Posted By B J Mann If a schoolchild in any normal industry was encouraged by their employer to behave in a way that could lead to their death surely the employer would be prosecuted? So why can the fashion industry encourage 15 year old girls to starve themselves into size zero outfits, a work practice that has led to two deaths in the industry recently, and get away with it? Is there nothing that can be done under H&S laws?

Posted By Dave Jackson B J Why are these suicides? Did these girls INTEND to kill themselves? The employers were wrong and possibly liable for encouraging them to endanger their own lives but not for encouraging suicide. Dave J

Posted By B J Mann Actually, thinking about it, as (too?) many of these models are children, aren't the employers, agents, etc, in loco parentis, and doesn't that open up a whole other set of liabilities?

Posted By steven bentham If an employers serves chips (full fat) in their canteens should they be prosecuted for the harm when their employees become obese? Can an employer be prosecuted for that as well?

Posted By steven bentham I can't seem to find the details in the Act? Am I reading the wrong legislation here?

Posted By Barny Guys & Gals I think you need to be careful with this one. To debate the moralistic standpoint is fine but to suggest that HASAWA would be the appropriate statutory instrument to address the legality of it is another. There are way to many variables to consider for example and for arguments sake: Models are provided by an agency or freelance for the purposes of modelling dresses. Therefore the person who makes the dress (designer) designs something that is of a size zero as that provides the most aesthetically pleaseing result, phones agency and asks for a size zero model to model it. Is the agency endangering by agreeing to supply or is the designer endangering by making the dress that size in the first place? bearing in mind size zero is can be safe for some people it's the BMI that is important and that is just one. Also HASAWA was never intended nor the HSE created to solve social issues such as this. These poor girls were imho aiming to achieve a body shape that a whole industry (designers / fashion writers / fashion critics / tv / advertising agencies / cosmetic companies / to name a few) are telling them is the 'perfect shape'. If you want to stop this then look to the industry as a whole and start boycotting the products the industry produces don't look to the HASAWA.

Posted By B J Mann A couple of people have raised works canteens. But this isn't an issue of the works canteen being understocked. What if an asbestos stripping company rang an agency and got them to send out some asbestos strippers who found that the overalls and masks being supplied by the "non" employer would only fit people who were emaciated? What if the "non" employers attitude was wear what we give you or starve anyway? What if the attitude of all the "non" employers in the industry was the same?

Posted By B J Mann Social problem or H&S?

Posted By Barny With the greatest respect B J that is the worst analagy I've ever seen. There are rules that cover the design of houses etc for a start. There are no rules that govern how people especially impressionable people (which is not limited to children) perceive themselves in society, e.g how they fit in, how they are categorised, peer relationships etc. Has the fashion industry now really replaced the responsibility of communities to educate the vulnerable or the responsibility of government to provide a society in which people are free to make their own choices on how they look or feel about themselves. I would love to see the wording you would put in 'Prada's or Gucci's health and safety policy for the use of models.

Posted By B J Mann >> With the greatest respect B J that is the worst analagy I've ever seen. There are rules that cover the design of houses etc for a start. And if there weren't? Could the designer get away with it under H&S law? >> There are no rules that govern how people especially impressionable people (which is not limited to children) perceive themselves in society, e.g how they fit in, how they are categorised, peer relationships etc. Has the fashion industry now really replaced the responsibility of communities to educate the vulnerable or the responsibility of government to provide a society in which people are free to make their own choices on how they look or feel about themselves. There are no rules that govern how people especially impressionable people (which is not limited to children)..... climb, base jump, "tag", etc. So does that make it ok for window cleaners to scale tower blocks unroped? Painters to work off moving trains? I'm not asking about society's duties and responsibilities, but employers'. >> I would love to see the wording you would put in 'Prada's or Gucci's health and safety policy for the use of models Surely any off the shelf one would cover this?!

Posted By steven bentham Well I seem to remember that the early safety legislation covered the morals and well being of children . . . and today we fail . .

Posted By B J Mann >> Social problem or H&S? Was a follow up to: >> Here's another way of looking at it which might strike more of a chord. If a designer designed a mansion whose chimneys could only be cleaned by sending small boys up them..... Which was in response to: >> Also HASAWA was never intended nor the HSE created to solve social issues such as this.

Posted By B J Mann But perhaps I was wrong in my original premise: >> If a schoolchild in any normal industry was encouraged by their employer to behave in a way that could lead to their death surely the employer would be prosecuted? Well?

Posted By Pete48 I think you have postulated a question from a faulty baseline and this may tell you why “if there is something that can be done, why hasn't it been done already?” The base of your position is the statement that “fashion industries encourage 15 year old girls to starve themselves”. If you were to mount a prosecution how would you establish this as fact in law? What evidence is there for such a statement? What defences might be used? All these matters are relevant regardless of which area of criminal law you might intend using in order to stop the “alleged practices” that you question. Offering work as a model does not, of itself, imply or intend any requirement to starve oneself, with or without chemical assistance. Although visual appearance may be of paramount importance as a selection criterion, there are many people would quite safely meet that criterion. Many of those may be children or childlike in their physical appearance. Again that is not unlawful. Are all or any models actually “employees” in law is another question that you need to determine. One should not assume they are. Finally we would need to look at how the employer “controlled” or required the employee in such a way as to ensure they were “fit” for the task. Do they provide drugs? Do they keep individuals in controlled environments and prevent them from eating? Do they sack them just because they are too large? My view is that using H&S legislation in this situation would be unwise and probably would likely fail to make any significant changes. The underlying motives here are social and political. Any changes that you may think are required are therefore better addressed elsewhere. For example, either by changing the regulation specific to the area under review or creating regulation if needed.

Posted By B J Mann Sorry, forgot the link: http://webcommunities.hs...howthread?threadid=14478

Posted By Bob Youel My niece and her mates are all self employed; so employer duties HSWA are not the same hence that is a way around specific employer duties / liabilities works are undertaken by contracts 'for' as against 'of' service as per other services i.e. commissioning a builder and 'controllor' elemenets are different not right but there it is and yes people will do anything for fashion! -- mums, dads and agents have lots to be held accountable for as they are children when the training etc starts