My understanding is that the wearing of eye protection for playing conkers started at a Cumbrian school (Cummersdale Primary School, Carlisle) in 2004. Apparently the headteacher had seen advice (perhaps from the County Council) which 'banned' the playing of conkers. Therefore, his counter response was the game could be played, but with eye protection against the possibility of flying fragments. It was later reported apparently that the headteacher intended the eye protection as something of a spoof about 'over the top' interpretations of health & safety. Perhaps this was a reaction to the considerable media interest in the matter. Those of us in IOSH will know that for several years or more afterwards, the IOSH presidential team, probably plus others, fielded a team at the National Conker Championships as part of its "Conkers Bonkers" campaign. My understanding may be incorrect. Therefore, please can others shed more informed light on this topic? As for 'The Sun' extract, it would be interesting to know which insurer (if any) was involved and which alleged 'health & safety rules' were being invoked! Common sense evidently remains uncommon despite the Prime Minister's assertion about it in his conference speech this week

Big Nick. We are, yesterday I did a rebuttal story on the Ray Clarke BBC Radio Essex breakfast show. We can but keep trying to dispel the myths of this type that return to haunt us far too regularly. Although in this case the insurers would cover the event but only if the organisers paid an extra £1000 in premium and the kids wore eye protection and "body armour" as part of the deal. It was suggested the organisers ought to consider a "go compare" option and look for alternatives for cover. As an aside I see this years World conker championships (which IOSH sponsored for two years running) due to be held over the coming weekend have been cancelled because strong winds have made it impossible to erect the marquees. At least it isn't 'elf and safety getting the blame.