http://www.hse.gov.uk/my...ouncy-castle-glasses.htm The myth busters say it is "a pity" that the operator of a bouncy castle refused to go against HSE advice. I think this is a new level of barminess even for the myth panel - it's now apparently HSE advice that you should ignore HSE advice even when the advice in question is intended exactly for the situation under consideration. Can anyone see it working as a defence in court - "I knew that was the HSE advice, but it seemed a pity to make someone follow it so I knowingly ignored it..."?

The real pity is that HSE continue to waste resources on this.

The Daily Wail will continue to derive (or create) sustenance irrespective of effort by HSE. HSE are IMHO imparting a degree of credibility by entering this area of discussion. The issues are rarely, if ever, anything to do with H&S or HSE. Any idiot can see this without HSE wasting time attempting to deal with this nonsense.

I am not suggesting anything. I am merely quoting the guidance note. As I said this is not my area and I was just questioning your interpretation of the note. You have me puzzled once again by your reading of the phrase 'if they can'. Surely it simply recognises, as in this case, that some may not be able to use the facility unless they are wearing their glasses. Why would it mean anything else? Does the HSE or any other guidance note ban the wearing of spectacles in any circumstance? If it does then your point is valid; if not then the panel has the validity. Perhaps someone with sector experience would like to comment? I agree with you that the panel is a waste of time and should be closed down. However this is not because of the way they issue notes or any suggested lack of professionalism. It is because the HSE is not the right department to be doing this political posturing; if indeed anyone should be doing it. The purpose is fatally flawed as you note. Lets remember why it was commissioned and the political imperative of the time. Constantly criticising their work is unlikely to improve the 'understanding' of those who are the target audience.

I think adults should be banned from them The only injuries I have seen have been adult drunken idiots who have twisted their knees. Kids seem to bounce more easily.

They are not disabled friendly as there is no access provided for wheelchair users. OK while you have a laugh at what I say think about the wheelchair user who has to sit and watch while his/her friends and siblings have all the fun of the bouncy castle. Not good for self esteem, self confidence and certainly not fun.

The massive trouble is here we live in a sad world where people sue other people for ridiculous things. This is the sad reality. This has nothing to do with statue law or common sense safety... it has everything to do with the type of society we have created.

Don't we need to stop bewailing this "claims culture" and get on with our jobs? Make H&S decisions based on what you believe to be the right course of action and be prepared to stand up and say so afterwards. I didn't mean that to disparage any of what you both said though - just that this is a particular bug of mine. Coincidentally I'm just back (30 mins ago) from an H&S court appearance, which may explain my reaction! Is it pub o'clock yet?

As a glasses wearing child (now a contact lens wearing adult) I would have been a far greater risk without my glasses on a bouncy castle than with them. And so would everyone else!