http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...teen160712.htm?eban=rss- Right-on HSE! This is the kind press release they should do more often instead of the usual bland myth busting letters. A step in the right direction

Actually I disagree with the HSE's comments. Following the links on the HSE website to the report on the NME website, Live Nation actually give a real H&S reason for the abrubt ending of the concert. They go onto explain that they have road closure in place and timed to allow safe egress off the site, so I think that this was a valid H&S reason as the safety and traffic management to allow thousands of pedestrians to leave the site safely is quite a good reason to end the concert when they did, given that it had already overun by 30 minutes. Having done some event managment in a previous role road closures can't go on indefintely. Though in worst case scenarios the Police can close a road to protect public safety, but setting that aside I think they had a valid H&S reason and certainly not one for the HSE myth busters.

This topic is about yet another situation where "health and safety" has been misused and quoted as a handy convenient phrase. In this case, the underlying factor seems to have been poor organisation, including inadequate liaison with the performers, by the event organisers who presumably were (or should have been) aware of when the road closures would end. Though 'public safety' could have quoted as regards the need for the large crowds comprising the audience to be able to disperse safely from the venue via the adjacent roads which had been closed for such purpose, there's evidently no 'health' aspect involved, so why use the word?! Also, some sloppy or ignorant journalists have been misusing the word 'curfew' - as was the case with recent media reports about the evening finishing time at Wimbledon. 'Curfew' would have been an appropriate term if those at the event had faced arrest, dispersal by tear gas or worse for a legal or quasi-legal breach of being at or in the vicinity of the venue after a specific time, but they did not. The event organisers might have feared problems with future events, including aspects like being able to hire the park and arranging for temporary road closures, but none of them would involve curfews! p.s. My initial delight at seeing the words "hard rock" in the subject title of this thread turned to disappointment on finding that it had no involvement whatsoever with geology! :-(

Lisa Well said I too have been involved in events and I can see the Health and Safety Link as well. The problem at the moment for me is two fold. Its too easy just to say "its elf and safety" without any further explanation, or for our wonderful press not to report those reasons. And unfortunately the HSE only consider the criminal aspects of Health and Safety Law. They are happy to forget the civil aspects that many practitioners have to consider on a daily basis. They as much into spin as the politicians these days.

I'm going to stick up for Graham's comment here: 'Health & safety' is a brand - it's our brand, as occupational health & safety practitioners. It can even be 'safety & health' (as in IOSH)! It is the dilution and misapplication of the brand in situations wide of the OH&S arean by those mainly outside the profession, which has taxed us over recent years. 'Public safety' is a perfectly appropriate term for this situation. Calling everything with a remote safety implication "'elf'n'safety" (said in nerdy-voice) is not helpful to our brand. The other examples given by achrn are all in the occupational (workplace) arena, so the distinction doesn't need to arise.

This was not primarily a H&S issue, but a simple matter of complying with the conditions of the entertainment licence issued by Westminster Council. This is the same council who are under pressure to severely reduce the amount of live gigs in Hyde Park, as local residents are more that a bit fed up with the noise & disruption. Working in this politically sensitive environment, what promoter is going to risk never being issued with a lucrative entertainment licence just so that Macca & Bruce could have a few minutes to massage their egos, sorry, I mean finish their last number? I reckon the person who threw the switch needs to knighted - especially when recalling Macca's poor performance at the jubilee gig a few weeks before. I read today that Springsteen went on to perform in Dublin, where he wheeled out a cardboard/mock mobile generator in case he was interrupted again. It's nice to see he is applying humour when so many have taken this drama so seriously.

No, I'm not missing your point, it's just that your point is wrong, imo. Health and safety is not a trademark, it's not a brand (or shouldn't be) - they are two perfectly ordinary commonplace words in frequent use. They encompass much, much more than merely the implications of the HASWA, much more than occupational safety and health. Those people that insist on having exclusive rights on the term as applying to just those things are severely misguided, in my view. You can't hijack words like that (at least, not without looking silly). Claiming this wasn't a health and safety decision because it was only about public SAFETY is as much sophistry as is claiming the one about the ban on dogs in cafes wasn't about health and safety because it was only about hygiene rules promoting public HEALTH. Health and safety is bigger than occupational safety and health and safety at work. Those that persist in reading every occurrence of 'health and safety' as meaning "professionals operating in the field of occupational safety and health" are simply going to drive themselves to distraction. This WAS a health and safety decision, it just wasn't a HASWA or occupational safety decision. If you think every mention of the words is about you, then you're going to see criticism and wrongness everywhere - just like those that think every use of 'black' is about race see racism everywhere. 'health and safety' is not a brand, is not a trademark, and more than that, should not be. It is (rightly) possible to make a decision about safety that does not fall under the auspices of occupational H&S.

"The fans deserve the truth: there are no health and safety issues involved here. While public events may have licensing conditions dictating when they should end, this is not health and safety and it is disingenuous of Live Nation to say so." Kevin Myers Deputy Chief Executive Health and Safety Executive The above is part of the statement released by the HSE & quite rightly we have differing opinions as to whether this is correct or not. Part of my response was to highlight that the term "health & safety" is used to encompass many areas when it's patently incorrect to do so - I mentioned situations where organisations have had to cancel events as they were unable to afford insurance cover, but the reason given was "H&S". Of course this phrase encompasses more than traditional OH&S & apart from working in this arena I am also involved in safety stewarding at a Premier League club which also hosts concerts (we even had Springsteen there a few years ago & yes there was a "curfew"!). Zyggy

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (ETC) Good "word" that, very useful for capturing most anything.

It reads that way to me. It reads like HSE assumed the termination of the conference was just to satisfy some licensing conditions that related to noise nuisance and as such assumed it did not have any safety contribution. It seems as though they were wrong about that - the organisers apparently had a good reason to cite safety if there was a timed road closure to enable a mass of pedestrians to exit the venue safely. The degree to which HSE seems willing to jump to conclusions and then make official statements on the basis of those assumptions troubles me.

Ken, I fully agree with your comment that a mass exit at the end of an event will be the same whether it finishes on time or some time later, (although some may be in a greater hurry!), & you are spot on with your point on the opening of road closures. However, the problems that I have encountered with later than expected finishes relates to the final dispersing of crowds using public transport, i.e. they have missed the last bus/train/tram or even plane! From experience, many will choose to leave early so that they can get home, but equally, others will stay to the end so that they get their money's worth & (hopefully) are too engrossed in enjoying themselves. This then could be a public safety issue on a number of different levels. Zyggy