IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
I will see your Case 22 and raise you a Case 26
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Alistair, I agree it really is pathetic. The HSE are scaling back...due to government cuts in their budget, but can waste time and money on this BS.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Alistair - it's all about keeping the likes of Lord Young happier.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
What absolute nonesense. Ive seen blu- tack on glass for many years no problem at all. Where do the these idiots come from?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I dunno.
Blu-Tack or C-4, easy mistake to make for the uninitiated.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Buzby888 wrote:What absolute nonesense. Ive seen blu- tack on glass for many years no problem at all. Where do the these idiots come from?
Well, yeah but it's also pretty sad that a 12 member 'Myth Busters' panel chaired by Judith Hackett is needed to investigate and report back on such minor complaints. Jumping through these political hoops can't be the best use of resources.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The only time I have problem with blu tack on a window or walls is when it holds displays that then result in no fire break being left.
Other than that H&S is normally used as a reason as managers etc don't want their walls/windows messed up.
SOS
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Agree with you barnaby, unbelievable, your correct son of skywalker, there has always got to be fire break, but that is the same as notice boards etc:etc:
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think I would lose the will to live if I went through all these cases. However there do not seem to be too many related directly to workplace hazards - as opposed to the public.
Also I haven't picked up any that are in relation to 'over zealous' or incompetent H&S Consultants. It's only a few month's worth so the floodgates may open soon!
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=NigelB]...I haven't picked up any that are in relation to 'over zealous' or incompetent H&S Consultants.
It is indeed only a matter of time.
There are so many occurrences of strange, stupid, over-the-top 'rules & regulations' dreamt up and then later knocked down that a substantial proportion should lie at the feet of these 'experts'.
Inevitably, most will not be properly investigated - it's just not worth it - but there is an H&S person involved with or overseeing many of them.
It is that last matter that causes concern and which is used as a get out of jail card - I'm only here to advise or to supervise etc is an all-too-common mantra. When things go so embarrassingly wrong, out it comes as if to absolve all responsibility for failure. But where was that supervision, and how good was the advice given?
If other staff have acted incorrectly, why not challenge the H&S supervisor/adviser/consultant? Their role has certainly not been wholly effective. A little distance do not make it all OK
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course there is a biological agent in all classrooms that can shatter glass - its called children and capable of tremendous damge to the fabric of all buildings. Perhaps we should ban them from all schools. A very popular H&S decision among many I think:-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ian
As the Government were unable to publish any evidence that H&S Consultants were a cause of significant duff advice - inevitably some people will get things wrong and at least two H&S Consultants have been prosecuted - perhaps you have real evidence that could give some perspective as to how serious a problem it is in workplaces for the UK as a whole.
Public safety is not my domain.
Definitely challenge consultants if they get things wrong. Their role may not be 'wholly effective' but then whose is?
Cheers.
Nigel
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am glad we are all in agreement. It gets even worse me thinks. The Sun (my Son buys it not me!) had a two-page spread highlighing the h & s myths and the decisions made by the twelve strong panel. On speaking to my group of friends (all working class Sun readers!) the project is having the opposite effect to what was intended. Instead of showing that these decisions are not based on h & s reasons, people are (predictably in my opinion) just interpreting them as yet more decisions made by that ethereal* group of beings known simply as "h & s".
People like Littlejohn will be having a field day.
*For those of us in the real world, ethereal = Belonging to the sky or the celestial sphere!!!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
#13 this was exactly my fears regarding the panel, it was never going to work and always, in my opinion, going to have the opposite effect. Instead of concentrating on the negative, they need to concentrate on the positive, i.e. publicising case studies of where effective HSM has actually made a difference etc.
It reminds me of when John Major came out saying he didn't like peas (remember the Spitting Image scenes?). Apologies for the tenuous link, but in trying to defend himself it just reinforced the stereotype the public had of him. "He must really like peas then..."
By even discussing such menial non-issues, this is exactly what the myth buster panel is doing....
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I read the two page spread about the myths and initially I thought "Oh no, another slagging off for H&S" - mainly due to the headline about the blu tack.
After reading each one I was pleasantly surprised that very few were H&S related - it's a small step forward for us I think...
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
I will see your Case 22 and raise you a Case 26
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.