does anyone have any details of the companies involved. Was the operative freelance or working for a contractor?

According to the oxford dictionary - electrocute means to injure or kill by electricity!!!!

Stop quoting unreliable sources the the OED :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocution

Right every time :)

Maybe we should relect that this guy tragically died on Saturday - rather than on dictionary definitions

Good points 7&8.

Of course there will be some who will revel in rampant speculation based on the flimsiest of information.

I don't always agree with Zimmy, but in this case it's difficult to fault his last sentence.

Bruce

In my opinion it was appropriate last weekend for media sources to publish brief reports that a man had apparently been electrocuted while working at the store and add that a full investigation would be carried out. However, I'm puzzled by your reference to 'preventative impact'. Who, if anyone, do you think would have been influenced, and to what extent, regarding their work arrangements and practices as a result of seeing such brief media reports?

Also, what do you mean by 'raising the profile'? Some readers/viewers of the recent media reports including OS&H professionals will understandably wish to learn more about the circumstances if and when information becomes available from the investigation. However, it's likely that the vast majority of readers/viewers will do no more than fleetingly think that it was sad that someone died at work and have no curiosity as to how or why. This is just my impression of what most members of the public probably think about reports of workplace accidents and deaths, and is certainly not intended to belittle the tragedy of what happened at the M&S store - for the man himself, his relatives and friends, and for others including people working at the store.

With experience as an HSE inspector of investigating and reporting to a procurator fiscal about a workplace electrocution in the 1980s I have some inkling of the effects of such circumstances. Though that electrocution was the subject of reports in local and regional newspapers and possibly on regional TV news, it was apparently not reported nationally. Perhaps it was omitted because other matters were given national reporting precedence or possibly because it wasn't sufficiently newsworthy amid the considerably greater number of workplace fatalities at that time. Though I cannot readily quote statistics for workplace electrocutions, I guess that they are much rarer nowadays. If so, this might partly explain why the recent case received national publicity - alongside media clamour and perhaps public expectation nowadays for instant full information plus speculation and comment about anything and everything!

There is bound to be interest in this incident:

1 M&S is a large retailer, well known and has a solid reputation for providing premium goods that people pay that little bit extra for. They work hard on their reputation and – as research has shown - loss of reputation through health and safety failures is a major concern for such companies.

2 In David Young’s report, implemented by ex Employment Minister Chris Grayling, the retail sector was identified as ‘low risk’. As such, both the HSE and Local Authorities have been ‘encouraged’ to stop visiting these ‘low risk’ premises and concentrate on the ‘higher risk’ activities. Mr Grayling did not curb his deregulatory enthusiasm by publishing any evidence supporting his plans.

3 In September last year M&S [Prosecuted by the HSE] were fined £1 million + £600,000 costs for exposing customers and others to asbestos fibres during two shop refurbishments. As reported in the 28th September 2011 shponline M&S stated that ‘we believe that we have always acted responsibly and with a ‘safety first’ attitude’. Indeed.

The article pointed out that the Company’s own procedures had not been followed. The following is quoted from the article:

‘Last year, Marks & Spencer plc earned before-tax profits of £714.3 million – up almost 13 per cent on the previous year. In its annual report for 2011, chief finance officer Alan Stewart attributed this partly to the company’s focus on “building an efficient business, with prudent operating cost management”.’

4 Electricity and asbestos are not new hazards.

5 Given that the preventive steps to both hazards are well known, it is legitimate to discuss the frustration of these types of incidents occurring without waiting for the details. There is – after all – a bigger picture here.

6 Government policy is based on a ‘myth’ as pointed out by ex Employment Minister Chris Grayling. Increasing 3 to 7 day reporting; getting rid of occupational disease reporting altogether from RIDDOR; exempting self employed who are no risk to themselves or other from H&S law; HSE deleting ‘lower risk’ activities from their inspection regimes to save money; introducing FFI to get more money for the Treasury; 35% slashing of HSE proactive inspections; the dire situation of many Local Authority’s enforcement regime – leave ‘low risk’ activities to concentrate on ‘high risk’ activities; and all the rest are based on no substantive evidence. It is an experiment.

Apparently M&S is one of the better retailers.

Nigel