Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wazimu0  
#1 Posted : 04 December 2009 11:48:03(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Just to ask if anyone has noticed the HSE Myth of the Month for December! I've just read on their website about the myth "you can't throw out sweets at pantos".

Although I agree with them that if the risk is managed, then there shouldn't be a problem, I am totally shocked though at their insensitivity at calling this a "Trivial Risk".

To highlight just how trivial it is, there follows the names and ages of 181 (of the 183) people who died at Sunderland's Victoria Hall on 16th June 1883 after toys and small treats were thrown to the audience at the end of a Children’s show.

Margaret G Adams, 10 years old, Parade
Charles John Algren, 8 years old, Parade
Michael Allan, 5 years old, North Bridge Street
Margaret Cook Allan, 7 years old, North Bridge Street
George F Anderson, 7 years old, Brougham Street
Jane Athey, 9 years old, Wayman Street
Ruth Athey, 11 years old, Wayman Street
Thomas Bailey, 8 years old, East Street
James Beale, 8 years old, Ford Street
Isabella Bell, 7 years old, Norman Street
James Bell, 6 years old, Pemberton Street
William George Bell, 8 years old, Bridge Street
Barbara Blakey, 10 years old, Page Street
William Bland, 10 years old, Hedley Street
Robert W Booth, 9 years old, St Lukes Terrace
Newrick Briggs, 4 years old, Blandford Street
William James Briggs, 9 years old, Blandford Street
John William Brodie, 8 years old, Buxton Street
Emily Browell, 9 years old, Gilsland Street
Margaret Ellen Brown, 12 years old, D'Arcy Street
Margaret Brown, 4 years old, Lisburne Terrace
Dorothy B Buglass, 3 years old, Thornton Place
Thomas Butler, 9 years old, Thompson Street
Charles Henry Carr, 8 years old, Trinity Place
Sarah Jane Chandler, 7 years old, Wilson Street
Thomas H Chandler, 10 years old, Wilson Street
Barker Ramsay Cogdon, 8 years old, Flag Lane
Mary Jane Conlin, 10 years old, Burleigh Street
George H Coulson, 8 years old, Watson Lane
Andrew Coupland, 10 years old, Queen Street
John Curry, 8 years old, Back Whitburn Street
Alfred David Curtin, 5 years old, Clanney Street
James Fred Curtin, 9 years old, Clanney Street
John C Davison, 6 years old, High Street
Martin H Davison, 8 years old, Tweed Street
Rosanna Davison, 6 years old, Thomas Street
Charles Dixon, 7 years old, Willow Pond Terrace
John Edward Dixon, 7 years old, Howick Street
Charles Foster Dodds, 6 years old, Victor Street
Mary Downey, 7 years old, Back Sussex Street
Charles Dring, 8 years old, Roker Avenue
John Robert Dring, 11 years old, Dock Street East
Elva Dumble, 7 years old, St Mark's Road
Mary Ann Duncan, 11 years old, William Street
Thomas H Dunn, 9 years old, Colliery Row
Elizabeth Watt Elliott, 8 years old, Burleigh Street
James Oliver Elliott, 10 years old, Burleigh Street
Charles Evans, 9 years old, Thompson Street
John George Evans, 11 years old, Thompson Street
James Fairgreave, 10 years old, Brougham Street
Peter Fairgreave, 7 years old, Brougham Street
Kate Falley, 9 years old, Cornhill Road
Cuthbert M Fenwick, 6 years old, High Street West
John Fenwick, 7 years old, Wear Street
Thomas W Fleming, 8 years old, Vine Street
George Fox, 6½ years old, Gilsland Street N
Robert Fox, 9½ years old, Gilsland Street N
William Fox, 4 years old, Chester Terrace North
John G Gibson, 11 years old, Tower Street
John R Gillies, 5 years old, Dame Dorothy Street
Fred W Graham, 11 years old, Bramwell Street
Thomas Graham, 7 years old, New Grey Street
John Thomas Greener, 7 years old, Eglinton Street
Robert Henry Grey, 7 years old, Hawthorn Street
Mary Ann Hall, 8 years old, Deptford Road
Thomas Hall, 8 years old, Alexandra Terrace
Eliza Halliman, 8 years old, Grey's Buildings
Thomas Harrison, 9 years old, Abbs Street
James Hayhurst, 7 years old, High Street West
Cicely Henderson, 11½ years old, Hopper Street
James Henderson, 10 years old, Hopper Street
Joseph Henderson, 9 years old, Nicholson Street
Margaret Henderson, Jane, 7 years old, Hopper Street
Richard Henderson, 7 years old, Nicholson Street
Robert P Hilton, 6 years old, Emma Street
Eveline Hines, 6½ years old, Booth Street
William Arthur Hines, 8 years old, Booth Street
Robert Hall Hogg, 8 years old, Harrison Street East
John Howard, 7 years old, Pemberton Street
Thomas Edward Hughes, 5 years old, Swinbank Street
Thomas Hughes, 7 years old, Clanney Street
Laura V Hutchinson, 6 years old, Hendon Road
Thomas Jefferson, 9 years old, Gosforth Street
R Jewitt, 10 years old, Foyle Street
William Johnson, 10 years old, Pickard Street
William Kelty, 10 years old, Dock Street East
William Kemp, 7 years old, Henry Street East
A Edward Kirby, 10 years old, D'Arcy Terrace
Elizabeth Kirton, 9 years old, Carr's Yard
George W Knox, 9 years old, Brougham Street
Johnson Lackenby, 4½ years old, Queen Street
Charles H Lane, 10 years old, Clanney Street
James W Lane, 6 years old, Clanney Street
Isabella Lawrence, 7 years old, Addison Street
John Lawrence, 5 years old, Addison Street
Edward Liddle, 8 years old, Burlington Road
William S Longstaff, 7 years old, Coatesworth Street
Kate McCann, 8 years old, Silver Street
John William McKeever, 5 years old, Society Lane
Nellie Maconkie, 10 years old, Christopher Street
Fred Maddison, 5 years old, Kingsley Street
Sarah Maddison, 5 years old, Kingsley Street
John Marley, 5 years old, Tees Street
James Meek, 8 years old, Villiers Street
Hannah I Milburn, 9 years old, Alderson Street
Charles Miles, 9 years old, Catherine Street
Emily Miller, 9 years old, Gilsland Street
William Miller, 8 years old, Burlington Road
Alice P Mills, 10 years old, Ann Street
Elizabeth A Mills, 12 years old, Ann Street
Frederick Mills, 8 years old, Ann Street
Richard Mills, 6 years old, Ann Street
Emily Morris, 7 years old, Glebe Cleft Villas
John Morrison, 7 years old, Richmond Street
Jane Muse, 6 years old, Biss Street
Catherine Newton, 9½ years old, Carter Street
George Stokeld Nipper, 9 years old, Howick Square
John Waller Noble, 11 years old, Winchester Terrace
Margaret Orrock, 12 years old, Covent Garden Street
Mary Paget, 10 years old, Lisburn Terrace
Edward Paley, 6 years old, Garden Place
Alfred Patterson, 7 years old, Matlock Street
Louis A Paxton, 8 years old, Dunning Street
Ann Marie Peace, 7 years old, West Stanley Street
William Pearey, 9 years old, Bright Street
Mary Eleanor Pescod, 8 years old, Burleigh Street
William Henry Pescod, 10 years old, Burleigh Street
Emmerson Phillipson, 11 years old, Dame Dorothy Street
Ann M Pringle, 9 years old, Southwick Road
Maggie Pringle, 7 years old, Southwick Road
George Prior, 12 years old, Kingsley Street
John T Proudfoot, 8 years old, Burleigh Street
Robert Ramsey, 11 years old, Covent Garden Street
Annie Redmond, 14 years old, Booth Street
Catherine Richmond, 7 years old, Grey's Buildings
Thomas C Ritson, 9 years old, Mordey Street
Annie Patteson Robertson, 10 years old, High Street East
Ethel Robertson, 7 years old, High Street East
Eleanor Robson, 6 years old, Tyne Street
Margaret Roper 8 years old, East Cross Street
Elizabeth Rowell, 7 years old, Gladstone Street
Mary Helen Russell, 6 years old, Lawrence Street
William Rutherford, 8 years old, John Candlish Road
James H Scott, 10 years old, Vine Street
Eugenie Scrafton, 8 years old, Handel Street
Walter G Shipley, 10 years old, Griffin's Buildings
Abraham Simey, 8 years old, Silver Street
William Simpson, 7 years old, Sans Close
George Sleightam, 8 years old, Hendon Street
William Sleightam, 6 years old, Hendon Street
Carrie Smith, 5 years old, Northumberland Street
Elizabeth Snaith, 8 years old, Fowler Terrace
George Snaith, 8 years old, East Street
Tiney Solomon, 9 years old, Henry Street
Thomas Southern, 8 years old, Catherine Street
Joseph Spence, 10 years old, Howick Street
John Thomas Swinney, 6 years old, George Street
John James Taylor, 6 years old, Coatesworth Street
Margaret Ann Thompson, 6 years old, Norman Street
Margaret Thompson, 3 years old, Palmer Street
Mary Ann Thompson, 11 years old, Palmer Street
Annie M Tomlinson, 4 years old, South Durham Street
Ada Ann Topin, 11 years old, Emma Street
Nora Topin, 6 years old, Emma Street
Thomas Toward, 9 years old, Coatesworth Street
Margaret A Turnbull, 8 years old, Norman Street
John George Thomas Venus, 7 years old, Eglinton Street
Grace Newton Vowell, 8 years old, Norfolk Street
Lilly Vowell, 4 years old, Norfolk Street
Elizabeth Wanless, 7 years old, Dock Street
Florence Edith Ward, 6 years old, Back Charles Street
Amy C L Watson, 13 years old, Wayman Street
Annie Emily C Watson, 10 years old, Wayman Street
R C Watson, 12 years old, Wayman Street
William R Weighill, 8 years old, Vine Cottage
Robert Wilkinson, 7 years old, Addison Street
John Henry Willan, 11 years old, Zetland Street
John Robert Williamson, 11 years old, Johnson Street
John James Wise, 10 years old, Moor Street
Andrew Wright, 7 years old, Bright Street
Mary Wright, 5 years old, Willow Pond Inn


'Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of God.'
martinw  
#2 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:02:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

Wazimu0

you obviously know that the sweets did not kill the children, but that the deaths were caused in the main by the children trying to leave en masse through a narrow doorway after being told that other prizes were to be claimed by those with particularly numbered tickets. Crushing and smothering.

The sweets did not kill them. Stampeding, low adult supervision levels and a door too narrow all played their parts.

The risk alluded to by the HSE is that of impacts by small objects, perhaps being hit in the eye. Trivial.

What is that at the end of your post? How is quoting the bible helpful in the field of H&S?
kev3152  
#3 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kev3152

I think we need more data. How many fatalities were humbug-based, how many were struck by rocking horses and how many were trampled in the rush to claim sweets or toys? Do these sorts of incidents recur on a centennial basis, or a bi-centennial basis?
Come on, don't be coy, what's the real story here?
Richard Rose  
#4 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:06:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Richard Rose

Yeah, the listed names and bible quotation is a bit odd.

I think most folk's nowadays would think more of objects getting in eyes, or more importantly, an excuse to sue the theatre for compensations, which the media has got most folks believeing, HSE = compensation culture.
Twinklemel  
#5 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:33:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Twinklemel

Well, it really is friday, isn't it? I've got to say that is the weirdest post I've seen on here in a while.

I'd call it deliberately misleading in fact, as it's worded in such a way as to infer that the people were killed by the throwing of sweets, which clearly isn't the case.

I agree with the HSE that sweet-throwing has a trivial risk associated with it.
redken  
#6 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:40:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

But isn't it good to know, under the new system, that the original poster is not an IOSH member?
grim72  
#7 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:53:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
grim72

Wazim your talents are wasted, you should get in touch with the Daily Mail/Terry Wogan, I'm sure they will have a job as a journalist/script writer for you.
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:43:28(UTC) IanBlenkharn  
#8 Posted : 04 December 2009 12:57:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
IanBlenkharn

16th June 1883?

Tragic of course, but not exactly a frequent occurence is it?
martinw  
#9 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:02:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

I have to admit that I did not know that this was the original cause for Parliament to pass laws which form the basis for a lot of safety requirements today.

'An inquest into the tragedy was held, but it failed to blame anyone. This caused a public outcry and a second enquiry
was held, but it too failed to find out who had bolted the door and who was responsible. However, as a direct result of
the disaster, Parliament issued laws that required all places of public entertainment to have a sufficient number of
exits, and that all exit doors must open outwards and be easy to open.'

From http://www.sunderland.go...an%20Hall%20Disaster.pdf if you want the full story.
ScotsAM  
#10 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:38:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ScotsAM

I agree with the HSE on this one. The throwing of sweets at panto is trivial. Most parents, I believe would be aware of this 'hazard' when going to a panto with there children, and just by going in are accepting the risk.

At the very very most (if one were really to worry about being sued) information of the 'hazard' can certainly be provided before hand.

I think the incident of 1893 (116 years ago), while very tragic, is completely seperate from the issue mentioned on the myth of the month site.
MarcusB  
#11 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:43:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MarcusB

I think the link between the incident in 1883 and this month's myth of the month is tenuous but it was interesting to find out that this tragic event lead to the requirements for doors to open outward etc. Thank you martinw for the link to the pdf.
martinw  
#12 Posted : 04 December 2009 13:53:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

No problem, I did not know and came across it by accident. It is strange that some of the most commonly known disasters are still popularised by film makers - eg. Titanic - but that other disasters of other times are largely forgotten. I had no idea that about 2000 people died when a tsunami hit the Bristol Channel in 1607! Bizarre. But for those with a historical interest, or even if you are macarbre(joke) have a look at

http://www.absoluteastro..._disasters_by_death_toll
Moderator 3  
#13 Posted : 04 December 2009 14:59:34(UTC)
Rank: Moderator
Moderator 3

General Point of Order;

In a debate where you profoundly disagree with what has been said, please be careful to attack the issue and not the person.

Thanks.

Jon
broadvalley  
#14 Posted : 04 December 2009 20:58:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
broadvalley

Just scrolled through this post and the names of the children. In retrospect it would appear that a lot of young children lost their lives innocently in an era where great progress in Safety at entertainment venues was needed.

Maybe that was the point of the original post. Whatever your religious disposition the incident was very sad.

On the positive side the progress has been made and we can take our children to pantomines etc in the knowledge that they are in the main very safe. (and hoping to be a recipient of the odd low flying treat from the stage).
messy  
#15 Posted : 04 December 2009 23:53:59(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Just for the sake of balance, I am compiling a list of all the children who have had sweets thrown to them at Pantos in the 123 years since this disaster and have lived to tell the tale. It might take a while!

It is bad enough when the media exaggerate and spin elf & safety stories, but to have this sensationalised thread originated by someone (presumably) from within the H&S industry is a little disappointing
martinw  
#16 Posted : 05 December 2009 08:53:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

Agreed Messy
that was one of the reasons why I included the link to a list of disasters which are listed by numbers lost. The 1883 hall disaster was indeed appalling, but mainly I feel due to the fact that it was all children lost, which in itself is heart rending. And it was well beyond anyone's memory who is alive today. No-one alive knew anyone who died so to list the children's names, as if by doing so it accentuated the scale of the loss, was doubly bizarre as an approach.
But maybe this is to be expected. Once politicians get front page coverage regarding health and safety - eg David Cameron - and those who commented on that want some of the spotlight, it is not surprising that others will want to make their point, however that point is made. This is a public forum so we should not be surprised.
But I would make the point again that to invoke any higher power on a thread on this forum will bring ridicule from those intent on finding fault with H&S. We have a tough time in the sensationalist press as it is without giving out free ammunition.
Martin
pete48  
#17 Posted : 05 December 2009 11:49:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Quote
"Although I agree with them that if the risk is managed, then there shouldn't be a problem, I am totally shocked though at their insensitivity at calling this a "Trivial Risk".

This statement is simply an emotional response based in social outrage. It has nothing to do with sensible risk assessment whatsoever.
Could the same thing happen in the 21st century?? Well err yes it could.
How likely is it? Much less so than in 1883 one might successfully argue.
Would the consequences be the same? Unlikely again given all the advances since 1883.
So even if you accept the validity of the reference to an event in 1883 you must also accept that the risk will be totally different in 2009 and most likely much less than in 1883. Thus the severe risk that may have existed in1883 could quite easily be trivial in 2009.
Canopener  
#18 Posted : 05 December 2009 16:46:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Bizzare thread indeed. Messy - I love your response and look forward to your list!!! Hope IOSH increase the sites bandwidth to accomodate!!

Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.