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
"Health & safety chief set himself on fire".
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
rodgerker  
#1 Posted : 17 February 2011 12:20:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker
Snippet from today's Daily Telegraph. "A health and safety manager who almost died after carelessly setting himself on fire in front of colleagues must pay £5,00 for the trauma he caused". The judge also gave him a four-month suspended prison sentence. Seems a bit of a stiff sentence. Seen a lot less handed down for flagrantly causing a fatality.
Back to top
SW  
#2 Posted : 17 February 2011 12:24:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SW
£5.00? not too bad! Ties in well with the other recent thread about H&S experienced persons being injured in the workplace.
Back to top
safetyamateur  
#3 Posted : 17 February 2011 12:54:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
safetyamateur
Was it a protest of some kind? Are there legions of H&S Managers gathered in the square outside LY's house? Why are all the details being kept from us? The smiley function on my mobile phone's not working properly either. There must be some hefty details missing from this story for the punishment to be so harsh.
Back to top
rodgerker  
#4 Posted : 17 February 2011 12:58:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker
Sorry, shoud have been £5,000.00. (Five thousand pounds)
Back to top
Ron Hunter  
#5 Posted : 17 February 2011 13:00:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter
"carelessly setting himself on fire". Is there a diligent way? (Stuntmen need not reply) ;-)
Back to top
B.Bruce  
#6 Posted : 17 February 2011 15:47:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
B.Bruce
Sounds like he was very lucky indeed...................! http://www.southendstand...f_on_fire_while_at_work/
Back to top
kevbell  
#7 Posted : 17 February 2011 16:07:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kevbell
B.Bruce thanks for the link wow he was very lucky Kev
Back to top
mallen  
#8 Posted : 17 February 2011 16:39:59(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
mallen
it seems even the "experts" can have "i left my brain at home" days!
Back to top
B.Bruce  
#9 Posted : 17 February 2011 17:00:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
B.Bruce
............dare I say 'Darwin Awards 2011'!
Back to top
Guru  
#10 Posted : 18 February 2011 08:21:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Guru
Ooo, a Section 7 prosecution under the HSWA!
Back to top
Alex Petrie  
#11 Posted : 22 February 2011 18:32:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Alex Petrie
Careless. Nice to see accurate reporting though. The £5000 is for costs, not for causing "trauma".
Back to top
RayRapp  
#12 Posted : 23 February 2011 08:15:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
He won't do that again! Seriously, I read about this case recently on SHP online. Surprised he was prosecuted given the extent of his injuries. A 4 month sentence suspended for 2 years and £5,000 costs does appear to be harsh given the circumstances. As someone has already mentioned, an employer could kill someone and get less than that. Still, it will give the doom and gloom merchants another case to cite when arguing about h&s practitioners accountability...that makes three with Fatty Arbuckles H&S Manager and the mining consultant.
Back to top
walker  
#13 Posted : 23 February 2011 11:39:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker
Was he a H&S manager or the manager with H&S responsibilities? I read this as a firm that was two men & a dog outfit rather than a large employer. As always HSE & CPS always go after the little companies & little men. He deserved what he got & it would have been much higher fine& sentaence had someone else been injured In the same SHP on line report page are two companies whose negligence killed many people but HSE has not gone after induividuals there.
Back to top
barnaby  
#14 Posted : 23 February 2011 12:34:46(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest
Walker wrote:
I read this as a firm that was two men & a dog outfit rather than a large employer.
Probably more like 200 (not sure about any dogs, though) and that doesn't include the parent company.
Back to top
Invictus  
#15 Posted : 24 February 2011 06:59:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus
RayRapp wrote:
He won't do that again! Seriously, I read about this case recently on SHP online. Surprised he was prosecuted given the extent of his injuries. A 4 month sentence suspended for 2 years and £5,000 costs does appear to be harsh given the circumstances. As someone has already mentioned, an employer could kill someone and get less than that. Still, it will give the doom and gloom merchants another case to cite when arguing about h&s practitioners accountability...that makes three with Fatty Arbuckles H&S Manager and the mining consultant.
The person was convicted because he was a health and safety practitioner he was convicted under section 7,
Back to top
RayRapp  
#16 Posted : 24 February 2011 08:21:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
'The person was convicted because he was a health and safety practitioner he was convicted under section 7,' Your point is...?
Back to top
Invictus  
#17 Posted : 24 February 2011 10:23:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus
RayRapp wrote:
'The person was convicted because he was a health and safety practitioner he was convicted under section 7,' Your point is...?
Sorry Ray a bit early in the morning I meant he wasn't convicted because he was a health and safety practitioner. He convicted under S7. The fact he was a H&S person just added to the article.
Back to top
RayRapp  
#18 Posted : 24 February 2011 18:19:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
Indeed, s7 prosecutions are pretty rare, but to have a h&s person as well is, er...like hitting the jackpot.
Back to top
Phillip Clarke  
#19 Posted : 24 February 2011 20:45:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phillip Clarke
I am left wondering what level of H&S qualifications and experience this person had and whether they were a member of any safety organisation such as IOSH, IIRSM or the CIEH.
Back to top
Guru  
#20 Posted : 24 February 2011 20:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Guru
A similar case of unsafe work at height, where both the client and contractor are prosecuted. http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-em-21110.htm
Back to top
Guru  
#21 Posted : 24 February 2011 20:50:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Guru
oops....wrong thread DOH!
Back to top
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#22 Posted : 25 February 2011 08:24:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn
Phillip I was thinking about this myself, though until now have hesitated to make comment since it is in circumstances such as this that the vociferous minority howl with fierce condemnation any suggestion that one of their own should be subject to disciplinary action etc. But it is appropriate for this organisation to check though its membership lists, to ascertain whether or not the individual is a chartered member. The award of chartered status places on the individual, and on the awarding body, a heavy responsibility for high standards of performance. In this case it was proven in court that the responsibility was not met and the Professional Standards Ctte should now review the case and act as it sees fit. That alone will protect the profession and the organisation. For a member, anything less is unacceptable.
Back to top
kdrum  
#23 Posted : 25 February 2011 10:37:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kdrum
Here we go again thank God its Friday!!
Back to top
Invictus  
#24 Posted : 25 February 2011 10:52:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus
I don't think we need to look at qualifications and levels of membership, but maybe look at the 'common sense' approach.
Back to top
imwaldra  
#25 Posted : 25 February 2011 11:07:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
imwaldra
FYI, I've checked and he isn't a member of IOSH.
Back to top
m  
#26 Posted : 25 February 2011 12:54:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
m
Whilst looking around for a more in depth report I came across the article linked below.They have used a picture of a show jumper of the same name to illustrate the article.
Back to top
m  
#27 Posted : 25 February 2011 12:55:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
m
Back to top
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#28 Posted : 25 February 2011 13:15:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn
quote=Ian.Blenkharn] I was thinking about this myself, though until now have hesitated to make comment since it is in circumstances such as this that the vociferous minority howl with fierce condemnation any suggestion that one of their own should be subject to disciplinary action etc.
Well, it took around 2 hours, so not so vigorous a response but it was there eventually! imwaldra - Perhaps it is right that you checked, or the organisation should check on everyone's behalf. The purpose is to ensure the integrity of the organisation and protect its Charter, and in so doing protect the integrity of the chartered status that it is permitted to hand down to qualifying members. It's a shame to 'kick someone when they are down - that is, of course, not the purpose - but it is a much greater shame to turn a blind eye with the clearly indefensible conclusion that H&S staff cannot ever be criticised and even less often can be disciplined, have chartered status withdrawn or - and this is just around the corner - be erased from a register of qualified professionals!
Back to top
jay  
#29 Posted : 25 February 2011 14:55:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay
There is better coverage in the SHP at:- http://www.shponline.co....d-sentence-for-explosion TRhe article also states that his employer, South Essex Stockholders Ltd, was found guilty on 9 December of breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974!
Back to top
RayRapp  
#30 Posted : 25 February 2011 17:31:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
Chaps, give the guy a break. He was seriously injured, cost him 5 grand, probably his job and he has now retired to Cyprus. Have we never made a mistake?
Back to top
messyshaw  
#31 Posted : 26 February 2011 20:09:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
messyshaw
Ray I agree, give the guy a break. I have to ask, where is the public interest here in bringing this prosecution in the first place? He has suffered considerable pain and injury which would probably traumatise most people to be frightened of ever lighting a BBQ, let alone make this stupid mistake again. I watched an edition of Grand Designs this afternoon - and despite having limited knowledge of H&S (Fire Safety is my area) - I saw a number of dodgy looking practices by employees of a small construction firm (including a helmet-less guy being lowered into a deep unsupported trench in a backhoe bucket !!). Isn't this employer the type of idiot the HSE should be chasing not an individual whose careless mistake is very unlikely to be repeated.
Back to top
Bob Shillabeer  
#32 Posted : 26 February 2011 21:19:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bob Shillabeer
Must say I agree with Ray and messy, this guy is lucky to be alive. The result of the legal case is small coal he is alive and retired to Cyprus. As to public interest there is only the interest of safety professionals, as a topic for just talking. There is no other value in the poor chaps story, he acted wrongly and has paid the price. If that is what so called safety professionals can talk about it is a sad old day. The lessons to be learned are however of more value. This posting is now number 32, so can someone introduce a new thread?
Back to top
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET