" wrote:

Yes, I think that I have seen pictures of one in Ontario, in Canada.
That'd be cool to have that in Britain, but three words come to mind
that will undoubtedly ruin the whole concept.

Any guesses?


H&S. ;-)

On 27/01/2012 21:49, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

Yes, I think that I have seen pictures of one in Ontario, in Canada.
That'd be cool to have that in Britain, but three words come to mind
that will undoubtedly ruin the whole concept.

Any guesses?


H&S. ;-)

It's almost a given, isn't it?

" wrote:

On 27/01/2012 21:49, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

Yes, I think that I have seen pictures of one in Ontario, in Canada.
That'd be cool to have that in Britain, but three words come to mind
that will undoubtedly ruin the whole concept.

Any guesses?


H&S. ;-)

It's almost a given, isn't it?


It is, and it's a shame, but you can imagine a very long list of
reasons why that could not possibly be allowed to happen here.

On 28/01/2012 04:41, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

On 27/01/2012 21:49, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

Yes, I think that I have seen pictures of one in Ontario, in Canada.
That'd be cool to have that in Britain, but three words come to mind
that will undoubtedly ruin the whole concept.

Any guesses?


H&S. ;-)

It's almost a given, isn't it?


It is, and it's a shame, but you can imagine a very long list of
reasons why that could not possibly be allowed to happen here.

I'm sure I could. How much does that list need to correspond with
reality in H&S' case, though, I wonder?

" wrote:
On 28/01/2012 04:41, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

On 27/01/2012 21:49, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

Yes, I think that I have seen pictures of one in Ontario, in Canada.
That'd be cool to have that in Britain, but three words come to mind
that will undoubtedly ruin the whole concept.

Any guesses?


H&S. ;-)

It's almost a given, isn't it?


It is, and it's a shame, but you can imagine a very long list of
reasons why that could not possibly be allowed to happen here.

I'm sure I could. How much does that list need to correspond with
reality in H&S' case, though, I wonder?


It depends on whose definition of reality you adopt. The paranoid H&S
people believe in their version of reality. I'm not sure I do.

Some H&S intervention should be welcomed. The HSE people have worked
wonders in the construction industry and have saved hundreds of lives.
I would not want to turn the clock back to the 1970s.

But it is in other areas that H&S appears to have gone mad, with the
lamination of all risk of any kind seemingly their objective. Local
authorities seem particularly badly afflicted, with schools being a
particular bone of contention.

On 28/01/2012 19:07, Bruce wrote:
wrote:
On 28/01/2012 04:41, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

On 27/01/2012 21:49, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

Yes, I think that I have seen pictures of one in Ontario, in Canada.
That'd be cool to have that in Britain, but three words come to mind
that will undoubtedly ruin the whole concept.

Any guesses?


H&S. ;-)

It's almost a given, isn't it?


It is, and it's a shame, but you can imagine a very long list of
reasons why that could not possibly be allowed to happen here.

I'm sure I could. How much does that list need to correspond with
reality in H&S' case, though, I wonder?


It depends on whose definition of reality you adopt. The paranoid H&S
people believe in their version of reality. I'm not sure I do.

Some H&S intervention should be welcomed. The HSE people have worked
wonders in the construction industry and have saved hundreds of lives.
I would not want to turn the clock back to the 1970s.

Completely agree.

On Jan 28, 7:07*pm, Bruce wrote:
" wrote:
On 28/01/2012 04:41, Bruce wrote:
*wrote:

On 27/01/2012 21:49, Bruce wrote:
* wrote:

Yes, I think that I have seen pictures of one in Ontario, in Canada..
That'd be cool to have that in Britain, but three words come to mind
that will undoubtedly ruin the whole concept.

Any guesses?

H&S. *;-)

It's almost a given, isn't it?

It is, and it's a shame, but you can imagine a very long list of
reasons why that could not possibly be allowed to happen here.

I'm sure I could. How much does that list need to correspond with
reality in H&S' case, though, I wonder?

It depends on whose definition of reality you adopt. *The paranoid H&S
people believe in their version of reality. *I'm not sure I do.

Some H&S intervention should be welcomed. *The HSE people have worked
wonders in the construction industry and have saved hundreds of lives.
I would not want to turn the clock back to the 1970s.

But it is in other areas that H&S appears to have gone mad, with the
lamination of all risk of any kind seemingly their objective. *Local
authorities seem particularly badly afflicted, with schools being a
particular bone of contention.

very little of the 'elf'n'safetygornmadinnit' comes from the HSE and
much of it would be seen as overkill by a properly trained H+S
practitioner or HSE inspector, but while people think a short course
makes them a H+S practitioner ...

Martyn H wrote:
On Jan 28, 7:07*pm, Bruce wrote:
Some H&S intervention should be welcomed. *The HSE people have worked
wonders in the construction industry and have saved hundreds of lives.
I would not want to turn the clock back to the 1970s.

But it is in other areas that H&S appears to have gone mad, with the
lamination of all risk of any kind seemingly their objective. *Local
authorities seem particularly badly afflicted, with schools being a
particular bone of contention.

very little of the 'elf'n'safetygornmadinnit' comes from the HSE and
much of it would be seen as overkill by a properly trained H+S
practitioner or HSE inspector, but while people think a short course
makes them a H+S practitioner ...


Indeed, the head of the HSE recently went public to explain that most
of the recent H&S nonsense was not the responsibility of HSE.

I have the highest regard for the professional staff of HSE who,
through their efforts, have saved hundreds of lives and thousands of
serious injuries in the construction industry in spite of some very
determined opposition within that industry. What they have achieved
is a change in culture, with younger managers putting safety first
whereas previously it was at best an afterthought, or seen as an
unnecessary added cost.

I can't speak for the effectiveness of HSE in other industries because
I don't have any direct experience of them. However, a close friend
works for HSE in Occupational Health and I am deeply impressed with
her professionalism.

As you say, the problem comes with people who are given responsibility
for H&S in organisations that don't provide adequate training. They
then feel they have to be proactive in order to justify their job
title ...

Another problem is that while H&S should be the responsibility of
everyone in an organisation, and organisations should ingrain that
attitude into all their staff, there is a tendency to leave it to the
people who have H&S-related job titles, and that gives them an
importance that they don't deserve. That situation pressurises the
people with H&S-related job titles to issue edicts because they feel
they have to justify their existence, and it is those edicts that lie
behind the well-publicised problems.