http://www.telegraph.co....h-and-safety-police.html This sounds like H&S being used as an excuse for Dairy Crest to take their crates back...

It's not as bad as it seems, the owner of the milk crates appears to have paid for an alternative type of "play crate" for the children so I think the doom and gloom of the big bad "elf n safety" is tempered!!

The school involved is almost certainly closed for the summer holidays at present and the quoted Daily Telegraph webpage with today’s date doesn’t say when the crates were retrieved by the dairy company. A quick trawl on the internet revealed that the retrieval occurred back in March. Also, as CRN Baker wrote, the company are helping the school to buy purpose-made replacements for the crates, no doubt in a bid to counter the negative publicity they reaped over the retrieval. Also, it’s surprising that the Daily Telegraph didn’t make a simple check for updates about the story - perhaps it was swept away by the urge to find and publish something about a new topic during the current “silly season”. The dairy company published an apology about the retrieval and the distress caused to staff and pupils: “Whilst we understand (the school’s) disappointment at losing something they had come to view as playground equipment, it remains a fact that milk crates are not toys and current health and safety guidelines require that they should not be used as such…. It is not (company) policy to provide crates for anything other than their sole purpose – which is to transport milk bottles. It appears that this was not made clear to staff at the school and we can only apologise for any breakdown in communication when the crates were retrieved….. There are lots of ways in which they could be misused and they could break, and it is very sharp plastic if they do.” It is reported that the crates were given to the school some 15 years ago by a milkman. This would have been an attractive offer because such crates tend to be notably strong, durable, devoid of sharp corners and thus suitable for various improvised uses by the school. This tends to be backed up by the teacher’s comment that no problems had ever occurred with the crates. Consider the situation from the dairy company’s viewpoint: If the crates bore the company’s name the company would have been entitled to retrieve them as their property. Also, distribution companies like dairies and bakeries tend to have problems with other organisations or individuals retaining/pinching their re-usable crates and trays for other purposes. This explains why such crates and trays often have the names of their owners printed, engraved or even embossed on them, sometimes with a warning that unauthorised possession is a criminal offence. However, it seems clear from the dairy company’s apology that it didn’t communicate effectively with the school when retrieving the crates. Worse still, the company evidently grabbed “health and safety” as a convenient excuse to justify the retrieval. It is this aspect which various media organisations have latched onto and misrepresented as a health and safety decision in their reports. It is heartening to see from some of the responses added below the quoted webpage and others (e.g. the Oxford Mail article at http://www.oxfordmail.co...uins_crate_fun_for_kids/ that some readers have clearly seen through the falsehoods. Moreover, it seems that the crates belonged to a former diary company which was taken over by the one which did the retrieving. Perhaps the crates were given before or at the time of the takeover as being surplus to requirements. If so, the school might have had grounds for resisting the “retrieval” back in March!

Thank you Graham for looking into this case! Very helpful.

MarcusB - No problem - the Daily Telegraph report seemed a bit suspicious, not least because no retrieval date was given. Therefore, I couldn't resist doing a bit of investigation with the help of the internet, especially as much of my work is for my employer's schools. Also, if the dairy company involved went to the extent of retrieving crates from the school mentioned in the reports, perhaps it has been doing the same at other schools, but without ensuing publicity. If this is the case, the other schools might just choose to ask for help with proprietary replacements. In a BBC webpage today at http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...and-oxfordshire-14629906 the class teacher is reported as admitting she sympathised with the company's decision because ""However sensible and rational I might be about it, there might be somebody out there whose child is injured by something with a (company name) logo on it who might decide to sue them." This is a shame because it reflects a notable misperception. It also leaves me a bit puzzled in the light of previous information that the crates apparently belonged to a former dairy company. However, the BBC webpage seems less sensational than the Daily Mail webpage report with the bold heading "'Elf 'n' safety killjoys order school to return plastic milk crates used as toys by children for 15 years because they are too DANGEROUS". Also, it's interesting to read in some reports that the milk crates have been or will be replaced by 'play crates'. If it transpires (I hope) that such crates are fairly similar in design to milk crates and made of similarly durable plastic, this would almost certainly put the dairy company's crate retrieval in proper perspective as far as safety is concerned. Are there any forum users out there with knowledge of milk and/or play crates who might be able to help in this respect?

I shared MarcusB's exasperation - mainly because I had to explain it to my wife that this was not a lot to do with H&S, and also because the Telegraph followed it later in the edition with another nonsense story about the military having to 'tone down' their display for Edinburgh Tattoo. I thought the military were exempt! I have to say that was well researched Graham! Cheers

It predated 'Python' (although they performed it live). First appeared in 'At Last the 1948 Show'. I think it was more about the attitudes of the old buffoons!

Marcus - thanks for the comment about the contrasting statements by the teacher regarding the milk crates. The second one suggesting that there have been “no major incidents” is probably more accurate. For those not acquainted with schools, it’s appropriate to mention that lots of pupil accidents occur at schools. However, the overwhelming majority are minor ones and tend to occur during playtime and involve tripping, colliding and, to a lesser extent, falling off things like low walls and benches. Also, such accidents do not stem from fault on anyone’s part. Age is a notable factor with younger children seeming to be more prone to accidents, not surprisingly, because their sense of balance and awareness of hazards, etc are still developing. These comments are based partly on the impression gained from my employer’s nursery and primary schools’ brief records of minor accidents to pupils, i.e. ones which result in minor injuries like bruises and grazes and thus need no more than attention from a school first aider. Unless my employer’s schools have unusually high pupil accident rates, their statistics are probably the same for similar schools throughout the UK. Most children seem instinctively to enjoy standing on and balancing/walking on items like benches, low walls and other items such as crates and boxes. Some children inevitably jump, slip or fall off such items and without injury or significant injury in most cases. Though relatively rare, the most likely injury which can arise is probably some sort of limb fracture. However, if there is no real difference between a proprietary play crate and a milk crate, the likelihood of a claim being made by a parent after a fracture injury seems fairly remote. Also if any parent were to claim regarding an injury involving a milk crate, the claim would almost certainly be against the local authority involved, and definitely not against the dairy company. It seems that most parents probably accept that in reality their children are prone to injury whether at home, school or elsewhere, and that nobody is to blame. However, from experience of frivolous claims and complaints regarding my employer’s schools, it seems that a few parents have a bizarre misperception that schools are or should be 100% safe and that any harm whatsoever to their children entitles them (the parents) to claim and receive money. Also, a tiny minority of parents totally misunderstand first aid provision in schools and seem to think that schools should have staff and facilities akin to those of a hospital A&E department. From a wider perspective, elements of the milk crate case illustrate the need for adults and young people generally to be given a better understanding of 1) risk management, and 2) compensation law - and how they apply to work, home and leisure. However, no criticism of the teacher quoted in the milk crate case is intended. Her varying comments about the crates might well have been made as responses to different approaches by journalists. How many of us forum users would cope with sudden media attention?

Yes. Both him and Chapman were in it along with Tim Brook-Taylor and Marty Feldman.