Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Lisa Boulton  
#1 Posted : 04 February 2013 13:51:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lisa Boulton

I have just read the HSE's response to the cancellation of the Northamptonshire Beer Festival. Stating that:

"On behalf of the Health and Safety Executive I would like to reassure people there is nothing in health and safety law to prevent the event from going ahead"

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...hsegen&cr=8/4-feb-13

But the HSE have on their website a raft of H&S instructions for managing events and make the following statement:

"Your duties as an event organiser
You are responsible for ensuring that overall safety at the event is maintained so that as far as reasonably practicable, people setting up, breaking down and attending the event are not exposed to risks to their health and safety."

I can't help but think that the HSE are sending mixed messages in this instance. A bit of research shows this to be a 4 day event with an average attendance of 10,000, featuring 300 guest beers and live music , so not a small event and would certainly warrant good organisation including health and safety management.

What do others think of this, is it sending mixed messages?

Lisa
Phil Grace  
#2 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:12:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

Lisa,
I'm with you on this. I think that in attempting to combat the "elf 'n' safety" issue the HSE have lost the plot. There are - it seems to me:

- clear sec3 responsibilities
- a wealth of civil liabilities

All of which need managing - and if you don't call that "health and safety" what do you call it?!!? HSE seems to wish for the term "health and safety" to mean only criminal liabilities as presented under the HaS at Work Act and related Regs. I don't think that the world can be so cut and dried.

Phil
james fleming  
#3 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:19:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
james fleming

I think reading the article the event, to me, reads that there are insufficient volunteers and expertise in the first instance. Duly, they understand their DOC and are not prepared to run the event.



I personal don’t think the HSE statement does much but to jump in and say it’s nothing to do with H&S.



I know from an running events the volunteer and their commitment will make or break the actual running of the event, as they have already said, it puts the organisers at risk.




Is it a mixed message? I don’t think so. With such a high turnout of people there needs to be those in the background to run it. There isn’t. So it cannot run.
Jake  
#4 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:19:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jake

The HSE's "putting the record straight" feature is a waste of time, money and energy and the sooner it is abolished the better.

I can't find much wrong with the original article, it states there is an insurance issue and that would no doubt be as a result of an accident if it were ever to materialise, so it is clearly related (as well as the S. 3 responsibilities).

What utter twoddle from the HSE, it beggars belief that a "competent" organisation can spout such drivel. The HSE are trying defend an "elf n safety" story when one didn't even exist.
damelcfc  
#5 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:25:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

Phil Grace wrote:
HSE seems to wish for the term "health and safety" to mean only criminal liabilities as presented under the HaS at Work Act and related Regs.


They don't need to wish - Its a fact!? The HSE take criminal enforcement action via the HASAWA as an umbrella Act and Regulations underneath it - they are not interested in Civil law and never have been!

Really :-)
Clairel  
#6 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:27:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

I'm actually getting a bit fed up of everyone on here knocking the HSE for their attempts to dispel H&S being responsible for cancelling events etc.

When the likes of the Daily Mail blame H&S for cancelling donkey rides, everyone on here is up in arms about the fact that no one defends the name of H&S. When the HSE finally do make an attmpt to distance H&S from some of these stories everyone is up in armns saying they are sending out the wrong message.

No pleasing some.

Personally I don't think it is a mixed message. Yes these events need managing from a health and safety perspective (obviously) but don't blame health and safety for them being cancelled as that's just a cop out for other reasons.
pseudonym  
#7 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:28:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
pseudonym

Perhaps things would be "clearer" if HSE said that this was nothing to do with HSE's enforcement powers, and not that it isn't to do with "H&S".

damelcfc  
#8 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:33:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

pseudonym wrote:
Perhaps things would be "clearer" if HSE said that this was nothing to do with HSE's enforcement powers, and not that it isn't to do with "H&S".



Bang on the money - great post - 'Everything' is always 'about' H&S but Peeps get confused as to 'I can't do that else I'll get prosecuted by the HSE' - WRONG/WRONG/WRONG !

If you are not breaking the law you will not get prosecuted by the HSE

What they mean is 'we are frightened of being sued' - CIVIL LAW
A Kurdziel  
#9 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:38:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Unfortunately we have gotten to a stage where H&S means different things to different people. As far as the HSE is concerned it is to do with Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the associated legislation and nothing else- not RRFSO nor civil liability.
For H&S professionals H&S is a wider term and for most includes Fire safety, civil liability and other issues involved in the management of places of work.
Finally there’s ‘elf and safety’ which is a catch all term issued by the Daily Wail et al to describe any silly ( and probably made up) bureaucratic procedures.
Each of these uses the term for different reasons:
The HSE has become very defensive and is trying to establish its ground clearly and narrowly
The H&S professionals need a wider remit because that is what they do and the media are just trying to sell stores to people who don’t really care but like to moan.
pete48  
#10 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:46:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

I am with Claire on this one. The letter sent by the HSE clearly says "nothing in health and safety law to prevent the event from going ahead" NOT that there are no H&S duties or implications arising from organising and running such an event. Thus they are not saying any different from you. There are clear duties which can obviously managed by those with a will or where-with-all.

If you then go on to read the comments by the event organiser he clearly feels that he has insufficient H&S expertise or access to it in order to meet the organisational aspects of H&S for the event.
That is the real reason for the cancellation and the HSE are quite right to counter the implication that H&S law is stopping this event.

Such matters should get our support. So rather than simply knock the HSE why not volunteer to help the organiser so that the festival can go ahead? I am sure there must be many who would enjoy a free pint or two, live locally and have the necessary sector experience.
p48
Phil Grace  
#11 Posted : 04 February 2013 14:51:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

To respond to damelcfc I think I know what the HSE’s remit is. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear…. I think the HSE are confusing the picture and trying to portray “health and safety” as being very much to do with workplace matters – to the exclusion of everything else. The HSE would quickly consider procuring the festival organisers if a beer tent went up in flames and attendees at the beer festival were unable to escape because there were no/insufficient exits, no fire/emergency plan etc.
I think AK has put his finger on it when he says H&S means different things to different people and perhaps there is no point in worrying about it! I do agree that some of the HSE’s comments give the impression of them having become “defensive” – which is a great pity.
In my area – that of liability insurance – there is a seamless connection that starts with hazard recognition, runs through risk assessment and management, into the accident scenario, perhaps criminal prosecution and then into civil action for compensation. It’s all health and safety to me!
Phil
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#12 Posted : 04 February 2013 15:23:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn

It seems that the self-preservation gene is active, for HSE and the various professional bodies alike, who want to hijack the phrase 'health & safety' as their own.

That must not be so.

If organisation or individual X is concerned about aspects of health and safety, perhaps affected himself or others, or the safety and welfare of his business or possessions, be it a house, a sporting or social/cultural event, or whatever, then that concern is both real and relevant. To X, there is some issue of health & safety. X may not feel concerned about compliance with the legal framework but for whatever reason, perhaps resource management and protection, sees this as a matter of health & safety and seeks to manage it accordingly.

It need not be an issue of health & safety law, and need not chime with the various ACOPs, standards, laws etc. That does not make it any less real, and certainly no less important.

But the buffoons don't want it that way. Any concerns about, or even the mention of, 'health & safety' must, in their mindset, be part of some rigid legal construct. If not, they will tell us that it has no right to exist. Those who might utter the words must be criticised, in the press and worse in the often cringingly poor comments from the HSE Myths committee who have surely been at the forefront of this protection racket.
Jake  
#13 Posted : 04 February 2013 16:26:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jake

=pete48]
If you then go on to read the comments by the event organiser he clearly feels that he has insufficient H&S expertise or access to it in order to meet the organisational aspects of H&S for the event.
That is the real reason for the cancellation and the HSE are quite right to counter the implication that H&S law is stopping this event.


But where in the article does it imply that H&S law stopped the event? Are we reading the same article?

It clearly states the organiser had concerns over health and safety, those concerns were a lack of expertise and the possible insurance implications (as well as a non-H&S concern of under-staffing).

Nowhere does it state or quote the organiser as saying he couldn't run the event "because of H&S laws".

To me there is no inference and I think HSE have quickly jumped to the defence and not thought about what was printed, I'm sure the organiser agrees with the HSE comments!! He must be sat there thinking “what are they on about etc. etc.”. Reminds me of the Wimbledon lawn tennis associate “case” which was equally as wide-of-the-mark.

RE HSE bashing, personally I don't "pick and choose" my opinion, I couldn’t care less what tabloids print regardless of the accuracy of not of such articles. What I do think is that HSE's scant resources could be better used.
pete48  
#14 Posted : 04 February 2013 17:05:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Jake you said,

"What utter twoddle from the HSE, it beggars belief that a "competent" organisation can spout such drivel. The HSE are trying defend an "elf n safety" story when one didn't even exist."

The letter from the HSE reads:
"Your report cites health and safety issues as one of the reasons. On behalf of the Health and Safety Executive I would like to reassure people there is nothing in health and safety law to prevent the event from going ahead and the real issue seems to be a lack of volunteers to support the organiser and complicated paperwork from the insurers."

I don't see how this response deserves your harsh criticism.

Whether we like it or not, whether it is a self preservation gene or not there are many who, almost instinctively, will read any mention of H&S concerns as the safety police stopping the fun again. Thus the implication exists.

Why on earth should we bash the HSE for this response?

p48
Hally  
#15 Posted : 06 February 2013 10:52:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hally

As suspected before opening the link it is 'a lack of volunteers'.

Bit of background info, i worked on that festival for about 2 years before it moved to Delapre Abbey in Northampton, it was previously on a island between a river and canal and that was more work as one small bridge to get all the equipment and beer over. Suppose if not enough volunteers it will take longer to set up and take down, not enough people to serve the beer but more importantly not enough people to steward the event.

In 2 weeks time the Liverpool Beer Festival starts which i will be working at, they've asked me to be the H & S person but that would entail me taking the week off work which i am unable to do BUT there will be one person operating in that role (and i am available to help when i'm there working) to do all the checks needed as per the CAMRA Beer Festival H & S rules & regs (as well as the RC Cathedral rules, regs and fire safety - in conjunction with the cathedral security staff who are excellent). There is a Head Steward and pairs of stewards to cover the whole event (one team have a break at one time). So probably about 12-15 people needed for that, then to sell the beer, hand out the glasses and sell the tokens you're looking at maybe 30-40 others volunteers.

We have only just about covered the Saturday night that we were struggling with, would have still been fine but less or shorter breaks would have been taken.

So, they are genuinely concerned with lack of volunteers that would mean they would have serious problems coping with all the work required not only on set up/take down but to be able to cover all the jobs involved, so yes Health & Safety is one of the reasons it has been cancelled by the sounds of it along with not enough people to serve the beer etc...

Just a matter of needing x amount of people as an absolute minimum to run an event, if they could afford to pay them no doubt people would then 'volunteer...'
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.