Posted By garyh In Today's Times a letter states "in our health-and-safety-obsessed society, with thousands of regulations concerning every aspect of our lives". (Link http://www.timesonline.c...le/0,,59-2419992,00.html). How many health & safety regulations (ie Statutory instruments)are there, EXACTLY? It would help to be able to rebut statements like this with factual information......or is the statement correct?

Posted By Jonathan Breeze According to Brendan Barber of the TUC: "The UK today has sensible and practical health and safety laws and we have half as many as we did 35 years ago." See this article: http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12559-f0.cfm

Posted By John Donaldson It also depends on how wide your definition of Health and Safety is. If you take on board Fire Safety, Food Safety, Environmental Legislation, Transport of Dangerous Goods, Housing, Plant Safety etc etc There are many more than the 227 which HSE quote. All of which large organisations and universities have to deal with on a day to day basis.

Posted By Jay Joshi Reading the letter in context, the term "thousands of regulations" has been used in a literal sense referring to the multitude of regulations individuals/organisations etc are expected to comply with The heading is "Fight fireworks with fire" and the contributer was fed up of the noise from loud fireworks at 2.00 a.m. in the morning! As far as I am aware, the legislation reagrding when one can individually use fireworks without a permit is that:- The law is that there is a creation of a curfew on firework use between 11pm and 7am (in line with the Noise Act), with the exception of the following nights where the curfew will vary. a) November 5th -until midnight b) New Year’s Eve -1am on the following day c) Chinese New Year -1am on the following day d) Diwali -1am on the following day As 21 October (Saturday) was Diwali, does one presume that it is allowed?? I do not think so at 2.00 a.m. Personally, I dislike the very loud fireworks. In the Indian sub-continent, there is a tendency to use the loudest "crackers", euphemistaically referred to as "atom bombs" without any consideration of its effect on others. I can say from experience that in many cases, the noise presuure level would be above the peak sound pressure level of 137 dB if the cracker is exploded in close vicinity. The DTI website states that:- http://www.dti.gov.uk/fireworks/retailers.htm The following fireworks must not be supplied to the general public: • Air bombs, aerial shells, aerial maroons, shells-in-mortar and maroons-in-mortar. • All bangers (including “batteries” containing bangers, such as Chinese Crackers). • Mini-rockets. • Fireworks with erratic flight (e.g. ground spinners, jumping jacks, squibs). • Some Category 2 and 3 fireworks (as classified by BS 7114) which exceed size limits specified in the 1997 Regulations. • All Category 4 fireworks. It seems that the law was not enforced in this case!

Posted By anon1234 I thought Diwali was one of those festivals that lasted for a whole week - but I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will advise - iff this is the case and it started on 21 October then fireworks could be let off at any time between say midnight on 20 October until 1am on 28 October

Posted By Raymond Rapp It appears there are thousands if you include regulations, ACOPS and Guidance Notes. However, these must be taken in a contextual perspective. I read recently that each year there are something in the like two thousand new laws (presumably including SIs) passed each year by Parliament. Only a fraction of those are health and safety related. Whilst no one wants a dictatorial regime, I was thinking about when I was a young man and the crash helmet became compulsory, a real pain at the time. I would not dream of riding a motor bike without one now. The law often reflects society's concerns, even if at the time it seems ridiculous. Ray

Posted By John Murgatroyd If people respected others, and their property, we wouldn't need laws. And if people obeyed laws, we wouldn't need more. If employers cared for the health and safety of their employees, we wouldn't need health and safety regulations. We also wouldn't need politiceans, police, courts or health and safety advisors and consultants. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted By J Knight Salus, EU bashing misses a very important factor, which is how the EU works. A friend of mine was a corporate lobbyist at the EU in Brussels, she worked for a legal firm representing a very big UK telecoms company. At one point, the UK government wanted tighter controls over telecoms licensing, but knew that domestic opinion wouldn't tolerate it. So they aggressively pushed for complex and tight regulation in Brussels, refecting what they wanted in the Uk market; their approach was so draconian that my friend says she met EU partner lobbyists in a state of near despair at the effect this legislation would have on their domestic markets. The UK won its case and the directive was adopted; of course, our government was able to wash their hands of it and say 'it's the EU, not us', which the domestic media with its usual intelligence and incisiveness swallowed hook, line and sinker. But it wasn't the EU, it was us. This really happened, my friend was lobbying aginst this wholly UK inspired measure in Brussels. Before Robens the UK managed to adopt 180 H&S laws all on its own, and most current H&S legislation is domestically derived. Do you really think we wouldn't have had measures to control DSE or to assess risks without the EU? Wake up and smell the spin, John

Posted By J Knight Salus, Your first sentence has no bearing on your EU bashing, which is what my post was aimed at. Agreed, my friend did not work for a safety lobbyist; my point is that the EU based laws you have such a low opinion of were almost cetainly made with the active involvment of the UK government, and reflect a general trend within UK law. Just because a law originates in Brussels doesn't make it bad law, and UK law isn't necessarily good law, John