http://www.dailymail.co....-shuts-Murray-Mount.html

Discuss?!?!

I agree with Ray, it was a sensible decision based on risk assessment. If they had not done it and someone got injured what would you say then?

Only issue I have is H&S gets the blame instead of credit. Why not just say that management made the decision and leave it there.

Now awaiting the injury reports from Glastonbury ???????

I was there with my son and although big Murray fans we were not going to sit on a wet slippy grassy slope for three hours. Very sensible decision but they probably let people hang about too long before they made the decision and so built up some expectation.

But as in nearly all these things it was a practical and safety decision not a "health and safety" one. The latter implies it was only done for some regulatory reason

I am not so sure...just to set the cat amongst the provervbial pigeons!

Completely appreciate the legal ins and outs of this issue, but having attended the 2010 Ryder Cup at Celtic Manor, I am not certain the level of risk outweighs the enjoyment that the human being takes from the event itself. The Ryder Cup was a complete bog, with many spectators under prepared for the conditions with parts of the course on very steep banks. Whilst play was stopped at times this was due to the course being unplayable and not down to specatator safety. If the Wimbledon approach had been adopted the Ryder Cup should have been cancelled completely, with many thousands of people being dissapointed and would the event have been the same without the crowds? I would say not...

So I pose the question can human enjoyment be used in this circumstance as a weight against the risk????

You may be interested in the following comment from HSE

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...ltc210611.htm#?eban=rss-

Excellent- Thanks Chas

A little proportional management of the actual level of risk warms the heart.

We never had this problem when it was Henman Hill - but then Henman Hill was only used for the first two rounds.

One might also wish to consider where the spectators would go if they were not on the slope; off to a stall to get a second mortgage on some strawberries?

That said, it has to be that Wimbledon don't want to be taken to court becuase someone has not grasped the fact that wet slopes are slippery and no amount of signage will keep them off.

A common misconception. It can be viciously competitive. There might not be violence or obvious aggression, but there's scope for playing in such a way as to run your opponent down rather than build your own position up.

Imagine golf where you could choose to either hit your ball towards the hole or your opponent's ball away from it.

Sounds like a long rally between LTA & HSE... new balls required?

The final day of a rain affected test match when a draw is the only possible result? (free entry doesn't even get people in).

Football matches played without spectators (behind closed doors), due to some unruly behaviour, fireworks, pitch invasions etc.

Lower division football matches with only a few hundred spectators.

Even Wimbledon matches played on the outside courts between some no marks?

There is no guarantee that anyone will actually turn up to watch anything?

For myself I have the best seat in the house - 42" TV to get real close to the action. I don't know what all the fuss is about re the Olympic tickets? I've been to top class athletic events i.e. Commonwealth games - got soaking wet in the rain, travelled for hours to get there and back and you only see the competitors when they flash past.

I do attend Everton Matches though :-))

Certainly not Everton! ;-)

Te-he

Only jesting Chris ;-)

The link in the above reply by Redken is to the open letter sent by Judith Hackitt to the Daily Telegraph regarding an article about Pendle Council allegedly refusing to remove a wasps' nest from adjacent to a householder's bathroom window because it was too dangerous for staff wearing the requisite protective clothing and carrying poison to climb a ladder. The article also mentions that staff could safely apply the poison by means of an extendable pole, and quotes a senior manager as saying that the council cleared 238 wasps' nests by this method last year. Thus, it seems to be an established and effective method. The manager added that as well as being far safer, the method only requires one person, no transporting and carrying of ladders, and is thus far more cost effective.

Although I understand that the wasps' nest involved - or more accurately its occupants - were successfully dealt with by means of the pole method, it seems that the Telegraph article was either premature, sloppily incomplete or perhaps deliberately didn't say that the pole method was used - because this would have nullified the gist of the article.

It's not clear if Judith Hackitt, or HSE staff on her behalf, contacted the Council to check the facts before drafting the letter to the Telegraph. If the letter had criticised the article and been able to add that the job had been completed using the pole method, surely it would have had more impact and made more sense to readers.

Also, forum users will be aware of IOSH's new Li£esaving initiative: It seems to me that the pole method might well be a worthy example for IOSH to quote and show how it saves considerable money and time as well as being far safer than the traditional method involving a ladder. In connection with this, has anyone involved with pest control work by councils or private companies got any statistics to support such an example?

Only a few apologies for diverting from the main theme of this topic, but I found the wasps' nest story and some of the accompanying ignorant reaction to it quite irritating. Phew - feel better for getting that off my chest. Am open to corrections of course if I've misunderstood any aspects.

hally I have been in Ashworth, just for your information.

However it was as a visitor not a patient. My fire brigade volleyball team used to play against them. Both home and away games were played there - I wonder why they couldn't play away?

And if you carry on with the quoted piece (which can be found here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...record/2008/es150908.htm) it's precisely the sensible and proportionate approach HSE was advocating!