Posted By Andy Petrie
Just spotted this one:

Parents have been banned from giving their children goggles for swimming lessons.

Hertfordshire County Council is afraid the goggles could spring back, hitting children in the face. It says they can be worn only "in exceptional circumstances".

Posted By Joe Ridley
Hi,

I agree, this is mad. Goggles are worn so people can see where they are going when swimming, I have swam without goggles on and apart from the irritation, I nearly collided with other swimmers (I was doing my best to aviod them, but cloudy outlines under water make distance perception difficult),I think I may be more at risk from serious injury than goggles springing back.

On another note, parents are responsible for their children wearing goggeles not, not the pool. They are not providing the equipment, the parents are. What will it be next, no swimming with your face in the water in case you don't see what is coming to you.

By the way where did you spot this item?

Cheers

Joe

Posted By Merv Newman
Actually, does anyone have jeremy clarkson's e-mail ? I feel like provoking some comments here. Maybe we can build a recognition of the difference between a "jobsworth" and a professional

Posted By Jennifer Kelly
Having read a number of postings about stupid safety requirements there often seems to be a common thread to the stories, local authorities.

Why is it local authorities seem unable to assess risk properly and as a result make H&S and H&S professionals a laughing stock for the media?

Posted By PaulA
Mike..
You may well have talked yourself into a job on this one..You must have a direct dial tel no to other authorities.. give them a bell and dismiss or confirm it.... then fellow readers can decide who the fools realy are!!! dare you!!!!
Regards PaulA

Posted By Sean Fraser
There was a comment that the supposed reason for this controversial decision was a failure to assess risk effectively - possibly the case, but one has to believe that LAs are employing people as safety advisors who have relevant qualifications and experience - after all, they are usually the largest employers in any region after the NHS so they must be used to recruitment!

I think this story demonstrates another example of the Bogeyman Principle - the irrational fear that they may, at some point in the future by person or persons unknown, be sued for an injury or worse due to something that they worry the court may rule as "reasonably foreseeable". As has been mentioned, there are two LAs with the same ban but for different reasons - this must therefore have originated somewhere and now they are all hurredly covering their a***s "just in case".

The problem is the continued media assertion that we are developing a compensation culture similar to the Americans - an assertion that is not true, but it is good to keep up the level of fear so they can sell more papers etc.. After persistent reinforcement by the drip-drip effect, we all develop a generalised fear of being sued, despite the fact it is uncommon, and it affects our decision making accordingly.

Such over-reactions to incidents are not limited just to public services - commercial organisations suffer from it as well. The consequence? It ruins the 'fun' element of many activities and reinforces the image of H&S being interfering fuddy-duddies out to eliminate all risk by banning everything, subtly reinforcing the fear of the compensation culture when that is used as the excuse for such action! A vicious self-perpetuating circle.

Let us not forget the story from Edinburgh of banning parents (or generally adults) from taking photographs at childrens events such as nativity plays - this had also been instigated in reaction to the Bogeyman Principle that society is riddled with faceless but highly dangerous paedophiles. It was widely reported at the time and the balance of opinion seemed to favour it (although some believed it a ludicorus over-reaction). Recently, the ban was dropped - but how many of you noticed that? You had to be sharp to catch it - reporting was a few seconds in a couple of radio news reports and then heard no more and I doubt it was even mentioned in the newspapers. Result - we probably still believe that the ban is in place. Why? The ban was "news" as it grabbed attention and was ripe for analysis - the rescinding of it was not really interesting and relegated to a mere mention. And anyway - how many of us still trust what we read in the papers? We do if it supports our viewpoint, but if it doesn't, then it's all lies and misdirection! (Actually, the latter is generally true anyway).

I too would be interested in the reasoning behind this reported ban - I presume it is true since at least one member of the Forum has had direct experience of a similar ruling elsewhere, demonstrating how infectious fear of the Bogeyman can be.

So I'll wager it isn't due to an inability to assess risk effectively -

WATCH OUT! The Bogeyman is creeping up and he's going to get YOU . . .!!!

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Darn...

I missed that one in my risk assessment!

Hold on, but what about exposure to coal dust?

Posted By Karen Todd
All,

If I was told that I could not wear my goggles I'm afraid I would take my custom elsewhere. However, I realise not everyone is in a position to do this. There is more risk of my highlights turning green than the goggle springing back and hitting me in the face.

I do think things are getting a bit ridiculous. Last year I was in a hotel in Co. Antrim, taking a H&S course, when I looked at the evening menu for the restaurant which was on display in reception. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "Fahitas will no longer be served on a sizzling iron griddle, for reasons of health and safety".

I am imagining someone slightly seared their finger/hand/wrist, possibly tried to sue, and the hotel has put this 'control measure' in place.

Boo! I want to swim with my goggles on and have my fahitas on a sizzling hot plate!

Karen

Posted By Joe Ridley
Having reread the message and the article, it would appear that it only refers to swimming lessons, not general swimming, and from this I am assuming it refers to the swimming teacher assisting children with putting goggles on, or repositioning them. I myself take swimming lessons and have been aware that when assisting with putting goggles on, there is a risk of them 'pinging' back. Does this mean when assisting with goggles, if they 'ping' back the teacher would be liable for any injury sustained? If they are liable, then this would explain the ban.

Joe

Posted By Andy Petrie
I have been contacted by a member of Hertfordshire Councils H&S team who told me that they are acting on the advice of BAALPE and that not wearing goggles is considered Best Practice.

BAALPE is the British Association of Advisors and Lecturers in Physical Education. Anyone heard of them?

Posted By Mike Craven
I have. Lots of information about this professional organisation and what it does can even be found by typing "baalpe" and clicking on search.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Chris,

It's not clear from your message, was the girl wearing swimming goggles when she was hit in the face with a football?

Or...

Is your point that the most innocuous things (in the first instance goggles but in this case a football) can cause injuries?

Either way I'm sure all forum members will wish her a speedy recovery.

Posted By Brian Dawson
What a dreadful debate. You’ve seen a report in the papers. Well it must be right then!

• baalpe is an association for advisers, lecturers, inspectors, consultants, advisory teachers and other professionals with qualifications in physical education, sport and dance. PE includes swimming. It does include information in it’s publications about swimming organised by schools either in there own pools or in pools used by schools for lessons.

• Is it not possible the advice given by this organisation is not because of ‘health and safety’ but for, say, efficient teaching (with very young pupils it takes teaching time to help them put such things on properly)

• Whilst some pupils may need goggles because they are sensitive the vast majority of us do not NEED them, and when teaching a class of primary age kids I don’t really think there is a problem with them all bumping into each other underwater because they can’t see where they are going!

• Nobody seems to have bothered to check what baalpe actually say before commenting & opining about what they advise on. I think (& here I’m falling into the same trap because I haven’t checked!) their advice is more on the lines of discouraging their use except for pupils with sensitive eyes.

• I suspect the school has made this rule (for reasons of convenience) and when challenged came up with the usual reason ‘health and safety’. This is often why some of these daft rulings come to pass.

• Changing schools because they won’t let your kids wear goggles for swimming seems like taking choice to the limits Karen!

• If a school opened its pool to all and sundry during the summer vacation would your advice be you don’t need to bother with lifeguards? You could always cite the Daily Mail as the source of your competent advice. I don’t think the HSE would agree, though.

• Unless supported by facts I really don’t think we should slag off colleagues in the public sector because of a story in the press.

Posted By Jack
You make some valid points, Brian. It is essential, though, that whenever h&s is spuriously cited as a reason for a particular action, that professional h&s advisers do not collude with it just to provide 'support'. All to often h&s is cited to justify a managers decision. If the decision was for some other (valid) reason the manager should justify it on that basis not fall back on 'health and safety'.

Posted By Hilary Charlton
If we're getting into the realms of the totally ridiculous, which obviously we are - has anyone done a risk assessment on the likelihood of someone doing backstroke poking their finger in the eye of someone coming the other way doing, say, breaststroke. Surely this is a possibility and perhaps the use of goggles would prevent an otherwise nasty injury.

I have heard some things but this really does take the biscuit (that would be a wet soggy biscuit having been dunked in tepid tea to ensure you don't scratch your mouth when eating it and don't burn your fingers either!).

Hilary

Posted By Neil Pearson
I notice SHP included my two penn'orth on the Clarkson debate, and now I wish I'd said something about this. I don't think it's safety practitioners that give our profession such a bad name. The problem seems to me that we have to react to the litigious society we live in. People who run swimming pools have to manage their own liability. Trouble is, we look stupid just because we are reacting to the people who screw money out of local councils. The law really is an ass at the moment and it must be time to legislate to change the common law (like they did with the Occupiers Liability Act).

Posted By Robert.J
Glad that's nipped in the bud.
But it's things like the original posting and the following sheeps' comments along with the obligatory "expert" advice that makes the forum as interesting as it is.

Posted By J Hambrook
On a personal note I would like to say that whilst some of the comments made were amusing I was disappointed to see that some colleagues were quick to condemn with quite scathing comments.
It is a sad indictment that so many were quick to believe the press instead of having faith in fellow 'professionals'!