Rank: Super forum user 
|
If you are the right person, it is possible to earn a good living by posting videos of yourself doing things on social media. Does this therefore count as self-employment? If it is self-employment then you have duty of care to others but not yourself. On the other hand if they are encouraged and supported by the social media platform does that make them employees-like Uber drivers apparently are now? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56481993- some “ personality” copied a You Tube demonstration on converting a glass bottle into a vase and injured themselves. Who if anyone is liable? Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It's not just social media that raises concerns. I remember a programme on one of the main TV channels where a representative of a major gases company was demonstrating all sorts of dangerous practices with liquid Nitrogen. If someone had emulated this and got injured, would the gases company or the TV channel be held responsible, or both? And possible action against offenders would tend to be in the nature of civil claims, rather than criminal prosecutions, and is this right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Sadly most national legislation is yet to catch up with the internet. Personally I would like to see the "platform" be accountable for all provided content whether it is a counterfeit phone charger or some of the reckless stunts undertaken by the evolutionary challenged. One thing that is quite obvious "Don't Try This at Home" acts more like an invitation than an instruction. Folding this concept back in to our "happy" place - where would on-line training for competence reside? Even the HSE are using a particular video platform.
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sadly most national legislation is yet to catch up with the internet. Personally I would like to see the "platform" be accountable for all provided content whether it is a counterfeit phone charger or some of the reckless stunts undertaken by the evolutionary challenged. One thing that is quite obvious "Don't Try This at Home" acts more like an invitation than an instruction. Folding this concept back in to our "happy" place - where would on-line training for competence reside? Even the HSE are using a particular video platform.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Self employed have statutory duty to protect themselves in limited circumstances: The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (General Duties of Self-Employed Persons) (Prescribed Undertakings) Regulations 2015
|
1 user thanked Ron Hunter for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have challenged the BBC over dangerous practices when encouraging people to manufacture potentially hazardous products. They acknowledged the specific item but were not intelligent enough, nor did they care enough to consider the concept.
However it is on official record that they have been advised of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I, along with about twenty other people, complained to the advertising watchdog over a TV advert that showed a woman driving a car with her eyes shut while listening to music. The complaint was upheld. The advert was quickly changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The self employed have a H&S duty to themselves, under those regs for work with or on - Agriculture (including forestry)
- Asbestos
- Construction
- Gas
- Genetically modified organisms
- Railways
Bu nothing really generally. Interestingly the Robben’s report suggested there should be a general duty on the self employed because if they injury themselves or become ill due to they way they do their work it falls on the tax payer to look after them. It was not adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Liability for stupidity – What an interesting concept, but would you not have to define exactly what constitutes stupidity. Then have some sort of test against which the person is measured. Then wonder how you will replace over half your workforce! In the good old days, they would be the ones eaten by the dinosaur, but we now protect the stupid from Darwin’s effect and so allow them to contribute to the gene pool. In the example provided, the youtuber or tuber (mind you a potato is a tuber). They did not hurt themselves I guess, so is it just down to the follower for not following instruction! PS could not read the article as the link did not work for me. Then of course this liability would have to be worldwide, best of luck with that. We have not really managed to get all employers in this country to behave morally and be accountable. The current situation as I understand it, is the HSE will only investigate a complaint if it comes from an employee. However, if the employee does not know they are being asked to do something they should not then no complaint, so no problem (until the proverbial hits the fan and someone is hurt). Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If we accept that the utuber is self employed and based in uk
so that section 3.2 of HASAW applies – then the duty is “so far as is
reasonably practicable”. Providing the instructions given were safe there would
be no breach. I don’t see that ensuring everyone who watched the video is
trained could ever be seen as “reasonably practicable”. So maybe we are looking
at civil liability, two parts appear to be fulfilled, Duty of care (tick)
injury (tick) Negligent? Who knows again if the instructions are sound but the
person cannot follower does that make the utuber negligent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I did pen a really long comment ...but all it really boils down to is you can't legislate for the darwin awards...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.