So David Cameron says part of the breakdown in society in the last week is tied into H&S ....unbelieveable ..this industry has a lot of future challenges ahead with this goverment. Part of his speech below

"It is exactly the same with health and safety – where regulations have often been twisted out of all recognition into a culture where the words 'health and safety' are lazily trotted out to justify all sorts of actions and regulations that damage our social fabric."

I'll + 1 to that. Well said.

Ditto - I also think DC is correct in what he says

Cameron also said in relating to the riots its a society not wanting to wait and save up to pay for goods ... this comes from a very large body of people who were railed against for exorbitant expenses claims! Namely the House of Commons.

Badger

But considering that this was rioting by youngsters primarily then using the term 'sick' is wrong. In today's speak 'sick' means 'really good'!!!

But I don't actually think society is sick by the way. A small proportion of people in small areas of the country doesn't make for the whole of our society being sick IMO.

okane

There should be no surprise in Mr Cameron's words. He made the Tory position regarding health and safety clear on the 1st December 2009. Speaking at an event organised for Policy Exchange. He stated:

'Today, I want to start with one aspect of it. It’s probably the most infuriating. It certainly stifles judgement and discretion...
...is a straitjacket on personal initiative and responsibility...
...and is a big barrier to the creation of the big society.
I want to set out a future Conservative government’s approach to the great knot of rules, regulations, expectations and fears that I would call the over-the-top health and safety culture.'

'I’m sure the rise of this over-the-top health and safety culture is one of the reasons why people feel so angry and frustrated with politics in our country today.'

However I hadn't noticed that those rioting and looting in Birmingham, London, Manchester and elsewhere were spitting venom about their inability to understand risk assessments; or expressing gratitude about the new 8 pages of simple guidance instead of 150 pages of 'Red Tape' to make it easier for them to go on school trips or, indeed, were calling on Professor Lofstedt to simplify health and safety regulations so that their entrepreneurial spirit could be unleashed.

As yet the Government have produced no evidence that there is an imbalance between the legal duties on employers and the benefits of such health and safety legislation. Indeed such is the one sided nature of the Government's position, that the benefits of health and safety legislation have been deliberately - and continuously - ignored.

What they have done is used stories - some like the conkers tripe, a complete fallacy - from the Daily Mail et al as the basis of their so called justification. So the newspapers and television again have Ministers saying anything that comes into their heads and now - after many years of ignoring what was happening by previous governments - Dr Cameron is going to fix our 'sick' nation.

The aftermath of the rioting and looting needs thought and solutions that will work - then applying them. The indication so far is that Mr Cameron is simply responding to the emotion of media reporting. Much like they are doing with health and safety.

Presumably following the success of their action on health and safety, the Government will cut Police expenditure by 35%; target the 'rogue' elements by stopping 33% of the 'proactive' police 'visability'; let the Police introduce charging those for commiting 'material breaches' of law ie throwing petrol bombs, liberating 52" Plasma Screens from shops without a valid receipt, hitting Police Officers with bricks etc; and setting up the Oppressed Society Hell Consultant's Register (OSHCR) to give the Police competent advice on sensible and proportionate policing, particularly drawing on the American gangland experience.

The Lofstedt Review might find some evidence. However having read a summary of submissions from key stakeholders submiting views, they don't appear to have found any. I look forward to seeing the summary report of the Red Tape Challenge regarding Health and Safety.

Cheers.

Nigel

I heard the speech live on radio, I believe his health and safety remarks were regarding the police being unable to demonstrate a robust response in case of what has gone on recently.

He was not blaming the riots on health and safety.

However everyone will have their own interpretation of anything anyone says so just believe what you want.

Personally I think this may now make everyone have a good think about how we as a society handle the rioters and looters and lean toward a harder attitude.

Further I think it is a good idea to call for advice re gangs from an experienced police officer from abroad. It can't do any harm and our own police forces are not getting it sorted so try another angle.

Link to the latest SHP article: http://www.shponline.co....r-the-riots-says-cameron

http://www.shponline.co....r-the-riots-says-cameron

= irresponsible journalism of the highest order. There is a link here (above) to the ACTUAL speech delivered.
SHP presumably using the same Wire Service as the Daily Wail. For shame.

Hmmm....how's about we consider your headline:

"Health and safety partly to blame for the riots, says Cameron"

with:
"A spokesperson for the prime minister told SHP that Mr Cameron is not blaming health and safety for the riots “per se” but that it is one of a raft of issues emerging in society at the moment that are contributing to a lack of people taking responsibility for their actions".

All seems to hang on the widespread misuse and throwaway use of the term "per se", which many take to mean 'as such' as opposed to ' by itself'.

Hmmm, some interesting remarks here - some I fully agree, and others that seem wide of the mark.

I have to say if thats what Dave actually thinks, then he has certainly changed his tune from being Myth-monger in chief.

Any suggestion that H&S had anything to do with the timing of police response is simply nonsense. Its far more to do with the fact that we do not have a standing Riot Police like they do in France for example. Over here officers are expected to be all things to all people, and when it kicks off they have to rush back to the station, get kitted out in riot gear and then go out together in sufficient numbers to be effective. Clearly the Govt hasn't worked that out.

The idea that Bill Bratton should be the one we turn to is also laughable. I was struck by the safety briefing that a patrol officer in Los Angeles gave to a BBC journalist. Pointing to a .457 Magnum handgun he said 'If I'm down, feel free to use it'. That doesn't exactly sound like success to me. If he was that good then surely all America would now be using his methods and it would be gang free? There are still over 400 active armed gangs in Los Angeles alone - where Bill Bratton was chief.

Over 200 officers have recieved significant injuries in all this, clearly demonstrating that whilst H&S is a consideration, they have clearly been putting themselves in harms way to bring the country back from the brink.

...and all politicians can do is grandstand and try to take the credit. Shame.

Nice one John :)

And about time to.
Yes it is a political game that the regulations are changed when the government changes. Misrepresentation of legislation is rife, not just H&S but other legislation as well.
How many youngsters do not work because they are unable to be employed when they leave school due to H&S, is this what was intended when the regulations were emplaced. Doubtful, they were intended to prevent damage to youngsters to keep them working. Now it stops them working, because of misinterpretation and misapplication.
I agree this country has a human rights and health and safety culture and not for the best either.
Yes, both sets of legislation have good and valid points. However when the interpretation of legislation is such that it prevents the ability to sustain lively hoods, or removes the rights of victims and gives rights to perpetrator then that is wrong.
Political correctness is destroying this country, the removal of the ability to chastise children within the education system, at home or anywhere has added to the position we are in.
So we not allowed to blame H&S, its not used to prevent anything out side of work, its not used to prevent school trips, leisure activities, or any works activities. It is not used to present a risk free environment.
The people who are given community service have to have an induction and safety talks to paint or to clean up. Charities have to have H&S to operate a collection service; Churches have to have fall protection on steps. Volunteers who want to clean up their neighbourhoods need risk assessments methods of work PPE. No H&S has no affect at all.

So if it is not the human rights and health and safety culture what is it then?

To quote Stevel:

"interpretation of legislation is such that it prevents the ability to sustain lively hoods"

I saw a good number of very lively hoods involved in the riots Steve, and their numbers don't seem to be diminishing!

;-)

Our PM referred to the “sickening acts”, “twisted moral code”, and “irresponsibility and selfishness” displayed on the streets last week.
This was a few feral kids, but the very same words could be used to describe MPs fraudulently claiming expenses.
True, last week will cost the country money but in comparison to the aftermath of the “twisted moral code”, and “irresponsibility and selfishness” displayed by the bankers, the costs are peanuts.

sickening acts”, “twisted moral code”, and “irresponsibility and selfishness”.

Indeed, this could equally apply to the phone hacking scandal, police corruption, insurance companies selling on personal details to accident claims companies, blacklisting by construction companies of former employees...the list goes on.

If morality is to be tackled, then I suggest the Government start at the top.

Yes but he wasn't working at the time!

This is what David Cameron said at the Policy Exchange meeting on the 1st December 2009 – a direct quote from his speech.

'I’m sure the rise of this over-the-top health and safety culture is one of the reasons why people feel so angry and frustrated with politics in our country today.'

I have asked No 10 directly to identify the other issues but he is too busy to identify them. No one else could either, including his speech writer.

In the spring of the following year, Policy Exchange produced their laughable report ‘Reducing the Burden’ in which David Young – in the foreword to the report – stated it ‘is designed to establish some basic facts about health and safety …’ The report was so full of errors that the IOSH comments on it was nearly as long as the Policy Exchange report itself!

David Young then went on to produce Common Sense Common Safety which - as with the Policy Exchange report – produced no substantive evidence to support its recommendations. It did however repeat some Daily Mail stories as indicators of the ‘climate of fear and encourages organisations to attempt to eliminate all risk’. There is no evidence provided identifying any organisation attempting to ‘eliminate all risk’. The report was welcomed by many organisations, mainly to confront the non-existent ‘compensation culture’ at work. The report should have been entitled ‘Common Sense Common Fallacy’.

So while the politicians or the police claim the high ground in stopping the riots by swamping London with 16,000 police officers from various parts of the country, they have made a public profile of enforcing the law. Around the same time in North Yorkshire, they also pushed more officers onto the streets just in case someone in the area felt like rioting. There weren’t any riots but – according to the North Yorkshire Police – crime went down 40% on the same period compared to last year.

It’s a miracle of the 21st Century. A public profile with enforcers enforcing the law and crime goes down. This is truly radical stuff.

On the other hand the HSE health and safety at work enforcer has its ‘visible preventative enforcement profile’ cut by 33% or 11,000 proactive inspections, along with a 35% resource cut over 4 years and a commitment to develop a nice line in simplicity guidance. Oh yes - and charge rogue employers their costs for 'material breaches' of health and safety law.

David Cameron made the link between the rioters and the ‘health and safety culture’. He did not blame health and safety for the riots but stated it was part of the ‘broken society’ through which the riots took place i.e. ‘Health and safety partly to blame for the riots, says Cameron’ as described by the SHP. And when the spokesperson for No 10 indicated that ‘Mr Cameron is not blaming health and safety for the riots “per se” …’ that person was confirming that he is linking it as partly to blame.

Instead of welcoming the Government’s ‘blind eye’ to the benefits of health and safety legislation, could not those involved with consultations ask the powers that be to publish the evidence on which their – apparently - spurious opinions are based?

Cheers.

Nigel

So they did not bother going to any construction site with a UKMC as PC then

I understand that Schedule 1 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 establishes a legal requirement for employers to consider the general principles of prevention, which are specified, when considering control measures to avoid or control risks to people at work.

Top of the list is 'avoiding risks'. At the bottom is personal protective equipment which does nothing to prevent risks of injury at source but offers a 'last resort' personal protection facility according to the HSE. The UK having won their protracted battle in Europe to have the term 'reasonably practicable' at the heart of health and safety regulation means employers can consider a cost vs benefit concept when evaluating risk control measures.

So where it is 'reasonably practicable' risks that could be eliminated, should be eliminated. Where it is not, a series of preventative measures should be considered on a sliding scale of effectiveness in preventing injury, with PPE being the last. In reality most organisations have a variety of control measures to deal with a variety of risks.

The dedication of the construction sector to 'eliminating risks' can be gleamed from the colourful signs at the perimeter of many sites instructing those entering the site to wear boots, hard hats, goggles, hi-vis jackets, hearing protection etc. Thus advertising to the world at large that in the prevention hierachy the 'last resort' is the control method of choice for many construction companies.

This does not appear to equate with 'UKMC as PC' embarked on a course of eliminating risks, no matter what.

Cheers.

Nigel