Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Spiers
I don't object to a review to see if it really does create risk averse culture in policing but I do think claims culture is where there should be some focus because generally its fear of claims that create the bonkers conkers, ban hanging baskets, cut down trees stories not H&S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Like Alan, I don't object to a review.
However it strikes me the problem is not to do with the legislation but more to do with implementation and bad management. In that respect I'm probably aligned with Paul Lewis, Richard Jones & ACPO.
You'll never get rid of the latter by tweaking the former. Rather, by altering the law you are more likely to increase the opportunities for misunderstanding and mismanagement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
It's not the HASAWA which is the problem. The problem is twofold. Firstly the highly prescriptive rubbish coming out of the EU for political correctness and controlling reasons (of which only the UK take a blind bit of notice) and secondly the insurance industry (with it's incumbent dubious ambulance chasing lawyers).
What the Tories (and I'm one of them!) need to realise is that they can't do anything about H&S laws any more as those areas of law rest purely with the EU.
The HASAWA to my mind, was the best and most inovative Act (or regulation) of my lifetime and I think we all owe Robens a debt of gratitude for their implementation. It's about time someone or some organisation started to advise the political parties on what H&S is all about!
IOSH have been at last (last year I think) allowed to have some input into EU legislation but only on a very minimal basis. Maybe the Tories need to be approached before end up with a large amount of egg on their faces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Buzz Lightyear
Given the number of innocent public killed during police chases - I would have thought the police are too reckless rather than risk averse?
In response to a couple of points raised on this thread so far:
Alan, Isn't the conkers/bonkers more to do with tabloids wanting to create entertaining stories - rather than the claims culture. I think the Tories are appealing to the Daily Mail readership. Still, a couple of years ago they and labour were all into global warming but now appear to have lost interest so I dare say it will pass.
Rob, Re EU, What pieces of H&S legislation based on EU directives do you feel are over prescriptive? I hadn't picked up on any over prescriptive risk averse requirements in UK legislation that came from EU directives - e.g. six pack, noise regs, COSHH, CDM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
If the Tories took the decisions away from unqualified, inexperienced people and followed the trend towards a qualified safety practitioner, the HSAWA need not be tweaked much at all ...
I do agree though, that in the services there is still a temptation for a qualified person to view the individual employee as the subject the higher duty of care.
Society has to be clear that it is acceptable to require a paid employee to risk their safety for the greater good. In my view this is acceptable only if the rewards and after-care are substantial.
Sending a man to war and then leaving him to very low income after injury is not acceptable.
Expecting a Community Support Officer to jump in to a lake whilst on low pay and scant training is not acceptable.
Applying the maxim "the public before you" to people already employed is not acceptable.
The Tories must think this through before making such broad statements, or they risk all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Spiers
Interesting, Buzz do you believe there is not a claims culture, I went a meeting with MPs & HSE attending & the message from those in power was its only a perception, the statistics do not support claims culture. I will take a lot of convincing, a high proportion of society believe insurance in fair game, the system is heavily weighted to make it easy to get award, and costs are such that its cost effective to settle which perpetuates an easy to claim culture. Many colleagues from other businesses have told me they have serial claimants following very minor injuries. I think the balance has gone too far regarding someone to blame & no responsibility.
On the Police issue I only have experience of traffic police ( thankfully) but I must say it worries me that I regularly see motorway and local police driving well above speed limits without blue lights, siren which I perceive as a caviler approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By water67.
Hi. admitting to being a Tory on an open forum
I'm impressed or something. Aside from all the issues raised here my one overriding problem with this is the band wagon mentality that is being created by the Tories and am thus sceptical about their motives and commitment to this. Especially given the recent view re agricultural inspectors, legislation and their view of what these inspectors should be looking for, doing etc. The historical support from the landed few and the construction industry.. both high risk, high casualty industries that wish even less regulation, particularly in the area of migrant workers, worries me re any review within which their hand will be powerful if not evident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By apjw
2 points (see below);
1. the clams culture does exist without a shadow of a doubt
2. the individual should be held more responsible for his/her actions - if a perfectly good safe system of work has been developed and the employer has provided the necessary information, instruction & training for the task to be undertaken safely why should the employer be held accountable when the operative chooses to ignore it, i know some folks will say adequate supervison etc etc but how can anyone out there stand over every operative 24/7 on every site/workplace.
comments please
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By apjw
any more comments on this subject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I am not aware of many succesful cases if the conditions in 2. above are met.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Robertson-Böber
Not sure that is being alluded to in the conditions set out in point 2 above as tis is already covered under Section 7 of the HASAWA. Ergo, if the enforcers investigations proves that the employer had all said in place (the burden of proof is weighted by what tangible evidences is available and not hearsay) then a breech of Section 7 would accounted and the potential for the individual who caused the incident / occurrence would be held criminal liable. There is existing case law for this already.
Having a reform based on distain for an apparent claims culture as though fault on HASAWA seems fractionally illogical when it is more related to the provision of legal-aid for representing a client, regardless if the claim is viable. Surely we should be looking at a reform to how Personal Injury claims are processed and to how solicitors are then able to claim from legal aid for this service. The law does not seem to be at fault, but individuals do.
Of course, I am a middle-class libertarian, rather than just being a Tory, so I tend to be bitter about a whole series of things. However, I am also a pragmatist. A quality which this whole ‘nanny state’ debate appears to be lacking.
Kind Regards,
B
Andrew Böber
CMIOSH FRSH FRGS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Let's just stop for a second. The HASAWA is a piece of law which does not allow compensation to be decided that comes under a common law isue. The HASAWA is criminal law and results in the punishment of individual companies by the imposition of a fine or on individuals by fine or imprisonment, the verious penalties are listed within the act itself. The Act does not allow for making compensation payments of any kind. Therefore the Act is sound as it is; you either comply with the law or you don't end of story The Act can lead to a claim under another piece of law but is not directly at fault. Not to that matter are the various Regulations made folowing the Act.
The reason the Tories want to amend the HASAWA is because it has a real sting in its tail and the public expect those who commit an offence under it to be suitably punished. End of story.
If anyone wants to argue about the blame culture we can talk about it until hell freezes over without making anything change. People are more aware now of thier rights and the duties ithers have toward them, so there will be claims made for compensation. The value of such a condition is a basic right everyone has and should not be taken away.
The right to insist that people undertake activities in a manner that will not so far as is reasonably practical is a very good measure unles of course you think we should go back to children being killed or injured sweeping up under weaving machines or working under ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.