Posted By Graham Bullough The "Conkers Bonkers" expression is a handy rhyming reference to the many situations we read and hear about where it is evident that sensible health and safety (H & S) has been misunderstood by people. In some cases, it seems that sadly such people include a few H & S people. In other cases, "elf and safety" has been hijacked and wrongly given as a reason for doing something, or more likely not doing something. The true reasons can include any of the following: lack of money, lack of staff, avoidance of extra work and responsibility or misperceptions about insurance requirements, legal liability and possible blame. The expression is often misquoted as originating when the headteacher of a primary school in Cumbria banned his pupils from playing conkers several years ago. However, my understanding is that he did NOT ban it - he just introduced the precaution of wearing goggles and/or safety specs for players following a risk assessment. Did he over-estimate the risk to the eyes of players? I did read somewhere that following the considerable media publicity, he did receive messages from various people who had suffered eye injuries from flying conker fragments, so perhaps he was thinking along the right lines. Although the likelihood/chance of such injury is low/rare, the degree of severity of injury to an eye - an especially vulnerable part of the body - could be high and include permanent blindness. In addition, I guess that the headteacher may have considered the prospect that if any pupil were to be injured while playing conkers, he and his school and probably the local authority, could well be faced with a compensation claim plus adverse publicity, etc. Even if a claim were unsuccessful, the time, cost and hassle for all involved could still be considerable. Does anyone reading this thread know for certain of anyone suffering eye injuries while playing conkers and what the outcome was? I know this is no systematic survey but it may give some indication as to whether the game does involve some element of risk. An alternative or additional origin of the "Conkers Bonkers" theme was that one or more local authorities had horse chestnut trees felled because of a perceived risk of injury to children throwing items up into the trees to knock conkers down. Alternatively, perhaps the trees were deemed grossly hazardous because children might be tempted to climb them to obtain conkers and then might fall off in the process. Can anyone throw any light on these aspects? As explained above, I am sceptical about the validity of the expression "Conkers Bonkers" with regard to the primary school in Cumbria. However, if it stemmed from the felling of healthy horse chestnut trees on spurious grounds, then the expression is fine and should continue. If not, can anyone suggest an alternative catchy expression? However, whatever expressions are used, it's good that IOSH people, including our current President and President Elect, increasingly are highlighting various cases where the sensible principles and practices of H & S are overlooked, misunderstood or distorted. If more of us who work in H & S can join them, then surely we will have a better chance of gradually and positively changing people's perceptions and understanding of H & S.

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, As far as I'm aware the teacher was working the meeja; the whole thing was a publicity stunt to draw attention to the increasing burden of risk-based paperwork teachers were being called on to complete. The meeja in their usual incisive manner failed to realise that they were being used for publicity purposes, and a deliberate parody of H&S has become a trope of H&S as some in the meeja think it really is. Pah, I do love our fearless press, as you have probably noticed, John

Posted By Matt Wardman My take is that the expression is a catchy and memorable phrase that refers to "Health and Safety Gone Mad". It is out there and in use - I don't think there is any chance of changing that. In any case, the origin of expressions (even proverbs) doesn't matter and changes. Consider how "gay" has changed, for example. If the aim is to swat the stories, then I wouldn't worry about the label. Matt

Posted By Graham Bullough As many people were probably away on holiday when I started this thread I should not have been too surprised at the limited number of responses. In addition, the original message was somewhat lengthy in order to include reasonable background information, so perhaps some readers with minimal attention spans failed to read all of it! Therefore, I'll bring this thread back to the top page and repeat the main query it contained: Does anyone know for certain of anyone suffering eye injuries while playing conkers and what the outcome was? In other words, what is the likelihood of anyone suffering eye injury from fragmenting conkers? If such injuries have occurred, did any require medical/surgical attention and/or result in blindness or impaired vision? I've no connection with the relevant primary school in Cumbria, but do provide a service to my employer's schools. I was asked by one school for advice about conkers last month so would be interested to know from others whether eye protection for conkers is a sensible precaution or totally unnecessary. I haven't played conkers since I was a small kid because even then it just didn't appeal to me. However, perhaps some readers of this thread are avid players and can share with us their experience or perception of the degree of risk involved. In addition, some responses will help to answer the question posed by the title of this thread in its wider context for the promotion of sensible health and safety.

Posted By John D Crosby Hi Graham Have you considered contacting the Ashton Conker Club who organise the world championships and see what the accidents/injuries at the event are like. John C