Regulations are laws BTW. Guidance is like the highway code – you can't be prosecuted for breaking it, but if you break it and something bad happens, you'd better have a pretty good reason…

They are not law they support the law.

They are not law they support the law

True dat.

Get caught working outside the ACOP and your gonna get got. Qausi legislation innit.

Anyone whos been served the papers will know that your prossecuted under Section X of HSWA and then your chops are busted because you werent doing X or Y as laid down in the ACOP. The ACOP is the line in the sand as it were.

whilst all the above "nonsense" is very true, i cant help thinking a lot of this stuff comesabout because of numpties. its numpties who do stupid stuff,then get injured and then say its someones fault for not "preventing" the accident by not giving said numpties, safety equipment etc.
nobodys prepared to say, i wasnt being carefull,i didnt take any precations, i hurt myself, im a d*ck and i should learn from my stupidity!

Most of these things are not about elf'n'safely but about the complete inability of many people to understand and manage risk. Oh, and insurance companies.

The word illegal doesn't just relate to law you know?
i.e an illegal chess move, against the regulations, rules etc.

Says who? I've just done 3 months in Wormwood Scrubs for moving a knight three places 🙁

They are only Regs. anyway and NOT law.

They are not law they support the law

The Working At Height Regs are law

Regulations are laws BTW. Guidance is like the highway code

The fact there are at least 3 posters here that claim to be H&S experts that can't even agree on this – what chance does the poor Sky fitter [mentioned earlier] have of understanding it?

Make that a fourth. I have studied H&S over a cup of tea this morning.

Worked for the Nhs in the late 90,s driveing a van, so bought a pair of sunglasses, and claimed the cost back, i used the H and S at W act, to allow thm to refund me, as there was a forseeable risk of me being blinded by bright sunlight.

It concerns me as well uplink. I have a degree in Criminal Law.
Currently studying for NEBOSH Diploma.

I can also detect that the lecturer is spouting fundamental untruths as my degree gave me a better base knowledge of the law (he has not done a degree). What concerns me is this disinformation is being disseminated to 20 odd other people who do not question whether he is right or wrong and apply this disinformation in their own workplaces, its self perpetuating. Hence (in my particular example) you get jobsworths 'banning' conkers in schools etc etc etc

From a discussion I had on here a few weeks ago.

Not so quick Hora – you need to pass the exam first

Is it letting your dad wear your mums nightie whilst cooking meth?

I think the biggest danger there is Fireman Shane doing a 'knuckle shuffle' whilst all that stuff is about to go off big time

Is it letting your dad wear your mums nightie whilst cooking meth?

Looks like James May to me.

There is ther same rule at Andover Leisure Centre.

I have two children, with a third on the way.

I'm going to claim the eldest (4) is 16 but has a medical condition retarding his growth else we'll have to give up swimming as a family.

I've only just got him to shut up when I lie about his age to get in cheap as well.

The word illegal doesn't just relate to law you know?
i.e an illegal chess move, against the regulations, rules etc.

Aren't the rules [sic] of Chess actually the 'laws of the game', just like football and cricket etc?

/pedant

Needing an adult for every child is bunkum.

It's a good way to make sure UK never sees another swimming medal in the Olympics. The Australian swimmers will be laughing at this rule.

But maybe they'll get round that by having the pool 6" deep for safety reasons. There is a precedent after all, apparently the Olympic Mountainbike contest is going to be held on flat ground.

when i purchased some gloves for my son the other day I asked of they had some elastic so I could sew the gloves onto each end so we wouldn't lose his gloves. We were told that it was illegal to sew gloves onto the end of a cord and put it in his jacket as he could accidently hang himself. I never heard that before and I'll be taking my chances but surely when he has his jacket and gloves on it would be impossible 😕

Jason Pollock regulations are statutory instruments used to extend the application of the enabling legislation as such the lay man can regard them as law. They are not optional you MUST abide by the wording of the regs. The Sky installer was quite within his rights to refuse your request. His first duty is to his own safety and working outside his company guidelines removes his insurance protection if it goes wrong. his reasoning was wrong but his intention was right and you were wrong to ask him to ignore his own safety. Speaking as one who has stopped work on large projects because work was badly planned or the plan was not being followed. If you're planning on being a chartered member the code of practice you sign up to requires you to encourage safe working at all times.

One of the worse ones we had a work a few years ago was we had to wear our lifejackets within 2 meters of the water. That included standing in a brook about 4 feet wide and 3 inches deep. We got some strange looks of passers by, luckily someone finally saw the stupidity of this and abolished it.

I am well aware that he had a right to refuse to carry out the work, but it was not illegal to go up onto my roof. Semantics.
His company asked him to carry out the work, not me, he had been sent under prepared.

BTW do you know of anybody being prosecuted for negligence under ACOP or HASAWA 1974? I would hazard 😆 a guess that you don't.

Negligence is a Tort and not a crime and therefore not prosecutable.

The sort of stupidity that we hear about (blanket banning etc) is driven by litigation and not prosecution.

Topical fail blog
http://failblog.org/2009/11/02/safety-fail-10/

We're no longer allowed coats on the back of office chairs, in case we roll back, trap them under the wheels and fall over.

Quote from a H&S Director I know:
There's no legislating for ****.

Most of H&S is insanity, however because of the lack of common sense and stupidity of sooo many people, it is necessary to protect everyone in a potentially dangerous environment.

Our local council employed a stress therapist as loads of staff were on long term sick with stress – 6 months down the line guess who was off with stress?
Yep the stress therapist 🙄

JacksonPollock there have been many prosecutions for failure to comply with HASAWA 74 or management regs etc…. you don't legally have to comply with an ACOP, but you will have to prove in a court that the actions you have taken are equal to or better than those recomended by the HSE in the guidance.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/Prosecutions/breach/breach_list.asp?SN=F&EO=%3D&ST=B&SF=SIC&SV=45110+++++

HSE prosecutions

Occupational elf n safety is my job 😥

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg&feature=related This guy has a very funny rant about H&S. Pretty much bang on in my book.

Is your bike wet? You're in the wrong bit mate. 😀

But none for negligence? They are all against organisations.

In the criminal courts the burden of proof is on the prosecution thus

but you will have to prove in a court that the actions you have taken are equal to or better than those recomended by the HSE in the guidance.

it would be for the prosecution to prove.

The general point that I'm trying to make is that people have a misunderstanding of the law and use it as an excuse to wield a bit of power.

We were told that it was illegal to sew gloves onto the end of a cord and put it in his jacket as he could accidentally hang himself

I bought some of these for the GF one week ago. Not for the reasons mentioned, but because she had lost one and a half pairs of gloves in the last year.

Step 1. Make it appear too dangerous to do anything at all.
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Profit!

have seen and been ivolved in cases where indivduals have been prosecuted for contributory negligence i.e. not wearing PPE, following safe systems of work etc.. therefore endagering themselves and others. COSHH regulations also have a duty on employees to use control measures provided and the employee may be preosecuted as an individual, although the employer will usually get stung as well.
I totally agree that many folks have a little understanding, just getting someone to understand the principles of hazard and risk is a **** nightmare 🙂

Sky "Engineer" informed me that it was "illegal" for him to go up onto my roof alone to get to the dish (on the chimney). Told him it was NOT illegal in any way shape or form, rather it was Skys policy to reduce accidents and thus claims against them.

He wasn't having any of it (actually said Its more than my jobs worth). To which I said- I wouldn't tell anyone if he didn't! But no…

it is illegal.

sky have laid out the policy, and for him to go against the policy is not only illegal, but gross misconduct, and if the HSE were to get hold of it the would first sue him into oblivion, then sue sky for a fair amount, and all the money would go in the pockets of the government.
he would loose his job too.

yes its stupid, but the long and the short of it is youve got to work bloody hard to make sure your not sued.

…as i understand it

have seen and been ivolved in cases where indivduals have been prosecuted for contributory negligence

You cannot be prosecuted for negligence!

Oh well I am confident that I act and advise within the law and understand my obligations under the law.

It is a nightmare though just getting poeple to understand. Many people would just rather prohibit than actually make situations safer 🙂

The prosecution follows the death on 5 September 2008 of a junior geologist employed by a Gloucestershire-based geotechnical company, Geotechnical Holdings Limited. The employee was taking soil samples from inside a pit that had been excavated as part of a site survey. The sides of the pit collapsed, crushing him to death.

Following the accident, the Police and Health and Safety Executive investigated, and the matter was referred to the CPS to determine whether a prosecution should be brought. In recent weeks, the CPS decided that there were sufficient grounds to prosecute both:

the company (under the Act and under health and safety legislation); and
a director of the company (under the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter and under health and safety legislation).
If found guilty under the charge of gross negligence manslaughter, the director faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

To secure a conviction of manslaughter against the director under established common law, the CPS will have to prove that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen serious and obvious risk of death, and that the individual's conduct fell so far below the standard of a reasonable prudent person as to amount to a criminal act or omission. As this is a criminal matter, the elements of the offence will need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is a higher threshold than the usual 'balance of probabilities' test in civil proceedings.

I'll assume innocence until proven guilty on that one 😀 . If the company can show that they took reasonable measures(so far as reasonably practicable) then the prosecution will probably fail (unless the defence has admitted criminal liability). Its a manslaughter charge none the less.

Thankfully in the grand scheme of things these cases are very rare. They still happen though despite the overzelous rule makers. Are we any safer?

nope, because people will always be **** idiots and not accept liabilty for their own actions. It doesn't matter how good your risk assessments are some complete nobber will still dismantle a machine guard and safety interlocks to make his job 30 seconds quicker…..end result…..he goes through a rubber mill! 😯

The problem is we pander to the lowest common denominator in this country. It doesn't make us any 'safer'. A sort of backward benchmarking of behaviour if you will.

we should actually remove alot of the protection/legislation and use a kind of industrial darwinian selection. Too stupid to live….get out of the gene pool

A couple of summers ago a notice on our staff intanet appeared saying that flip flops cannot be worn on dress down days. Just in case you stub your toe.I always suspect these decisions are made in the name of H&S in large organisations by departments with too many people, in the name of justifying their role. Whereas there appears no policy of members of staff carrying heavy boxes across buildings.

Too stupid to live….get out of the gene pool

Nice link back to the OP tazzy, I like it! 😉

Keith Lard – Fire Safety

Personally I opt for self preservation with a dash of fun over HSE.

Some of it really doesn't have enough consultation with the industry. A lot of chainsaw stuff is related to numpties and cowboys in gardens, but their screw ups make it into the stats for our sector and make working by the book arse, so we edit the guidelines as we go to suit conditions.

Anyway, the most dangerous thing you can do is probably driving to and from work and I can't really see that stopping for the majority.