Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
jay  
#41 Posted : 16 June 2011 09:09:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

The decision to prosecute or not ultimately lies with the CPS, not the HSE. It is my belief that some of the so called high profile prosecutions that have made headlines were probably more CPS than HSE. Also, as police obviously interact with public, there is a fine dividing line in the application of Section 3, such as the Menezes shooting --yes, it was a failure of command, but not an HSE decision to prosecute! http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...ecord/2006/ind190706.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...ecord/2007/sun110507.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2006/e06078.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...ecord/2006/sun180706.htm http://news.hse.gov.uk/2...hief-executive-responds/ http://www.hse.gov.uk/se...32903%3Akous-jano68#1026
jay  
#42 Posted : 17 June 2011 10:08:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

The HSE has just released on what new webpage its revised version of how it will apply enforcement in responding to (non-construction) public safety incidents where section 3 HSWA applies ! It also clarifies that to enable HSE to meet its enforcement priorities, less priority will be given to the enforcement of section 3 in the areas lised where other regulators have responsibilities; specific considerations will relate to each of these areas. http://www.hse.gov.uk/en...ce/hswact/priorities.htm
cliveg  
#43 Posted : 17 June 2011 10:32:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cliveg

Jay Thanks very much for this - very interesting!! Clive
Graham Bullough  
#44 Posted : 17 June 2011 13:07:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

Cliveg's closing comment above prompts the following observation: When anyone, whether police officers or members of the public, commit a heroic act and either remain unscathed or are not seriously injured, they tend to be hailed as heroes by senior police officers and news reporters, etc. In some cases the heroes later receive official recognition in the form of bravery awards. News reporters - and their readers/viewers - love cases of heroes, especially if video footage happens to be available. One relatively recent example on the TV and internet news was that of a granny who while shopping spotted thugs with implements trying to break the windows of a high street jewellery shop. While other shoppers froze in amazement and/or fear, she launched into belting the thugs with her handbag, prompting them to abandon their raid and flee on their scooters. However, if she had been killed or seriously injured during her intervention, it is likely that she would have been described as foolhardy, etc in her attempt to tackle the thugs. Such comments would probably also be accompanied by a comment that members of the public should call the police in such circumstances rather than try to take direct action. Life can be very unfair at times.
RayRapp  
#45 Posted : 17 June 2011 14:39:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

It has been a good thought provoking thread. Picking up on Graham's erudite comments, I would like to add that many aspects of health and safety and the law, perhaps reflecting life in general, is often influenced by hindsight bias. It is all too easy to criticise after the event. There is a clear distinction between a risk and an outcome - risk is constant but the outcome is often unpredictable.
walker  
#46 Posted : 17 June 2011 15:01:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Graham, All members of the press are parasites that feed off other people’s words & actions. What they feed on then has to be converted (twisted & embellished facts) before it becomes a palatable product to be regurgitated and absorbed by a prejudiced audience. Real reporters ceased to exist years ago as its far easier and exciting to make stuff up than write a factual report. Most editors seem to be semi literate and hide behind goggle and spell check as can be witnessed by mistakes (not simple typos) in virtually any publication you care to read.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
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.