I missed section 3 of HASAW etc act 1974 being repealed as well redken.

Better still - they could redeliver (shock!, horror!) like most other postal service providers.

The Post Office collection services from depots leaves a lot to be desired. The depots indeed permit thier employees to park in bays that are even today marked "visitors parking" and in doing so cause significant diofficulty for their customers. Most of such depots do require a trip using personal transport. I had to park on the main carriageway of a busy road, and yes, risking a parking fine or not to collect the parcel at all! The solution would be to increase parking for employees instead of reducing customer service! The health & safety reason given is not explicitly, but can be a contributory factor if postmen have to travel longer distances to thier vehicles and carry heavy loads. the solution is for logistics managers to resolve that may include staggering start and completion times if the depots do not have adequate parking facilities.

Ron Yes I think you are missing something potentially - but we don't have the full details. Post office sorting offices vary a great deal. I have visited a number over the years and some have good standards with separate customer car parks, while others have little facilities for visitors. I like the ability to collect mail from the post office as it can be more convenient than taking time off work waiting for a delivery, but I have seen some yards with "customers" dodging round reversing post office vehicles etc, and I'm not just referring to small vans. I can see very good health and safety reasons why the public should not use some sorting office car parks. Shame they cannot provide adequate customer facilities but some of these sites have been there for considerable time, have to cope with increased traffic due to closure of sites around them and just don't have the land to expand.

I've just spent (wasted?) 10 minutes of my life reading the mythbusters cases and I couldn't agree with you more Phil. I'm actually quite incensed that money is being/has been spent to come up with what can only be politely described as drivel! Honestly, is this the level of issues they're dealing with? And then the level of response is also damning to those involved in this panel. I fear that this has not got a strong hand on the tiller as most of the cases (bar one or two) are farcical and should be responded to in harder terms, too much 'softly, softly' which will be ignored by those who make the dumb calls in the first place.

Please be careful. It actually says 'The health and safety at work act does apply to schools but the panel does consider that more effort by all the parties involved could be made, to manage and control the risks to allow the activity to proceed.' 'Does', not 'doesn't'. While we may despair at these, they are real examples of the state we are currently in.

I also think that there's an overall failure to classify what the cases come under when not covered by occupational health and safety legislation. Where the issue doesn't fall under the remit of the HSE then it needs to be clear why it doesn't and who it would fall under, e.g. Public Health/Safety/Hygene, Local Authority responsibility, etc. Otherwise the issues will never be satisfactorily closed out because of organisations batting the responsibility too and fro (not my job guv!).

Case 29 -Mythbusters are undermining the integrity of real health and safety

Walker I agree with you that most of the responses are correct. But if a member of the public was injured while trying to collect a parcel/letter from the sorting office, which is potentially what we are talking about in case 22 are you saying the LA (because its the LA and not HSXE who are the enforcement agency on these sites) would say H&E law does not apply? The activity of collecting mail should be done safely and sadly because of the restrictions in some premises then not allowing the public access to certain parts of the site I believe is a very real Health and Safety Control.

Quote=canopener]quote=Nullifies]I think case 3 is worthy of some special attention - Direct Quote "Case 3 - Local authority decideds use of dirt bikes at specialist school presents too high a risk". Nice to see attention to detail!

NLivesey More than happy to admit that I am in the wrong and apologise unreservedly. While the link does have the spelling mistake, I was reading the article under the link, which doesn't. I stand corrected, and apologies again.