IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Thursday TV prog: Health and Safety on the Frontline: Tonight
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Here's something for us to discuss on Friday: ITV1 tonight at 19:30
From the ITV website: "Jonathan Maitland investigates whether health and safety legislation for 999 crews has had its day. There were concerns raised during the 7/7 and Cumbria shootings inquiries that red tape prevented some emergency crews helping casualties, and David Cameron has called for a review of health and safety laws. Is it time to scrap these rules and regulations or are front-line workers entitled to the same protection as the rest of us?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Thanks for the notice I'll give it a go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If wanting to be sure you aren't the next gunshot casualty or aren't going to be burnt to a crisp by a live third-rail are seen as "damning evidence" of "burdensome" and "completely barmy" health and safety legislation by some (including a Judge apparently), then I guess we have to at least respect that opinion.
Me, I prefer to call it plain old self-preservation.
Let's put some of these detractors, judges, politicians and senior desk jockeys into these front-line pressure situations and see how they would react shall we? Now THAT would make for good TV. Never mind Sir Alan Sugar's "You're Fired".
We could go with "You're Dead..........................."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
As they rightly say that frontline HM forces are excluded from being prosecuted for acts in the heat of battle..... but they do still adhere to preservation of life... their own, their comrades and even the people who are trying to kill them!
It has always been a golden rule in the emergency services not to endanger their own life whilst attempting to save others and rightly so - nothing has changed.
Being ordered not to enter an area of unknown risks and danger is not uncommon but you cannot change the law on the basis of human behaviour during such dramatic circumstances as 9/11 at the end of the day it is human instinct to try and save a life and will remain so I expect for at least my lifetime!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
So what are they after?
Are we seriously expecting our emergency service personnel to be 'ordered' into life threatening situations, what would happen if a station officer ordered his crew into a tunnel while the 3rd rail was live and one died?
I imagine the same as the officers who are now being prosecuted for sending his firefighters into the building that collapsed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Firemen used to have three aims:
1. to save life
2. to save property from damage,
3. to perform humanitarian services.
To carry out number 1 chances are you have to enter a hazardous situation, happily undertaken by all firemen up until the last ten years or so.
When did anyone carry out a rescue to save a life without entering a situation?
Even when persons were reported missing in a fire situation, (unconfirmed) firemen would enter and carry out a search - what do they do now? (I honestly don't know but any time taken to undertake a risk assessmet is potentially time taken from a person's life).
Why are they now called Fire and Rescue Services?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I just watched the programme and have to say I learnt very little, but probably due to the fact that this issue has been discussed at length on these forums. That said, it was fairly constructive by taking into account polarised views on the subject. Incidentally, never seen or heard of the so-called h&s law expert before, although much that he said made sense.
Arguably the most interesting fact was the poll of emergency services (ambulance crews I think?) which asked if they would put their own lives at risk to save others - only 33% said they would. Now, a great deal could have made of this because it is exactly why h&s legislation is in place to protect emergency staff! However, this was not dwelled upon by the programme makers - shame.
Finally, Chris Grayling waffling away about red tape - yawn. Another example of a bureaucrat who has not a clue what he is talking about. There is clearly some conflict between those who serve and protect the public and taking risks, that there is no doubt. The topical example of fire service managers who have recently been prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter was mentioned. No doubt this case will prove to be very interesting. However, it is important to remember they have not been prosecuted under health and safety legislation - a point which continually seems to get overlooked by the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ray
Thanks for starting this one off.
Firstly can anyone find a section of the HASAWA or any of the regs that actually PREVENT emergency services doing what the public would see as their main role - protecting / saving life? I can't think of any, but would be interested if anyone can.
Secondly, most of the examples shown were due to either poor internal guidance or policies, or over-interpretation of those polices and then usually by someone who doesn't actually have to perform the potentially dangerous act themselves!
The only possible difficulty is obviously s.7 - but surely another myth is emerging here. How many emergency service workers have ever been prosecuted for doing something dangerous in an attempt to save another - I think the answer to that is none. Would CPS ever think such a prosecution was in the public interest - I don't think so. The HSE enforcement guidance also states such a prosecution should only be considered where the act was blatant (stupid?) and the employee had been previously warned. Surely a simple amendment would suffice if it provided a defence in law of the act being undertaken with the intention of saving another from harm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I watched it too, pretty much a non event for me. As Ray said we have covered this quite a lot on this forum and other sources.
But the program was factual and explained some of the events that are driving this major change to how HS is managed.
We have also seen many examples of HS being undermined by the media in the last couple of years, but some of this has been the result of incompetent people mis-interpreting or over-egging HS requirements.
There is no point whinging about Chris Grayling or the Young report, major changes will be made to the way HS Practitioners, Consultants, HSE, Solicitors, and Insurers operate in the future.
Public perception of the above has never been so low and this program will only reinforce the publics view of HS, so don't expect much opposition to proposals once they are published.
IOSH should be getting prepared for some major policy changes.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clive you ask How many emergency service workers have ever been prosecuted for doing something dangerous in an attempt to save another
Ray states The topical example of fire service managers who have recently been prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter was mentioned - isn't that on e example? OK we don't know exactly why those firefighters were sent in but I suggest it was to carry out a search of the premises to ensure no persons present? Even if it was not for that reason they were doing the job they have been trained to do.
IMPO re the shaft rescue the senior fire officer that stopped the rescue should have been disciplined by his seniors. He prevented what was already underway from continuing. When I was in the job (I know yawn yawn) we would do everything possible to effect that rescue, using whatever was to hand, if we had a harness for rescue of firemen we would use that to rescue a member of public.
Good on the firefighter for refusing to leave his casualty, I wonder was he disciplined?
We used to rescue horses and cattle from water logged ditches using hoses, ropes farmer's tractors and anything else. Firemen would immerse themselves under water to get under the animals. No firemen were killed or injured doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In the good old days there were three distinctly different emergency services.
Ambulance service who were there to tend to casualties and take them to hospital.
Police who looked after law and order.
Fire Brigade who would deal with fires and other emergencies and would be first to attend and enter hazardous premises to deal with the incident.
One time the fire and ambulance services were combined and the crews would undertake either role when turned out but not so complex as now.
Nowadays the three are entwined into a complex system of everyone can do everyone else's job. Fire appliances carry defibrillators, police control road traffic accidents (they used to stand back and control the crowd if we were lucky? Police used to request fire brigade assistance for forcing entry into premises, they do that themselves now.
I was surprised not to see anything about the London Bombings. My point on that is the fire crews should have been allowed to do their job as they have been trained to do that. They fully understand about third rails and can operate in darkness with equipment they carry with them.
Firefighters are trained to enter burning buildings and how to look after themselves once inside.
Why are they prevented from doing their job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There were a number of examples in the programme where health and safety allegedly prevented the emergency services from saving or protecting people. I think these were the extreme examples out of countless other incidents where these brave men and women have put themselves in danger. Nevertheless, I believe that most of the examples were through poor management, it is much easier to default to status quo and say no, rather than try to manage a difficult situation. The sad case of the lady stuck in the mine shaft springs to mind. Surely, if the use of winches could be used to save another fire fighter then this should have applied to an injured member of the public in an emergency! A good journalist would have followed this up - alas the programme was never intended be so intrusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The program was the farce I expected it to be. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the story regarding the prosecution of senior fire officers following the deaths of firemen was a bit misleading. There was nothing heroic in this as it was known that the premises were unoccupied, and the decision to send these firemen inside a burning building was negligent and as such those who took that decision should rightly be prosecuted.
On the issue of HM Forces... I myself have served in these conflicts and the number one golden rule when attempting to treat or rescue a comrade always has been, 'do not become a casualty yourself' enough said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I didn't watch the TV programme, so cannot comment directly. However towards the end of my 32 years in the fire service, I did note a rapid change in attitude where 'defensive' (stand outside & pour water on) tactics became to default position, and only after a dynamic risk assessment would 'offensive' (get in there & put the fire out) action be taken.
This is completely contrary to what has been the case for perhaps 100+ years where firemen would enter as the default position and then be withdrawn if circumstances dictated it.
Some of this is down to procedures aimed at legal protection rather than life, property of crew protection. For instance many fire services adopt a policy that two pumps must be in attendance before a crew is committed in breathing apparatus. That used to be a decision for the officer in charge, but that autonomy has been taken over by hard rules. Fair enough perhaps where a warehouse is well alight, but a little tough for a householder with a chip pan alight in a small terraced cottage, who watches while the crew stand around waiting for backup
The other part of this more anxious approach is the lack of confidence in senior fire service managers, many of whom (but not all) are so lacking in confidence and so anxious not to mess their career by making a difficult decision, they would rather make no decision at all.
Chris; recognise any of these examples?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Having watched the programme, and read through the response on this forum, I feel that I need to express my views. In the case of the Fire Managers being prosecuted - I do not know all the facts but my understanding is that there was no reason to believe that there was anyone in the building and due to the severity of the fire and the structure of the premises it was negligent to send a crew inside to fight a fire which could have been tackled externally. Any manager placing their staff at needless risk which then leads directly to them being seriously injured, or killed, would be prosecuted so why should we consider emergency staff of less value? In the case of the lady who fell down the disused mine shaft - again I do not know all the facts but it appears that the initial assessment of her condition led to the conclusion that she may have suffered spinal injuries and it would therefore not be suitable to use the type of hoist on the scene to lift her from the shaft. She was eventually lifted out of the shaft by a specialist unit after quite some delay. I wonder if the Fire Service had used their crew rescue hoist and the lady had subsequently been paralysed if they would then have had to defend themselves against a negligence charge in the Civil Courts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Firemen used to have three aims:
1. to save life
2. to save property from damage,
3. to perform humanitarian services.
To carry out number 1 chances are you have to enter a hazardous situation, happily undertaken by all firemen up until the last ten years or so.
When did anyone carry out a rescue to save a life without entering a situation?
Even when persons were reported missing in a fire situation, (unconfirmed) firemen would enter and carry out a search - what do they do now? (I honestly don't know but any time taken to undertake a risk assessmet is potentially time taken from a person's life).
Why are they now called Fire and Rescue Services?
Just because that's what they used to do doesn't mean it's any longer the right way. "any time taken to undertake a risk assessmet is potentially time taken from a person's life"?? Any time taken to undertake a risk assessment is potentially time that is well spent and which could save the fireman's life and prevent him/her needlessly going in to rescue someone when there may be nobody in there. http://www.irishtimes.co...011/0621/breaking29.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I dont know about the rest of practitioners but i get fed up of media people who should know better but dont! Tell me how hard is it for educated people to know the difference between civil law and criminal law? Tort as opposed to negligence? 'elf and safety law as opposed to legal claim aversion?
Our profession is a soft target and always will be while bystanders pass judgement on sometimes complex and intricate situations.
Everyone is entitled to their view....we dont have to listen to the uneducated (and by that i mean even those who are eductated but not in our area of expertise) but we do have a job to do. Long may us and the emergency services perform our jobs to the best of our ability and hang what the uneducated opinionated bystanders think. What we need to be concerned about is what the lawmakers think but even that is second to us protecting lives and reducing risks! Rant over for a friday morning...............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
F Brown,
I'm not sure we can totally separate HS Law from "legal claim aversion" as the majority of this is usually down to misinterpretation of said laws, or civil liability & duties.
Ian,
P.S I always thought that negligence was a type of civil tort but maybe I'm not that educated...either that or I've worked too hard this week and need my weekend!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
cliveg wrote:Firstly can anyone find a section of the HASAWA or any of the regs that actually PREVENT emergency services doing what the public would see as their main role - protecting / saving life? I can't think of any, but would be interested if anyone can.
Secondly, most of the examples shown were due to either poor internal guidance or policies, or over-interpretation of those polices and then usually by someone who doesn't actually have to perform the potentially dangerous act themselves!
I think you would find that the guys responding to the 7/7 bombings were (quite rightly so) the ones that stood back until it was confirmed that the 3rd rail was dead, this is not only LFB policy, but also in the interests of self-preservation. They know the dangers of the underground network, equally they know the dangers of entering a fire as do all other serving fire-fighters and officers (myself included) and you only expose yourself to a reasonable level of risk with regard to the potential benefits. As in any other situation or industry as knowledge/skill/technology increases practices change, surely we as H&S practioners should be aware of this and the effects that it will inevitably have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Phillips 20760 you are of course right about a negligence being a tort. I was referring to a civil tort as opposed to criminal negligence and I was referring to the fact that too many times health and safety law is 'blamed' for someones legal claim aversion. There are too many cases to mention (and lets not get into councils hanging baskets or bonkers conkers....)
and like i said rant over!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: O'  In the case of the lady who fell down the disused mine shaft - again I do not know all the facts but it appears that the initial assessment of her condition led to the conclusion that she may have suffered spinal injuries and it would therefore not be suitable to use the type of hoist on the scene to lift her from the shaft. She was eventually lifted out of the shaft by a specialist unit after quite some delay. I wonder if the Fire Service had used their crew rescue hoist and the lady had subsequently been paralysed if they would then have had to defend themselves against a negligence charge in the Civil Courts? I know I'm speaking after the event, but she died. I'm struggling to think of a circumstance, (apart from the perverse legal argument put forward - for which the legal system and not us should be made accountable) where a fatality is a better outcome than paralysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
One of the main points of programme appeared to be that Emergency Serivce workers were not getting involved through a fear of prosecution under S.7 - failing to look after their own safety. I can't find any examples of any such prosecutions, and the CPS guidance is clear that it would not be in the public interest and therefore there won't be any such prosecutions in the future. I hope that message gets through to senior managers. Details of the charges at the Atherstone fire are now available as it has been in court:- The article in the paper local to the area has a reasonable write up. http://www.redditchadver...over_Atherstone_charges/Note the charges against the fire officers are for the common law criminal offence of manslaughter - not a H&S offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yossarian,
The point would be that with potential spinal injuries if the patient is moved inappropriately paralysis is a forseeable consequence where as, dependant on individual circumstances, death may not be. I believe the lady died from a heart attack, but as I said we do not know all the details of this tragic incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Messey I agree the job is not what it used to be and that does not make it right or wrong, however your example of the chip pan fire reminds me that we were always so far ahead of the senior officer that once in attendance the fire would be dealt with right away, even if only one pump in attendance we would not wait for the second pump before going in.
In my day a senior officer would attend a fire if BA was in use or more than 5 pumps. I was only in charge of two fires where more than 5 pumps were required, I wonder if you can work out the reason why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
O'Donnell
With regards to the lady in the mine shaft, I believe I am correct in saying the scenario illustrated that a more senior fire officer advised the rescue operation to stop because they were only trained to use the hoist for fellow colleagues and not members of the public. It may well have been for other matters as well - the facts are a bit grey. Given the choice of leaving her there for hours, as happened, or rescuing her it might have been a close call. However, with the benefit of hindsight - granted, it appears not to have been a good decision. Whether the decision was based on health and safety rules or the officer's interpretation of those rules is not clear.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Thursday TV prog: Health and Safety on the Frontline: Tonight
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.