Its goes to show what people really think/are bothered about as the TV news; as I am aware; has not reported this

I think we all agree that the fine isn't really proportionate to their profits, but fines seldom are. It is their reputation on the high street that might be damaged. I have said on other posts though that I get totally perplexed when I hear of any organisation regardless of their size still flouting the CAR 2006 (2002) regs (& reg 4 specifically) over seven years after the duty to manage was enshrined in the said regulations. So when the current regs get revoked (and they will) and replaced with new ones (notifiable non licensed work, anyone) you can see the level of compliance and interpretation that will follow... I know it's slightly off topic but you see what I'm getting at. The point I am trying to make is that if asbestos regulations are being poorly interpreted now (in this case by big organisations) then it does not bode well for them being interpreted correctly when they are revised especially when you consider that said revisions will mean that CAR 2...(?) will affect potentially many more organisations. A lot of whom will have never given asbestos notifications, employee medicals and health records any thought at all. Brace yourselves...

Though I haven't looked for details of the case involved, it seems that stedman makes some very valid points. Thus, the title of this topic is unfair and more appropriate to a media report of the sensationalist kind. John M - please don't take this as a personal attack - it's not intended. The same sort of comment applies equally to the titles of some other topics which are posted on this forum. Ongoing compliance with asbestos laws can be tricky. My employer - a sizeable local authority - and no doubt many other organisations with many different buildings controlled by semi-autonomous managements, e.g. schools, have spent considerable time, money and effort in various ways to try and get the message across to those who need to know about effectively managing asbestos. However, with ongoing changes of people, possibly misguided attempts to save money (especially during times when budgets are being cut, and a multitude of different contractors (ranging from sizeable firms to self-employed individuals) visiting the buildings for various purposes, there's always a residual risk, hopefully a slender one, that somebody somewhere will cause an uncontrolled release of asbestos fibres. If this happens, despite ample measures to try and prevent it, there's an associated risk of prosecution and conviction with a hefty fine plus adverse publicity.

John, All the press reports in this case appear to go back to one source which is the HSE press office and the quote that you are using is only one statement selected out of a marathon length trial. If this case was reported more objectively, it could have been argued that the HSE only had a partial win by succeeding with only one store out of three. Unfortunately with the risk to our health and the cleanup cost we are all victims of this legacy and anyone who manage large construction, plant or FM projects will tell you that asbestos has a horrible habit of coming back and biting you when you think that you have got it under control. Your title that “At least M&S will take asbestos seriously now....” is wrong because the trial would not have lasted three months if they had not already taken it seriously six years ago. I am just annoyed that we have got to the end of a significant trial and nobody has given us an objective report on what was actually heard.

Stedman, apologies. I was typing whilst you posted, no intention to respond to your latest post, p48

Possibly the title was misunderstood. I'll complete it to remove any further: "At least M&S will take asbestos seriously now, even if others do not" My personal opinion is that people handling/working-with the material need to be taken to see a person dying from mesothelioma.....it is not a short illness and it is not a painfree illness.