Posted By Raymond Rapp Sam Not sure who the target audience is but I learnt nothing from reading the document. Agreed, it is a lot of pages with very little substance. Really, is this the best the HSE can do? Ray

Posted By Gus Personally I am more concerned with the content than the layout... since you can choose to print from HTML ( 7 pages ) and i would not expect a lot of detail in a strategy, but phrases such as " we need to regain the value of the brand......" worry me And the fact that the document acknowledges that UK has a good safety record, but that improvement has stalled and needs to be re- vitalised(again?) yet seems to offer few new strategic solutions. Gus

Posted By Swis Ian, Blank pages are not "basic business language".

Posted By FAH Read it; read it again to see if I'd lost some pages - like an Appendix with the real info in - discarded it! Fortunately I didn't actually print it first. Frank Hallett

Posted By FAH Hi John Whilst I do agree with the concept that you identify; I'm not convinced that it would really have made any diference to the end result. My following comments are not aimed at HSE or any other particular organisation; simply one individual view of reality. Consultation may be a mandatory requirement - actually listening is not! Incorporating ideas from outside the source of the document/process etc will depend so much on which dept is actually leading on the project and how much belief they have in the consultation process as a means of improving. Many see the consultative role as a means of undermining their particular position; whatever that may be. Frank Hallett

Posted By FAH No argument with your views on this Jay; I'm just not sure where it might take the original debate. Surely we're entitled to expect just a little in the way of explicit, achievable objectives when any policy document is produced, no matter who produces it? Frank Hallett

Posted By Al.. Yes, style over substance for sure in the printed version. As Gus suggests, try the html version and see if you can tease some substance out of the 3,688 words. "Our mission is to prevent death, injury and ill health in Great Britain’s workplaces and we are seeking your support – for the strategy and by becoming part of the solution." Seeking your support - to whom is it addressed? Me? My boss? Our directors? The security guard on our front gate. Everyone? I don't know! "You have told us that you support our approach". Did I? I know I did not because I know I was pretty critical of the proposed approach during the consultation but clearly I was not heard. "One of the first undertakings of the new HSE Board was to reset and reaffirm the direction of health and safety." Some conflict here surely. If the direction has been reset then how can it be reaffirmed? Resetting means we are now heading in a new direction. What was wrong with the old direction? There is an implied criticism here of what went before. It would be interesting to hear more about what was done before which was wrong and which did not work. It would also be good to have some explicit statements about what will be done differently now. I cannot help feeling that this is going to go the way of Revitalising Health and Safety - grand words which will achieve very little. Something very different is needed. On the other hand why don't we just carry on as before. "Great Britain has the lowest average rate of work-related fatal injuries and only Sweden and Ireland have lower rates for non-fatal injuries resulting in the worker being absent for three or more days." Clearly what ever we were doing was working. Why mess with it? Why do we need to change? Or is it just a desire to be seen to be doing something?