Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Lorraine Shuker
Check out P25.
Crux of story is vicar has to spend £1,300 on changing lightbulbs when it used to only cost £200 before 'elfensaftee' working at height regs made the world a worse place.
Oh how I would like to torture ....... (name deleted to protect the terminally stupid but its at the bottom of his article) with red hot pokers and force him to scramble up 40ft ladders in the nave and see how safe he feels.
I'll bet the nearest thing to working at height he does is drinking his lunch on a bar stool.
GRRRRR!!!!! It makes me angry!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
It's the Daily Mail - what more do you expect!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Cr8r
Lorraine
I saw this on the news this morning. The vicar went on to say that the extra money he had to spend could have gone to good causes around the world. The news report said that the extra costs had been incurred due to the WAH Regs necessitating a risk assessment. This then led on to the provision of scaffold tower to change the bulbs, which has bumped the price up.
If the company concerned (I don't know who it is) had done their risk assessments all along, surely even prior to the WAH Regs they would have reached the same conclusion.
The chaps (or chapesses) changing the bulbs may well be of the view that the extra money is worth spending to ensure their safety!
Still, it was sure to happen - elfinsafety to blame again!
The thing that amazed me most about this story is that the vicar had managed to find contractors that have actually heard of the WAH Regs! So soon too! Strange how the use of a scaffold tower had upped the price so much - not that I'm a cynic at all but is this a case of "new Regs - new price"? Mmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I am more than a little concerned that a scaffold tower cost such a premium over the previous methods. It is this sort of thing that really does cause us a problem - Safety is so much more expensive!
I rather suspect that it was not done to the best advantage or the tower erected correctly in any case. Out of interest a MEWP suitable for the task would have cost around £300 per day. They could have undertaken a lot of additional jobs that really needed doing at the same time.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Cr8r
Robert
The previous method was probably a rickety ladder. Your £300 MEWP would probably have ended up being charged out at three grand!
You hit the nail on the head though - elfinsafety is perceived by the population at large to: a) cost a lot of money and b) take a lot longer with more hassle. News stories like this just perpetuate the myth that we just want to make everyone's lives harder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Quote from local press...
“And the firm doing the work for us have said they have now got scaffolding they can move along rather than having to take it down and put it up to move it.”
So in response to the WAH Regs someone has invented a.......mobile.....tower scaffold.
What an amazing idea ?
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Maggie Atterbury
Has anyone thought to write to the Daily Mail.....?
Maggie Atterbury
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Problem is though it is approaching 10 - 10.5 metres high and tends to fall over if it goes over a bump. I really despair of the approach of some of these people. What is it that makes them reach such incredible heights of assessment capability.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lorraine Shuker
Maggie I have indeed considered writing to the Daily Mail but found that I had to remove too many expletives for it to get across the full force of my contempt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
I heard the same story on the BBC Today program this morning.
However the story I heard was much more balanced and that Father Anthony Sutch is now considering lowering the lights and installing energy saving bulbs which will last longer.
We have the same problem in our church and I am sure that we shall do the same when it comes to repainting the inside of the nave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Same story in the times.
First, I'm a bit surprised that he got charged £300 for changing a few lightbulbs from a ladder. A one-hour job for two men ? Somewhat high-priced. Ah, the good old days.
Second, I'm not surprised that he had to pay over £1 000 for use of scaffolding. The time taken to erect and dismantle four times means that the job will probably take the same two men most of the day. I'm no expert here, but a 10m high scaffolding would have to be better than a simple tower. And it is possible that they had to hire it. Time would include collect and return the scaffolding to the hire company.
Finally, mobile scaffolding with decent outriggers could well be ok for 10m. And would only have to be erected/dismantled once. Which would make changing 4 lightbulbs a morning's work (?)
Perhaps the vicar could get three quotes for the next job and use a decent RA and provision of appropriate means of access as one of his up-front choice criteria. And if they still come along with a big ladder ?
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richie
This story was picked up by the 'always negative to H&S' Radio 4, today on 'You & Yours'. Item was regarding WAH, with a HSE rep on to inject the suitable and reasonable requirements angle.
The mail, as usual, were somewhat biased regarding the story. The 'You & Yours' team interviewed the electrical contractor concerned, who stated they needed the scaffolding because it was a two hands operation to change the complete light fittings, rather than to merely unscrew a few bulbs. They said the WAH regs did not influence their decision to undertake the work in this manner as the use of scaffolding towers was the reasonable method to undertake the task anyway, implying they would have used this method even if the WAH regs were not in force. HSE trumpeted this as good practice.
As usual the BBC were happy to attempt to belittle H&S, with side comments such as "that riveting response" etc. Maybe the BBC should be asked to wheel on their own H&S advisers, as I know they are very competent and their Safety policy procedures are extensive regarding the topic.
Richie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Don't let us get diverted into the BBC as I am sure their safety department cringe as much as we do at the antics of their production and presentation teams. It was these latter two groups who put the lives of the public at risk with their stunts.
The response of the contractor was about what was expected and indicates a ladder would have been used no doubt to simply change the bulbs. I still argue that a MEWP would have been quicker and better for the job and at less cost.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By joe black
As previously stated, this is the Daily Mail! I suffer from them on a regular basis,as we are a family of rockers, I'm a single Mum, and my sons wear black. To top it all, I'm a H&S Manager........add it all up and I am the Devil according to the DM! Small, bigoted minds.......Joe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phillip
Hallelujah - The vicar lower the lights!
This is what risk assessments about - eliminate/ reduce the hazard.
For years, the vicar had been needlessly endangering people by sending them up a 40ft up a ladder. It is only his love of money and not care for others that has made him change his way - and I bet he thinks he is a A+ Christian!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
Just think
This could have been a very different story say the handy man did it and fell cause he wasn't provided proper access, would the paper be concerned that the church would have been take to court and sued cause they where trying to save a few quid.... he could have been the man who sued god.
And while i think of it 1k to change 4 light bulbs even with all the correct access equipment is robbery anyway, they should be investigated by the trading standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By R Joe
If only CDM - the Church Design and Management - Regs had been in force when the church was designed and built.
On a more serious note, I wonder if the DM would adopt a slightly different approach if the subject was a loss of a life on the railway where a 'price can't be put on safety' and where any senior manager presiding over any such calculation of cost Vs safety should be prosecuted immediately for manslaughter... Presumably, in this case if the operative had beeen killed falling from the ladder the DM would be happy to waive any such prosecution of the directors of the company on the basis that the death was far too costly to prevent? RJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Mathews
I think the vicar should have prayed harder. He might have got his boss to send down a couple of winged angels to do the job for free!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
"May the Lord cause his countenence to shine upon thee" (Numbers 6:25)
Thereby only saving on scaff but also on electricity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Red Ones
So in summary, H&S legislation has forced the church to consider a safer work method and energy saving lamps.
If we don't watch out it will also be forced to consider relamping strategies, multi-site contracts and any number of commercially well known and understood tools.
All it does is highlights how behind the times the church is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.