[Closed] Health and safety insanity. Your personal experiences please

Probably just didn't like your face, I cant see how this 1:1 ruling could be pulled from the H&S laws.

That's usually the issue though isn't it - it's not actually EHS laws that cause the problem but rather, over-zealous application of them.

I was at a recent out-of-hours public meeting in the local council chambers.

We weren't allowed to make tea or coffee as using a kettle constituted a Health & Safety issue.
So we all brought flasks...

CB

I would imagine its less HSE and more over zealous following of the below guidelines from ISRM:

"The Institute of Sport and Recreation Management (ISRM) have issued guidance on child admissions which states that a responsible person, aged at least 16 years, should accompany all children under the age of 8 into swimming pools and go in the water with them. The guidance includes a standard ratio of:-

Children under the age of four should be accompanied by a responsible person on a one to one basis
Children aged between four to seven should be accompanied by a responsible person on a maximum two to one basis"

[url= http://www.nationalwatersafety.org.uk/swimmingpoolsafety/advice/public.htm ]Source[/url]

In fact the HSE themselves state:

[url= http://www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/parentalsupervision.htm ]"The law imposes no specific restrictions"
[/url]

Yeah this was all over the papers a couple of months back

Crazy isn't it?

H&S shouldn't be taken lightly though

When our nipper was about 2 we took him to a water park with all the slides & chutes. At the top of one slide we were told he couldn't go down as he was wearing armbands.

So we took the armbands off, and they were fine with that.

I should point out that I went down first, to catch him.

You should have chosen your favourite child and taken her in, the other one could wait outside, or in the pub.

I'm a 'Elf N Safety bod...

As people have said, it's not the law that's the problem, 90% of the time it's some local authority official who puts these rules in place, my sister in law works for the council and they have been told they aren't allowed to have drinks on their desks because of health and safety..

What really grips my s**t though is when people say

You can't do that because of Health and Safety..

I always challenge with the question - what part of H&S? tell me where it's written..

If I stop anything from happening at work, I tell the staff involved the reasons behind that decision, "It's for Health and Safety" is the defence of those who don't understand or don't want to explain their reasonings 👿

samuri - Member
You should have chosen your favourite child and taken her in, the other one could wait outside, or in the pub.

Tough but fair.

As people have said, it's not the law that's the problem, 90% of the time

Perhaps it is?
Maybe it's worded so badly that it leaves it open to all sorts of interpretation? & the resulting over-reaction is simply the fear of not getting it right?

I'm supposed to check the tyres and fluids in our pool car every time I use it. Yet we have not been given a pressure or tread depth gauge, nor have we been shown how to correctly check the fluids (and the method does vary in different vehicles).

Same with that "law" about not allowing kids to play conkers in the playground any more. It's become a kind of urban myth but all that happened because of an over-zealous application of it by a school, suddenly it was all over the papers reported as being a "Health and Safety LAW" when all it actually is is a bit of guidance.

Where I work is obsessed with H+S

Ecologists were doing a kick sample in a river, over river was a bridge. Surely common sense would tell you to watch your head when going under the bridge. Muppet bangs head on bridge, 4 months off law suits flying around and payouts all because the working plans for the sample did not specificaly mention the danger posed by the bridge.

We then had to endure a 2 hour feedback session with Q+A's about what we would do differently. Then got into trouble for not being a team player for questioning the mental wellbeing of the person who nutted the bridge.

H&S isn't all bad, work bought me a load of 'H&S' warm clothing that I've only ever used mountain biking! Just need to play the system 🙂

I disagree uplink, the law is supported by guidance, a qualified and competent safety professional should have a good understanding of the law and it's application to real world situations, there are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there making a lot of money acting as consultants with very little knowledge or understanding, the [url= http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm ]HSE[/url] is trying to educate people on the 'myths's that spring up in places like the Mail

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...

Net result of all this is I now have two satellite dishes attached to my house!

I'm actually currently studying for a H&S qualification, so can tell what is a legal requirement and what is overzealous jobsworths exerting the minuscule bit of power they mistakenly believe they have.

Ask them if the ratio of 1 adult to 1 child applies, how many lifeguards do they employ?

You should have chosen your favourite child and taken her in, the other one could wait outside, or in the pub.

No, no, just leave them in the car.

Remembering to leave them a bowl of water and open the window a little if it's a hot day. 🙂

Me and the daughter pass through a park on our little cycle round the area. There is a toilet there and my nearly nine year old daughter is not aloud in to the ladies on here oqn due to health and safety.! What a load of tosh. I have told the woman in charge many times before that she is toilet trained and everything, she fails to see the funny side.

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).

👿

.... and breathe

Been that way for years

Unfortunately due to drownings

Every time there is an incident at a pool they have an inquiry that is passed on and action taken etc, etc.

The outcome is the above posting from jamie

These "rules" are not applied for no reason. It has and does continue to happen. How can any pool decide who is a fit parent to look after their child/children. Same as how do you tell who is a burglar/criminal.

Like all businesses they are running a "lean" staffing levels.

Seems it does not apply to private clubs and places like Center Parcs tho!!!

It's all about arse covering at the end of the day. Not about "being safe".

H&S legislation (most of which I agree with the spirit of) is worded such that if the HSE decide you are guilty of causing an accident, they *can* and *will* lock you up. That puts the shits up the small minded little oiks who are "responsible" for H&S at end user level, who then decide the easiset and laziest way to cover themselves sufficiently is to slap a blanket ban on everything, so they can't possibly be found guilty of negligence.

I spend a lot of time writing Method Statements and Risk Assessments. Most of which I know for a fact never get read. I regulary insert Monty Python gags in the body of the text, which have *never* been picked up those who I send the paperwork too. It also fascinates me that H&S only applies between 9AM & 5PM, after which the office bound H&S bods go home, leaving us to start work at 6PM, in whatever fashion we choose.

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).

As I understand it [working at heights regs etc.] he certainly couldn't use ladders - so if that's all he had .............

Jon.. why do your do them if they never get read?

You should have known things were going badly when they started calling swimming pools "Aquatic Centres".

Each time we have an H&S inspection at work I have to drag out a soldering iron fume extractor and stick it next to the iron. This year the stasi on looking at the carefully positioned and dusted down unit (we even put a new filter in) asked to see the carbon filter replacement schedule paperwork, and was seriously concerned that we hadn't got one. And stated that as a matter of urgency we should have a policy and that we need to check that the filter is working correctly. So I asked how we should test that the 50p bit of carbon foam filter is working correctly - to which the reply was 'with a calibrated foam filter tester'. When further asked how much such a device costs or where to get one from the waste of oxygen with a clipboard became rather reticent, so fell back on the "that's what the legislation says" guff.
Once they'd gone I lobbed the extractor back in the cupboard, and decided to google carbon filters and flux particulates. It turns out that the stuff goes straight through carbon foam filters, making them as much use as a chocolate tea pot, but not as nice to eat.

As I understand it [working at heights regs etc.] he certainly couldn't use ladders

They are only Regs. anyway and NOT law.

I work in the construction industry. I wouldn't even know where to finish with such stories.

So I asked how we should test that the 50p bit of carbon foam filter is working correctly - to which the reply was 'with a calibrated foam filter tester'. When further asked how much such a device costs or where to get one from the waste of oxygen with a clipboard became rather reticent, so fell back on the "that's what the legislation says" guff.

The law (H&S At Work Act 1974) states repeatedly "so far as is reasonably practicable" so in that situation I would say that its not reasonably practicable!

work in a lab and daily go out to collect samples from our herd of horses. currently in a pointless circular argument with the poison dwarf in our department about the definition of protective clothing - apparently I am not allowed to keep my smelly, horsey overalls hanging up with my lab coat because they are 'not protective clothing' and thus have to 'keep them in my office'*

this morning was the last straw and they have been very strategically placed on her desk (with the addition of a few gratutious streaks of horse poo and lots of blood smeared on them. I await her return.

is it not related to insurance as well?
can businesses/ councils not get reduced insurance premiums if they can show that policy is in place to mitigate certain risks?

binners- its not just H&S in the pool. The steam sauna is set low there- possibly to stop anyone building up a sweat.

Why?

They are only Regs. anyway and NOT law.

I'm not entirely sure what you point is
He may well be legally permitted to use ladders to climb onto the roof, I don't know - as I said "As I understand it"

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

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

Come on! Are we defining the word illegal now? For the purposes of this discussion my definition of illegal is 'against the law'.

Why can't he use a ladder? How do window cleaners do their job?

My point was that he, like you, has displayed a lack of understanding of the legislation.

jackson.. The Working At Height Regs are law, through application via the HSWA '74 - check section 15

Regulations are brought in when more specific or modernisation of legislation is required

Well - I'd be interested to hear how a man on his own could assemble & use a ladder & then a cat ladder to get to a chimney stack
After that he would then somehow need to be able to work up there, lashing steel cable around the stack etc. & stay within the regs

The regs may not explicitly disallow it - but they put so many obstacles in place that it effectively becomes impossible to do with ladders unless you're prepared [like most window cleaners] to ignore the regs.

Ladders are legal. If it's a one off job of low duration (>15 minutes), there is no problem. Providing of course the ladder is suitable, has been checked for damage and the engineer has been trained in how to use it.

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...

Boris

(Member of the Chartered Institute of Occupational Safety and Health)

I work on a large industrial site and unfortunately we've had two lower leg amputations in the past five years. I also get regular email bulletins giving details of accidents at other sites including fatalities from falling, crush injuries, chemical burns etc. etc. Everyone on-site sees safety as a priority, not just the H&S specialists because if you don't then you won't last long.

There is a significant difference between jobsworths using H&S as an excuse for petty rules and those safety controls which are in place to prevent serious injuries or deaths. You won't get rid of risk and the HSE acknowledge that, but I'd rather put justified controls in place (and enforce them) than explain to people that a member of their family is in hospital or worse following an accident in a workplace which is under my control.

IMHO!

There has been a shift towards working from the ground in window cleaning, they have long poles which pump heated water to the head of the pole which has a brush on, the heated water dries without smearing meaning the requirement to climb a ladder is removed, the whole argument about reasonably practicable springs into action at this point though.. can every window cleaner afford this?

no..

working from a ladder isn't banned, short term work is acceptable, long term working requires 3 points of contact (two feet and a hand).. the ladder should be stabilised (but isn't that common sense?) and should be set at a safe angle (2 up, 1 rung out)

The thing is, safe working at height has groun up in each industry, the regs really just draw this knowledge together to create safe working guidelines, a pain it may be, but remember the words are there to help people to stop dying at work

The regs may not explicitly disallow it - but they put so many obstacles in place that it effectively becomes impossible to do with ladders unless you're prepared [like most window cleaners] to ignore the regs.

You will be surprised by this but here goes.

Ive done work for a couple of window cleaners recently because they needed policies and procedures for corporate clients. NO LADDERS on any sites - these are small industrial estates (blanket ban) so the guys use lllloooooonnnnnggggggg poles which shoot the water up to the brush at the end. Very light and one of them was carbon! No need for ladders.

The other guy does georgian mansion office blocks and was told to use a different method than ladders or they would find somone else.

Got to agree there are some small minded people involved in H&S. That comes from someone who does it for a living. If the regs are applied with a bit of thought, the upshot will be safer working environments and not endless paper chases.

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 [i]support[/i] 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

[img] [/img]

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 tw@s.

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 😥

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.

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 ****in 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 ****in 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

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.