Posted By Mike Miller
I have just read an article from Sunday's newspaper that said a teenage pupil had been sent home from school by her head of department on health and safety grounds. It had been the pupils's misfortune to be wearing a crucifix round her neck. I can understand in certain environments personal adornements cannot be worn, but this is only a child wearing an article related to her religion.

Has this world gone stark raving mad?

This on top of a local authority having reviewed the risks of horse chestnut tree's to the public, chopped down all its conker trees on mass is just too much to bare. We as professionals try very hard to develop trust, culture and ownership which all goes out of the window when this sort of thing is allowed to happen unchallenged.

I take real exception to those who seem to want to bring down the good name of health and safety by using it as a political weapon.

Never mind off my soap box and back to work despssite that fact that it just got a little bit harder this week.

MIke

Posted By James365
I agree that schools would seem to be using health and safety as an ill considered excuse to implement school rules, particularly where these are possibly contentious in nature.

In my own case, I recently received correspondence from my son's school stating that mobile telephones and hand-held computer games were banned from the classroom "for health and safety reasons". Now i can understand their being banned for other reasons, and would fully support them, but health and safety reasons? Utter garbage. It was obviously written either by an idiot, or by someone who assumes the parents are idiots.

This does nothing for the public perception of our profession, and (in my own experience, of course) would seem to be indicative of the public sector's lack of nous when it comes to management and communication.

Right, I'm off to calm down...

Posted By James365
This is a case of choosing the battles I want to fight. As far as the School is concerned, this isn't one of them. But it's still annoying.

Posted By Diane Thomason
"someone who assumes the parents are idiots"

Unfortunately parents do swallow this kind of thing - they don't necessarily think about what the H&S issue might actually be or question it.

A relative recently regaled me with stories about how silly old H&S "regulations" were stopping schools doing all sorts of things these days - she receives letters from her kids' school on a regular basis explaining that because of H&S, x or y can't happen / x or y rule must be followed.

I have tried to explain the reality of these decisions by schools and other bodies (e.g. H&S being used to justify management decisions made for other reaasons). Have also explained that the Prohibition of School Sports Days When The Weather Is A Bit Poor Regulations 2006 and other such, do not exist.

Have heard from someone else about the poor old nursing homes, "forced to close" because horrid H&S says they have to widen all their doors, which they can't afford, hence being prevented from earning an honest bob or two for a living.

It's our old favourites - a mix of bonkers-conkers, a lack of transparency about decision making, and passing on / publishing incomplete information.

Posted By Jim Walker
Diane,

I think you might have hit onto something here!

Could we have a section of Spoof regulations that parody all these conkers bonkers stories.

Posted By James365
Prohibition of Football and Rugby at School Regulations 2005

Prohibition of Football and Rugby at School Regulations 2006 (as ammended to include Workplace Lunchtime Football)

Electrical Rubber Mats in Front of Swithcgear Regulations 1994 (Good practive, obviously, but this was actually quoted to me years ago by a dullard insurance inspector who thought I was as thick as him. He didn't meet my request to follow it up in writing)

Prohibition of the Use of Ladders During Satellite Dish Installations Regulations (Murdoch Ammendment) 2001

I'd better stop now before i break the keyboard...

Posted By garyh
How can wearing a necklace at school be considered a safety issue when wearing a tie is usually part of the uniform (and so must be "safe")?

Posted By Ian Mitchell
I suppose you could argue that a necklace prompts bullies to tug it and so cause an injury, or that it may catch on something in craft, woodwork etc lessons? And so on..

The same is true of ties though, so I suspect H&S has been substituted for PC...

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Found this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...england/kent/6258451.stm

Posted By Maggie Atterbury
Please can we have a little sanity here! Schools are entitled to determine their own dress code and most, if not all, state that the wearing of jewelery is not permitted, usually in their prospectus. This is partly a health and safety issue, as some horrendous acidents have happened to adults who have been wearing jewelery during practical activities, such as using machinery and sporting activities and they are not inexperienced children. I have personally seen a badly torn ear after an earing was torn out during a sporting activity for example. So it is a safety issue if pupils wear jewelery in some practical school lessons

In addition to the health and safety aspects, if pupils are asked to remove it for practical lessons, somebody has to look after it and ensure that it is returned to the right pupil. It can also get lost or stolen etc and may be very expensive. In other words it is an absolute pain for the school staff and it is much more sensible to say "no jewelery to be worn in school". There are plenty of occasions out of school when jewelery can be worn.

In the case in question, the fact that the girl's 'jewelery' was a crucifix is irrelevant, as was demonstrated by the school permitting her to wear a lapel badge. When I read this story in the paper, I thought that the girl was angry because the school was telling her what she could and couldn't wear and was using the religious angle as a way of getting publicity to hit back.

Maggie Atterbury
Education Health and Safety Team Leader
Bath & North East Somerset Council

Posted By Diane Thomason
Maggie

I think we are perfectly sane.

As you say
"Schools are entitled to determine their own dress code and most, if not all, state that the wearing of jewelery is not permitted, usually in their prospectus. This is partly a health and safety issue..."

I think what some of us are saying is that this was reported as entirely being based on "health and safety" rules, not a dress code which is partly based on H&S concerns. Why say "you can't wear a necklace because of health and safety rules"? Why not say "you can't wear a necklace because it's the school dress code"?

The big difference I believe, is that there is an implication that the H&S rules are "regulations" that are enforced on the school - making it look as though the (sometimes unpopular) rules are out of the school's hands.

This was my relative's impression of the "rules" she was being told about: that schools are having H&S "regulations" imposed on them from "on high". Hence it looks as though the poor old school has its hands tied. In reality these are decisions taken by the school - so the school should admit that and take responsibility for their own judgements.

Posted By JEB
Yet another example is in todays Hull Daily Mail relating to the FBU instructing their members not to use stepladders to install domestic Fire alarms take a look. http://www.thisishull.co...36245&contentPK=16417388

Posted By Salus
just had an e mail from a company advertising a DVD on the smoking regs.

£129, it baffles belief the whole regs are only 2 pages.

I think I will phone them and ask if they have one for the The Smoke free (signs) Regulations

or be a devil and ask if they have one relating to, The Mud (construction) Regulations

no doubt this will be a big hit with all the county & district councils.

Posted By Salus
garyh 3368

Posted By Jim Walker
Well said Mike.

Can anyone come up with a "conkers bonkers" story that does NOT involve a LA?

For LA colleagues out there, I'm not having a go at you, but rather your "Board of Directors" ie councillors.

Posted By Sean Fraser
Strongly disagree with the last comment regarding suppression of religious expression - in fact this thread DOES have the right title and we ARE discussing a misuse of 'elf & safety to justify decision making. This is evidenced by the fact that in the original article, it was expressly commented on that the girl in question was offered a compromise to wear the cross as a broach or badge and refused to do so.

There have been some cogent arguments presented here to explain why a decision can be justified regarding the blanket banning of dangling jewelery and not just when there is an obvious and immediate risk, which is all to do with the proper control and accountability of personal property and the hassle that can create. Simpler to just ban it. Although I am not one to generally agree to blanket bans, there are times when it makes simpler in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

As for people not being able to make comments that are not PC, then what are we doing here? Of course people are free to express their opinions. However, they get annoyed when their comments are not taken as the literal truth and then rail against those who don't agree as somehow suppressing them. Non-sense. It's not that we are avoiding uncomfortable truths, we simply don't agree and feel it a waste of time to discuss unfounded or ill-thought out commentary.

This forum has agreed in several posts that the problem is often one of perception. In the case of people trying not to offend, they are making assumptions that they are not qualified or experienced enough to do. How can the mostly white middle class males and females determine what will offend peoples of different cultures and origins? This is a problem of projecting a potential for offense and then taking action which in retrospect looks OTT and ludicrous. But once the decision is made, it needs to be defended or they lose face. And so the cycle perpetuates itself.

We see exactly the same thing in H&S - decisions made to eliminate a minuscule potential risk based upon ignorance and fear of consequences that are in turn used to reinforce poorer decision making later.

As for religion - there is a basic human right of freedom to follow and express your own religious beliefs, however that may manifest itself, as long as it does not adversely affect the rights of others. Then it becomes a moral and ethical discussion on which right takes precedence, and that is again down to perception. But there is a law in the country allows you to assert that right - including the freedom to express your opinions. Make sure we don't lose those rights, or you really will see suppression.

Posted By J Knight
Mike,

Just a thought, maybe you should consider that stories about 'banning Xmas' and hot-cross buns and so on are as firmly rooted in reality as most H&S stories? There is not and never has been a move to ban Xmas, and Birmingham council never renamed Xmas as 'winterval'. I read and amusing piece on the BBC where the CEO of one of the councils accused of banning Xmas was pointing out the cards on his desk and the lights strung up across the street outside his window; he gets dozens of complaints every year about the way he has banned Xmas, and he never, ever has.

Don't ever believe anything about anything if you read it in the papers; especially a red-top, but the 'quality's' can be just as bad,

John

Posted By J Knight
That's quite a long way from a campaign against Xmas though, isn't it,

John