http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14634289
So it's not the HSE gone crazy it's pint sized local bureaucrats getting over enthusiastic.
What silly rules masquerading as a health and safety issue have you come across?
Chat Forum
No bumping (...in the bumper cars???)
-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
Listen, I work in h & s and the amount of crappy rules and what have you that people try and get my backing for is a constant source of amusement. It's usually lazy middle managers who would rather do fk who try and invoke elf an safety. Twunts.
Anyway my favourite one was our local swimming pool decided that due to 'health & safety' they were imposing a strict ratio of one child to one adult, meaning that if you had two kids you couldn't take them swimming on your own. I had a very loud and enjoyable conversation in front of about 20 people with the centre manager where she admitted that the decision was actually about the amount of poolside staff the centre were prepared to employ during the holidays. The sign came down. Arsehats
Posted 9 months ago # -
Bumping in dodge'ems (note: not 'bumper cars') has been banned everywhere I know for the last 25 years at least. I still managed to break a family members rib by T-boning them in one though.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I had a massive stand up row with the manager of Manchester Aquatic Centre about the adult/child ratio. He quoted H&S at me to tell me why the H&S executive clearly thought that I, as an adult, was clearly incapable of monitoring 2 children in 3ft of water. Was I not aware this was bound to end in disaster?
Still wouldn't let me in though. The ****s!!
Posted 9 months ago # -
Bumping in dodge'ems (note: not 'bumper cars') has been banned everywhere I know for the last 25 years at least
Not In Gullivers world warrington it hasn't.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Add in a little "Sorry mate, data protekshun innit?" and you're there!
Posted 9 months ago # -
it's pint sized local bureaucrats getting over enthusiastic.
1) The two cited instances were decisions by private companies. Nothing to do with "pint-sized local bureaucrats".2) If Butlins performed a risk assessment and decided to be more cautious than just their minimum legal requirement, then that's up to them and the HSE should butt out.
3) It's been about twenty years since even dodgy itinerant funfairs told you not to bump into each other deliberately
IT'S PC GORN MAD! WE'RE GOING TO HELL IN A HANDCART! YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP!
Posted 9 months ago # -
http://www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/swimpools.htm
&
http://www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/parentalsupervision.htm
There you go binners. Next time ask to see the risk assessment that determined the need for 1:1.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I think some blame should be attributed to the "no win, no fee, I take no responsibility for my actions" culture that has developed in this country over the last few years. It's not surprising that companies air on the side of caution if there is the threat of legal action hanging over them all the time. I think I'd do the same if I ran a business like that.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I think some blame should be attributed to the "no win, no fee, I take no responsibility for my actions" culture that has developed in this country over the last few years. It's not surprising that companies air on the side of caution if there is the threat of legal action hanging over them all the time. I think I'd do the same if I ran a business like that.
Companies err on the side of caution because their INSURANCE COMPANY demands it. The insurance industry is as culpable as anyone. Until very recently most insurers would pay up straight away on a claim under 10k because it was cheaper to do so than spend time and money defending it.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I agree, it's the crappy culture of ambulance chasers and chancers that are screwing things up.
Posted 9 months ago # -
IT'S PC GORN MAD!
PC living with mental health issues if you don't mind
Posted 9 months ago # -
Cheers Yossarian. I shall go armed with that next time
Posted 9 months ago # -
I take no responsibility for my actions" culture that has developed in this country over the last few years. It's not surprising that companies air on the side of caution if there is the threat of legal action hanging over them all the time. I think I'd do the same if I ran a business like that.
most of this stuff is because people have sued someone at some point and so you have no choice tbh
No sports day because grass may be slippy is another example - there are loadsPosted 9 months ago # -
I've actually gawn mayd, I'm afraid.
Posted 9 months ago # -
The vast majority of these "health and safety gone mad" stories are complete myths.
Most of the "you can't do this because of H&S is actually rubbish thick managers who don't understand
H&S is about risk assesment not elimination. This area is another place where the tabloids have done us an enourmous disservice.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I suspect the civil servants at each end of the regs are just making each other jobs
The 1st lot write the regs and guidelines in an ambiguous way, the 2nd lot then have to employ a 3rd lot to try and interpret them, who then don't do anything but err on the side of extreme caution and blame the 1st lot
and round it goes
Pure job creation
Posted 9 months ago # -
I agree, it's the crappy culture of ambulance chasers and chancers that are screwing things up.
I'm not so sure tbh. Look at like this, the insurance companies realised some time ago that they could make more money by paying out on most small claims because it's cheaper than defending them. They recoup the costs incurred by putting premiums up. The idea of your insurers protecting your business from claims is a thing of the past. The insurance industry has lost sight of it's responsibilty to it's clients. The result is higher costs for business and an underlying culture within some organisations that small claims are ok.
I've recently experienced this. A woman at my work tripped over a student sat in the corridor. She said in her statement that she wasn't looking where she was going and I received a statement from her doctor saying that the footwear she was wearing on the day (high heels) had substantially increased the severity of her injury (off work for 10 weeks in a cast with a broken ankle). The students admitted that they knew they shouldn't have been sat in the corridor and had been asked to move by a member of staff just prior to the accident. What do you think our insurers did?
Posted 9 months ago # -
The insurance industry has lost sight of it's responsibilty to it's clients.
You do know insurance is a business, and their aim is to make as much money as possible right?
Posted 9 months ago # -
I suspect the civil servants at each end of the regs are just making each other jobs
The 1st lot write the regs and guidelines in an ambiguous way, the 2nd lot then have to employ a 3rd lot to try and interpret them, who then don't do anything but err on the side of extreme caution and blame the 1st lot
and round it goes
Pure job creation
You suspect wrong. The HSE works in conjunction with law makers to produce legislation. Then the HSE produces guidance which gives information etc on how to comply. Quite straightforward really.
Posted 9 months ago # -
It should be a balance realman, proper regulation would address this.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Oh and if anyone is interested our insurers admitted full liability and paid her £12k. I got into a bit of hot water over it. Apparently telling your claims handler to 'grow a **** spine' is unprofessional
Posted 9 months ago # -
This area is another place where the tabloids have done us an enourmous disservice.
mostly daily mail. surprise.Posted 9 months ago # -
Funnily enough I've just updated a policy that stated 'For reasons of H&S' when H&S wasn't the reason. Now removed.
Posted 9 months ago # -
regarding the pool kids/adult thing (pretty sure they have this in my local pool) it's not HSE but I assume pools can put their own restrictions in place?
So basically short of telling the counter staff (who presumably have no say in the restrictions) that it's all cobblers, there's not much point in arguing. That correct?Posted 9 months ago # -
there is a lot of ignorance from 'management' and the general public that leads to these situations, unfortunately it's exploited by insurance companies - increasing premiums* and blaming it on a litigation culture, whilst reducing their exposure through ridiculous clauses in policies that force clients to put daft H&S measures in place.
unfortunately we are governed by greed and stupidity.
but we're only human.
.
*this is the one that really sticks in my throat - 'forced' to increase premiums my arse, just so that they can make record profits again?Posted 9 months ago # -
Its when you play bumper cars in geared Go-karts at high speed that you get into trouble with health and safety
Posted 9 months ago # -
regarding the pool kids/adult thing (pretty sure they have this in my local pool) it's not HSE but I assume pools can put their own restrictions in place?
So basically short of telling the counter staff (who presumably have no say in the restrictions) that it's all cobblers, there's not much point in arguing. That correct?
Of course they can. Most council owned pools are contracted out to leisure groups to run. Some will be better run than others. Usually it's down to money. Our local pools al nowl put on extra staff at weekends and during the holidays to allow for the increase in usage. I'd say if you come up against a pool that is inflexible you should challenge them, if they quote h & s as the reason you know it's bollocks.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Bumping in dodge'ems (note: not 'bumper cars') has been banned everywhere I know for the last 25 years at least. I still managed to break a family members rib by T-boning them in one though.
Not in the ones I took my eldest on at the weekend it wasn't but note they were called bumper cars not dodgems.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Best H&S thing recently was the hill at Wimbledon being closed after it rained for H&S reasons
I think it was the Chief Exec of the HSE who came straight back at them pointing out that people have walked on wet hills for millenia with relatively few incidents, and if they wanted to close the hill to ensure their insurers didn't get sued by idiots they should make it clear it was closed for insurance reasons and not H&S
Posted 9 months ago # -
"It's cos of elf n safety innit" has to be one of the most self defeating excuses ever. Firstly, there has to be a reason why it is a H&S issue; and secondly, it just makes everyone so negative about H&S that most tend to pay less attention to the things that really do matter...
Posted 9 months ago # -
I think it was the Chief Exec of the HSE who came straight back at them pointing out that people have walked on wet hills for millenia with relatively few incidents, and if they wanted to close the hill to ensure their insurers didn't get sued by idiots they should make it clear it was closed for insurance reasons and not H&S
That's complete toss though. CEO of HSE should STFU and mind his own business.Wimbledon's punters aren't Nuts-In-May redsocks prepared for wet weather, they're pissed-up divs. Wimbledon is a drinking establishment with a series of pubs. It is reasonably foreseeable that when being accommodated on a wet, muddy hill, some of those divs will slip and break their arms/faces/ankles and many others will bitch and moan about getting wet and muddy. (It's also reasonably foreseeable that the Daily Mail would be the first to print a "SHAME OF ENGLAND as Wimbledon tells injured Tunbridge Wells granny the mud is her fault - WHY OH WHY CAN'T THIS COUNTRY GET ANYTHING RIGHT").
It's perfectly reasonable that the venue operator might want to avoid this buggering around and protect the health and safety (falling over pissed is bad for your health and unsafe) of their punters, staff and contractors by telling people not to drink there, and instead to drink their overpriced booze somewhere else.
Some pissed-up Wimbledon divs on the day in question (massive cracking sound from geezer on left to follow shortly):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005491/WIMBLEDON-2011-Elf-n-safety-shuts-Murray-Mount.htmlPosted 9 months ago # -
While I accept that "closed due to pissed-up divs tooling around and people being unable to walk across wet grass without injuring themselves" is a bit of a mouthful and doesn't really work on CLOSED notices but "closed due to health and safety" just gets everyones backup (undeservedly) and HSE get the negative publicity and are undermined. Worse than that it give the daily mail something to get their panties bunched up about. I think the HSE telling the DM it's nowt to do with them is fair enough.
It's a bit like "Cyclist mugs little old lady" headlines, we say thats not a cyclist it's a criminal scrote who just happens to be on a bike. The rest of country says shut up that makes him a cyclist. Technically the trolling media are kind of correct but they are distorting things for their own agenda.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Elf-n-safety-shuts-Murray-Mount
Posted 9 months ago # -
I think the HSE telling the DM it's nowt to do with them is fair enough.
That's not what she said, though - no-one rattled the HSE's cage.
She (Judith Hackitt - apologies for my earlier sexism) stuck her nose into a private company's decision about how to run its private event with a stupid comment that "there is nothing in health and safety legislation which prohibits the continued broadcasting of Centre Court action to the crowds on the hill during the rain". Well, a) did anyone claim there was?, b) personal injury law is still mostly tort law, so you wouldn't expect to find it in H&S legislation anyway, c) PLI will only cover their *legal* liabilities anyway and d) haven't you got anything better to do than go around responding to the bait that the Daily Mail dangled?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/23/digger-wimbledon-2011
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
