Several I know and possibly some I don't. However, I doubt the authorities will be interested in investigating the allegations - after all, who wants to be a party pooper?

What really annoys me is the time and money spent providing welfare facilities pursuant to the CDM Regs while others just ignore basic human rights!

If only half of that article is true, then it's still appalling.

Spot on Alex - my Father-in-Law got married on a 24 hour pass & never saw his good lady wife for four years - out in Burma. When I spoke to him about it he stated "well lad I came back, many didn't & the way I see it, it was a character building experience....." No Post Traumatic Stress Disorder there then.... oh & he was a Dunkirk Veteran, one of the last ones off. I think the moral here is; no matter how bad you think things are, there's always somebody worse off.

So - from now on - any health and safety or employment issues will be compared with Veterans from WW2.
Working at Height - we had no fall protection in ww2. Asbestos exposure - huh world war two veterans had to put up with flame throwers and Incendiary bombs.
A new low I think !!

Yes there was for many others ("always somebody worse off" as you said), it was just called something else, or often not acknowledged (i.e. not called anything). My uncle was a Burma POW for 3 years, he had a bit of difficulty re-adjusting to home life......



But moving on from that.....

which H&S regulations have been breached? (post#1)


JohnW

IMHO None. In the meantime I'll concentrate on those I'm trying to protect in a high risk industry.

Sorry Bob but yes we do. There was further interviews from both sides on the West Countryt News last night both for and against.

I dont we should believe everything we see or hear and jump to conclusions about it.

After listening and watching these interviews from the trainees I know what my OPINION is.

Again another thread that has moved away from the initial question.

Regards Alex

How accurate the newspaper reports are it is difficult to say. However, this may have been an isolated incident and affecting only a few. Nevertheless people expect to be treated reasonably well by an employer and lest we forget we are h&s practitioners who are supposed to be concerned about people's health, safety and welfare.

As for the breach in legislation - may I draw your attention to: 'Employers have a general duty under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees at work.'

'Workplace health, safety and welfare. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992: ‘Work’ means work as an employee or self-employed person, and also:
(a) work experience on certain training schemes (Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1990 No 138 regulation 3);'

'At temporary work sites the requirements of these Regulations for sanitary conveniences, washing facilities, drinking water, clothing accommodation, changing facilities and facilities for rest and eating meals (regulations 20-25) apply ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’. Temporary work sites include:
(a) work sites used only infrequently or for short periods; and…'

'Equally in the case of the pageant stewards, not much effort/money was needed to provide better conditions of work or overnight accommodation.'

John, agreed. Given that these wretched souls were paid either nothing or next to nothing, some decent welfare provisions is not a lot to ask.