Posted By Andrew Murdy
I think I´ll ban goggles in the pool here.

It will make life much safer and allow far better instruction.

Now if I can just stop the little blighters from cannon balling me I can get on with swimming lengths rather than dodging flying bodies ...

Or I could let them get on with having fun and enjoying the water.

Mind you, I´m going to ban the Dog. She hurt her dew claw last time she went in and kept me awake all night whining about it!

Posted By Sally
I agree with Simon - did IOSH actually check with the issuers of the guidance or did they just decide they didn't agree with it because the daily mail doesn't.

We expect people to respect our views as professionals perhaps we ought to do the same for other experts and not presume that even a CMIOSH from a non related discipline is an infallable expert on swimming goggles against those who teach swimming for a living

the question was asked how many eye injuries are caused by swimming goggles. I would like to pose another question how many children is it acceptable for to lose an eye before something is done?

Posted By f5refresh
What is the point to the article.

So its written by so-called experts do we have to agree with it?

Whatever happened to choice - i don't want some body to tell me my children can't wear goggles because they think it distracts from the lesson and its a safety risk?!! - As a parent I want the choice not some blanket ban because the safety police know best.

Why don't we all dress our children in foam padded clothes so when they fall they don't get hurt?

Do you know hospitals are packed full of children who have had accidents - we all harp on about experience - oh well a child gets an injury to his/her eye because they took the goggles of wrong - I bet they won't take them off like that again!!! I really do despair at the safety police.

I know lets cut down all the trees so children can't climb them.....

I know better still why don't we ban children from swimming.....

Sally/Simon out of interest do you work for a local authority??

Posted By Steve M Granger
f5 - a self contradictory post?

'i don't want some body to tell me my children can't wear goggles..'

v

'Why don't we all dress our children in foam padded clothes so when they fall they don't get hurt?'

??

Simon - I dont disagree with you but if you ask the several thousand members of Public Services if they are outside IOSH's realms of coverage. The L&T industry is one of the UK's biggest - and getting far bigger than making cars!

Snorkel Steve

Posted By john thos 147
i started swimming properly at around the age of 7.

Before that we used to mess around as kids do we all had masks at the time which you were not allowed to dive with which i believe is true to this day ( I think the impact would force the glass out).

as a swimmer i have swam with and without goggles and in my opinion with is better especially if the are good quality anti mist types. ( the cheap ones always steam up).

I agree with an earlier post that not wearing goggles can corrupt your swimming technique as i believe you cannot maintain the correct technique of putting your face in the water to maintain correct breathing.

once your eyes are irritated i personally have to hold my head out of the water which is a really poor technique.

bearing in mind that i was taught by a professional instructor and i achieved all the major awards including honours at the time .we were all allowed to wear goggles so why has it taken 32 years for this decision to come around.

i believe some statements are right in regards to overkill EVERTYTHING WE DO HAS A POTENTIAL RISK SO WHAT DO WE DO BAN EVERYTHING .

for example people are run over every day does this mean we ban walking?

if we did is it reasonable to think that car accidents would go up due to people then using their own transport, what do we do then ban driving?

oh yeah and waht about the freedom of choice

LOL what a joke this profession is becoming.

Posted By f5refresh
MartinW I agree with your sentiments to a point but I was involved in the Porter case and it was not as simplistic as you make out, tragic yes, simple no - certainly no comparison to the banning of wearing goggles during swimming lessons - so yes it is a big deal and IMHO worth ranting about or we are never going to end this ban culture we live in these days....

In the Porter case it was for the prosecution to prove that Porter had failed to ensure that the child was not exposed to a risk by reason of him being at school and, in particular, in the playground. Only if it could be said that the child had been exposed to a real risk due to the conduct of the school was it then the responsibility of the Porter to show that he had done everything reasonably practicable to avoid that risk arising.

The prosecution case was that the flight of steps, to which children aged three and four years old could gain unsupervised access during break times, fell within the defendant's 'conduct of his undertaking' and that the defendant exposed such a child to the risk of falling from the flight of steps.

At first instance the judge took the view (wrongly) that the jury could properly conclude that the steps constituted a risk to the safety of a child if he were to descend them unsupervised, and it would be reasonably practicable to prevent the child from descending the steps by providing constant supervision (although there was no allegation that there should be constant supervision). The jury convicted Mr Porter by a majority of 11:1 and he later took the case to the Court of Appeal where the key question was whether the prosecution had satisfied the first part of the above test by failing to ensure that the child was not exposed to risk. The Court of Appeal did not offer a definition of 'risk' in this context, but concluded that the risk which the prosecution must prove should be a real risk as opposed to merely fanciful or hypothetical. It then moved on to consider how a real risk should be distinguished. Whilst it is impossible to set an objective standard or test applicable to every case, the Court held that in most, if not every case, there would be important factors to be taken into account, none of which would be determinative but many of which would be important. The relevant factors therefore in this case included:
the absence of any previous accident in circumstances which occurred day after day;
the unchanged levels of supervision in the playground;
the fact that there was nothing wrong with the construction of the steps;
The Court had no criticism of the risk assessment carried out by the defendant which had addressed supervision in the playground but had not identified any risk in relation to different levels on the playground or the flight of steps.

Significantly, the Court of Appeal found that the fact a young child might slip or trip, or choose to jump from one height to a lower level, was part of the ordinary incidence of everyday life: this was not determinative but was highly relevant. "Where the risk can truly be said to be part of the incidence of everyday life, it is less likely that the injured person could be said to have been exposed to risk by the conduct of the operations in question". All the evidence suggested that the only risk was that, every time a child was left other than closely supervised, he might venture unsupervised down a flight of steps. The Court of Appeal took the view that this did not constitute exposure to risk sufficiently to establish liability under section 3 of the Act. As such, the issue of whether Mr Porter had done everything reasonably practicable to avoid the risk did not arise.

Posted By f5refresh
Think your missing the point sir/madam (can't tell).

Let me ask you the question

Why ban googles?

Posted By f5refresh
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error - how very pretentious - but thanks all the same.

Oh well if your going to play that game then at least ensure you can spell banning correctly!!


'why only blame school?'

Not sure anyone on any thread has mentioned the word blame.....its about what is and is not reasonable and IMHO to ban gooooooogles just because children may not take them of properly is ridiculous

Posted By martinw
f5refresh
I wasn't deliberately simplistic - it is just that there is no point going through every aspect of each case when I am referring to them. I appreciate that you were involved in the case but I am an outsider who is quite versed with it too. My points were these:

rant about the big issues before the little ones;
the prosecution of the headmaster was instigated by those who really should have thought the law through more thoroughly rather than following the 'blame game', as it were;
we as a profession should not have to be discussing failings of this nature: people's professional and presumably personal lives should not be effectively destroyed by prosecution only to be saved by the action of Appeal Court judges. And that is deliberately simplistic.
To paraphrase:
"If you invite a man into your house you do not necessarily invite him to slide down your banister".

Posted By martinw
I think that one of the good things about this forum is the way in which a thread can develop. Apart from the tubthumpers who feel that they cannot make a point without using capital letters(the words have the same meaning folks) this stream really stopped being about goggles after the first few posts. It developed into our collective distaste about being tarred with the same brush as anyone who bans anything with the elf 'n' safety excuse.
I have never banned goggles. Therefore even though I work in H&S I am not to blame and really don't care if someone in a tabloid takes the proverbial. I don't expect good press about health and safety as bad news and ridicule sells more.

Posted By Swis
100% agree with Steve.

Welldone

Posted By Swis
F5refresh,

I think you’ve taken our comments personally. These were our thoughts and we have expressed it on the forum. Apologies if you feel that our posts are disheartening.

Posted By Steve M Granger
..... just a thought, did anyone ever really master 'butterfly'? Surely it needs a risk assessment and be banned - drowning, WRULD, impact and of course the worst hazard for yoof's - humiliation.

.... and why did I always need to go swimming in pajamas?

a) I prefer to do it with nothing on rather than fully clothed and

b)if I do ever go swimming at night invariably I wake up embarrassed....

have a nice weekend

Sailboard Steve

Posted By Adrian Woon
Oh no..... here we go again (he he!)

Posted By IOSH Moderator
This thread is now locked under the terms of use - as in AUG 1.

Thank you for your contributions.

Mike
IOSH moderator