Reading through some of the recent discussions and IOSH members opinion given by IOSH as feedback to Government proposals, it seems that some H&S practitioners are poles apart in their views. For example we have had discussion topics regarding the Daily Mail article about changing a street light bulb and should we do something or not about stairwell safety etc etc, where there were significant differences of opinion and no conclusion or consensus. There was also a lot of debate on the Governments wish to reduce red tape by mucking about with H&S legislation, with cries of there is nothing much wrong with the legislation, just some practitioners are OTT ( or over-zealous) in their interpretation. Another thread looked promising discussing this issue, but became entangled with specific issues, it did however manage to identify that experience is a significant key. Many threads when listing competence also mention the necessity of experience in the mix of attributes. So the question becomes “What is experience”. I guess also “why has our individual experiences brought us to such wildly conflicting views”. If we can’t agree amongst ourselves then no wonder others become confused with such conflicting views. This in my view reduces the credibility of the profession. Example - If I was to undertake a NEBOSH cert and then Diploma, get a job (this is hypothetical) and as part of the job do some review (does not matter what), implement changes and everything goes well with no injuries. Can I now say I’m experienced?. There is no way of knowing if I had carried out the task well enough or indeed OTT. The only evidence is no one was hurt, but that could be luck. I do similar tasks another 10 times, am I experienced yet? Perhaps to become experienced you need to shadow an experienced person in each and every field, is that practical? Do they just pass on bad habits / views? Do organisations have enough resources to afford this, or do they just want to buy in competent people. If I undertake a task, carry out research, read the appropriate legislation, ACOP and guidance, then put measures in place that in my opinion meet the requirements of these documents. Is this enough without specific experience in the particular subject?, but this is back to “in my opinion” which varies from person to person as noted above. Are there exceptions to this where specific training is also needed, fire, asbestos, ergonomics of work stations, DSEAR and again is the training enough. I feel sorry for those that come onto the forum asking a question to be told get someone in who knows what they are doing (sometimes this is the right thing to do, but not always), or that views differ so much the person has not really been helped. Perhaps there should be an authoritative body that has the final say in debates, the closest is the HSE, but they seem to like sitting on the fence sometimes. Perhaps legislation itself is to blame with poorly defined terms like “suitable and sufficient” again ends up meaning different things to different people. Perhaps there are other reasons why practitioners are poles apart and what should be done to reduce this effect? Should we do nothing and allow confusion to rein. What are your views on the above? Please don’t turn this into another DM bashing discussion, we all know the best ever use of the paper was to keep your chips warm (other papers are available and equally as good at insulating chips).

Chris As you have rightly identified there some issues where h&s practitioners have polarised views. I suspect, and seriously hope, that these are the exception rather than the rule. No doubt other industries have many within their ranks who do not see eye to eye. That said, risk, or rather risk perception, is a very complex issue and people's views will vary based partly on their own life experiences. If you ask many ordinary folk, but especially tradesmen, many will say that health and safety has gone OTT. It is a view with which I sympathise with. There are many within our profession who appear to believe that all risks, however trivial, must be controlled. It is not a view which I share. Then there is of course the jobsworths who through their lack of knowledge on the subject tend default to the risk averse attitudes, others through a lack of confidence or courage adopt a similar safety first ethos. What is the answer? Well, I can't agree it is experience alone. It is often a very fine line between adequately controlling a risk or not. Whilst experience will help it is not necessarily the panacea that some people believe. Decisions must be made and sometimes it is nothing more than a matter of good or bad luck whether we have made the correct call. Clearly the higher the risk the more time one must give to the matter. However, a crystal ball I do not have. Ray

The legal profession thrives on differences of opinion. Medics do disagree. As free-thinking professionals, why can't we?

It's by a process of constructive debate and challenge that we move on and things generally improve. So long as we're professional in the way we go about things. As an example, my own personal view is that the DSE Regs are wholly unnecessary and the parent Directive should be withdrawn. My professional view however is one of ensuring I advise on means by which the employer can comply with that law. Whilst our life experiences essentially determine who we are, I wouldn't agree that those (indirect)experiences, life choices or matters of personality should necessarily correlate to professional opinion or outlook, to me that's entirely contrary to the meaning of being 'professional'. That said, we're only human, we err, and a good debate often involves a bit of passion!

We are all programmed differently! Some of us are positive, some negative. Some thick skinned, some thin skinned. Some of us have complex personalities, mental health issues and some a hunger for risk taking. Some of us smoke, talk on the phone whilst driving, drink excessively, don't exercise and others will follow 'doctor's orders to the nth degree. We're all different, therefore how can we have a united view of risk management, or indeed anything? The above also applies to those teaching health and safety.

Resistance is futile!

Thank you to those that responded. The thread has not quite gone down the path expected and to be clear I am not suggesting that difference of opinion or healthy debate is wrong, sorry if that’s what you have taken from my post. There have been various suggestions of being OTT or overzealous within the world of H&S some of which in response to the Governments wish to change legislation. If the Government was told that their perceived problem with H&S, is not legislation but down to some overzealous practitioners, I would have thought the next question would be “so what can be done about it”. Perhaps the answer is “nothing” it is only a small minority of people. Perhaps the answer is nothing because we like the confusion and that H&S is deemed a black art that keeps us employed. Perhaps the answer is “something” but don’t yet know what. I also do not believe that every trivial risk should be controlled, but I am suggesting that some of the over-zealous practitioners simply do not know where the fine line should be drawn. Whilst thinking on this point I asked myself the questions in the opening thread, and thought it would be a debate worthy of this forum. I agree with most of what has been said so far (not sure about resistance being futile). I think what I was hoping for within the debate was similar to Ray’s comments on Jobsworths and their possible lack of knowledge, or less courageous /confident, who adopt a risk averse safety first attitude. I can see why people may, when looking at an issue play it safe, I know I have when time has not been on my side. Can we, should we help these people in order to bring better credibility to H&S, if so how. I keep thinking of the scenario where and MD is given advice by the H&S adviser, this is then discussed with the MD of another company who has been given wholly different advice where a particular line is drawn. Both MD’s could go away thinking they have been given poor advice., this seems wrong IMHO. Yes all professionals disagree amongst themselves, so does that mean we should accept the over-zealous with open arms? Is it the fault of the over-zealous they are the way they are, or is there a glitch in the method they used to get to where they are – training – experience –other ? Should they be helped or at least improve the process. Ron suggests that we should not just build on just our own limited experiences, so there should be something else – what is it? Is it some differently structured way of becoming a H&S practitioner, is the NVQ the correct route not Diploma ? Clairel talks about expressing views with passion, something else which I concur with. I also think a bit of humour is ok (I especially liked Clairel’s reply regarding aliens landing last week- how random was that). It was a passionate exchange of views I was actually after, otherwise it would be a short debate. However I still feel there is some mileage in the original questions. I personally have nothing to gain or lose by the outcome of the discussion, just satisfied curiosity, and other points of view to ponder. Chris

chris, Are you giving a scenario that between 2 MD's of 2 different companies that 1 size may fit all?.. you have to take that into account also!

Chris, thanks for your thread and follow up comments. It is always interesting to have a sensible and reasoned debate about issues like the ones highlighted in this thread. In truth, there are very few right and wrongs in this industry because so much of it is subjective. That said, I would like to see a proper review, not a government appointed person, but some heavy hitters of industry tackle some of the profound issues we face. Then, and only then, we may be able to untangle the mess which prevails in our industry. Some food for thought, during the weekend I was socialising with some tradesmen when one of them asked me about asbestos. "Is asbestos really that dangerous or has it gone OTT"? I could not really provide a definitive answer, except to say that according to the HSE 4,000 people die each year from asbestos related diseases. I have today read that 1,000 people die each year from another authoritative source. Anyway, the discussion developed into the pros and cons of asbestos management, when my mate asked why don't the powers that be allow asbestos to be disposed of for free - to encourage compliance. An excellent idea! I have dealt a lot with asbestos issues this year and I can confirm that the regulations and guidance is IMO overly onerous, prescriptive and is without doubt the most breached h&s regulation I know, by clients, employees and contractors. I think the non-licensable asbestos guidance is far too prescriptive and only serves to dissuade people from tackling it properly. Licensed asbestos is far too expensive to remove and again, it only encourages people from doing it by the book. So, do we have sensible and proportionate legislation, or accept that many will choose not to comply and put themselves and/or others at risk? Ray

I work as a consultant, so my experience may not apply across the board. But I am successful at what I do, working with a range of clients (mostly multi-nationals) who keep asking me back. I would say I have improved as a consultant by listening more and speaking less; and being less defensive about my opinions. Based on my observations of how other people in safety work and the things said on this forum, I do think these are areas where other people can learn. A lot of the 'debate' that takes place on this forum is often related to poorly defined questions or scenarios. The trouble is people submit an answer without asking for clarification. This means they make assumptions that may not be valid. Other people then add their answer based on their own assumptions, which may be different. It then sounds like people are 'poles apart' when in many cases they would probably agree if they had the full facts. I do find some people express their personal opinions rather forcibly. This can be a sign of passion but is often combined with a reluctance to accept the views of others, so often stifles debate. People should of course express their opinions but must accept that people who disagree with them may not be wrong. I know my tendency in the past to be overly defensive could sometimes get people backs up, and hence was not a constructive approach. I believe I have learned from this. Now, if someone disagrees with what I say I make sure I understand why. In some cases it is because I am wrong. Usually it is because of misunderstandings that can then be resolved. So, based on my experience I believe safety professionals can improve by asking more questions, working with people to develop solutions rather than telling them what to do and giving professional opinions that they can defend rather than personal opinions that tend to serve their own end.

But frequently the passion on this forum in recent times has come from the huge gap between 'professionals' approach to H&S, where some professionals are seen to be overly risk overse. The passion (from me certainly) comes from the fact that the profession is having a hard time overcoming the elf n safety image and excessively risk averse individuals are making the situation even harder. My job is certainly harder beucase I have to defend the profession to clients on a regaulr basis. I think such individuals are undermining the good work of others and are also speaking in direct opposition to the likes of IOSH and the HSE, who are trying to promote sensible and proportionate H&S. I find it ironic that these individuals are allowed to use this forum as a platform for their risk averse approach and if anyone criticises that approach then they are censured due to being unprofessional in daring to publicly criticise such individuals. I find that unbelievable. If we as professionals aren't allowed to criticise such extremism, which is detrimental to the professional, then what hope is there for eliminating this risk averse image that we have?

To follow on from Clairel's comments, this discussion forum needs to be kept in proper perspective by users. It's a public one, open for anyone to use, not just IOSH members. A fair bit of what is posted on it is personal opinion or interpretation of information and legislation, etc. Therefore, I wish that IOSH would display to users a disclaimer of the sort which appeared on the former version of the forum. Some original postings and responses make me, and probably other OS&H people, cringe, so such a disclaimer ought to include the fact that stuff which appears on the forum is not necessarily endorsed by IOSH. Also, though I was told last week that IOSH now has some 39,500 members (85% of them in the UK), the number of members who start and/or respond to forum topics is extremely small. Thus, the forum should not be regarded as a valid reflection of opinions and views held by IOSH members. Perhaps most are too busy to bother even looking at this forum, let alone start or respond to topics. Some users seem surprised that others don't agree with their opinions. However, it's a discussion forum - the word "discussion" in its title gives a strong clue as to its nature! Therefore, users should accept that some people will have differing views or even strongly disagree with them. (Do others agree or disagree with this?!!) Also, some users seem surprised at how responses to their original postings cause the discussions to develop, mutate, evolve or grow offshoots, etc. Sometimes topics get few if any responses and fail to develop. That's just the nature of this forum and, presumably of similar forums (if they exist) on the websites of other professional bodies. Sometimes forum threads can be very useful, constructive and offer new information, even to people who have worked in OS&H for a considerable time. One good example of this methinks is the recent thread about using grid references to describe the location of casualties in remote locations. Also, it should be noted that people who are not well acquainted with the forum and its regulars might not always recognise or understand some of the humour which appears on it. A good sense of humour is a useful quality for OS&H people (and people generally), including the ability to accept some teasing and also self-deprecate! The same applies to having a capacity to listen and consider information and views from others. That's plenty of comment from me for now - can't let this response become too pompous and long winded!