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
Safetycat  
#1 Posted : 13 March 2017 13:16:52(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Safetycat

Hi Folks, can anyone help on this grey area... Ive always presumed "likelihood of occurence" as being interpreted as "likelihood of occurence of Exposure to Risk" ie , if you are climbing a ladder on a daily basis, your likelihood of occurence would be (in my matrix) a 5, for Very Likely, perhaps daily. This would therefore leave you with with a high rating before control measures are in place, as you could of course, die if you fell off the ladder. (5 x 5 = 25, an orange rating on my matrix) then controls are in place, and of course the rating is reduced significantly, depending on the controls measures in place - and ideally bring the risk rating down to an acceptably green rating. However, my current employer prefers   "likelihood of occurance" to be based on "likelihood the actual "undesirable event" happening  Ie a fall off the ladder. (based on their safety statistics) Therefore, even though I climb the ladder every day, the fact that I havent fallen off the ladder in a 3 years of working, would indicate  a  rating of 1 (Very unlikely, rarely ) x 5 ( single death ) brings it to a low (green) 5, in the first instance. So now,  I find I am producing risk assessments which are giving what I think is a very low interpretation of the risks involved. My apologies if this is hard to follow... but does anyone have any views? Thanks a lot! 

fhunter  
#2 Posted : 13 March 2017 13:35:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fhunter

In my opinion you are talking about the same thing and are both partiarly right.

Likelihood is the likelihood of harm which is a very subjective thing anyway. If you are working on a ladder day in day out, statiscally over the course of a year you would be more likely to fall than someone who uses a ladder twice a year. 

However, your risk assessment should be task specific so the amount of times using a ladder over a long period of time, in my opinion, should not have a full bearing. Time spent on the ladder for the tasks would be the key and if it was for a long period of time, control measures would be to use a different method for the work at height. 

In terms of your employer, I think they are right to look at past performance, but again it is not the be all and end of of the risk assessment process. Keeping it task specific, such factors as the footing of the ladder, the type of work being done, the individuals experience etc are bigger factors for the task. 

I do undertsnad the matrix system for use, (a very debated topic on here already) however a useful exercie is to do the process without scoring. The most important part of the risk assessment is the controls that are implemented not the numbers. 

DavidGault  
#3 Posted : 13 March 2017 13:54:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DavidGault

If you are going to go on the likelihood of occurrence then don't just use your own site or business stats - use the HSE or Labour Force Survey stats.  That will give you a bigger picture.  Even a large business is likely to have a statistically small amount of accidents in any one subject area.

Steve e ashton  
#4 Posted : 13 March 2017 14:04:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Safetycat:  I believe your employer is correct - it is the likelihood of occurrence rather than likelihood of exposure.  Using your interpretation - the ladder will always be climbed so the likelihood would appear to be 100% certain - which makes it impossible to distinguish between low, controlled risks and higher, unacceptable ones.  The matrix numbers will always be subjective - and will always vary depending on how you specify or define your risks - but the whole process is just a tool to help with prioristising where effort is required, so don't take the numbers too literally....

fairlieg  
#5 Posted : 13 March 2017 14:15:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

The latter is sort of saying no one working for us has fallen from a ladder and died before so that's not something that we need to worry about as much in this company.  

On the HSE site it says " Definition of a risk:  A risk is the likelihood that a hazard will actually cause its adverse effects, together with a measure of the effect".

So it seams you make the assumption that you will fall (binary 1= fall 0=no fall) and the subjective part is how much damage it will do.......

MEden380  
#6 Posted : 13 March 2017 14:40:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

fairlieg has hit the nail on the head

You have identified a hazard with an associated risk - do something about it

How would you explain to a judge if someone fell off a ladder tomorrow and was killed / seriously injured, that your risk matrix was low/green and you didn't bother putting any control measures in to minimise the risk.  Risk Marix are a good tool for process safety, not really that good where there is a risk of personnel injury.

WatsonD  
#7 Posted : 14 March 2017 08:44:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

As others have said, I would focus on identifying the risk and then ensuring adequate controls. The numbers are purely subjective.

However, I would also agree with your employers interpretation. If you are undertaking a RA for a task, put the risk down for using a ladder for that task. You should consider how big a risk is, then when you look at your controls, things like limiting the time on the ladder - or replacing for podium steps or tower scaffold if the duration is too long. Also changing the work process to avoid going up and down several times, etc.

Your version seems to look at risk as a cumulative effect, as if to say that using a ladder is more risky today as I used it twice yesterday. Like playing percentages

Edited by user 15 March 2017 08:51:06(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling error

RayRapp  
#8 Posted : 14 March 2017 09:31:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I think there is some confusion here which has cropped up previously in similar discussions. The conundrum is largely terminology - for example, Likelihood is the same as Probability, however the confusion arises with Frequency of a task, which is not mutually exclusive either.

Likelihood takes into account whether the risk will be realised. If we use the previous example of working off a ladder it has been established that if you use a ladder every day there is more chance of sustaining an accident than if you use it just once a year. The problem remains when writing a RA the author may not be aware how many times a person will use a ladder, especially so for generic RAs. Therefore how can they build into the equation the Frequency?

It is my view the Frequency of Task Based RAs should not be taken into account, except in an implicit fashion. The rationale is that whilst doing a task frequently increases the risk, there is not nothing to prevent a person doing a task just once and coming a cropper. The outcome will be the same, regardless of frequency. RAs are not an exact science and unless you use a scientific approach based on reliable data they never will be.

Hope this makes sense...must get on with some work now!

sidestep45  
#9 Posted : 14 March 2017 10:18:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
sidestep45

A couple of quick thoughts.

1. Your analysis would imply the only cause of an accident is lack of experience i.e. the more a task is repeated the safer it becomes, which is not necessarliy so.

2. On probability if you toss a coin and it comes up heads 10 times in a row what are the chances of it coming up tails on the next toss?

Clark34486  
#10 Posted : 14 March 2017 10:22:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clark34486

'suitable and sufficient' is the only real requirement.

Scoring? need not even exist

Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 14 March 2017 10:35:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: sidestep45 Go to Quoted Post

A couple of quick thoughts.

1. Your analysis would imply the only cause of an accident is lack of experience i.e. the more a task is repeated the safer it becomes, which is not necessarliy so.

2. On probability if you toss a coin and it comes up heads 10 times in a row what are the chances of it coming up tails on the next toss?

Seems to suit insurers when deciding the premiums for young drivers

It also suits in-house training where after initial supervision and monitoring employees are "signed off" as competent

Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 14 March 2017 10:35:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: sidestep45 Go to Quoted Post

A couple of quick thoughts.

1. Your analysis would imply the only cause of an accident is lack of experience i.e. the more a task is repeated the safer it becomes, which is not necessarliy so.

2. On probability if you toss a coin and it comes up heads 10 times in a row what are the chances of it coming up tails on the next toss?

Seems to suit insurers when deciding the premiums for young drivers

It also suits in-house training where after initial supervision and monitoring employees are "signed off" as competent

WatsonD  
#13 Posted : 14 March 2017 11:22:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

Originally Posted by: sidestep45 Go to Quoted Post

1. Your analysis would imply the only cause of an accident is lack of experience i.e. the more a task is repeated the safer it becomes, which is not necessarliy so.

I think the OP is implying the exact opposite; that the risk is increased due to more frequent use.

Safetycat  
#14 Posted : 14 March 2017 17:48:26(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Safetycat

To everyone who posted on here, thank you so much for your replies, each and every one with validity. (First time Ive posted on a forum, Im really chuffed!) Sometimes you know something, but it takes some input from others to reinforce your beliefs, and your replies have done just that for. OF course, its the identification and subsequent actions that count, ... Thanks again everybody!

Brazier  
#15 Posted : 14 March 2017 17:48:37(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Brazier

You have identified a very significant ‘grey area.’  The fact that there is no clear answer is, in my opinion, a clear indication that H&S has a long way to go before it becomes really credible.  Risk assessment is supposed to be an integral part of how we manage H&S but we don’t know how to do the assessments properly!

 

I am very clear that your approach based on exposure to risk is wrong.  It may help you decide if a risk is tolerable but to use it as the basis of risk will mean that frequent performed activities are always going to be prioritised above infrequently performed activities that may involve a far greater hazard. 

 

But this does not mean the alternative approach of using likelihood of occurrence is right either.  The problem is that knowing how often people fall off ladders or even how often they are killed falling off ladders does not tell you the risk of using your ladder to do your task.  However, I don’t think there is any guidance out there at present to resolve this issue.

 

This is a topic I have been considering for a while and I am starting to formulate a process.  I have concluded that the likelihood used to determine the risk should be based on the likelihood that a possible outcome will occur for a given event (I think this is what fairlieg was saying in #5). A range of outcomes and associated likelihoods should be considered.  For the ladder example the answer will most likely depend on how far a person can fall and where they are likely to land.  High risk ladder work would be where a fall is more likely to result in a fatality (bearing in mind that in most cases lesser outcomes are still possible) whilst lower risk ladder work would be where a fall is more likely to result in a lesser injury (although a fatality is always a possibility but the likelihood will be lower). 

 

A key part of the process is that an ALARP evaluation has to be made to complete the assessment based on the hierarchy of risk controls.  Although the concept of ALARP has been around for a while, I don’t think it has yet been integrated into risk assessment and H&S management.  One point to note is that if you change the activity the risk assessment has to be repeated.  In this case, if you replace the ladder with stairs the activity has changed and the risk assessment has to be repeated.

 

Regarding comments made in this thread.  I don’t agree that likelihood is purely subjective.  If that is the case our risk assessments will be worthless.  Also, I don’t agree that identifying a hazard with associated risk means we have to do something about it.  The whole point of risk assessment is to allow us to prioritise our interventions, and allows us to conclude that certain risks can and should be tolerated.

Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 14 March 2017 22:05:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So walk down a main high street during the day Walk down the same main high street on a Saturday Evening "early doors" Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out" Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out" when the main football rivals are in town for a game In all scenarios the individual could be struck, fall backwards striking their head and be a fatality due to internal bleeding - not an uncommon outcome from (drink related) violence The location has not changed, the activity of the individual is not significantly different just the point in time and some associated circumstance. But they walk down the main high street twice a day to and from work They walk down the main high street on a Saturday once a month to dine out They walk down the main high street on a Saturday at "chucking out" twice a year for work related events They walk down the main high street on a Saturday at "chucking out" on the works Xmas do when the football rivals are in town No wonder all risk assessments can never be suitable or sufficient when held up to measure just too many variables
thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
WatsonD on 15/03/2017(UTC), WatsonD on 15/03/2017(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#17 Posted : 14 March 2017 22:05:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So walk down a main high street during the day Walk down the same main high street on a Saturday Evening "early doors" Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out" Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out" when the main football rivals are in town for a game In all scenarios the individual could be struck, fall backwards striking their head and be a fatality due to internal bleeding - not an uncommon outcome from (drink related) violence The location has not changed, the activity of the individual is not significantly different just the point in time and some associated circumstance. But they walk down the main high street twice a day to and from work They walk down the main high street on a Saturday once a month to dine out They walk down the main high street on a Saturday at "chucking out" twice a year for work related events They walk down the main high street on a Saturday at "chucking out" on the works Xmas do when the football rivals are in town No wonder all risk assessments can never be suitable or sufficient when held up to measure just too many variables
thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
WatsonD on 15/03/2017(UTC), WatsonD on 15/03/2017(UTC)
fhunter  
#18 Posted : 15 March 2017 09:33:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fhunter

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
So walk down a main high street during the day Walk down the same main high street on a Saturday Evening "early doors" Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out" Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out" when the main football rivals are in town for a game In all scenarios the individual could be struck, fall backwards striking their head and be a fatality due to internal bleeding - not an uncommon outcome from (drink related) violence The location has not changed, the activity of the individual is not significantly different just the point in time and some associated circumstance. But they walk down the main high street twice a day to and from work They walk down the main high street on a Saturday once a month to dine out They walk down the main high street on a Saturday at "chucking out" twice a year for work related events They walk down the main high street on a Saturday at "chucking out" on the works Xmas do when the football rivals are in town No wonder all risk assessments can never be suitable or sufficient when held up to measure just too many variables

Spot on, this is the difficulty with the Risk Assessment process, however this is where I believe training and competency is required to "fill the gaps". Generally speaking the current process for Risk Assessment that most companies adopt is to rigid and too generic and there is an element of as long as we have a signature from the operative on a piece of paper we are covered. I think proper education with regard to getting people thinking is far more effective than the numobers on a piece of paper. 

If you put yourself in each of the situations above, naturally you will act differently to the situations even though you are the same person on the same road. Using the intuitive human aversion to danger coupled with proper training on what risks and consequences are is the best approach, in my opinion. 

WatsonD  
#19 Posted : 15 March 2017 09:44:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

Brazier #14,

The reason that there is no clear answer is due to the range and variety of businesses and work practices making a 'one-size-fits-all' approach an insufficient solution.

To ensure that the risks are being prioritised correctly, some practitioners do find it helpful to apply a numeric value to those risks they are assessing - I don't, but I find it helps to get my message over to those affected by it. The important thing here is to identify the biggest risks. The numbers, whilst they can be supported by statistics are largely subjective. This doesn't make it wrong or worthless. A good RA will be carried out in consultation with those involved in the task resulting  in a collective wisdom; again with the largest risks identified and properly controlled.

Different approaches to carrying out or recording the RA doesn't make them wrong. What suits one business does not suit another. However, I think we all agree it is about effectively identifying and controlling the risks. To suggest H&S is not credible as a result is, a bit naive IMHO. If it was straightforward with easy answers, then there would be no credibility in specialist practitioners like ourselves. My RA may be different from yours, but I have no doubt that you, like myself would be able to defend their contents and outcomes when called upon.

I wish you luck with the process you are starting to formulate, and look forward to seeing it in its completion, should you wish to share. So far it sounds to me like you are articulating the same process everyone else undergoes, but I am sure it is early days.

thanks 1 user thanked WatsonD for this useful post.
Brazier on 15/03/2017(UTC)
Brazier  
#20 Posted : 15 March 2017 09:51:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Brazier

Excellent example Roundtuit.  I don't think it shows that risk assessment is necessarily flawed because I am sure we can all identify the highest risk scenarios from the ones you list.  But it does highlight a number of potential issues.  For example:

* We need to assess the right activity.  Walking down a high street is not really the activity of interest.  It should be going to work, going out for dinner etc.  However, as an example it is very useful and simple enough.

* We should not be assessing trivial risks.  In this case the risk of walking down an high street, in the UK, between 7am and 6pm is broadly acceptable and not worthy of further consideration.  We should only think about assessing the risks if we are outside these hours or in a high risk country.

* We need a point of work risk assessment (POWRA) or equivalent that is effective at flagging when we end up in a situation that is outside of our risk assessment.  In this case if we set off up the high street and there is a riot taking place we would stop and heard for somewhere safe. 

* We need to factor in multiple variables into our assessments.  A 'what-if' analysis can help us do that.

* We need to make sure the benefit of the activity is very clear.  Otherwise we will end up organising our nights out to finish by 6pm so that we are not exposed to higher risk.

* Our assessments need to encourage us to select a safe way of doing the activity we want to and not stop us doing it.  In this case, our assessment should prompt us to consider whether taking a taxi home after a night out is wise.  If we do decide that a taxi is a possible solution we need to reassess because the activity has fundamentally changed (i.e. the risks are now different).

Neil Eastwood  
#21 Posted : 15 March 2017 10:09:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Neil Eastwood

We use a similar numerical basis for our risk assessments and although not perfect for all scenarios it does provide a simple and effective way of assessing 'significant risk' that can be interpretated easily.

Again as many have alluded to it isn't perfect and no one system of risk assessment will be perfect for all organisations but it works for our organisation.

The HSE website doesn't mention the scoring system but just the 5 steps:

what,

who and how,

evaluate & control,  

record,

review,

They themselves admit this is not the only way to carry out a risk assesment and there are no fixed rules but hopefully following the basic principles will allow you to assess the task adequately.

Hope this helps,

Neil.

Brazier  
#22 Posted : 15 March 2017 10:15:09(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Brazier

WatsonD.  We were posting at the same time.

I was being a bit provocative in my first post.  I agree there is a degree of subjectivity, but we need to have some basis for our likelihood estimates.  I do think that the fact there is not a definitive reference we can all turn to on risk assessment is a concern given that it is supposed to be the corner stone of H&S.  As you say articulating the approach and issues is not straightforward, but also a problem.

thanks 1 user thanked Brazier for this useful post.
WatsonD on 15/03/2017(UTC)
Xavier123  
#23 Posted : 15 March 2017 13:42:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

Originally Posted by: Brazier Go to Quoted Post

* We should not be assessing trivial risks.  In this case the risk of walking down an high street, in the UK, between 7am and 6pm is broadly acceptable and not worthy of further consideration.  We should only think about assessing the risks if we are outside these hours or in a high risk country.

Didn't you just assess the risk? ;)

Originally Posted by: Brazier Go to Quoted Post

* We need a point of work risk assessment (POWRA) or equivalent that is effective at flagging when we end up in a situation that is outside of our risk assessment.  In this case if we set off up the high street and there is a riot taking place we would stop and heard for somewhere safe. 

* Our assessments need to encourage us to select a safe way of doing the activity we want to and not stop us doing it.  In this case, our assessment should prompt us to consider whether taking a taxi home after a night out is wise.  If we do decide that a taxi is a possible solution we need to reassess because the activity has fundamentally changed (i.e. the risks are now different).

System theory.  Interaction of man, machine and environment influencing decision making regarding task.

I would go one step further and say that your 'risk assessment' should flag up the possibility of multiple actions regarding task performance and then determine control measures to assist in steering away from unsafe acts.

JohnW  
#24 Posted : 15 March 2017 14:11:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

Roundtuit, that's a good example to consider, but not in one risk assessment as I see each activity as separate.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
So walk down a main high street during the day

That activity is 'Going shopping' or 'Walking to work' 

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Walk down the same main high street on a Saturday Evening "early doors"

- that is 'Going TO the pub'

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out"

- that is 'Leaving The Pub'

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Walk down the same high street on a Saturday evening at "chucking out" when the main football rivals are in town for a game

- that is 'Leaving The Pub when others have been on a pub crawl after the footie' Each deserves its own RA and controls. Additional controls for the last two might include 1. Don't wear a red tee-shirt. 2. Ensure not alone. 3. Don't talk to strangers 4. Don't look at strangers in a funny way.

:o)

Thompson26138  
#25 Posted : 27 March 2017 08:55:40(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Thompson26138

The term 'Likelihood' is the likelihood of the harm (severity) being realised. Likelihood is really a combination of both exposure to the task and frequency of harm being realised. In other words - Probability e.g. 1 in X times. If you know how many times the task is done a year then it is 1 in X times per year. It stands to reason that if you increase the number of times per year you go up ladders then the risk will also increase assuming all other conditions are the same. The risk will at some point stabilise so doubling the exposure will not necessarily double the risk. This is the law of probability (Think of flicking a coin). 

The problem lies in the assignment of numbers and classifications for determining what is broadly acceptable, tolerable and what is not. There is not validity in assigning ordinal numbers to statements or conditions, but it can help in prioritising actions above other actions as well as CBA justifications.

As we know it is perfectly ok to use non numerical risk assessment providing they have contect, are valid and can be repeated (reliable) with a SMART plan with the usual factors that support suitable and sufficient (see old L21 ACoP). I would also support this with assuptions made during assessment.

Hope this helps 

 

Snwdrp84  
#26 Posted : 28 March 2017 14:53:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Snwdrp84

JohnW

I would tend to slightly disagree.  You could still use the same RA for all these senarios, you could tailor the risk assessment to include certain training requirements or further information necessary for each task.  Why create 10 documents when you can have 1.  Upon reviewing that document at a later date it could then be decided which (if any) would require a seperate assessment.

Ron Hunter  
#27 Posted : 28 March 2017 15:52:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Safetycat: A few pointers from my experience:

Don't waste time scoring anything before controls are considered. That's of no value to anyone.

Your employer is correct. We consider the likelihood of harm being realised, along with consideration of the severity = risk.

Don't get hung up on that one either. Severity is a matter of chance, with statistics suggesting a greater chance of a lesser outcome (twisted ankle etc.)  that there is of lesser chance of a severe outcome (Death). The sums come out the same either way with controls in place 1 x 5 = 5 x1. No big deal.

Brazier  
#28 Posted : 29 March 2017 18:01:17(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Brazier

I made the provocative comment at #14 that the grey areas around risk assessment are affecting our credibility.  A key grey area is the definition of risk and associated terms.

I have always understood that risk = consequence x likelihood.  But I am not aware of a clear definition of likelihood. We tend to use the terms likelihood, frequency, probability and chance interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing.  Thompson26138 at #23 has provided a fairly logical explanation of how these terms can be used, but I would use them differently.

From the Cambridge Dictionary online:

* Likelihood = the chance that something will happen

* Probability = the level of possibility of something happening or being true

* Frequency = the number of times something happens within a particular period, or the fact of something happening often or a large number of times

* Chance = the level of possibility that something will happen.

The only definition that is clear to me is frequency.  It would be the number of people who die falling from a ladder (per year in the UK).  I don’t think this is useful for a risk assessment.  My interpretation of probability (and chance) is that it is how often something happens per time.  In this case it would be the frequency (number of deaths per year) divided by the number of times a ladder is used per year in the UK.  This could be used for a risk assessment, but I don’t think we would ever have accurate data about ladder usage.  So that leaves likelihood, which I would interpret as the proportion of falls from a ladder that result in death.  I think this is potentially the most useful in terms of risk assessment because we can use science rather than rely entirely on statistics to determine this - in this case a formula could be developed to determine the likelihood of failure vs the distance fallen.

The choice of probability or likelihood is important.  As Thompson26138 pointed out, using probability would tell you that increased use of a ladder increases the risk.  But I am not sure this is really what risk assessment is meant for.  I think that the main purpose of risk assessment is to indicate whether the use of a ladder for a given activity is major or minor concern, which is better indicated by using likelihood.

Sorry for the long and complicated reply.  Writing this has helped me understand the process a bit better. 

Roundtuit  
#29 Posted : 29 March 2017 19:55:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

http://www.shponline.co.uk/death-paralysis-injury-shocking-stories-support-stair-safety-day/

Go on - "whats  the frequency Keneth?"

778 deaths per year with unknown life changing events from going t'foot o' tha'stairs

Roundtuit  
#30 Posted : 29 March 2017 19:55:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

http://www.shponline.co.uk/death-paralysis-injury-shocking-stories-support-stair-safety-day/

Go on - "whats  the frequency Keneth?"

778 deaths per year with unknown life changing events from going t'foot o' tha'stairs

Users browsing this topic
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.