that they were ordinary gardening gloves which common sense and common experience shows are not capable of withstanding pressure from a sharp object.’ [At least someone is supporting David Young’s ‘common sense’ approach. NigelB] As could be anticipated, council for the Council suggested that if Hull were found to be at fault, the worker should be blamed: ‘In the event that the appeal on primary liability were to succeed, Mr Brown [acting for Hull] cross-appealed against the judge's holding that the appellant [Mr Thelwell] had not been guilty of contributory negligence.’ ‘In my view, this cross-appeal is hopeless. There is no evidence to support a holding that the claimant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. There is not even evidence of inadvertence, although that would not be enough even if it existed. I would dismiss the cross-appeal.’ David Young is right to try and do something about the fact that in such cases, a relatively low amount of compensation to Mr Thelwell is likely to be dwarfed by the legal costs. Unfortunately history shows that every time politicians try to deal with this issue, legal costs tend to go up, not down. 4 years later and Mr Thelwell has still not had a final settlement of his compensation claim. And John is right - many workers are injured and suffer ill-health at work through the negligence of their employer but do not get any compensation. There are a number of reasons why workers do not make legitimate claims against their employer. Fear of reprisals against them is one. Cheers. Nigel