Posted By Kevin Walker I would suggest that this is not safety bashing but a call to all involved in the safety industry look for appropriate solutions to issues as opposed to bringing in poorly thought out and basically stupid solutions. It is the usual story, much simplier to say no than figure out to best deal with this without looking like a complete idiot. Most problems I deal with in regard to most of these type of issues is that the inexperienced and uninformed tend to go for the simple answer. A lot of common sense goes a long way in this game. Kevin

Posted By John Webster I'm sure it's not always over zealous safety officers to blame. Most of this nonsense seems to come from LAs, and I'll bet it is their legal department getting twitchy, despite maybe having received sensible advice from their safety people. Unfortunately, LAs seem to be more terrified of legal action than just about any other organisation or undertaking in existance. It's not just H&S, look at employment law as well and the way incompetent senior officials seem to get paid off rather than just fired!

Posted By Jonathan Breeze And in yesterdays Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.c...0,,176-1206966_2,00.html So who rattled their cages then? As someone has said previously though, read between the lines and 'fear of litigation' jumps out.

Posted By Sean Fraser The sad thing about these two reports is that they are implying that the 13000+ enforcement notices are of this type - reinforcing the common view that H&S is simply there to spoil everyone's innocent fun. It is obvious that neither paper bothered to check even a sample of the improvement notices issued to see just how shocking public and private organisations can be. Nor have they bothered to read the actual report that sparked their ire. Three stories jump out of the Times link referenced in an earlier post - - the number of musicians permited to perform in public places is to do with licensing and has nothing to do with H&S, so they got that wrong, and - I would applaud any school that is conscious enought to protect my children in promoting safety equipment for potentially hazardous activities such as picking up contaminated litter - what screaming headlines would we see if a child had contracted hepititus C from a contaminated needle? - the story about the conkers was a ruse by the LA to conventiently blame H&S for their actions, when the real reason was to save money having to maintain the trees - check your local area and see how many trees have been hacked down recently (all the LAs are in on this one and unless you get a preservation order in quick you'll be a lot less "green" than you thought you were . . .!) It is all to do with a sense of proportion, which the UK media have none of. As a consequence, I seldom purchase their purile frothings any more. That said, I have bought more papers recently . . . some have better absorbance than others, but we'll go back to passing the paper counter by once the puppy has attained full bladder and bowel control. I agree that some of these stories show over-reaction, but the way it is reported is to make out that all H&S is this way. I support the statement that we tackle this by not allowing ourselves to fall into the quick response traps ourselves - a calm and rational response to enquiries from the people we deal with will help them understand that the media is lying to them. Oh, and well done to the increase in enforcement notices from the LAs - they have been struggling to meet their statutory requirements due to the same budgetary constraints afflicting the HSE. They should be applauded for this - not lambasted. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There but for the grace of God . . .

Posted By Jez Corfield John, I couldn’t agree more. Fortunately the main drivers for me are keeping out of court, keeping away from solicitors acting on behalf of claimants and keeping staff at work. The image of H&S as pushed by a ‘Journalist’, a trade that is somewhere between politician and timeshare salesmen in how it is itself perceived, in a rag like the Mirror (remember the nonsense they spouted about troops in Iraq) does not register. It’s a pity the Sunday Times doesn’t see sense, IOSH wrote to them, perhaps we need to as well. Its ok for them to have a go at “jobsworth’s” but the press would be the first to complain if we went back to the accident/ill health rates of the 1950’s. I suspect a lot of these ‘stories’ are not even initiated by H&S people, but by true jobsworths who like to use the H&S tagline to spoil it for everyone else. I bet every single one of us has a story to tell about someone who was not qualified, making a decision to halt an activity that the H&S bod then had to go back and put right. Jez

Posted By fats van den raad I see this as classic resistance to change. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that the jobsworths sometimes do come out with some really daft rules, and then blame it on H&S. I know this happens. But on the other hand, society is constantly changeing, and with it societie's perception on safety. Example, when I was a lad, (not THAT long ago), we didn't wear seat belts in cars, we didn't wear helmets on bicycles, and I (for one) was driving a tractor by the age of 8 and ploughing by the time I was 12. There was nothing wrong with this, and society found it acceptable. But things have changed over the years. We expect our youngstersnow to wear helmets when they get on their bikes, even though it has still got the training wheels on! That is seen as the sensible thing to do. But then we are quite willing to pick the kid up off the bike, remove the helmet and put them on a donkey, from wich the potential fall distance is much higher than the bike. And we say it's a ludicrous thought to wear a helmet? Accept it, times are changeing, and just because we used to do somethinga certain way in the past, does not mean that it is right and that we should not be improving it. How many of you use that argument on a regular basis when confronted with the change resistance?

Posted By Jonathan Breeze I must confess when I read the Mirror article, the following headline sprang to mind: "Fletcher fires off at soft targets" (It's a bad pun I know & with my surname I should know better!) I only commented because I'd seen a similar article in the Sunday Times, Must admit Very sensible point Fats about the bike/ donkey comparison. Some other points: bikes have handbrakes - donkeys don't; Donkeys scare easier than bikes; and donkeys hurt more than bikes when they land on top of you! Anyway I thought that all persons riding horses, ponies & donkeys had to wear head protection by law now? Does anyone else here remember a protracted campaign about this in the 80's (I was a schoolkid at the time before anyone says)? - From memory it was run by the media funnily enough. I'll stop derailing this thread now...

Posted By fats van den raad I for one know that I have had to implement what to some may seem OTT procedures because of one or two individuals who did something totally stupid that resulted in an accident. Like the order picker that couldn't be bothered to use a purpose-provided platform step to lift box containing loose items from a shelve above head height and received one of said loose items on the head as a reward. Subsequently order pickers are required to wear head protection in the warehouse. I don't like it, they don't like it, but how can I otherwise safeguard my boss from potential litigation without spending millions to revamp the whole warehouse? I notice that there have been one or two comments on here indicating that the litigatious society is nothing but a figment of our imaginations fuelled by the press. Well, I'm not so sure. I for one, worked in an organisation where you could be 95% certain that EVERY accident report you recieved would be, whithin a few weeks, be followed by a letter from a solicitor, working on behalf of said victim, notifying you that your company are being claimed against because of it's willfull negligence in allowing his client to hurt himself. In all my time there, every single claim was settled (on advice from the insurers)and I know that the company has never been to court to contest a case (on advice from the insurers) So as far as I am concerned, the litigatious danger is very real and it is out there. And yes, I too blame the lawyers. But I also blame the Insurers for not allowing us to fight cases, the trade unions reps for often being the main perpetrators of the blame culture, a a sad judicial system wher a company is, for all intents and purposes, deemed guilty and has to prove their innocence.

Posted By Merv Newman I had read the sunday times article but not the mirror's. Actually I thought that the ST was not too bad - blaming mainly the HSE, who agreed it was their fault - and the LAs, but not specifically HSE professionals. Of the mirror's list, I think some of the listed actions were probably sensible but I would like to see the written and signed (by a competent person)Risk Assessments being required before the works department send someone out to cut down the trees or remove the hanging baskets or otherwise impinge on our lives. As for falling off a donkey - do you want to see my scars ?

Posted By fats van den raad Merv, thanks for that RA that confirms I would be able to put myself forward as a suitably qualified shooter of safety officers, having been trained by a qualified and established sharp shooter and achieved the qualification of "Marksman, Class 1" (I can supply photocopies of my gold marksman's badge). I furthermore own my own relevant PPE, all to the appropriate EU standard. I base the evidence of my due regard for safety of members of the public on the fact that there are no recorded incidents of me shooting a member of the public. Any consultancy firm that want's to expand into the "Elimination" field can contact me. Rifle and bullets to be provided. (Special introductory offer on lawyers this month!!)