Rank: Super forum user 
|
"It beggars belief that they chose to put workers at risk of serious injury after enforcement notices had been served, deciding to put profit over the safety of their employees. "We had no choice but to prosecute when they continued to deliberately and flagrantly ignore the formal warnings." Three years......it took three years......what excessive regulation we have. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...oi-nw-27smithbarrett.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:Three years......it took three years......what excessive regulation we have.
Not so John. If you had read the report you would see that the circumstances were complex with the company closing and re-opening under a different guise twice. An IN first; then an extension due to business circumstances; then they closed; then they re-openend, the HSE issued PN's and IN's; the company closed then re-opened again; the HSE prosecute. It's easy to be critical. Being an enforcer means responsibility with that power. Enforcement and prosecutions take time because process has to be followed. Companies need to be given a chance to put things right, sadly this company then gave everyone the runaround. I think the result is a good one because the HSE did keep pursuing them even when the company kept trying to disappear. That sends out a good message. Try and dodge us and we'll still get you eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It was more a satirical comment..
Much like the fines and costs were sarcastic:
£705 and £2,500
£360 and £1,500.
I wonder.......but I cannot due to site rules and civil law.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:It was more a satirical comment..
Much like the fines and costs were sarcastic:
hmmmm......I think you and I have different definitons and different usages of the terms satirical and sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
From the article it is difficult ascertain the size and resources of the company but, by most standards the fines and costs awarded are seriously frugal. Even more so, when you consider the lengths these amoral employers went to avoid liability. Personally, I think both directors should have be disqualified pursuant to the Directors Disqualification Act and I cannot understand why the authorities did not impose this sanction - ye Gods, surely the evidence speaks for itself!
Of course, the real crime here is that directors are able to close and re-open businesses legally at will and in doing so, avoid liability and put employees health and lives at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.