Posted By Diane Warne Peter, My partner works in mental health and I'm a safety officer. We'll have an argument about this tonight and I'll let you know the outcome! Regards Diane Warne

Posted By Laurie You might just as well say that being asked to turn your mobile off in a hospital is such a violation!! What about miners? They are certainly not allowed "means of ignition". I worked in an explosives handling field for many years, and being found in possession of anything like this would have not only meant instant dismissal, but probable loss of pension rights as well. I suspect the rigs will be much the same. Of all the human rights violations in the world, this can hardly be high up the list! Laurie Richards

Posted By Philip McAleenan Below is article 2 (1) of the Council of Europe - (ETS No.5) European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 2 – Right to life 1 Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. You can read the full convention at: http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/5e.htm Regards, Philip

Posted By Peter Barry Thanks for the pointer phillip Peter

Posted By Philip McAleenan Kevin, What is the Union saying in their statement? It seems to me quite confused and erroneous in parts. For example, the assertion that an employee's duty to act reasonably follows from the employer acting reasonably to comply with his statutory duty in incorrect. The employee's duty to act reasonably follows from an altogether different premise, namely a common law and statutory obligations that employees must act reasonably, irrespective of whether their employer is acting reasonably or not. Where does the "despite human rights" part of the statement belong? Does it belong to the preceding assertion, that "the employee has a duty to be reasonable despite human rights", which seems an odd assertion as it implies that human rights may not be reasonable. Or does it belong to the subsequent assertion that "despite human rights all that is required to dismiss...is the failure of the employee to act reasonably", which may imply for example that the employee who unreasonably jeopardises his colleagues lives has, in being dismissed, somehow had his human rights infringed. Maybe the Union's statement is more comprehensible in the context within which it was made. However, in the absence of that and in the light of comments elsewhere in the IOSH forum, maybe these few comments will prompt some consideration on the purpose of OHS. Is mise, Philip