At Last a Review on Health and Safety is Going on

[I1L2T3]

This review is a waste of money. The bulk of our H&S legislation is dictated by the EU. Sure we can choose not to comply but that would be stupid.

 

So the Libs-Cons go on about saving money then blow a whole load of cash on a pointless review.

[1ofTheseDays]

No win, no fee ambulance chasers are an easy target but there is in fact very little evidence of an increase in compensation claims.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7387796.stm

 

The reality is that the myth of a compensation culture makes good press, we all like a good whinge about some do gooding council banning conkers or telling scaffolders they can't use ladders. The stories are ridiculous and more often than not made up or embellishments on the truth to such an extent than on investigation you can see there was a point, just not one that was being reported. Not only do these make good stories for us to read and think how superior we are, it also serves the purpose of creating a distrust of the very laws and regulations that help to prevent the recklessness of corporate killers and the only people that have any interest in the spread of this myth.

 

The frontpage of hazards at the moment make a point about inspections:

http://www.hazards.org/

 

The real criminals in H&S are not the officers, the victims or the lawyers. They are the reckless employers that don't treat staff safety with the priority it deserves.

 

Oh so everyones just imagining it are they?? trust the marxist bbc-and you, to play it down

 

People have finaly woke up to the fact that Labour were deliberatly ****ing this country up.

[max]

Oh so everyones just imagining it are they?? trust the marxist bbc-and you, to play it down

 

People have finaly woke up to the fact that Labour were deliberatly ****ing this country up.

 

Describe one instance where Health & Safety regulations caused a problem.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Expect accidents to go up in the workplace now as safety is abandend so that more profit can be be made for the board of directors.

 

We will return to what Dickens described as 'machines that chopped people up.' Don't we just love life under the Tories. We will be returning not to the eighties but to the Victorian Era.

 

 

The TV News articles I saw suggested that the aim was to reintroduce a little common sense into health and safety.

 

Are there many machines which chop people up in the average classroom? How about in school playgrounds? Or in the average office?

 

There are plenty of dangerous working environments, but AFAIK nobody has suggested reducing safety standards in those.

 

How many children died or were seriously injured playing conkers before that was banned on school property 'on safety grounds'?

[Moosey]

How many children died or were seriously injured playing conkers before that was banned on school property 'on safety grounds'?

 

Source for that?

 

Certainly not banned in my nieces school, my old school, or any school I'm aware of round here. I'll admit, before you say it, that's only two I've mentioned. Lots of others, and some may be different, so I'll gladly accept its true if you can show me evidence.

[HeadingNorth]

There has been at least one case of a school banning the playing of conkers (and no, I don't have a source to hand, it was several years ago!)

 

The problem there, and generally, is not actual H&S legislation, but the perception. It doesn't matter whether something actually is enshrined in law, so much as whether an insurance company is willing to cover a risk. A school has to have accident insurance to cover the children, and if the insurance company were to say "your policy will treble unless you ban the children from playing conkers as we believe it's dangerous," then the headteacher can hardly be blamed for the outcome.

 

Now, it may well be that you can't be sued for "failing to prevent a drunk from climbing over the lion-enclosure fences", and you certainly could not lose the lawsuit - but if your insurers think you can be sued for it, and fear having to pay your legal bills even if you win the lawsuit, they will refuse to provide insurance unless you spend unfeasibly large amounts of money drunkard-proof fences. So much money, in fact, that your zoo would not be profitable, so you abandon opening it in the first place.

 

This is a silly, fictitious example. There have been numerous genuine, but equally silly examples in the last decade, of things which are either banned or discontinued because public bodies cannot afford the cost of insurance; and the reason they can't afford it is that the insurance companies want huge premiums to cover the risk of being sued and spending a fortune on legal fees; or else, demand so many expensive safety measures to be put in place before they'll provide insurance at all, that the project has to be abandoned just the same. Invariably, when this happens, the blame is placed on "Health and Safety" as a catch-all phrase, even though in the vast majority of cases there is no H&S legislation, and certainly nothing ever put out by the HSE, which is actually at fault. The problem, as I say, is that people believe there is a risk of being sued if someone has an accident while on your property, or enrolled on one of your courses, etc.

 

If that risk does not in fact exist, perhaps a formal review that makes explicitly clear what people are and are not expected to do as "reasonable safety measures," might make that clear and solve the problem. If the risk does exist, then a review is vital in order to remove it. You should only run the risk of being sued if you are negligent and do not take reasonable steps (no lion fences at all.) If you build the fences and some idiot decides to climb over them and hug a lion, you should not be in fear of being sued as a consequence, but many organisations, councils, and people are in such fear.

[Moosey]

There has been at least one case of a school banning the playing of conkers (and no, I don't have a source to hand, it was several years ago!)

 

According to the press there were reports of schools banning the word Christmas. I've yet to see a proven one that wasn't either a blatant media lie, or something blown out of all proportion. I'm not saying you're wrong, exaggerating or anything, rather that I'll believe it when I see it.

 

The problem there, and generally, is not actual H&S legislation, but the perception. It doesn't matter whether something actually is enshrined in law, so much as whether an insurance company is willing to cover a risk.

 

Now, it may well be that you can't be sued for "failing to prevent a drunk from climbing over the lion-enclosure fences", and you certainly could not lose the lawsuit - but if your insurers think you can be sued for it, and fear having to pay your legal bills even if you win the lawsuit, they will refuse to provide insurance unless you spend unfeasibly large amounts of money drunkard-proof fences. So much money, in fact, that your zoo would not be profitable, so you abandon opening it in the first place.

 

 

You're actually getting closer to the truth.

 

It's not such an issue with larger companies. Larger companies have insurers/legal departments who are aware of the law. Smaller ones tend not to, so such issues will be dealt with by Steve, who reads the mail and believes that it's illegal to fly the union jack, because the papers told him so. Steve therefore doesn't at work. He tells his mate Dave, who runs a builders and does the same, then someone who works at the Star reports on it.

 

You've got close to hitting the nail on the head. Health And Safety rules aren't the problem. Lack of knowledge is.

 

 

Edit - you changed it to make us say even more the same thing!

[Doppo]

As a retired H&S Manager, its quite interesting to read all your comments and know that people still care, I always took a practical view of a situation before deciding if something was safe or not whilst taking into account the person or persons views who were operating the machine or carrying out the task.

H&S laws don't stopped egg and spoon races, insurance companies profits do, it should also be remebered that solicitors make at least twice the amount the claiment does on claims under £5000.

 

As Voltaire said"Man assumes he is born with a modicum of commensense, when in actual fact he is born with none at all"

[Moosey]

it should also be remebered that solicitors make at least twice the amount the claiment does on claims under £5000.

 

 

May I politely suggest you stick to the health and safety. As a solicitor, I can tell you that is complete rubbish.

 

In fact, for road accidents, you can easily find the standard figures if you search for them. Base costs of £400 now for an uncontested claim. £400.

 

Used to be £800 + 20% of the damages, so on a £3000 claim, the costs were £1400. Not twice at all.

[Wildcat]

There has been at least one case of a school banning the playing of conkers (and no, I don't have a source to hand, it was several years ago!)

 

When I was at school (early 80s) conker week always resulted in a conker ban. Not because playing conkers was dangerous, but because large numbers of people were throwing them across the playground at each other. At its worst it was like a conker re-enactment of Agincourt.

 

I don't recall anyone being hurt with anything more than a few bruises, but I can see the potential was there for an injury and in those circumstances it was the behaviour of the pupils that demanded the banning of conkers.