Just remind me how the thread is improving the image of the profession and safety?.....

It isn't, and that is the point you seem to be missing. The reason this is being discussed widely on this forum is because it is another example of how H&S get abused in the press. It is the bugbear for every H&S practitioner who has ever hear the line "health and Safety's gone mad" or words to that effect. This is a national example we can all get around of what happens every day: people blaming H&S to suit their own reasons. Unfortunately, the so-called ban made the news; the actual facts didn't.

The phrase "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" seems a very apt one for journalists. It could be argued that most don't either bother, want or have time/resources to look for the full facts about situations they think will provide stories likely to be of interest to their readers/viewers. This is certainly the case with "H&S gone mad" type stories of which the alleged "mortar board throwing ban" is just the latest. Discussion of it on this forum seems to have provided some degree of background analysis which, to echo achrn's point above, HSE did not or probably could not do in its apparent haste to react to the story in the form of a press release and latest addition to its Myth Buster pages. In order to get a better perspective about the scenario, my initial posting on this thread #11 did start by asking if any information is available about the frequency and types of injuries, if any, which have occurred at other universities and colleges where mortar board throwing is a tradition. For another example, consider the "conkers bonkers" stories in which journalists and others revelled some years ago. HSE still perpetuates misinformation about it at http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm which states that a "well-meaning headteacher decided that children should wear safety goggles to play conkers". Now have a look at http://www.theguardian.c...ggles-myth-health-safety for an article by that headteacher who describes why he introduced goggle wearing at his primary school in Cumbria. After one of his pupils asked for goggles, he did so mostly as a jestful reaction about the tedium of spending hours doing numerous risk assessments. However, either the jestful element wasn't conveyed effectively to the journalists he contacted or they simply ignored it and then the resultant story spread widely and rapidly - or 'went viral' in modern parlance! The story mutated into variations such as "conker playing banned" and even "HSE bans conker playing". Some might argue that the headteacher's article comprised a revised version of the actual circumstances after the massive fuss generated about them among the media, HSE, senior politicians and even IOSH. However, the headteacher's article seems fairly accurate to me, not least because it accorded with reliable information already shared within a group of IOSH members, including myself, who dealt with schools in North West England and met every two months to share information, policies and discuss the latest hot topics. It's very evident that people generally prefer to read sensationalist eye-catching stories such as those about conkers and mortar board-throwing (which might literally be "eye catching" for a very few participants!). Such people include viewers of this forum. Consider how many more viewings and responses it has had compared with those for the "reverse procedure waste" thread which appeared several days ago about the reversing of lorries collecting domestic waste and recyclables. If such reversing isn't done safely, it can kill or seriously injure people, members of the public and collection workers, as shown by the litany of statistics about such work over many years. That is why safe reversing of collection vehicles (or indeed any large vehicles, whether in public or private locations) is crucial and therefore strongly promoted by H&S professionals such as those who are members of the Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) Forum and IOSH's Environmental & Waste Management Group.