Rank: Forum user 
|
Anyone have any thoughts on Lawrence Waterman's article in the IOSH magazine in January.
He's saying the HSE needs a critical friend and that the dependence upon written documents in court cases is worrying.
https://www.ioshmagazine.com/article/being-critical-friend-authorities#comment-6271
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Graham
I am glad you paraphrased LW's article because for the life of me I could not follow what point(s) he was trying to make. Even now I'm struggling to find a tangible link between a 'friend' and written documents in court. I do agree, however, that lawyers in court do get bogged down in what seems to us to be trivial matters in order to gain some advantage. In that respect, nothing has really changed since Charles Dickens' days aka Jaundice and Jaundice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I don't really agree with the premise of the article that appears to suggest that the health and safety community are "banner wavers" for the HSE, or with the implication that somehow the HSE is not put under the same regulatory scrutiny as other regulatory bodies.
I think the HSE has undergone two or three government-commission independent reviews in order to decide if it is fit for purpose. The actions and decisions of the executive are regularly challenged too - challenges are regularly made against Notices in the form of appeals, industry expert witnesses regularly disagree with HSE expert witnesses on issues such as established industry practices or "reasonable practicability", the actions (or inactions) of the HSE can be questioned by the criminal and coroner's courts, and those who feel that the HSE has failed to safeguard their health or safety in their role as a regulator can also have their case independently examined. And thats not to mention that Companies accused of breaking health and safety law regularly plead "Not Guilty" which is a direct challenge to the view of the Executive that the company has indeed broken that law. If there is a "united" community waving banners from the sidelines, I am kinda wondering where they are.
As for the focus on paperwork, from the cases I have seen the focus has tended to be on the risk. The HSE sets out to prove that a risk existed and that that risk was not either eliminated, controlled or whatever. Paperwork forms a body of evidence of course, but what court case is different? The article seems critical of the the reliance on witness statements but it is my understanding that witness statements from a crucial part of proving or disproving guilt in many, many criminal (and civil) law cases. May the author has a problem with how the justice system functions? I don't know.
The article then goes on to mention Fee for Intervention and discusses the "reality of HSE enforcement strategies". From my understanding, HSE enforcement strategies have not changed despite the introduction of Fee of Intervention. The Enforcement Management Model is applied and a material breach is either detected or it isn't. Fees have nothing to do with it. Is the author somehow trying to suggest that HSE is deliberately focussing on finding smaller breaches in order to recover costs? And if he is suggesting this, has he got evidence of it or he just thinking big thoughts?
I did read the article a few times but I failed to get excited. I suppose that in the eyes of the author that probably makes me a banner waver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Fascinating. I'm intrigued at the idea that the only time a regulator encounters resistance is at a not guilty plea. Former head of h&s for London Olympic Delivery Authority. I'm sure his interactions with the HSE were only through the Courts..... That's a very mangled argument he's made.
However, if you give an advocate poor paperwork to argue against, they will argue it to best of their ability. That is their job - to present the worst possible case. Defence will present the best possible case. Both sides will inevitably make a mountain out of a molehill. The real hard decisions have already been done in advance - the decision to prosecute by the HSE/LA is where gap analysis and risk profiling should have been done. And that shouldn't be just on the basis of poor paperwork - that's merely part of the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
'I'm not being funny' or critising anyone, but I am already fed up of the phrase 'a critical friend'. Whatever happened to people just being honest. I have sat in a meeting where managers are telling people where they have gone wrong or could improve and the first thing they say is I hope you don't mind but as a critical friend I would do this.........
Must be the new buzz phrase, well as a 'critical friend' stop saying it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Surely Mr Waterman knows about the Consultative Document process? If the HSE needs critical friends then they have it through this medium. If we do not agree with legal changes about to be foisted upon us, then we can read the Consultative Document and register our dismay/disgust/delight or whatever withteh HSE. It provides critical feedback, always has done, and it works.
He seems confused about the judicial system and the requirement to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Clearly in any legal case there will be paperwork and supporting documentation. Risk assessments don't have to be recorded but how would you prove that you did it otherwise? Quite clearly we record them to cover our personalliberty as well as providing a record for staff and the authorities.
I totally agree with the term "critical friend" what does it even mean?
Friend definition, a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard
critical, hypercritical, faultfinding, captious, carping, censorious, mean, inclined to look for and point out faults and defects
How do these two words even fit together?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Also can be :- Critical = Vital
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From the article it implied the other use of the word "critical" as in a friend who criticises rather than a vital friend.
|
 1 user thanked hilary for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Well the first two paragraphs went straight over my head due to poor writing/editing. The middle was mildly entertaining and the last unsubstantiated. Who's this guy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bit blunt, Cdc: 'who's this guy?' Just google him. I mean - who are you? I found the piece interesting, readable, and making some good points, although I can see that the connection between court-room paperwork antics and being a critical friend did stretch it a bit. Maybe there were two articles in there. Critical friend in the usual sense of the term (often aligned to consultancy). I agree that as SPs we are reluctant to engage and challenge the HSE - although LW will have had more access to the higher echelons of the HSE than most of us. Just how DO you get to them? Responding to CDs is the only one, limited, accessible means. So everyone commented on the almost secret, unpromoted, proposed change to IND 163 did they?
The HSE are frequently contradictory in their public persona. Hence, I'm sure, the sense of disappointment in LW's article. The long-standing mantra and material of 'keep it simple' HSE information, against the frequent headline statements on court steps, after prosecutions, 'did not have a proper risk assessment' are in conflict.
It's as if the 'information & guidance' part of the HSE is in a different world to the enforcement part. Oh, wait a minute. It is.
If only I could find the way into the HSE to challenge . . . bypassing their semi-automated, standard-response front end 'contact us' barrier.
|
2 users thanked aud for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I can only speak for myself, but I have never been afraid of challenging the authorities, indeed I do it on a regular basis. They are often asking for a Rolls Royce when a Mini Cooper is more than sufficent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: hilary  From the article it implied the other use of the word "critical" as in a friend who criticises rather than a vital friend.
Yes I got my mag on the weekend and yes criticises rather than vital. Though in one or two places a vital friend would benefit them. It did note they don't have friends in the powers that be at the moment. A bit disjointed, but I got the gist, but needs to be read twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
From the article: "an unintended consequence of uniting the whole health and safety “community” as HSE supporters, almost as flag wavers from the sidelines."
No evidence or references provided to support the premise. Perhaps lost in edit, but makes for a particularly weak article and argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.