[John Diamond]

Spotted this being posted today.

Positive reinforcement of the true meaning of sensible H&S in the workplace but it is only going to be as useful as the people who contribute. But will they listen?

Linky to HSE site

[Mat]

Will it change the way in which HSE are viewed I wonder or the UK's take on H&S.

[Ynot]

Mat, on 06 March 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Will it change the way in which HSE are viewed I wonder or the UK's take on H&S.

Well, as I've gone to pains to ellucidate here in the past, with only very small exceptions the HSE itself has an extremely rounded viewpoint and is NOT directly responsible for the myriad of faux H & S nazis' declarations of 'Elf 'n' Safety innit' cases we read about all the time.

Those ridiculous situations where local authorities or schools, or even some large businesses blame their inability to approve some action or activity on the grounds of H & S are more often than not nothing to do with official HSE guidelines, and may not even be supported BY the HSE. Just that jobsworth spouting the crap he/she heard at their latest 1 hour seminar that was distorted because the person delivering that presentation didn't understand the implications or background of the job in hand.

/rant

[kerry davies]

The panel is just the latest in a long line of attempts to educate the ineducable. We are a nation of babies whose sole aim appears to be 'Blame someone else and do it quickly'.

Myth of the Month, constant letters to the press, advertising campaigns; none of it has worked and until we return to a more vocationally based education system nothing will. The finest education in the land, Eton and Oxford, has turned out a nutter who believed the 'bonkers conkers' rubbish and when our beloved PM is such a twonk, what hope is there?

I wish the panel all the best with this Sisyphean task but have little hope of it changing the culture of incompetence by much.

[John Diamond]

Tell me if I am wrong but my understanding is: the remit of the panel is to advise on cases that have been referred when there is an issue with the application of H&S in a workplace where clarification is required on the measures required to minimise the risk of a potential hazard. And that the panel is NOT for the purposes of adjudicating the liabilities after an incident has occurred. The difference a bit like Good H&S Cop, Bad H&S Cop and this initiative sounds like its more Good Cop than Bad Cop. But a Good Cop is only good if he isn't tied up with paperwork back at the precinct.

I can see a lot of wasted time spent by the panel advising on trivial and persistently irritating referrals. It would benefit everyone if the findings of each case is published and precedent opinion set down. An open resource on a history of the findings would allow professionals and importantly non-professionals to access HSE opinions that would help them better manage and apply H&S in their workplace.

[Scot628]

John Diamond, on 06 March 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Tell me if I am wrong but my understanding is: the remit of the panel is to advise on cases that have been referred when there is an issue with the application of H&S in a workplace where clarification is required on the measures required to minimise the risk of a potential hazard. And that the panel is NOT for the purposes of adjudicating the liabilities after an incident has occurred. The difference a bit like Good H&S Cop, Bad H&S Cop and this initiative sounds like its more Good Cop than Bad Cop. But a Good Cop is only good if he isn't tied up with paperwork back at the precinct.

I can see a lot of wasted time spent by the panel advising on trivial and persistently irritating referrals. It would benefit everyone if the findings of each case is published and precedent opinion set down. An open resource on a history of the findings would allow professionals and importantly non-professionals to access HSE opinions that would help them better manage and apply H&S in their workplace.

This panel isn't being set up to deal with decisions on compliance with the legislation that are made by a regulator (e.g. a LA Environmental Health Officer or HSE Inspector) in a workplace. There are other mechanisms in place that already fulfill that function, e.g the formal appeals process against an Improvement or Prohibition Notice. This is specifically to " consider cases where advice provided to members of the public by non-regulators quotes health and safety, and is considered to be incorrect or disproportionate". In effect it is probably going to deal almost entirely with the "trivial and persistently irritating referrals", because those are the issues that seem to generate most media coverage ("conkers bonkers" etc). So if you get a visit from a EHO or a HSE inspector this is not the forum to turn to - if your fete is banned because of some spurious reason from a council that is dressed up as health and safety, it may provide some proportionate advice. To be honest I think there are fewer of these cases than you would suppose from the media coverage but I think its a logical step forward from the Myth of the Month campaign.

This post has been edited by Scot628: 06 March 2012 - 07:06 PM

[paulears]

It's even common now for TV presenters to say "for heath and safety" as an excuse to not do something - that any attempt to bring common sense back in must be worthwhile? I seem to spend my time split between trying so hard to demonstrate acceptable compliance, and rejecting faulty or inaccurate instructions. It's becoming an excuse for not doing things and that is NOT how it is supposed to be.

[kerry davies]

It just might help if non-HSE members of the panel were used to explain the realities to those trying to use H&S as an excuse to stop things with no valid H&S rationale.

This week's is the samba band banned from the village hall on H&S grounds because the neighbours did not like the noise. That council had also told their ratepayers that H&S had prevented other events when in truth it was a lack of insurance cover.

The HSE writing to the newspaper reporting the fallacy is fine but perhaps if the people involved had been able to email the panel for advice the whole thing could have been properly handled before the fallacy had reached the press.

Whatever the reason we must doff our caps to the HSE for persistence in trying to disempower the Elf'n'Safety nazi.

[Ynot]

One of my all time 'favourites' in the fallacy department is the way that pre-show announcements at some shows these days have been saying that "Owing to health and safety reasons, the taking of photographs and video recordings are not permitted".
The ONLY aspect of taking still or moving pictures at any event may just POSSIBLY be that a camera flash MIGHT distract or temporarily blind a performer during an otherwise safe move, thus POTENTIALLY causing an incident, though most wouldn't.

There are reasons why theatres don't allow this, but H & S ain't one of them...!

[TomHoward]

We had a panto in who were adamant they weren't allowed to throw sweets into the audience because of 'health and safety' - the thing that intrigued me most was that their source was one cast member was "sure she'd heard it somewhere" - but none of them turned out to Google to find out, they just accepted it as fact and re-directed it with the cast members going into the audience and handing them out.

[themadhippy]

Quote

We had a panto in who were adamant they weren't allowed to throw sweets into the audience because of 'health and safety' - the thing that intrigued me most was that their source was one cast member was "sure she'd heard it somewhere"

we had the same order come down from the council very close to you tom a few years back.The amdrams wrapped the sweets in foam and threw them underarm

[ramdram]

Lol. Very recently did a panto where the sweeties were all marsh mallows...which had been removed from the large pack they were sold in and wrapped up individually in some machine so they looked quite pro.

However you can only speculate that the wrapping and food handling was as per "regs"...

Mind you, the bloke who did this was a "practising" lawyer, so he must have known about the dangers of having someone's eye out and the consequent suits to follow.

[kerry davies]

Hmmm, that one only made it to number three. Top10 Xmas Myths

Snowball fights and office decorations were more popular idiocies though number 10 is my favourite; "Carol singers are a health and safety risk."

Which council issued the order? That is a classic case for the panel to put straight.

[JimWebber]

kerry davies, on 06 March 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

The panel is just the latest in a long line of attempts to educate the ineducable. We are a nation of babies whose sole aim appears to be 'Blame someone else and do it quickly'.

....

Nine out of ten Kerry, Good effort.

The part you forgot to mention, after we have blamed somebody, we need to calculate just how much money we can make from them.

The formula for this is, is incredibly complicated, and outside of the scope of this lesson.

On a slightly more serious note, therin lies the problem.

As YNot and others have pointed out, most of these barmy "Elf 'n Safety" rules are in fact simply a*se covering activities by our lords and masters. Yes, we all (Don't we?) have liability insurance, but at the end of the day, let's face it, it will be employers & organisers, who, by nature will ultimately be paying the cost of any insurance payout. The "Grown-Ups" have realised that the simplist way to motivate somebody is to imply that they are (or will be) in danger if they do something.

Unfortunately, once these rules have been set, they ARE rules, ridiculous or otherwise and 99% of the population will follow them blindly.

At the end of the day, Lobbying the HSE won't change the attitudes of the House Manager who won't let you throw sweets during the pantomime. We need the confidence, protection, and above all support, to be able to confront our employers.

We also need an end to the infenal "Had an accident in the past three years?" "Call moneygrabbingbastardlawyersareusforyou.com" adverts, who encourage this,

Jim

[ramdram]

Ref the who ordered what issue, I was under the impression it came about because of the insurance industry, who must have been taking a hit for all sorts, upping the level and complexity of conditions, (read "get out" clause).

So it was, I suggest, a realistic attempt by the "authorities" to cut costs and save public money perhaps on lower premiums, by the simple expedient of banning "everything"?

Quick aside: you may recall some (church/local) authorities toppling grave markers in case one fell over and reunited the mourner and the dear departed rather earlier than expected sort of thing.

I would say that the insurance industry are the real culprits...however...that said, IF the insurers were taking a hit then it may be that the claims arose out of sheer carelessness/stupidity (think Darwin Awards, lol) by planks, who really do need guidance for doing "stuff"....hence the H&S "affect".

This post has been edited by ramdram: 09 March 2012 - 01:32 PM