Posted By Robert K Lewis Have a look at the following press release on the HSE wwebsite. Demolition company fined £15,000 after electrician seriously injured in five metre fall in Greenwich Among the text is clearly a paragraph relating to a.n.other press release totally unrelated to the accident and prosecution being described. My question is therefore concerned with what is happening to the HSC/HSE. The moves to Bootle and the other PR issues concerned with the F10 and other matters paint a worrying picture of an organisation about to fall apart. FOD seem to be outside the collapse presently but it bodes ill if the Policy division problems cause inspection and enforcement to fail. Bob

Posted By Ron Hunter On balance, I have to say there are still a lot of very good, approachable, helpful, pragmatic and knowledgable Inspectors out there - some young, some not so young. Perhaps less than there used to be though. Given the sheer volume of information now on the HSE website (and let's face it there's a huge amount of very useful stuff that saves we practitioners hours of work?), perhaps not surprising the odd "whoopsy" will appear. Don't get me started again on that virtual F10 debacle again though.....................

Posted By Robert K Lewis Ron No intention of that:-) It just seems to me that the edge is being lost. In spite of all the complexities of their web site typos are rare. Full paragraph typos are as common as rocking horse manure. I think personally the strains are showing or perhaps there is too much reliance on external consultants/providers. I note that the releases are provided on behalf of the HSE. Either way I am concerned that inspectors in the field do not fall victim to whatever is happening. Bob

Posted By db Bob, As you rightly said, it may not be HSE per se who are putting together these press reports - they use a government news agency - as do all the other gov departments but it goes out in their name. Was it that bad though? The idea behind these is to give people information about potential risks which they have done. As for comments about individual cases I think people miss the point. The differences in enforcement may be down to differences in inspectors but not every situation is the same - even if the same breaches apply. The comments above suggests that you prefer HSE to give advice first and yet there are many contradictions on this forum from people who say they don't enforce enough. Is it right that the Inspector issued notices on welfare? Not for you to decide. There are many factors to take into account. The company involved could have had previous advice for example but usually a chemical toilet means no running water. I used to be a construction inspector and it's a good indicator of the overall h&s managment. To be honest, if a builder doesn't know that they need proper running water or if they can't plan a job to have proper toilets in the twenty first century then maybe they shouldn't be in the game. There may be a large number of issues that people feel HSE deserves criticism for but banging on about individual Inspectors when you have little experience of enforcement - or the reasoning behind the decisions is unfair.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Or how much confidential data!:-) I prefer not to go down the variability of performance issue except to say that half decent training and competence assessment would have ironed out much of the variance between views on much the same situation. The term fluhing chemical toilets is a bit vague for me as well as it could imply either the recycling system without external water supply, or the connected septic tank type which I have used in many places where foul drain connection is a problem. One inspector could not, one time, grasp why we could not use the nearby drain - The term "surface water" seemed to be irrrelevant. My real concern is this sense that one cannot rely on the veracity of information given and whether it is worded so badly to give a multiplicity of meanings. Perhaps the chaos over "by or on behalf of the client" in CDM07 is typical of the flip-flop of the HSE when interpreting the words when the courts had already defined the term effectively in other non H&S cases. After the strong defence of the necessity for the client to sign the Policy unit has now effectively, with the electronic F10, put the client a clear step remove from the notification process. Bob

Posted By DPK db Unfair, my comments are most certainly not, as you say are there other contributory factors of which you are unaware? I didnt want to right War and Peace just breifly explain. Difference of opinions upon this forum regarding enforcement, well i think you will find, that is the whole idea of the forum and i am entitled to mine whether you were an inspector of constructions sites or not. You are also unaware of my role as an inspector/enforcer regarding safety of any type. I stand by my comments even if they were from another angle. As i said we are all entitled to an opinion. And FYI the toilets had warm running water in them. Thank god its nearly all over for this week.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Carlos As I remember it the Capt of the Titanic could not believe the ship was really about to sink until it was actually sinking. The warning signs do not detract from the work that the HSE has achieved, rather they warn that what has been gained could be lost so easily. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Geoff But it is with sadness I feel that Bob