Another view of the story

http://www.constructione...jailed-for-manslaughter/

Murray

It's really frustrating that:
A - The general Press are only reporting Mr Golding as being 'qualified' rather than any other adjectives. But I suppose this is only to be expected.
B - The specialist Press magazines, such as SHP etc are regurgitating the same press release type information, rather than the details that their specialist readership would like to know.

Why are the specialist Press, not just SHP, not providing their readership with the greater depth that we might expect from specialist publications?

Well I'm guessing he must of been at least GradIOSH or Chartered (I guess?) re: Qualified?

IOSH doesn't "qualify" anyone to my knowledge.

It is a membership club - no more. Or am I missing something.

Jon

Well, simply the reported 'qualification' of the individual. I realise the general Press are often limited on space, but it's such a throwaway phrase.
A bit like saying the Cross Channel Swimmer is qualified, and then we discover all they had was a coloured ribbon for one width of the pool when at school (am I showing my age; they get nice badges now I understand).

I often find people with little or no qualification trading as 'H&S Consultants'.

There is someone in my region now whose website claims "the skills to deliver your project requirements in connection with Health, Safety, Quality, Fire and Environmental Management, with our consultancy and training services."
His top qualifications being:
A NEBOSH NGC gained in 2005
Courses for ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9000:2000 (these are somewhat behind...)

Now if this guy wants to work in-house as an employee, that's fine, but to be marketing himself as a top level all-rounder 'Consultant', he's a disaster waiting to happen.

So when someone attracts bad publicity to the profession, such as getting jailed, it would be nice if there was a process of full disclosure in the Press.

That way some company owners/employers might actually pay attention to what they are getting as a Consultant.

That might be very unfair on the fellow, Route66, you are ignoring his nine years of experience in the field of H&S !

How many years experience do you have?

I gained my first formal qualification around 15 years ago, with many years 'safety' experience before that.
This individual on gaining his NGC, landed very much on his feet and states 5 years with a recycling company, before setting up on his own. So he hopefully knows a lot about the recycling world, but my point being that someone with limited qualifications and no obvious CPD shouldn't be touting themselves as a 'Consultant'.
People get in consultants as experts in their field. Would you employ a mathematics expert who only had an A level; no you'd expect at least a degree and ongoing development since.

But how often do we see people of Gen Cert or technician/Grad IOSH standard being the sole H&S person in an organisation? By definition we would expect that chartered persons are competent within their experience parameters but other grades????

Aside from any legal loopholes that allowed this company to escape mention, while the individual was described as 'independent', now that I also know the name of the company, I've noted that the IOSH and OSHCR logos are both used in breach of their respective T&C of use.
Unless organisations are going to enforce their rights in such matters, what's the point of the T&C?
We're in a profession where getting it right matters.
Without understating the severity of this incident, I do wonder if being allowed to breach what many would consider minor 'rules', fosters an attitude that creeps into other aspects of the job.
Basically, being gash in one area then spreading across the organisation.

I have a the NEBOSH Occupational H&S Cert and the Construction Cert, distinction in both, but there is no-way I would set myself up as a H&S advisor outside the electrical field. Would I feel happy about giving a talk to scaffolding people about how to build an erection or others involved in a serious excavation? Only if it were within my very limited certain knowledge (practically none)

Let's be honest here, a two week course in Occupational and two weeks on the Construction course does not even begin to cover site safety. Unless the person has an in-depth hands-on reservoir of experience to draw on there is only one outcome possible. I try, along with many others no doubt, to stick to what I know and keep my hands-in-pockets when out of my depth. Others 'think' they know and deem themselves as 'competent'.

Only others can call you competent and only then if they are adequately trained in that particular field and only then if they have had training as an Assessor (IMHO of course).

I have very little time for painters or brick layers who give 'advice' on electrical matters and I would expect the same from the same people if I started dishing it out to their trade.

John, I resigned from IOSH (Tech IOSH) for the reasons #20. If the 'leaders' don't take H&S seriously, if the HSE are as effective as fart in a thunder storm, if the legal system is useless, clueless and spineless then will the last one out please flick the lights off.

And if you think it's bad in H&S you would have a fit if you looked into our electrical trade. I kid you not.

What a diabolical slur on all members who are not chartered.

In my time within H&S I have come across some excellent health and safety experts in their field of expertise. Just because they have not pursued chartered status (requiring an all round knowledge of stuff they'll never need or use and being a club member) does not mean that they are not competent within their working field. Also most of those employed within companies are employed precisely because they have the knowledge and expertise not the grand? title of CMIOSH.

I suggest Boblewis you owe a lot of Affiliates/Techs/GRAD members a resounding apology for this unwarranted slur with no backup to reality. Or perhaps you have proof and can justify your statement - if so where is it?

It's comments like yours that has lead to IOSH being considered the be all and end all in respect of H&S - which is not true and has lead to loads of members not renewing membership.

No doubt some of the IOSH members will wait a long time for your apology. With some members having opinions like you I am now seriously considering not renewing membership. Its a disgraceful state of affairs and you should be ashamed of yourself

Hilary is spot on, as is John M but less politely. I know a lot about safety in health & social care environments, I am rapidly learning about the other areas my current employer is involved in, but I let my (very experienced) team lead me by the nose for now. Put me on a building site and I might well kill somebody. That's not to say I don't know about construction safety, for a given value of 'know', but I have absolutely no practical experience (apart from some work as lump labourer back in 1980s) of the actual trades. By the same token, I have found to my cost that people with good experience of manufacturing/construction environments can be dangerous in hospices & care homes.

What I think about CMIOSH vs TechIOSH etc is fairly complex, but this I think may be true. Getting the charter, whether through the academic or practical route, is often an indicator of flexibility and a desire to learn new things. Not entirely, I too have meet very capable safety people with no letters after their names, but I think there may be some correlation,

John

I agree with many of the points that have been raised here, but I would also like to point out the following:

The Independent consultant was an employee of a consultancy practice – he was not the owner/director of the practice just an employee.

He had been a member of IOSH at an associate grade, but this had lapsed many years ago.

This is why I questioned his employers (the consultancy practice).

Having spent almost 25 years in H&S mainly based in the construction/civils side of things I do see people enter with so little experience coupled with low level qualifications who then embark on becoming consultants.

I believe the consultants employer has an obligation to ensure that they receive sufficient professional development and if requiring 1on1 mentoring and even chaperoning until they are let loose on an industry that has a myriad of technical challenges.

It’s easy to say that this chap had been a H&S professional for 9 years. When in those years he may of only been exposed to certain aspects and without further training or guidance left him limited in terms of capability.

This does not just apply to associate members of IOSH, having interviewed many people over the years at their Peer Review Interviews and asked them about their plans for the future, many say they are looking at the world of consultancy and pick a high risk industry such as construction.

What worries me is that the majority of these people have not been based in any role that has any construction bias whatsoever, so their knowledge and experience is going to be severely limited.

and the link is

http://www.healthandsafe...om-golding-milosavlevici

we live in a country who worships capitalism to the extreme and anybody can call themselves anything they want to as clients do not check competence as the norm as all they care about is cheapness, and its interesting that dirty washing is cleaned in public e.g. this discussion page; unlike all the professions who keep things secret ---------- recently I attended an event where ~120 school H&S people were present and not one of them had any sort of academic qualification nor had practicable experience yet we let our children attend such places and the authorities do not bother!

As an example I am setting up another business in another area and the authorities inclusive of insurers are not interested in anything except that I have registered for tax purposes and have not asked for any sort of comment [irrespective of proof] that I am competent to undertake this new venture. I have asked the question but blankness is all I get back about competence even from the local EHO's who are supposed to monitor such areas

And this site is a good example where people who are not in the profession somehow get H&S jobs/are given H&S jobs-responsibilities and then we supply them with free answers to questions that are sometimes so basic it makes my hair stand on end to think that workforce's are reliant on such people

That said there are lots of good none H&S people out there who are given H&S jobs and are trying hard so I am not getting at everybody but the profession [if I can call it that as the occupation is not listed as a profession on the gov lists of professions?!] needs to stop giving away free advice [as I have argued for over many years] as free advice has undermined those working as H&S people to the point that it is a joke in many areas

All the above said is it not amusing that the one job that gets the most negative things chucked at it by the press and gov in particular and is not seen as a profession is the one job where we see people put in prison and fined for making mistakes - I have yet to see a HR, IT, legal, account etc. person reprimanded never mind put in prison or fined

Rant over - cannot wait to start my new venture in the new year as no HSE looking over my shoulder

FireSafety101, I was put in a position of making a 'fire risk assessment' with my last-but-one firm. Was I competent to do it? NO! Was I trained to do it? NO!. . I flagged it up in the assessment by saying so. I flagged other issues before being made 'redundant'. There and many firms (small to medium in my case) who really don't give a whatever as long as someone is scared to loose there job.

FS101

Not working at this moment FS. I spent 6 month teaching our armed forces lads electrical work when they were on the MOD resettlement program and/or returning from Afgan and retiring into civy street. But the firm lost the contract so the past 12 weeks I've been kicking the walls mate :-) At 61 it don't get easy :-) but living the dream. Not an easy path H&S, I'm glad I have electrical

I agree entirely with this comment, it's about knowing your limitations. However, not everyone agrees; when doing my NGC 2 years ago (yes I am a lowly TechIOSH) after just one day on the fire safety training syllabus the tutor asked the question as to whether people were now trained enough to carry out a FRA, on hearing the entire room state no the trainer then declared that we were in fact fully trained and good to go!
I disagreed with this completely but fell on deaf ears I'm afraid, and no doubt this guy has taught dozens more courses, telling hundreds of students who haven't even at that time passed NGC that they are trained and competent to carry out a FRA, regardless of what background they have or what scenario they are working in - I found this advice to be irresponsible, if not dangerous.

Adding further to this, our site (chemical process) falls under DSEAR with having 100+tonnes methanol stored at any one time, my manager has for the last 2 years told me I am competent to carry out a FRA, which I have thus-far resisted, instead bringing in external help from people far more qualified and experienced than me (know your limits). A recent independent Risk Control Audit initiated by our insurers saw my manager ask this question of the auditor, who himself confirmed his opinion that I'm qualified to carry the FRA out.

When people are dishing this type of advice out it makes it difficult for those with H&S responsibilities to stand up and say they aren't qualified enough for this. Which is why individuals probably end up on this forum asking for help and advice, especially if they feel their job depends on it.

Alan

Fire risk assessment is certainly not something that NGC or Dip or BSc in general H&S covers in anything like sufficient depth. I don't think that something like the Nebosh fire cert on its own does, for that matter. Competence is as always a mix of knowledge and experience, and you can't gain experience on a course

It does depend on your environment, certainly, somebody doing a FRA for a portakabin in a field needs a lot less in the way of technical knowledge than somebody like Alan would - if he took the FRA for his workplace on himself which so far he's been honest enough to resists.

I did my first FRA some 15 years ago in response to the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regs; anybody remember them? I was rubbish at the time, and my risk assessment was lamentable. By the time the RRFSO (and Fire (Scotland) Act) came in I had learnt a lot, mainly by talking to fire officers, reading lots of stuff, including, in my case and for my environment HTMs and Building Regs, and talking to people who understand how structures are nailed together. Nowadays I reckon I'm just about competent to do a risk assessment of, say, a small to medium healthcare premises, a shop, or office type workplaces with limited hotworks. Anything beyond that is well beyond me. Part of the problem is the lack of any authoritative interpretation of the law (the Guidance series have no legal authority), and the resulting lack of anything like a recognised level of competence for fire risk assessment. Yes there are trade bodies, but their standards are not universally applicable.

John