Posted By FAH All I can say is:- This should get a formal IOSH response. Frank Hallett

Posted By stephen d clarke Hi, Mad though it appears I can see what is driving it i.e. the fact that lifeguards can't see someone in trouble at the bottom of the pool when its raining. I guess it comes out of previous court action where lifeguards have been found wanting and they have subsequently been issued with absolute requirements, but I await to be informed otherwise. Steve

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Just a quick sticking up of my head (please don't throw anything hard). It is quite understandable to close the pool when the rain is so heavy that it makes the view of the under water environment hard to see therefore hard to see anyone in difficulty, no problem with that although to some it may be a bit over the top. The main concern I have is what kind of person would want to swim in an open air pool with so much rain coming down, not much fun to me.

Posted By Yossarian But Mike, it's not about getting wet. It's about the rendering inneffective of the control measures put in place to prevent drowning. If the water surface is so disturbed that the lifeguard cannot see if someone is underwater, then it would be sensible in my opinion to evacuate the pool until the situation improves. Imagine the fuss the sensationalist tabloids would make if an incident DID occur. Haringay Council springs to mind.

Posted By David Passmore I was quite surprised to see an 'open air' swimming pool being accessible at this time of the year when ice cover would be more of a risk than rain! Nonetheless, what annoys me is that the press (The Mail being the biggest offender) completely distort the facts. They and many other factions of the media always refer to "Health & Safety Legislation" preventing this and that, whereas it is mainly the organisations/councils own policies which are devised in main to prevent litigation or fulfil restrictive insurance requirements. I responded to the Mails recent report about a child being refused admission into a Tesco store with a helium balloon as it was suggested that it could compromise the stores fire prevention system should the balloon be released in the building. (I stand to be corrected, but don't Tesco sell those pre - inflated balloons for birthdays/weddings etc?). Anyway, 'Health & Safety legislation' was cited as the reason for refusing the kid entry into the store with this innocuous balloon, and the columnist made sure that the emphasis was placed on how upset the child was and a concerted effort was made to trivialise and ridicule our profession. I wrote to the letters column of the paper expressing how misleading and unfair the article was and I suggested that rather than take up a third of a page with a ridiculous article on how a child was upset about a balloon, they should report on the distress of a child who has lost a parent in an industrial accident due to poor health & safety management or negligence. I also emphasised that the attempts to ridicule the health & safety profession are unhelpful and undermine all of what we are trying to achieve. I also stated facts on the incidents of accident rates within the printing industry source HSE)and suggested they get their own house in order. The letter was surprisingly published, however, most of the content had been 'adjusted'. I think we all despair at times but I suspect we are not the only profession to suffer at the hands of the media through inaccurate and misleading reports - after all, sensationalising a trivial issue does sell newspapers, however, The Mail seems to have its own agenda with its relentless campaign on 'elf & safety'. DP

Posted By Sally It doesn't matter where the lifeguards are stationed. The issue is seeing through the disruption on the surface of the water. It similar to the reason that very few pools have 12ft deep areas as any surface disruption makes it impossible to see anything on the bottom at that depth. All to do with the way the light gets broken up. this was a sensible health & safety decision. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of slamming decisions just be they inconvenience people while protecting them.

Posted By NJS Surely the splashes created from the people swimming cause just as much, if not more disruption to the waters surface? in out door pools in both the USA and Australia I have never seen this to be an issue, if the real reason was to reduce litigation, surely the litigious Americans would have dealt with this matter first?

Posted By CJP What surprises me is the quote from Patrick Mercer MP 'This rule is ridiculous and the ultimate example of risk avoidance...." What is wrong with risk avoidance? If he thinks avoiding risk is a bad thing perhaps he should speak to the HSE. In fact I might email him and tell him so!

Posted By Sally Just out of interest - do any of the people saying this was OTT actually have any experience managing swimming pools, indoor or outdoor.

Posted By Dave Wilson I can't agree more with Sally here, this is a real danger and its OK for swimmers who are on the surface, life guards have no idea of what your swimming ability is when you get in the pool. If your child got into trouble and the Life guard did not see as his vision was obstructed how miffed would you be? How quickly would you run to a no win no fee? Do you think that these organisations take this decision lightly, after all they are the one who lose revenue. I have to admit though that this particular paper have put their own slant on it.