Pleased as I am at IOSH's response to Cameron's speech about making 2012 the year for destroying the Health & Safety culture for good, I wonder how esteemed colleagues who, like me, are out there day after day battling to protect people's health & safety feel about the Country's so called top politician making such statements? Promising to destroy the Health & Safety Monster ! Ed Carter

I have just seen that the government is getting involved in the “scourge of misdirection by out-of-date directions from sat-navs”. They are holding a summit where ministers and others will be sorting this vital problem out. Why? You buy a sat nav and if it gets it wrong you can either put up with it or you could sue the company supplying the satnav, on grounds of negligence/consumer protection rights. So why is the government getting involved in this and even threatening more regulations. This is free enterprise isn’t it? Buyer beware and all that. By contrast H&S is a burden and must be lightened, regulations must be removed and a dragon (monster) slain. So one part of the government is wanting to reduce the burden of regulation at all costs and another is trying to tighten the screws on another sector, which as far I can see has not actually killed anyone, just inconvenienced some Tory voting villages.

As an aside to A Kurdziel's info about problems with satnav devices, these problems were aired on TV this morning (BBC1' "Breakfast Time"). I didn't see the whole item but gather that some of the problems stem from the use of cheaper devices and/or the fact that users don't bother/pay to update them. Also, some users place total faith in them and don't realise their limitations. For example, if one enters 'Newhaven' as a destination, such a device could choose one of 5 UK places with such a name, including a remote junction in Derbyshire! A guest expert on the programme suggested that satnav users should also have and use a road atlas from time to time in order to check on their satnav devices. This seemed a sensible suggestion. However, it might be partially flawed if the main reason why some or many people buy and use such devices is because they can't read maps! Also, I concur with Brian H's concluding comment above. If more businesses - and crucially their insurers - were minded to challenge and fight unjustified/spurious claims for compensation, there might be a chance of reducing the number of such claims if the 'ambulance chasers' who profit from finding and pursuing them were to find their work becoming more difficult and less profitable. Also, there might be a chance that members of the public might gain a better perspective about the reality of compensation claims, i.e. many claims are started but notably fewer succeed. Also, probably few members of the public realise that ultimately they pay for dealing with most compensation claims. In the case of local authorities and other public bodies this is through council tax or national taxation. As for private organisations, they surely pass on the related costs to private and corporate customers through higher charges and prices. Surely these are among the real burdens which politicians and others should be identifying and tackling, not mythical H&S monsters! p.s. After joining my present employer, a local authority, in the late 1980s I was told of a claim regarding a teenager who had thrown a brick at a window at one of my employer's schools. The teenager was unaware that the window involved consisted of plastic instead of glass. As the window was prone to vandalism, the school had resented paying for repeated repairs and the then council glaziers had probably got fed up with repairing it as well. Anyhow, the brick bounced back off the window and hit the teenager, perhaps on the head. He or rather his mother subsequently submitted a claim for injury on the grounds that the council/school had been highly negligent in not displaying a warning sign by the window. Allegedly such a sign should have warned aspiring vandals that the window was made of plastic and therefore missiles should not be thrown at it! No doubt forum readers will be delighted to learn that the claim foundered very rapidly after it was made.

pete48. I think you might have hit the nail on the head - so I hope you did a risk assessment. The software is apparently written by a one D Mail ltd.

Don't you mean 1974 Act?! ;-)

Graham B talked about employers/insurers fighting cases perhaps discouraging future claims. (see footnote) This is a bit of a double edged issue. Claims can only be defended if there is sufficient information to mount a credible defence - such as records of training, evidence of risk assessments plus proof that the requirements of the RA such as changes in systems/procedures, training etc have been implemented, that equipment has been maintained etc etc. In the absence of such evidence fighting the claim means going to court, almost certainly losing and having to pay out even more in "legal" costs. These costs end up increasing the employer's premium in future years. Do turkeys vote for Christmas..?? David C accuses insurers of imposing requirements upon employers that go beyond what the law requires. My experience is that it would be good if employers complied with the law...! Phil Footnote: There is a view that paying small claims to minimise costs (what EL insurers call economic settlement) encourages other claimants. Not entirely sure that actually happens. In larger firms, with many employees the word will spread, perhaps encouraged by union reps (what unions?). But in the bulk of SMEs I do not believe that this happens. Such smaller employers perhaps only face a claim from an employee every third/fourth year.

Unfortunately, from the viewpoint of managers, all claimants are frauds to some degree. Even those with a VALID claim are regarded as backstabbers and the degree of harassment directed to those who make a claim is high. I have seen a person, with a VERY valid claim for permanent injury due to a workplace "trip" incident, reduced to tears as his overtime was reduced to zero, his hours changed so that he had to make complex arrangements to get his children looked after prior to school and other (spiteful) events to make life miserable. And all because he fractured his wrist after tripping over a cable put across his work area by another employee WHO HAD BEEN TOLD NOT TO DO THAT PREVIOUSLY but had ignored the instructions with the knowledge and compliance of managers. The compensation, for both injury, pain and company behaviour was well into five figures. You know the funny part ? He didn't want to claim....he only wanted to be paid for the three weeks he was off while the fracture healed. Employees job: Welder Full-face air-fed RPE. Limited vision Union member. Free legal representation.

The Lofstedt report refers to 3 recommendations that relate directly to Cameron's general comments in this latest 'tiff'. -exempting those self employed who present no risk......... -simplification of the regulatory framework........ -rebalancing the civil justice system.......... That sounds like the recommendations are being recognised to me. What we hear at this stage is obviously just bytes or bits that can be voiced in public. Camerom also now has a well established reputation for 'off the cuff' remarks. As I said on the other topic, I think we need to make sure we do not hear what is not being said and miss what is being said. p48

OK, so Cameron hates H&S, Clegg hates H&S. What about Miliband? I don't hear anything coming from him or his party on this. I know this is getting on dodgy territory as this forum is not party political. So, I must emphasise this is purely an objective question. Does anyone know where labour stand on this and why we do not hear anything from them to defend positive H&S Cultures at work, H&S legislation and H&S enforcement from the apparent vendetta of this Government.

Can I just point out that much of the H&S legislation "monster" is based on Europe generated "Directives" which we are obliged to implement in the UK. An instance where we have failed to fully implement the European Directive is Asbestos where we are now consulting (again) on proposed changes and face the prospect of a complete new set of Regulations and Guidance around April time. Martyn

ron hunter: hear hear. well said that man

At the risk of repeating myself, I think respected institutions like IOSH should now be planning a strategy to tackle the PM et al head on. It is clear to me that no amount of reports ie Loftsedt and Young, is going to quench the anti-health and safety brigade in government. The absurdity of it all is that there is little this government can do about health and safety regulation, short of pulling out of the EU. It's just political rhetoric, music to the ears of some, but in reality the PM is the Pied Piper. Moreover, there has been much effort to highlight the silly 'elf and safety stories printed in the media. Much of this effort is going to waste by ministers hell-bent on blaming regulation on the country's woes. I have heard little of substance relating to the causes and cures for the social unrest and riots in August - I suppose that has been swept under the carpet with a number of other contentious issues.

I may be wrong here but wasn't the whole idea of HSG65 to promote a positive H&S culture in the workplace? Once again H&S professionals become the easy target for politicians, tv presenters et al to get cheap publicity and to increase their popularity. I work for an insurance company as a risk surveyor and a such am often met with clients who are in despair over what they see as a minefield of rules and regulations many of which they feel just put a lot of work on them and are largely irrelevant. However once it is explained to them what they need to be doing for their particular circumstance and that H&S is not a one size fits all subject they are often pleasantly surprised at how straightforward what they need to do is. The PM's comments also make me smile when he talks of the compensation culture etc etc. I have to say that to a certain extent I can agree with this but as many of the politicians are from legal backgrounds perhaps he needs to look at doing something a bit more proactive on spurious compensation claims across all areas, including money grabbing personal injury firms who plague my phone at least once per week. I travel a lot in Europe and generally I find that this is not the case in many European countries, why do you think this is?

Perhaps he sees this as a way to resolve the looming pensions crisis?

There is a significant news item regarding whiplash injury claims today from vehicle accidents. Although it is for vehicle accident claims, the Association of British Insurers has gone on record to state that our "personal injury claims system is dysfuntional". What about similar soft tissue injuriy claims in the workplace?