You are right Chris, it is not easy being put out of work mate. I've always been a maverick and stood alone for what I believe in. Everyone backs you up until the back-up is looked for . I'm lucky inasmuch as I'm a fully qualified time-served electrician, assessor, trainer and the H&S stuff is an add-on if you like and I can blend it all together or move from one to the other. I would not consider anyone with just H&S tickets as anywhere near competent at electrical advice, or for that matter, on any subject just picked up from a two week course and cobbled together ad hoc. The same applies to me of course. For me at least a person has to have hands on experience of their subject and a good degree of expertise to boot before they dish out advice. It follows then that H&S is far to wide a field to know it all. If I pick up on anything on this site I go off into a corner and read up about it. It is best to do this with forums as we have no real idea who anyone is in here (we have spoken on this in the past). Look at the clues then hunt down the facts. I'm close to 62 and I still hold on to the truth and live the dream :-)

David, you do make an interesting point, but I think competence always does have to be demonstrated against a framework; whether that's a legal or regulatory framework or a framework of craft or other technical skill. A competent potter, for example, will produce a mug I can drink out of; on the other hand, if it's had a big hole in the bottom I wouldn't be interested in the eloquence of the arguments about why, in their professional opinion, holes in the bottom are better. Competence is only part of the picture, to come back to the original point of the thread; as I have already mentioned, I think there are some pointers about scope of works and contracting in this case; how did the safety adviser become responsible for implementation of a risk assessment, which is what seems to have happened here, surely that should be down to site management? John

Firesafety; I've thought for many years that only a competent person should do FRAs! I was young and naive, and back in 98 FRA was a very new thing, and I know that in actually doing an FRA (however poor) I was doing more than most; the Workplace regs were known as the stealth regs because so few took any heed of them. There's a much better idea now of what FRA should involve, and I am certainly much better equipped than I used to be, John

This thread has thrown up some good discussion and some strong opinions, but I feel there may be a lack of humility in some postings which I did ask people to think on. I am not an electrician. I can barely wire a plug, and I wouldn't dream of telling an electrician how to do his job. But if a man who claims to be a competent electrician leaves bare copper showing from the incomer, if the board is mounted on flimsy ply nailed to thin battens- then as a thirty plus year h and s professional I do feel I am competent to challenge his work, to condemn the installation, and to ask the owner to get someone who IS competent to go over it properly. Similarly for foundations, brickwork, steelwork and etc etc. The wide range of potential issues any h and s person may have to deal with on a daily basis does not allow that he will be time served tradesman in all trades. I believe it is necessary sometimes for us all to recognise that people from outside our profession may be able to add something to what we do. Closed shops do not encourage thinking, thoughtful innovation and do not permit proper evaluation of risk. I knew nothing of the rail industry when I began auditing in that industry. Sometime the fresh pair of eyes can see something those inside the industry simply cannot see for the blinkers. And I believe that is where most health and safety can add value... Just my opinion of course. But back to the thread. I don't know if i have ever missed something that could have later led to a serious accident... I do know I was talking to a man who died five minutes after. Should I have spotted the process error he was making before he died? Probably. Should I have been prosecuted for that?- I don't think so. But I have lived with a sense of responsibility and - yes guilt ever since. HSE cannot be held to account if they fail to spot something on site. Is it fair a h and s consultant should be held to account for what appears to be the same failing?

Bob, Your spot on in your post earlier.

A lot of discussion about competence, knowledge, etc. However I would like to raise an issue that may have been overlooked - gaining experience. As a 'general' health and safety practitioner I have dealt with many issues, too many to list. I could not claim to be an expert in all these activities. Yet, it has made me a more rounded and knowledgeable person. It's not practical to get a qualification in all subjects which I deal or have dealt with. I would and have complete a basic fire risk assessment on an office, small workshop, small block of flats or whatever, where the risks are relatively low and my understanding is commensurate. Similarly I have provided training, I have nor formal qualifications. Indeed, asbestos awareness training, I have no formal qualifications in asbestos either. Have I unwittingly put people at risk? Possibly. However I take the view that in many cases the task would not have been done. Better to do it with some knowledge than not do it at all is my philosophy.

Here are 2 links to more factual accounts of the case. http://www.cps.gov.uk/ne...ws/anghel_milosavlevici/ http://courtnewsuk.co.uk...wsgallery/?news_id=39148 The court clearly decided that, on the facts of the case, the ‘safety consultant’ did have a clear role within the company that included site inspection and the authority to stop works. Indeed in his evidence he claims that he didn’t see it because the trenches were covered with boards when he visited! That suggests that he recognised his responsibility for such matters. He should have seen the unsafe conditions and acted; he didn’t. The evidence from other employees as to the on-going and unsafe state of works on site is more telling and no doubt formed a large part of the judgement against the Director. There is nothing that I have read that suggests that either of the men did not know how to do the work safely. Therefore, I am going to suggest that this has little to do with ‘competence’ per se. It seems to me more a case of wilful neglect.

I agree with Pete48. My initial thought when I read the report was that this had little to do with competence and was mostly related to someone not doing their job. I do find attitudes shown here towards competence, in particular for consultants, somewhat baffling. I think people confuse the role of consultant with technical expert, which are quite different in my opinion.

The end bit should have read... What do I think of these consultants...and consultants who know next to nothing and do next to nothing... No offence to most of you guys who do a dam good job.

Andybz, I agree about consultants and specialists. Isaac has posted a good example of where confusion can arise about what the 'consultant' is doing. Different perceptions and a lack of clarity in contracts are far too commonplace. We don't know of course what technical expertise the consultant, in the case posted, either had or referenced for assistance in reaching their conclusion. All we know is that Isaac considers their conclusion unfounded based on his technical assessment. What exactly was meant by 'malicious' in the context of the accident? Let's accept that if the unsafe circuit, as reported, had not been constructed then the accident could not have happened. Now we must also accept that such matters will occur and we will never prevent them all; competent staff or not. What then is the significance of the sentence'. The injured person had not visually inspected or dead tested the circuit before going to live testing". Should they have done so? If they had would they have been injured? If the answer to the first is yes and to the second is no then we can start to see additional causes beyond those identified by Isaac, can we not? I wouldn't pretend to know the definitive answers but I would ask the question nonetheless. My comments are not intended as a challenge to anyone's competence. Just raising some thoughts about different perceptions giving rise to different questions and conclusions.

Would I ask a dressmaker to investigate a fire? Would I ask a highly qualified and experienced electrical engineer/electrician to look at an electrical incident? How's about a job analysis to find out the correct procedure and the skills necessary for the job before shouting out (incorrectly) that the cause was deliberate.

Isacc, thanks for the clarification. However you say "They suggested that it was done on purpose with intent to cause harm". And that was my point, what exactly was done maliciously?

They (consultants) suggested that the placing of the Lock-nut and the long bolt were put in place to cause harm. (As I said, not possible) I took the time to ask the people who put the gear in when they had no idea anyone was hurt. They freely said what had occurred and took the time to show me how they did it. They thought they were saving time and trouble. The consultants didn't talk to them. AK... you worked it out... no action was taken regarding the police and just as well. As far as I can see the whole thing was concluded with a flick of the wrist. The firm and consultants cut a deal by the sound of it It was not malicious not even close. Would never have stood a chance in court. Innocent people would have been put under stress for nothing. The firm should have had a caning for breach of duty of care etc. Lack of training... I could go on but getting hungry.

Some more information on this case has been added to the SHP online article. Seems that the "site inspections" made by this individual must have been pretty cursory since not only did he fail to note there was no mechanical excavator on site (as the MS had required) but he failed to note the excavations were even there at all! http://www.shponline.co....-jailed-labourers-death/

Thanks Heather, puts a bit more meat on the bone.

I have written some basic Method Statements, but as a rule I agree it's for those planning or managing the work to write them. I have on a number of occasions declined to write a MS because, inter alia, I do not have the technical expertise. What is important is a health and safety person reviews them and the associated RA. No man is an island...

Apologies for typos.....silly site with no edit button!

Fair points on wearing two hats Pete; sometimes feel like I'm in the Tommy Copper sketch with all the different hats we need to wear :-) Also agree it was much more than competence levels.