Posted By jervis
We are all here to learn !

Posted By FAH
Hi Steve

Serendipity strikes again - had a conversation on exactly this topic earlier this morning. Ain't life strange?

I can readily understand that many who initiate threads have a limited knowledge of the relevant law; I sometimes find myself in that position as well. This is a valid position &, as a basic principle, no-one should be denigrated for asking; although we continue to see many questions posed by people who would be expected to know given their positions &/or qualifications.

Importantly however, I do feel that those who respond with the intent of providing a definitive answer should ensure that their posts are accurate and meet the standards required by the relevant law/ACoP/good practice/HSG or relevant local publication [NFPA, OSHA, NIOSH etc]

This is incredibly important as this forum is literally open to all [or at least anyone who can electronically access the Forum] AND how does the initial question poster determine which, if any, of the responses are even legislatively accurate for their locale? After all, they asked because they didn't know; so how do they decide which response is the least dependable & the most dependable? Or do we apply the "Ask the audience" principle?

I believe that where such responses are patently not factually accurate, the Moderators should have the ability to annotate the individual response accordingly. I'm not asking for a "relevance" check - just accuracy.

Frank Hallett

Posted By Richard Altoft
Frank - in my opinion that would make IOSH moderators consultants and risk them picking up responsibility when giving effectively free advice to totally uninvited questions. Anyone getting free advice from strangers should take responsibility themselves for checking its accuracy and its value.
R

Posted By Kirsty Davies2
Quite frankly, I would suggest that without putting extra burden on moderators (not feasible anyway), if we add a small comment in our posts to express the authenticity of our response with words such as “personal guess”, “according to my experience”, “authentic advice – ref available ” etc, would prove much useful.

P>S> show safety officer spirit and help others whilst you can!

Posted By FAH
Thanks for the input Jon; I am assuming that you refer solely to my observation re Forum Moderation? If so, I fully appreciate your [corporate] reasons for it & will not revisit it in this Forum.

However, whilst some may think my observation re Moderators a rather facile comment, there is a clear need to responsibly address the points amplified by those who responded subsequently.

Frank Hallett

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Serendipity - had to look that one up.

To those who think it is up to the poster to decide what is good or bad advice. How would they know?

The problem is if they listen to the bad advice and something goes wrong. Someone might ask the question where did you get your advice from? The cynic in me says they would probably answer "Oh I went on that IOSH website", which could reflect badly on IOSH.

Someone once said to me rules are for fools. My response was yes the courts are full of clever people.

Anyway back to my studies. I'm learning to play the guitar as well. However I think its going to take me a lifetime to learn that one.


Thanks again for all the interesting responses.

Steve

Posted By SteveD-M
Ron couldn't have put it better.

Everyone makes mistakes that is what makes us human and hey some of us are making a very good career out of other peoples mistakes...

People have a misconception that the law is clear cut in most cases, however is all depends on who has the best argument on the day. All I would add to the replies already given is regardless of what your lawyer is doing for any case you want to pursue - prepare prepare prepare and when you think you are ready start preparing again...!!

Posted By Steve Cartwright
The reality is a lot of people ask for advice on this forum and most of it is good advice. However to state that it is up to the poster to decide what is good or bad advice sounds like a bit of a kop out.

Anyway going back to my original post, out of 30,000 members I would still say that most of them have limited knowledge of how the legal system operates and more importantly how to interperate legislation.

Thanks again for all your responses.

Posted By Steve Cartwright
The point is out of 30000 members and I'm assuming that the majority of them are practicing H&S Practitioners, don't have a very good understanding of H&S law and how the legal system works.

Posted By Ron Hunter
Steve, you have no way of evidencing or justifying your assertion.
The courts interpret legislation - not H&S Practitioners.
Legal interpretation is entirely dynamic as case law develops and appeals reach higher courts - all we can do is try to keep up by CPD,including subscription services, learned journals and SHP.
Even the Enforcers struggle in this regard. You may remember the interim change to the 'old' CDM Regulations when the Courts decided the Regulation (regarding designers as I recall) didn't mean what the HSC had intended it to mean?

Posted By Barry Cooper
Steve,
Interesting post, but as Alan stated, you have assumed a lot by saying "that most of the 30k have limited knowledge of how the legal system operates and more importantly how to interpret legislation" with no evidence to support your claim.
Subscribers give their views and opinions,and their interpretation of the law, and I have no problem with that.
Barry

Posted By Ron Hunter
Kirsty: not that of courts of law, who interpret law!

Posted By Pete48
Steve, your original question has an inevitable truth to it because.
1. This is a public access forum.
2. There is evidence to show that a citizen uses a personal perception of natural justice to fill the gaps in any personal legal knowledge and that their perception is more often incorrect than correct.
3. Study of the law in any depth requires a logical and deterministic approach, something that many neither possess nor desire. (As evidenced by the fear and loathing of many students to the law modules.)

However, if you are questioning what is an acceptable level of knowledge of the law for an average safety and health practitioner then that is defined within the NEBOSH syllabus of study. Many of us may require further specific study to match our job demands, others will not. Many will need to refer to case history, precedent etc on a regular basis, many will never do so again after the completion of their studies. Yet they will all be very successful and competent practitioners.

I am sure that many of us could ask the same question of other aspects of general safety and health practice. For example, the basic science of engineering, basic understanding of psychology, basic accounting and business management etc etc. All these are relevant for most practitioners.

Whilst I accept your question as a genuine concern, I share the view offered by others that you are actually observing that respondents to this forum display, in yours and others opinions, a lesser level of understanding than you possess. Another inevitable truth I think?

Should it be better? Could it be better? More than likely because if not then human endeavour is finished.
So do your bit to help improve things to where you think they should be, I am sure you and others like Kirsty will do that. I am equally certain that when you have acheived it along will come someoone to say "is this enough?"
I hope our fellow posters will give you the support and understanding you deserve in your challenge.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2
Ron,

Please see below your statements from Tuesday & Wednesday respectively;

“The law is for lawyers and (dare I say it) practitioners”

"The courts interpret legislation - not H&S Practitioners.”

To me, they both seem to have different meanings here. Therefore, I reserve the right to agree with one and not to the other. Hence, answer to your previous post.

In terms of interpretations, I would dare to say that ‘everyone’ has got the right to interpret the law (and job/responsibility of practitioners). It is up to the courts to decide, ‘who’s interpretation is right should a dispute arises.’

Good morning to you all.

Posted By Kirsty Davies2
One thing I fail to understand is when people say that it’s courts duty to interpret the law. It is quite clear that practitioners follow the ACOPs or other guidance for any particular legislation. But what happens when there is no ACOP or guidance document for any piece of legislation. Do we go to courts for interpretations or are we simply “immune” from that piece of legislation just because we do not have the guidance document.

Law is law and must be followed no matter how hard to interpret (this is where a competent practitioner comes)– Ignorance is not a defence.

Courts, Police, HSE etc are there to enforce these laws.

Posted By Pete Longworth
This whole debate has turned into a war of attrition with 2 entrenched points of view arguing over who should or shouldn't interpret points of law. The fact is that everybody every day interprets the law in some way or another.
As to the argument in question ie understanding and interpreting health and safety law I would make the following points.
The fundamental basis of British H&S law is that it is in the main no longer prescriptive. When HASAWA was introduced it was intended that industry would be self regulating. In effect that was the "birth" of risk assessment, although the term would not be enshrined in law until much later. The concept of "reasonably practicable" was introduced to re-inforce this. Many employers began to realised that they needed competent advice in order to ensure they were doing what was reasonably practicable. Others carried on in their own sweet way until the management regs made it an explicit requirement for them to conduct risk assessments and have access to competent advice.
Part of this advice was how to interpret legal requirements. So from that point of view H&S practitioners should be able to in some part interpret the law. But that only goes so far. As H&S practitioners we need to be able to advise our employers what they need to do to meet and preferably exceed in some cases their legal requirements. We don't need to know every nut and bolt. Our first duty is to ensure that our employers know what they need to do to keep all employees safe, SFAIRP and the possible consequences for them if they don't.
This term reasonably practicable however keeps cropping up. It has an effect on everything, which is why we need to be careful when we make confident assertions about the law. On another thread it was asserted with extreme confidence that, because of legal precedent, an employer need not grit a car park in cold weather, but those precedents are only as good as the next case. If it was found that in certain circumstances, it was reasonably practicable, to grit a car park in cold weather, then all the legal precedents in the world wouldn't be worth tuppence. We cannot rely on or hide behind the law because what is reasonably practicable will always be affected by circumstances.
So, to end this rant, yes we need to be able to interpret the law, but more importantly, we need to be able to advise on what is reasonably practicable.