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
Brian Hagyard  
#1 Posted : 01 December 2020 16:24:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Is it just me or has the IOSH forum deteriorated during the Covid 19 Pandemic due to the lack of moderation? Its always been a place for Healthy Professional discussion but right now we have people calling each other idiots and even suggesting that they should be put in institutions because they don’t hold the same view as some other people.

I have been called “tainted” because of my long carrier as a H&S enforcer before crossing the fence (latter withdrawn)

I still stand by what I have said that Covid is a public Health Crisis and not a Health and Safety Issues, if the scientists cannot agree how can we as mere H&S people suggest different control measures.

But surely the fact of the matter is that the government has issued official guidance and legislation, just as they have always done, and as “the competent person” in our companies its our job and duty to see that this guidance is put in place even if we think its over the top or we don’t agree with it?

Unless we get some moderation back on this site I think we run the risk of becoming a laughing stock.

thanks 4 users thanked Brian Hagyard for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 02/12/2020(UTC), chris42 on 02/12/2020(UTC), Alan Haynes on 02/12/2020(UTC), stevedm on 03/12/2020(UTC)
Ovo  
#2 Posted : 02 December 2020 11:10:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Ovo

Hello Brian, i am not a prolific poster on here, but when i do post it is to share positives and to learn from the more experience members. Icant say that I have noticed too much negativity on here but have definitely noticed a marked change on Linkedin where sadly it seems to be descending to the level of Facebook.

Lets try collectively and as individuals to ignore the negatives and focus only on the usefull stuff. I have found in the past that I have been tempted to respond to a post with an opposing view to mine but have always held back and sometimes this has been beneficial as i realised that i would have been jumping to conclusions instead of listening to both points of view making me appear among the professionals here to be an incompetent, or a bufoon. (something that on my journey i am keen to avoid.)

Kind regards, Phill

chris.packham  
#3 Posted : 02 December 2020 12:28:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Brian - you say our task is simply to implement the Government guidance. But what do you do then when the Government guidance is not correct or, as it is in my particular area of work, often inappropriate for specific situations? This has occurred more than once with their guidance on prevention of infection by SARS-Cov-2 virus. I simply cannot recommend action that the scientific evidence that I have acquired shows clearly is not the optimum. I see my responsibility is to those I am advising to 'tell it as it is' not pass on advice that would increase the risk of damage to health.

biker1  
#4 Posted : 02 December 2020 12:44:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I haven't noticed much use of 'lol', 'lmao' or 'rofl' yet, so I don't think we have quite descended to the level of Facebook. Good point about seeing the positives, but unfortunately life isn't that simple sometimes. And yes, part of our job is to interpret the law for our organisations, but we can face the professional dilemma of recognising serious deficiencies in the law or guidance, and what we do about this.

I'm afraid if I see an opinion being expressed that goes against good sense or is even dangerous, I am not minded to let it go unchallenged. How I challenge this could no doubt be better or more constructive at times, as could other posters at times, but I don't claim any impending perfection.

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 02/12/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 02 December 2020 12:51:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

This is the horns of our dilemma as H&S professionals. I agree with Brian when he says the covid 19 issue is to H&S related. If it was, we would carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and concluded that for our workplace it is not an issue and forget about it. It is a public health matter where we are expected to simply follow government rules. Unfortunately, this government speaks with a fork tongue, blurring the difference between actual regulations which we must follow and guidance which they are suggesting that we could follow. And then you get  ministers who seem to be going against the spirit of the government’s own advice eg a Scotch egg with your drink counts as a substantial meal. That with confusion over face shields against face coverings, it’s not surprising that we as H&S professionals don’t really know what to do.    

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
biker1 on 02/12/2020(UTC)
biker1  
#6 Posted : 02 December 2020 13:27:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Yes, I had a wry smile at the Scotch egg announcement. I love Scotch eggs, but to suggest they are a substantial meal is a nonsense. It could also start a regional aggro with Cornwall about pasties!

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 02 December 2020 13:46:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The whole "substantial meal" scenario is a farce.

When it was first muted a Cornish Pasty on its own was not deemed to be "substantial" -  this from the political party that brought us pasty gate (my memories of what a holiday is may be receeding but the feeling of being absolutely stuffed at lunchtime from eating a pasty on Porthminster and Porthmeor Beaches remain).

We also saw "pizza gate" in Manchester's Northern Quarter where a single slice being offered was the equivalent of a standard supermarket offering but the local constabulary concluded a "slice" did not fit the definition.

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 02 December 2020 13:46:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The whole "substantial meal" scenario is a farce.

When it was first muted a Cornish Pasty on its own was not deemed to be "substantial" -  this from the political party that brought us pasty gate (my memories of what a holiday is may be receeding but the feeling of being absolutely stuffed at lunchtime from eating a pasty on Porthminster and Porthmeor Beaches remain).

We also saw "pizza gate" in Manchester's Northern Quarter where a single slice being offered was the equivalent of a standard supermarket offering but the local constabulary concluded a "slice" did not fit the definition.

Brian Hagyard  
#9 Posted : 02 December 2020 14:07:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

Brian - you say our task is simply to implement the Government guidance. But what do you do then when the Government guidance is not correct or, as it is in my particular area of work, often inappropriate for specific situations?

Chris you are one of the few here who is a specialist in 1 field. Not many of us have that luxury.

Can i ask you a question.? Have you ever been in the witness box in a  Coroners court tio be asked to say that the diver of a piece of plant equipment had died because he was incompitant becuse he had no training record for it?

Let me tell you its not nice to be asked that question with the widow and 16 year old daughter - my response - "i cannot state that as fact becuase there is no requirement to attend a formal cause onlt to be trained - this gentleman may have recieved training from someone else". How could I say that - because its in the guidance (and the law)

I have just been asked if its OK for people to sit at a shared PC if they wear face shileds - my response - that is not acceptable in the guidance and i as i am not a virologist i cannot say its fine.

But we are getting away from the point here - i was not sugesting that we ignore poor advice - just that we do it in a professional manner rather than resort to name calling!

chris42  
#10 Posted : 02 December 2020 17:23:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

In the past Moderators suggested we attack the subject not the person. Those of us in H&S should be able to challenge ideas and concepts that others have, with logical and reasoned argument. If we can’t do that amongst ourselves, then how can we possibly convince those that we work for and with.

Chris

thanks 3 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
stevedm on 03/12/2020(UTC), CptBeaky on 03/12/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 03/12/2020(UTC)
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.