Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
Not so much conkers bonkers but really a "butty too tall" ?
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Admin  
#1 Posted : 01 September 2007 22:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Crim
http://www.liverpoolecho...ng-down-100252-19718582/

This tells the tale of health and safety preventing yet another championship attempt by the people of Liverpool.
Back to top
Admin  
#2 Posted : 03 September 2007 09:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Paul Duell
Well at least it says "Concerns of health and safety" rather than "Health and safety made us cancel...", but I doubt if the majority of readers will recognise the difference.

If it helps, I'll volunteer to come and help eat the bacon sarnie...
Back to top
Admin  
#3 Posted : 03 September 2007 10:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Matt Wardman
From the wording:

"It was shelved after experts voiced concerns about the safety of a potentially 50ft-high butty towering above city centre streets."

...it sounds as if they took proper advice.

It would need some more digging to confirm the precise facts.
Back to top
Admin  
#4 Posted : 03 September 2007 11:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Heather Collins
On the surface it sounds like quite a sensible decision to me. How would most of us feel about building a 50 foot high unstable structure in an area to which the public had access? Yep, that's what I thought.

However without further detail on exactly what was proposed and how it was going to be carried out it's hard to say if this is bonkers or not.
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET