While looking at an article about a fire starting in a local hotel, I noticed a link to this: http://www.yorkpress.co....st_socket_to_me_/?ref=ec Another columnist takes a cheap shot at H&S, probably because she has run out of newsworthy stuff to write about. Thats why I don't buy newspapers anymore.....

Having read the article, it is fair for her to take a pop at ridiculous restrictions placed. This is the very reason we get bad press. Either the company is not getting professional advice or it is fear of litigation which is the issue here yet again. There is no comment from the health and safety competent person for the company explaining why such practices are required to ensure health and safety practically. Obviously makes a better article for people to marvel at... however, just adds fuel There is nothing vitally wrong with the law as it stands, but the application and distortion of it needs to be challenged by us all. We are after all facilitators and not restrictors! This kind of thing is the biggest challenge to health and safety practice overall. Funny how you never hear about the things that HR or Equality and Diversity people put in place?

To save forum users from frothing with indignation, I'd better not mention that some journalists are reportedly paid considerable, nay obscene, sums of money to write their nonsense, especially for national newspapers! However, a few parts of the media do demonstrate some intelligence and understanding of OS&H. One example is that of "Private Eye" satirical magazine which in part thrives on exposing the foibles and inconsistencies of other parts of the media. Earlier this year it contained a snippet about someone who lived on the second floor of a multi-storey apartment block and took out a subscription to "The "Guardian" newspaper after receiving a promotion leaflet through his letterbox. He subsequently discovered and complained that his subscription copies were being dumped in the block's public foyer instead of being delivered through his letterbox. The response was that delivering to his door on the second floor would involve an unacceptable risk to health and safety - or words to such effect. Therefore, pondered the article, why was the deliverer of the leaflet (presumably from a contractor engaged by the newspaper) allowed to be exposed to such risk?!! It could be argued that "Private Eye" is about the nearest one gets to a free (i.e. uninhibited) press in the UK. However, having been a long-term subscriber, perhaps I'm slightly biased in this view. Also, though there's no guarantee, it might be worthwhile sending to the magazine examples of 'health & safety' being misused. For those acquainted with the magazine, such submissions might even get published from time to time under the common title of "elf n safetyballs"!

I agree with Bill. Once again, it's the way that H&S legislation is perceived and applied, (or used as an excuse), that brings the entire H&S industry into disrepute. (and not the actual legislation itself). Instead of being angry at the gutter press, maybe we should direct our disgust at such companies and especially those who employ jobsworth H&S staff & adopt completely OTT policies and rules.

Paul S makes some valid points. It would be interesting if possible to find out whether or not the delivery guys knew of overshoes and had even suggested them to their bosses. Over the years I've come across various employees, including some safety reps, who had thought about problems in their work and also practical solutions to them. Sadly, some bosses rejected or ignored the solutions offered without any valid reason. Perhaps this was because of a misperception by such bosses that they themselves should have identified the solutions and to accept them from their 'underlings' would somehow undermine their authority and status. Call me cynical but this attitude appears to be a significant symptom of poor managements in the UK. In case these comments are perceived as a general swipe at all managements, it's pertinent to comment that there are also some good and effective bosses who do listen and implement good ideas from their employees (sometimes with due credit). As a result, everybody and the organisations involved benefit from the good ideas. p.s. On a jocular note stemming from some earlier responses, is it appropriate to establish categories for some forum users? Potential categories could include despairados and wailers. To help prove their credentials should wailers be advised to read the "Daily Wail" and simultaneously gnash teeth - either their own or supplied?!! p.p.s. When I used the spellchecker just now, it queried "p.s." just above and suggested "pus" instead. Perhaps I have a quirky sense of humour, but I'm now in the habit of using the spellchecker to look for amusing suggested alternative words as much as check for typing errors.