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

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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 20 November 2007 08:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RobAnybody
A very reasonable response to Sir Norman Bettisons' article in the Yorkshire Post.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...=hsegen/12-nov-2007&cr=5

Sir Norman wrote to me a couple of days ago to say he has recieved an offer from the HSC/E to speak to them about his concerns. Being the type of chap he is he will almost certainly take up their offer (operational requirements allowing).

Any constructive comments?

Rob
Admin  
#2 Posted : 20 November 2007 09:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs
Quite a good reply, measured and calm but getting across the point (almost) that the law does not (realistically) stop an individual making the choice to override personal safety in an extreme emergency.

In tort there is the principal of "importance of article/object" I seem to recall. It might be helpful to establish the same principal in H&S law.

... but to do so for cases such as a drowning is to say that "we do not expect the emergency forces to be able to foresee the situation that leads to an employee trying to rescue a drowning person".

This is blatantly wrong of course.

So perhaps we should not be looking at lessening the requirements of the law (which is there to protect all employees, even the brave ones) but instead looking harder at the part of the law requiring the management to foresee the risks and better equip / train the employees to be able to cope with them.

Can we cover all situations? Of course not ... but there are some basics such as water rescue which have actually been removed from training (I think the BBC pointed to Cornwall as the only force training their Police in water rescue now). There is no force in the UK that does not have a drowning risk on their 'patch' is there?

And Councils ... I know floatation aids are prime targets for vandalism, but there must be a way to provide some help at large bodies of water.

But today, the Prime Minister is concentrating on plastic bags ...
Admin  
#3 Posted : 20 November 2007 16:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Konstanty Budkiewicz
Judith,

Taliban is Persian and Urdu for student (at a Madrasser (religious school where text is learned by rote) - Arabic uses the same word for seeker. I find that I agree with your proposed visitor that under skilled and under confident assessors may be akin to students in this context.

Following from the logic of the previous responder, it would seem appropriate that trained rescuers (See French Sapper Pompier model)attend potential suicides and water distress incidents. I make this differentiation because in the recent publicised incidents the countering of law breaking is not the first priority. I propose that as a control measure in a hazard situation police may act as a first-responder and coordinator, but specialist rescue and counseling would stay within bailiwick of the rescue and social services.

What I am proposing is that the role and responsibility of the police and their support units and personnel be more clearly defined, so that public expectations are not stretched beyond the police service's current trained capability.
Best of luck,

Kon CMIOSH
Admin  
#4 Posted : 21 November 2007 08:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Listening to her interview on Radio 4 this morning I had this uncomfortable sense that she may well be on top in writing but her spoken command of her brief seemed a little hesitant. This area will be critical in future if she is to have real impact.

Bob
Admin  
#5 Posted : 21 November 2007 10:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GARRY WIZZ
Looked at the web posting,

Noted that the response was 4 paragraphs.

Para 1, Good
Para 2. Tripe and waffle
Para 3. Tripe and waffle
Para 4. Good

like many in H&S it takes a right load waffle to say what needs to be said which could be said in half the time and without the acres of paper
.

And they tell us it is not all about paperwork.

Garry
Admin  
#6 Posted : 21 November 2007 11:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Colin Reeves
Concur totally with Garry - the first and last paras on their own are punchy, the statement as a whole is diluted by the waffle in the middle.

Colin
Admin  
#7 Posted : 21 November 2007 11:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker
Well the words were most likely written by some PR person not her. She has not been there that long hence her lack of understanding of her brief.

What's her background and qualifications for the job?

If Jeremy Clarkson does not get the PMs job ( I've high hopes!!) I might start a petition to replace Judith with Jezza.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 21 November 2007 12:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Jim

Newness is no excuse 1 bad interview equals years of catch up with every interview on top of her game from hereon in.

Not yet convinced.

Bob
Admin  
#9 Posted : 21 November 2007 16:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Max Bancroft
We've just had 4 deaths in the Fire & Rescue Service - brave people. Were their deaths preventable?

Why call us "Taliban" because we worry about such things and want to try and prevent them happening?

Companies that kill & injure employees & the public (Stockline, Potters Bar etc) get attacked - rightly - by the media and branded as murders but journalists don't seem to make the link that good H&S prevents such things.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 21 November 2007 16:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Anything make you think we are back on an oft repeated bemoaning of the inability of IOSH and the HSE to give H&S a better image. It seems to crop up everywhere.

It is a bit like old Father Time wandering around industries and organisations looking for his next victim. We do not seem able to convince anybody that we are the best defence against his calling card.

Bob
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.