elf 'n' safety review

[Tin basher]

So the government is promising to ditch the silly bits of elf 'n' safety.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10304770.stm

What would you do with H+S regs? Allow conkers again etc etc.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Lord Young, who served as a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher, said many rules were "absolute nonsense".

No, its not the rules that are nonsense its the 'nth' degree to which they are being applied. Potential risks which have little if any chance whatsoever of resulting in injury or illness are being assessed as not worth taking by the business or authority involved just in case something happens and some grasping fcuker sues.
You would expect a restaurant to take basic precautions to prevent you from falling ill through eating their food, but refusing to offer toothpicks is an over-reaction to the risk of them making you ill. You expect a school to be structurally sound and have serviceable equipment to prevent children from hurting themselves or being hurt by their surroundings. You would expect them to supervise playtime in case over-enthusiastic little Tommy gets carried away and injuries little Jonny. But banning conkers is, again, an over-reaction to the risk of a child being hurt through playing the game.
And yes, ban those bl00dy 'Injury Lawyers to Sue' adverts and issue guidlines to courts to stop fcukwits who don't look where they are going, test the temperature of what they are eating or drinking, or make sure they know what kit they should be using to do a job don't get lottery payouts for their own ineptitude.

 

[ajay]

Well said that man
I'm now an HSE manager in civvy street and if we got rid of lawyer tw*ts my life would be so much easier DT_Xtremez_30:

Lord Young, who served as a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher, said many rules were "absolute nonsense".

No, its not the rules that are nonsense its the 'nth' degree to which they are being applied. Potential risks which have little if any chance whatsoever of resulting in injury or illness are being assessed as not worth taking by the business or authority involved just in case something happens and some grasping fcuker sues.
You would expect a restaurant to take basic precautions to prevent you from falling ill through eating their food, but refusing to offer toothpicks is an over-reaction to the risk of them making you ill. You expect a school to be structurally sound and have serviceable equipment to prevent children from hurting themselves or being hurt by their surroundings. You would expect them to supervise playtime in case over-enthusiastic little Tommy gets carried away and injuries little Jonny. But banning conkers is, again, an over-reaction to the risk of a child being hurt through playing the game.
And yes, ban those bl00dy 'Injury Lawyers to Sue' adverts and issue guidlines to courts to stop fcukwits who don't look where they are going, test the temperature of what they are eating or drinking, or make sure they know what kit they should be using to do a job don't get lottery payouts for their own ineptitude.

 

[Tin basher]

Agreed but sadly it's part of the mindset of some that whatever happened somebody MUST be to blame. Hence the rise of ambulance chasing law firms with swanky TV ads. The can be no accidents these days, there must be a cause or a process breakdown, or a procedural failure that you can be sued for. Well actually you can have an accident and idiots can hurt themselves through raw stupidity and you cannot legislate for every moron who is trying for a Darwin award. If this review applies common sense to events and awards huge costs against if your proved wrong or fraudulent in your claim then perhaps lawyers for chancers might not be on TV so often.

 

[Ex-Bay]

I agree with PSBM. The idea that "if there's blame, there's a claim" is, frankly, daft, UNLESS it takes into account personal responsibility. There have been enough stories told of a house burglar injured in his crime and suing the house owners because he stepped in the wrong place (or whatever). This is the sort of extreme stupidity that needs stamping on (as well as "selling" a claim!¬!)

 

[litterman]

I agree with PSBM. The idea that "if there's blame, there's a claim" is, frankly, daft, UNLESS it takes into account personal responsibility. There have been enough stories told of a house burglar injured in his crime and suing the house owners because he stepped in the wrong place (or whatever). This is the sort of extreme stupidity that needs stamping on (as well as "selling" a claim!¬!)

Cant aggree more .But what about the elf n safety in the workplace ??? i agree some of it over the top but most of it there for our own good i was an elf n safety inspector at work (used to work out how jobs were going to be done it was a ball ache but had to be done triplicate forms and all that

 

[Dragoon]

It's a vicious circle really.

Since the blame / claim culture came over here from the States a while ago, everyone has been jumping on the bandwagon.
These days, no one wants to accept responsibility for something, it's always someone else's fault.

Because of the rise in blames / claims, companies and governments have been forced to think of every eventuality of something, and then created a H&S rule against it, thus covering their own arse.

One part of the circle will have to be broken in order to stop this culture, and I'll aim my cannon right at those bloody adverts.

Get them off our daytime screens, and the bloody sponging oxygen thieves that spawn off these claims will soon forget about this option open to them, and thus the cycle will be broken! DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[Cooheed]

Let's hope he follows THIS through. Would be long before time.

 

[Tashy_Man]

Let's hope he follows THIS through. Would be long before time.

Totally agree.....really hope he keeps to it....would be fantastic but I won't be holding my breath.
Crack on..................DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[Aces and Eights]

Rip the seats out of certain parts of football stadiums to allow standing. Let's face it we spend most of the match on our feet anyway.
________
Gl1100

 

[firestorm]

The worrying thing is that Lord Young wants the emergency services exempt from H&S law.

 

[Oldstacker]

Emergency Servic exempt H&S

Emergency Servic exempt H&S

Check this out......... http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=523 Could it be done thes days? No Way!!!!!!!

 

[Ex-Bay]

Check this out......... http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=523 Could it be done thes days? No Way!!!!!!!

I wonder what the Risk Assessment would be like?

 

[firestorm]

It could be done, but not quite like that!

 

[Irritant.]

Having left the RAF nearly 6 years ago I spent 3 years as a H/S manager and nearly 3 years as a SHEF consultant.

There are (IMO) two main problems.

• Jumping on the “where there’s blame there’s a claim” band wagon and:

• Feck wits that run organisations. Its idiots that do not know how to read the regulations and apply them in the correct way that cause the big issues. That’s why conkers is banned in schools and ATC cadets cannot play British Bulldogs when on summer camp. Then you get head masters allowing half dunked students to walk on the roof of the school and wonder why one fell through the skylight.