Rank: Forum user 
|
The HSE website gives the following advice about Christmas lights:
Myth: Indoor Christmas lights need a portable appliance test (PAT) every year
The reality: Lots of companies waste money in the false belief they need to test their Christmas lights annually, or even don't put them up at all! By following a few sensible precautions, such as checks by the user for obvious signs of damage, every workplace can switch on safely and sparkle!
http://www.hse.gov.uk/my...ths/christmas-lights.htm
Is it just me or does anyone else find the HSE's headline grabbing myth busters and FAQs a bit vacuous and unhelpful. It's all very well saying the lights don't need to be tested annually but what are they suggesting instead?; two yearly, five yearly, never? What about "checks by the user for obvious damage" - such as? I also find it frustrating that they never seem to have a link to give feedback on their various bold assertions. If they did then they could fine tune them to make them actually useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
BuzzLightyear wrote: I also find it frustrating that they never seem to have a link to give feedback on their various bold assertions. .
I agree with you entirely, especially this last comment. There is no method of engaging with HSE, they offer no means of contact on general issues. IOSH meets with them on a regular basis and I did get some input by that means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
My feeling is that the gimmick has run its course and they're struggling to come up with content. Additionally, I suspect the people who really know about safety stuff are involved less and less. It's a PR tool not a safety tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
BuzzLightyear wrote:
Is it just me or does anyone else find the HSE's headline grabbing myth busters and FAQs a bit vacuous and unhelpful.
It's not just you.
The point at which I tuned the whole thing out was when they said that a ban on dogs in a cafe was nothing to do with health and safety, it just about hygiene. Hygiene is apparently not at all related to health, or safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I predict it will end in tears before too long.
Something HSE say is OK will turn out to be "not OK" and there will be recriminations
Until then, HSE will carry on crawling to their political masters
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=safetyamateur] It's a PR tool not a safety tool.
I think that's beginning to sum up HSE in its entirety
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just ban Christmas, or at least the 'commercial' Christmas 'rammed' daily down our throats!
No more Slade, Pogues......... Hallelujah!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
walker wrote:I predict it will end in tears before too long.
Something HSE say is OK will turn out to be "not OK" and there will be recriminations
Until then, HSE will carry on crawling to their political masters
It's called the employer:employee relationship. If you've ever worked for an employer, then you will know who has control. If you're disatisfied with the current situation, and lack of access to HSE, then there is no point blaming HSE, but complain to your MP.
Another thought, perhaps we could get everyone on this forum to email HSE and complain of the lack of access for information and feedback, such that HSE can then go to their "political masters" with evidence that access needs to be restored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
HSE should (emphasis on should) have more important things to do. The real scary issue at this time of year is the old, single insulation, poorly wired lights that creep into the workplace. Not a mention.
Similar problems with their anti-humbug on hanging decorations in the office. All well and good - unless you have an AIB ceiling that is.
There are enough organisations out there banging out this type of message (LAs, fire authorities, RosPA, etc.). HSE have nothing to add here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: farmsafety perhaps we could get everyone on this forum to email HSE and complain of the lack of access for information and feedback, such that HSE can then go to their " 
Or perhaps the forum members could form themsleves into a group (we could call it an institution), elect leaders and then get them to challenge HSE and the government of the day with our concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bah humbug!
It doesn't matter as the world will end on 21 December.....hope you all have your risk assessments done and preventative measures identified - seems there are only 2 islands that will be spared, might be a bit cramped though!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for that Jonty;
I need not bother trying to think of a christmas present for my wife now.
Big load off my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Out of interest, does anyone know what the potential repercussions are for a company that does not display the HSE Law Poster? I placed an order for them 6 weeks ago and am still waiting for it to arrive despite various emails/phone calls trying to get a definitive answer of when I will get it. I found it astounding that a legally required poster was out of stock and unavailable for such a long period of time. I just wondered where I'd stand if something happened and it was discovered that a law poster wasn't being displayed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
grim72 wrote:Out of interest, does anyone know what the potential repercussions are for a company that does not display the HSE Law Poster? I placed an order for them 6 weeks ago and am still waiting for it to arrive despite various emails/phone calls trying to get a definitive answer of when I will get it. I found it astounding that a legally required poster was out of stock and unavailable for such a long period of time. I just wondered where I'd stand if something happened and it was discovered that a law poster wasn't being displayed?
2 years imprisonment and a public flogging - thats assuming its your first offence and given the mitigating circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Potentially or realistically?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Getting back to my original posting which was questioning the half-baked HSE website advice, I wonder, does anyone know if anyone high up in the HSE visits this forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If they did, I doubt they'd ever come back again.................
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:If they did, I doubt they'd ever come back again.................
That's true! ;-)
I do wonder though whether there are many high up [reference removed] or other HSE employees that issue press releases and web content, whether they are members of IOSH?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I like Christmas. You get to trip over all the office people throwing up on the pavement etc. All the jolly rough sleepers beggging for money so they, in turn, get risk assessed (to see if they can run etc) then get mugged. All the 'adds' on tv asking me to pay £3 a month to save a doomed wild cat or monkey. Sorry, you're right Ban christmas, and all the other risks....
I wonder if anyone has put an RA for shopping
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
zimmy wrote:I like Christmas. You get to trip over all the office people throwing up on the pavement etc. All the jolly rough sleepers beggging for money so they, in turn, get risk assessed (to see if they can run etc) then get mugged. All the 'adds' on tv asking me to pay £3 a month to save a doomed wild cat or monkey. Sorry, you're right Ban christmas, and all the other risks....
I wonder if anyone has put an RA for shopping
I think you have the wrong thread. You need to log in to the Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse Grumpy Old men hating christmas thread ;-). This one is the grumpy old thread about HSE's shallow press releases and dubious web advice about christmas lights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Lights are so cheap now do people still put them away? We throw ours saves all the F-ing and Blinding trying to untangle them, or has that become a Christmas custom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
I'm sure that staff at the HSE must read this forum. But you can probably guess: no red faces for factually incorrect information because they never change it and they never apologise.
ClairL you must have experience of this in a former life.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Invictus wrote:Lights are so cheap now do people still put them away? We throw ours saves all the F-ing and Blinding trying to untangle them, or has that become a Christmas custom.
And yet your Groups include "Environmental and Waste Management"??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:Invictus wrote:Lights are so cheap now do people still put them away? We throw ours saves all the F-ing and Blinding trying to untangle them, or has that become a Christmas custom.
And yet your Groups include "Environmental and Waste Management"??
Just what I was thinking.
Why bother saving the planet if it means you have to put away your Christmas lights properly each year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I do think that people on the forum have become unecssarily pumped over this.
Let's look at it at face value. All they are saying is, look you don't have to PAT everything and certainly don't ban things, when just a simple look will do.
That on the face of it is a very good simpe message.
Now dig deeper and yes it would be nice if they stopped sitting on the fence so much and gave more specific guidance but that is another debate entirely. When it comes to getting a message across simplicity is best and so too many details can detract from that simple message. This is not just about H&S it is about communicating a message to the masses and there are ways to do that.
As most of you know I am all too happy to criticise the HSE for their many faults and having worked for them feel somewhat justified in doing so. But there seems to be a little HSE bashing scenario going on in some instances on this forum.
It's a good simple message IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
quote=Clairel]I do think that people on the forum have become unecssarily pumped over this.
Let's look at it at face value. All they are saying is, look you don't have to PAT everything and certainly don't ban things, when just a simple look will do.
That on the face of it is a very good simpe message.
Now dig deeper and yes it would be nice if they stopped sitting on the fence so much and gave more specific guidance but that is another debate entirely. When it comes to getting a message across simplicity is best and so too many details can detract from that simple message. This is not just about H&S it is about communicating a message to the masses and there are ways to do that.
As most of you know I am all too happy to criticise the HSE for their many faults and having worked for them feel somewhat justified in doing so. But there seems to be a little HSE bashing scenario going on in some instances on this forum.
It's a good simple message IMO.
I agree with you that messages need to be simple. At the same time I feel that too much simplicity can be dangerous. I guess I find HSE statements like this annoying because it seems to give the impression that Christmas lights are low risk and nothing to be bothered about - or at least I think that is how some people will interpret their message. May be it's myth or reality but there is a common message that Christmas lights are one of the riskier electrical items. Low voltage LED lights seem to be replacing mains voltage lights in the shops and the risks for these must be a lot lower or even negligible. However there are still probably plenty of mains voltage lights that get dusted off from lofts and cupboards every year.
In response to your comment about HSE bashing. Yes I guess I am HSE bashing. I know an inspector and administrator at the HSE for whom I have a great deal of respect. However, I do get very frustrated with the un-answerable HSE PR machine that seems to come out with rather brash statements that I personally don't agree with. Just my opinion. This latest statement from HSE is one of many that I disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
BuzzLightyear wrote:quote=Clairel]
I agree with you that messages need to be simple. At the same time I feel that too much simplicity can be dangerous. I guess I find HSE statements like this annoying because it seems to give the impression that Christmas lights are low risk and nothing to be bothered about - or at least I think that is how some people will interpret their message. May be it's myth or reality but there is a common message that Christmas lights are one of the riskier electrical items. Low voltage LED lights seem to be replacing mains voltage lights in the shops and the risks for these must be a lot lower or even negligible. However there are still probably plenty of mains voltage lights that get dusted off from lofts and cupboards every year.
Well I think christmas lights are low risk. There will be relatively few of the old style christmas lights left in service because as much as anything you wouldn't get the replacement bulbs nowadays! But even so, PAT is not required even for older lights. That is the whole myth that the HSE are rightly trying to get away from - that PAT is required or even hat PAT means something is safe, when we all know it doesn't mean that at all.
I still think the message is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Clairel wrote:BuzzLightyear wrote:quote=Clairel]
I agree with you that messages need to be simple. At the same time I feel that too much simplicity can be dangerous. I guess I find HSE statements like this annoying because it seems to give the impression that Christmas lights are low risk and nothing to be bothered about - or at least I think that is how some people will interpret their message. May be it's myth or reality but there is a common message that Christmas lights are one of the riskier electrical items. Low voltage LED lights seem to be replacing mains voltage lights in the shops and the risks for these must be a lot lower or even negligible. However there are still probably plenty of mains voltage lights that get dusted off from lofts and cupboards every year.
Well I think christmas lights are low risk. There will be relatively few of the old style christmas lights left in service because as much as anything you wouldn't get the replacement bulbs nowadays! But even so, PAT is not required even for older lights. That is the whole myth that the HSE are rightly trying to get away from - that PAT is required or even hat PAT means something is safe, when we all know it doesn't mean that at all.
I still think the message is right.
On reflection, I think you are right about there being relatively few old style lights left. I do not understand however why PAT testing would not have been necessary on the old 240 volt style lights. Being used and abused and connected directly to a flammable item (christmas tree), wouldn't that make them high electrical and fire risk?
HSE used to say that carbon monoxide alarms were not necessary because they do not ensure boilers are safe - it's maintaining gas boilers that matters. However, they later changed their advice and rightly so in my opinion to recommend both. Similarly, LOLER examinations should not be required if lifting appliances are correctly maintained but they are just as an extra cautionary check. Cars have services and MOTs - not just servicing, so why would the same principle not apply to high-risk portable appliances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Don't bother PA Testing, throw them out, buy a new set.
If only politics was as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Kim Hedges wrote:Don't bother PA Testing, throw them out, buy a new set.
If only politics was as simple as that.
OK, so how about this as the statement HSE should have said:
"No need to PAT test christmas lights. If they are low voltage, as most are these days, just a simple visual check for damage is OK. If you have old mains voltage christmas lights, replace them. Here are a couple of photos showing you how to tell the difference:
<<mains voltage powered lights - clearly showing the standard plug>>,
<<low voltage lights clearly showing the transformer/adapter plug>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
BuzzLightyear wrote:Kim Hedges wrote:Don't bother PA Testing, throw them out, buy a new set.
If only politics was as simple as that.
OK, so how about this as the statement HSE should have said:
"No need to PAT test christmas lights. If they are low voltage, as most are these days, just a simple visual check for damage is OK. If you have old mains voltage christmas lights, replace them. Here are a couple of photos showing you how to tell the difference:
<<mains voltage powered lights - clearly showing the standard plug>>,
<<low voltage lights clearly showing the transformer/adapter plug>>
1. Far too helpful
2. Annoyingly easy to read
3. Lacks whiney "please stop saying H&S is horrible" tone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Xmas lights are not portable appliances. They are not hand held appliances. They are to all intense and purposes fixed but temporary lighting. :-)
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Dam, out of hiding!!! Now Sean will find me
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.