Posted By Nicholas Sutcliffe I tried to leave a comment as disrespectful to BJ as his article was to H&S professionals, but the site would not let. Then i thought, PHA why bother its Friday try not to get worked up about other peoples stupidity. heres to a nice weekend.

Posted By Yossarian It's a good job it's not the Ancient & Royal Society for the Extremely Stupid. Anyway, it's old news - our John already replied yesterday: http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...m?go=news.release&id=666

Posted By Rodger Alan Ker Well said Ron. There are times when it would be useful for some people to read an article thoroughly before commenting on it. However as the media industry regularly states, "never let the truth interfere with a good story".

Posted By D H Nice one Ron - instead of "Royal" society - can we make it the "Boris" society? I am sure he would love it! Dave

Posted By Nicholas Sutcliffe As with many aspects of health and safety its all about perception, I perceive the comments to be disrespectful to health and safety professionals and therefore feel I have the right to comment. I perceive BJ to be making light of what is an honest and unforgiving profession.

Posted By Dave Wilson Being a 'journo'& politician at the moment is not the best professions to be in with all the MP expenses and journos illegally tapping phones. Maybe a Job Description for a Journo and MP should be; all Pigs / snots / troughs / we will do anything for a good story so long as it sells papers and we don't get caught springs to mind! I would not suggest for one minute that BJ is in this class or has anything to do with it.

Posted By John Richards Unless you missed the news, we have not got a "compensation culture". http://www2.warwick.ac.u...search_finds_spiralling/ We have, however, got a "blame culture", where H&S professionals blame the compensation culture (which we don't have) for people using the law (on rare occasions) to obtain compensation (usually in 3-4 figures) for injury. So, don't get on your high-horses about this: you're all to blame. The people making the mistakes in deciding that conkers is bonkers without goggles are the same health and safety professionals as on this site. In short (or long) you fail to protect those most at risk, and go the easy route at protecting those at risk from recreational activities and at schools (etc). Or have I missed the headlines: "NO INDUSTRIAL INJURIES THIS YEAR: HEALTH AND SAFETY SUCCESS" Or: "INDUSTRIAL DISEASES REDUCED TO ZERO THIS YEAR, DOWN FROM SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS" No, I do not remember any such headlines.

Posted By Andrew Murdy There are all kinds of things that drive the wheels of risk aversion. One is insurers, another is 'no win, no fee' services, another is the media and another is the interested bodies (IOSH, RoSPA, etc). The media have a large part in this - they publicise the tragedies and the stupidities we see around us. They add comment to the story and make it accepted fact. And then we, as professionals, add to the problem by confusing what the law is there for, and what the aims of our profession are, and what we believe it is about. More often than not people use the law to support their viewpoint based on assumption rather than reason - after all in a world of risk assessment and management it is harder to see into the minds of the courts! Half the problem is that since 9/11 we´ve been in the hands of professional frighteners who want us to be scared as a society. Personally, I´ll take my hazards, assess the risks and manage accordingly. And that includes avoiding the worst journalistic excesses of comment and assertion.

Posted By John Richards "Although the evidence ***does not support the view**** that increased litigation has created a “compensation culture”, there is plenty of evidence of excessive risk aversion and a *****mistaken perception***** that it is caused by litigation" http://www.publications....ect/cmconst/754/754i.pdf You are presumably deciding that many of the people claiming compensation are ingrates. In this country actually being awarded compensation is a long arduous job. The "rewards" are frequently very small, with the majority of claims being in the order of low four-figures (if that). Many people with industrial disease (the recognised types) will get no compensation at all, and others will get the usual small settlement. The average figure awarded (for instance) for copd (miners) is about £7000.00 and for vwf is about £15000.00. Not really in the newspapers half-a-million league yet, are they. No, you're just using the non-existent compensation culture to shift blame to others.

Posted By f5refresh Quote "non-existent compensation culture" Your having a laugh aren't you John? Ever heard of "no win no fee"? Ever seen ambulence chasers in hospital or the flyers they leave everywhere? This does'nt fuel a compensation culture does it John?

Posted By John Richards People (and solicitors) have the RIGHT to advertise their services. If they wish to provide their service free of charge at the point of sale and re-coup that charge later then, again, that is their right. The same as H&S professionals. People have a RIGHT to use the law to obtain compensation for ill health or injury. I have no doubt that health and safety "professionals" would dearly like new laws banning compensation for deaths, ill-health and injury. You won't get it, and you don't get it. Time moves on, employers do NOT have the right to expect their workforce to lay down their lives for the company. If you look at the really high payouts they always seem to favour those working in public services, never those in "blue collar" jobs. "The highest single payment was £38,000 for psychiatric injury caused by the false allegation of a pupil and lack of support from the employers" Whoopee.....break the bank. Oh, forgot the asbestosis payouts.....Still, £100,000.00 for fast becoming not-living isn't too much....and loads are still becoming not-living, even when the danger has been known for many decades. Another Health and Safety success.

Posted By John Richards The trouble with that school of thought is that it ignores one fact: someone usually is responsible. I find you school of thought that a person who does something at work, after being told to do it/do it with faulty equipment or machinery is therefore responsible for any accident. Fortunately, the courts do not think like that. And won't. Hopefully the workplace manslaughter cases will climb, although they will be climbing on the backs of workers corpses.

Posted By naveen duggal Hi, Thanks to all, for their views,opnions,comments.Let us focus to the main issues, presently are there, those h&s issues that need more attention.....

Posted By martinw John what are you blaming those on this forum for specifically? Do you we think that we should be doing more? If so, what and how? Martin

Posted By John Richards Oh: Pete 48. Look at: Posted by John Richards on Monday, 13 July 2009 at 11:37 You'll note the url ?

Posted By f5refresh mmm, no such thing as a compensation culture, yet a commons select committee produce a report on "compensation culture" - why John? John all my posts have been in relation to the original article above with quotes such as: "I could direct you to a lovely pebble beach in Sussex, where visitors are warned with a hideous bright yellow sign and a pictogram of a man falling over that there is an "uneven surface". Another pictogram, complete with another tumbling idiot, warns that the beach may have a "slippery surface". Cor!" It was not about about specific workplace accidents and compensation for those with asbestos related disease and other occupational illnesses. My opinion remains unchanged as to why signs such as the hideous one noted above exist and that opinion is that councils/organisations are fearful of litigation because THERE are a minority of unscrupulous people in society that will sue at the drop of the hat because it is ingrained in them that 'there is always someone to blame', this IMHO opionion is driven by 'the no win no fee' compensation culture that is so will advertised by SOME law firms. Insurers pay out based on a cost-benefit analysis case by case - sometimes John its more cost-effective to pay an out of court settlement than take it to court and actually win the case due to legal fees etc etc! All the while people like yourself blame the health and safety profession - that same profession that day in day out work so hard to keep everyone safe and healthy - thanks John for your unremitting support. P.S. I've just dimounted my high horse - good day

Posted By f5refresh http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8147570.stm Tragic tragic case but relates perfectly to this discussion.

Posted By martinw Pete48. ? Don't know what you see that I can't. Able to share? Martin

Posted By martinw Hardly John more likely it is local authorities misunderstanding clear legislation due to fear of being sued. This is going round in circles. I hazard (pardon the pun) to guess that nearly no-one on this site produces health and safety legislation. Most will those who advise their employers on compliance in some way, shape or form. I bet you that not one of us has put up a sign saying 'beware of the pebbles'. You are venting, I believe, at the wrong audience: you really are preaching at the converted. The HSE enforce and you are blaming the firefighter for the fire: the police officer for the crime. I believe in safety, not stupid overreactions and I do this for the right reasons. I would ask again, do you think we are doing something wrong? Our advice is to ensure legal compliance and safety of those at work. Should we take a different view?

Posted By Mark Eastbourne That means you John. You don't know me so, what I do or how I do it so do not judge me. I take offence at your continued use of the word "you" and "you're" as if the readers are to blame. I come on here to meet like minded people, professionals who manage real risks the best they can. Back off.