Yes

I raised this some time ago. With an excruciatingly arrogant tone, these jokers take the attitude that the term health & safety is theirs and theirs alone, to be viewed from, and only from, the perspective of their own regulatory and legislative framework. Nothing else exists and those who dare to transgress, using the term in any other context, shall be ridiculed. Let them make fools of themselves, and let Hackett do likewise. Eventually, we might hope that this will die the death. If not, I suspect that it will add to the growing cacophony of other concerns regarding the performance of HSE, as individuals and more importantly at the corporate level. It may be messy, but I predict a quiet implosion within a year or so that will see a few heads roll and a general rearrangement of the deck chairs. After that, expect business as normal.

In my view the panel is missing the fundamental reason for the silly examples of health and safety risks being used to stop very low risk activities. The reasons are rooted in: a) first, the all embracing and imprecise requirements that appear in statutory instruments and supporting approved codes of practice, and the lack of relevant industrial experience amongst the drafters. We have reached a position in which no one knows any more what is required to meet the legal requirements, or at the very least, there is wide uncertainty on such issues. Also, regulators have a propensity to take a different view after an accident than they do prior to an accident; b) second, the fact that in many cases the penalties have gone through the roof and are out of all proportion to the level of misdeamers that allegedly have occurred. It is clear that we have drifted from a misdemeanor based justice system to a consequence system, as evidenced by the HSE Enforcement Manual. HSE recognises that there will always be some residual levels or risk but does not appear to have procedures in place to walk away from a serious accident at a place with a good managememnt system and when a remote residual risk has come to fruition. These resons, and more, combine to make duty holders nervous and frightened, and causes them to act, on some occasions, in what appears to be in a disproportion manner.

I think we need to consider who the audience is for the pronouncements - it's the media. And it is working. The message is getting through. I feel the Mythbusters panel is doing a good job. "Health and Safety" is about the real risks of stopping people getting harmed at work. The man in the street is beginning to get the message. I do agree however that the detail of the pronouncements cannot withstand scrutiny by a lawyer or even a switched on health and safety professional. However it doesn't matter. They are intended for the media who don't care about the detail. They want simple messages which they can put in the newspapers which they produce for simple people. And it is working and it is good for Health and Safety and it is good for those of us who practice health and safety. At long last the HSE is doing something right.

HSE forget their job is relatively simple - just interpretation & application of Criminal law. Despite what others have written here the Criminal law stuff is very good in this country IMHO. My job also entails protecting my employers from Civil aspects and thats where all the silly stories originate from.

I strongly agree with most of comments raised so far. The other thing that bugs me about this, is that myth busters do not seem to question the validity of the each media story - just the validity of the 'elf n safety' decision. They muscle in with the news media against the organisation or individual being slated or ridiculed. A bit the bully's side kick. Instead they never seem to investigate the bully themselves (i.e. the newspaper that broke the story). The recent banning of square flap jacks for example sounds very much like a media fabrication/gross exaggeration to me. May be it was, may be it wasn't but they should do a bit of investigative journalism rather trying to score entertaining headline points that are complicit with the newspapers. Surely as a 'myth' busting challenging panel they should be finding out whether the stories they are ranting with are true stories, fabrication or gross exaggeration?

I thought the point of the panel was to challenge decisions made in the name of health and safety? I sent a decision in to them where a public area had banned an activity and the sign said it was banned by "health and safety law" (double underlined). I had no problem with the ban, just with the reference to the law which was clearly wrong. The panel "seemed" to find in favour of the sign, putting me off raising concerns with them again.

I've just seen the picture of Judith Hackett holding a beer glass to illustrate an article. This is the other one where I think they've got it badly wrong. There may be no specific 'Beer Glasses with Handles Prohibition Regs' but the reason for banning them is so that thuggish pub users can't smash them and still have a convenient handle with which to wield the broken glass as a weapon. Protecting your staff is definitely a safety issue.

Would love to feedback to them but how? They only seem to have an online form to report 'elf n safety' stories. The same thing applies to Judith Hackitt who has various blogs but no opportunity to comment.

An interesting dichotomy is developing here. On another thread, questioning the need for a root and branch review, initially of top tier HSE management and then beyond, the response was essentially that they were doing an excellent job, and against all the odds. IOSH were said to support their work, and the tone of responses were that the sun shines out..... I disagree with that, and have made it amply clear that in many ways they are no longer fit for purpose. A rigorous management review is urgently required. The failings are in the main management-oriented but cascade down to affect operational and other activities though some particularly poor business performance. Almost immediately, one IOSH member contacted me directly to say how much he agreed with the comments I had made, and since then 2 more have been kind enough to send their messages of support, but with an explanation that they feel unable to break cover and openly show their support on here. Now, there are several here who agree with comments I have made several times over many months, that these "expert pronouncements" take the phrase "health & safety" as their own, with a meaning that is solidly ring-fenced within the strictly legal framework. And they manage to do that usually in an unpleasantly sanctimonious tone. This panel speaks on behalf of HSE and are presented as a marker of some excellence within the organisation. I think that tells a particular and very sorry tale. If the organisation was well managed with a degree of business nous, that would not happen. But it does. It still does. And despite some limited evidence of recent improvement as noted above this particular advertising activity still does more harm than good. They should be well aware of the importance of reputation, and how to avoid this sort of thing resulting in irreparable damage to that reputation. It's good to see some others agree with me now, but the dichotomy of opinion and apparent sea change is difficult to understand.

I take back what I said about the mythbusters getting more reasonable: "Case 171 - Local gym notice states "hairdryers can only be used for drying hair on the head" Issue The enquirer read a notice in their local gym stating that for "health and safety reasons members are requested only use the hair dryers for hair on the head". Panel decision There is no occupational health and safety legislation regarding the use of hairdryers to dry hair on body-parts other than the head. This is clearly an easy excuse to deter people from using hair dryers inappropriately in a public place and the health club should give the real reason for their decision rather than hiding behind the &health and safety" catch all." Not clear how the sign came about but I wonder if someone was seen drying their privates or bottom with a hair dryer. This could spreads germs around the changing rooms. Therefore S3 of HSWA and COSHH may well apply!

It's worth viewing patterns of similarity between the no-win position of the HSE at present with that of ACAS during the twenty years from 1971. In addition to the truncation of the influence of trades unions from 1979, a sea-change began to develop in H R/Personnel with the increasing acceptance of methods of psychological measurement. It is predictable that the turmoil in OSH will follow a similar pattern of verbal conflicts and conceptual confusion until statistical methods of risk evaluation become part of the standard language of safety management as it is today in some areas of medicine. Regrettably, raising the level of statistical literacy about safety risks to the level required for coherent tripartite conversations may take more than a generation in the UK although it's already fairly customary in some other EU countries, such as Germany and Sweden.

I am not sure I understand how this would work? How would you envisage statistical literacy applying to case 171 for example?

I may be a plastic toy but I do have a science degree and reading your post has left me completely discombobulated.

As an ex-employee of the now defunct HSE Infoline I too cringe at a lot of the "judgements" given by the panel. We used to get a lot of queries to Infoline similar in nature to the cases taken up by the Myth Busters Panel and although the essence of the answers would often be similar (No Sir/Madam there is nothing under H&S law that says you can/cannot... etc) but we would normally mention to the caller that there may be provisions under other regulations as well as duties under common law and refer them on to where they can get more info (such as EHO, DWP,DEFRA as appropriate, or their own solicitor etc). The answers from the panel although truthful are one dimensional and obviously just there put the shine on HSE's somewhat dented and scratched reputation. It is worrying that people may take them as gospel and not question any further.

Jay In now was does any on that explain the quality and appalling tone of the output Ian

The way I see the mythbusters panel is exactly as it says on the tin .... they are there to expel the myths that everything someone doesn't want to do can be excused on the grounds of health and safety. Essentially therefore, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing - taking an issue which has been blamed on health and safety and showing this up to be either a statement of truth or a convenient lie. They are not here to police other aspects of regulations and rules, they are merely there to dispel the myth that everything is health and safety related. As a practitioner with over 20 years experience I get thoroughly cheesed off when I hear the phrase "you can't do that ... health and safety" and to find that a panel of people have been assembled to say "actually, it has nothing to do with health and safety" is just great. So sorry if I run against the grain but as we have spent the last God knows how many years despairing over headlines in newspapers and television programmes and other nonces, I should have thought that some people would just be happy that we are fighting back.

The problem is that they say it is a lie even when it isn't. This arises because they have decided that any time anyone says something is down to health and safety, the panel pretend that they said it was prohibited by HASWA. That is, the panel's prime modus operandi is to play a straw man argument. It is possible for something to be done, quite rightly, for health or safety reasons without it being related to HASWA. But if someone takes that action, and says it is for reasons of health and safety, then the myth panel leap on their soap-box and criticise it - bringing H&S even further into disrepute. The one that revealed to me that they are doing more harm than good was case 11, way back in the first month of operation. A cafe owner did not allow a dog in, citing health and safety. "That's nothing to do with health and safety" say the mythbusters "that's probably just about hygiene". I see, so according to the HSE panel hygiene has nothing to do with health. Food hygiene has no bearing on health, say HSE. If there isn't a regulation in HASWA the HSE panel announce it has nothing to do with health or safety, and this sophistry does H&S no favours.

Or maybe they are directed to that position by their terms of reference? I doubt that the panel members are anything other than committed professionals who work hard to meet their terms of reference. Are those terms relevant, helping the cause or simply causing further confusing is an acceptable debate in my view, Suggestions as to the competence of panel members is not. Whether H&S is or is not in divine ownership is irrelevant. Their TOR limit them to H&S legislation. What they are saying each time is not H&S (legislation) Does that limitation help? Obviously not but if that is taken as read then it does go a long way to explaining their approach.

yes I have. You said at #23 "These HSE jokers are completely wide of the mark".