My wife called me a Bolshevik the other day, but hey, you can't beat a good conspiracy theory! 'The cops are corrupt and stupid' say the right wing daily nationals for months - so the public don't mind if the funding is cut. 'Cops watch children drown' say the right wing daily nationals - therefore H&S should not apply to the emergency services 'Teachers won't let children experience the rough and tumble of life' say the papers - therefore the rules on school trips must be scrapped. 'H&S is just bureaucratic nonsense and it takes 4 men and a lorry to change a lightbulb' say the daily nationals - therefore H&S laws should be scrapped and the HSE neutered by cutting their funding by a third. Cynical - of course it is! But should that apply to me or our beloved leaders and their chums in the media?

Hmmmm. Was not the wail almost at the top-of-the-pack for using information gleaned by improper access to personal communication equipment ? Pot. Kettle. Calling. The. Black. Journalists: Morals: Not: many.

I'll apologise straight away cos this will cause uproar... ...but for goodness sake, have you heard yourselves? A man with a step ladder in front of the cover on the pole, a tool belt and a spare lamp could do this job in two minutes with no risk to himself or anyone! The only qualification, training or certification required would be a bit of common sense. The guy is more likely to injure his back twisting and climbing into the platform, than he would be to fall off a two step ladder onto a passing pedestrian. Members of the public are more likely to walk into the cradle and hurt themselves whilst looking at the van rather than watching where they are going. That's without the possibility of walking in the road to get past the obstruction - with or without cones in place. If keep right the warning sign is for the benefit of motorists it doesn't give much advance warning of the obstruction does it? If it's for pedestrians, it very much 'stating the bleedin obvious' - you cant walk through the van, you'll hav eto walk past it this way. I could go on... but what's the point. As a member of humanity with a degree of (as opposed to a degree in) common sense, it amazes me how a whole Health & Stupidity industry has grown out of this politically motivated and compensation culture driven desire to be seen to be doing anything "safely". Never let "getting a job done" get in the way of red tape, cover your backside, expensive, time consuming, money spinning and unnecessary box ticking eh? OK, hard hat deployed... incoming bricks!!!

On the specific point of equipment, I'll agree with you regarding the common sense aproach. If I was doing the task outside of a working environment I personally would be more than happy to use a stepladder. However as a H&S professional my remit covers ensuring and promoting staff safety but also protecting the business. With HSE's own guidance on stepladder use being very specific I cannot see any room for moanouver in suggesting common sense must prevail other the safe method of working. I also doubt it would be merely 2 steps on a ladder to access that height. If the chap fell due to not maintaing 3 points of contact (and he couldn't even if he had a tool belt), and the buisness attempted to use the defence of common sense, what with the published and recognised guidance, I cannot see you'd have a foot to stand on!

Welcome back Claire, if only fleetingly. Actually, I wrote 'hymn book' and not 'sheet'. Perhaps a tad too subtle? Snaggles, excellent post and I agree with everything you have written. Thank God I am on the back end of my careeer if this is the way forward for health and safety.

Hmmm something must be cost effective... share price good and recent energy bill increase... all helps I'm sure!

I have checked out many of the comments on this story in the Daily Mail website. Comments made by readers of the paper or the website edition. Leaving aside the extremes at either end of the comments, the most common one appears to “the additional costs to the taxpayer"? Now there is both a huge assumption and an interesting insight. And all based on pre-determined beliefs and quite happily accepted as the "truth" by many of the contributors based on nothing more than one photo. Now we have “snuggles” eloquently demonstrating this issue of common sense safety. Of course it could have been completed with simpler approaches with different risks to control but did this approach actually cost anyone anymore and did it actually increase any risks? We cannot know but it is, of course, equally possible that it actually saved some money and made little difference to the overall risks! We need to face up to the issue that “common sense” safety is a real stinker to solve and those who understand that complexity have to put all their wits to solving it-- together. And that includes recognising and respecting the media as a key player as well as an understanding of how speculation actually works in modern society. P48 ps second the welcome back to ClaireL

Colin My post made no attempt to either condone or condemn the working practices, I was merely commenting on what I believe to be the wider issue which is that allot of post were attempting to vilify the organisations safety officer for ott controls. As an industry lead body we should all be supportive of each others professional right to make decisions based on the facts as they see them. This is a public forum after all and some comments do little to uphold professional integrity and only serve to reinforce the daily mails ill advised elf and safety slapping article. We just need to be mindful of this when we post. Bob

Well I have to say, I'm really surprised at these early reactions to my post. I was prepared to be shot down in flames. It seems there may be some hope that common sense may yet prevail. Unfortunately it seems that common sense is being hamstrung by the very red tape and regulations that are supposed to "help" safety. A couple of comments though, from Jake and Dave 48, that demonstrate the point I was trying to make. Somewhat missing my point Jake... two steps, three steps - does it really make that much difference? Dave48, (it's "Snaggles" actually) stop analysing every damn thing! Sorely tempted to use the old acronym JFDI but instead how about, just get on with it!

Well well, snaggles. What a shame, snuggles seems so much better :-) Make sure you enjoy just doing it whilst you are still able. Common sense tells me it won't be long :-) Pete48

How many of you have commented on the other subject currently in discussion, working at height on a portacabin. How many of you will say RA is required. If this is not a one off job then planning is required and a ladder or steps will not be sufficient. The difference is? Directing minds wanted them to take short cuts, which is why he fell of the ladder and broke his back, so now he cannot work. Send the directors to jail that will sort them out. And when they supply everything, now there OTT Hands up or are you all sitting on them now. Common sense safety I agree with, but when you are carrying out the same task repeatedly then maybe just maybe this is common sense.

To Clairel Long may you run. let it rip! Zimmy

And somewhere a sad, isolated H&S guy/gal is looking at the mail and thinking: Yep, barriers around the electrical gear.....pedestrian safety arranged....head protection (you tried gettin' pidgeon-poo outa the hair?).......hi-viz.... Lots of brownie points there....great that the mail is thinking of the workforce. Shame they REALLY are not thinking about the workforce or public SAFETY. Now, how many of you would penalise the worker/s for following your procedures when they may not be required ? Hmmm ?

Difficult to comprehend why each time the DM prints yet another attention grabbing headline that the professionals on here get so engrossed in yet another forum. I'm sure that there are far more worthier topics for discussion.

As has been pointed out on numerous postings the daily wail likes to ridicule health and safety legislation. If you look at the picture the vehicle is a street light maintenance vehicle with inbuilt cherry picker - it does not carry steps or ladders. What does the Working at Height Regulations say? Firstly the definition of working at height - anywhere there is potential to cause injury if you fall. Eliminate where possible- Hierarchy of control -a platform is above steps and ladders Clearly one size does not fit all, but in this day and age we safety professionals have not only got to take a pragmatic approach to safety issues but also provide a cost effective solution to all situations - a dedicated vehicle with in built cherry picker does not need to carry steps and ladders (with associated costs of maintenance and inspection, manual handling issues, additional training etc).