Wednesday 24 August 2011

Challenge Elf 'n Safety bans says Grayling

In what is rather a stupid statement issued by a rather stupid politician, Grayling is reported in both the Press Association and the BBC stating that the public should fight silly Health and Safety rulings, whilst The Anger of a Quiet Man has something to say on this subject too.

As Quiet Man writes, the public have no idea of the detail in Health and Safety laws and the only way to effect an immediate challenge is to disregard them. Where, for example, they chose to do that on a dodgem ride would only result in the fairground losing its licence, thus penalising both the public and the fairground operator, rather than having any effect on health and safety officials and their rulings. Needless to say, there is of course another factor involved here and that is organisations are petrified of being sued for 'damages', something occasioned by the increase in 'no win - no fee' lawyers seeking an easy income.

As is to be expected we find the obligatory 'quangocrat' rushing to the defence of the health and safety industry with Roger Bibbings, Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, quoted stating: "Overzealousness about trivial risks gives health and safety a bad name but there are actually many more cases where people are under-hitting". The BBC report contains the caveat that: "But experts have warned of many cases where risks are underappreciated.", to which one has to ask just who are these experts? As Supermac reportedly said: "We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts".

We would, probably, be better served were there less experts and politicians as, paraphrasing Niels Bohr (1865-1962), they are people who have made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.

Just saying..........

7 comments:

Richard said...

Look at accident data, at home and at work, and one of the biggest categories is "trips and falls". As a former health and safety inspector, I am paranoid about not leaving anything on the stairs, and took a very dim view of anyone leaving stuff on the stairs in a workplace.

That is exactly the area where we are "under-hitting" ... the concentrating on the esoteric risk is what we have come to call the "sledgehammer to miss the nut".

Woodsy42 said...

""But experts have warned of many cases where risks are underappreciated.", to which one has to ask just who are these experts? "

Clearly we need experts, and experience being one of the main criteria we need people who have accidents. We should utilise the clumsiest most accident prone people around, and of course having no concept of unintended consequences is a must have. Those who could drown themselves in a cup of water and therefore suggest cutting of water supplies to all houses containing children - these are the sorts we need to tell us how to run our lives and stay safe. We should employ that sort of person. Oh they do.....

WitteringsfromWitney said...

R: Point accepted and well made. BY the way, only an idiot leaves anything on a flight of stairs......!

W42: :-)

Anonymous said...

So what parts of H&S do you want changed ?
Perhaps the accident reporting part ?
That would be the one where less than 50% of accidents that SHOULD be reported, are reported (in self-employed persons it falls to less than 10%)
The accident book ?
Where many employers keep it locked away to avoid employees using it to write accidents down.
Risk assessments ?
Hey, you look at a flight of stairs and see a load of bricks on it....
Risk assessment for stairs: Keep clear, no objects to be placed or stored upon stairs (simple) (and it usually is)
Employers objecting to H&S usually do so to avoid paying any money....such as for providing safety equipment....such as safety spectacles, respiratory protection equipment (note the epidemic of respiratory problems caused by working in dust and fumes)
So, while some 6000 people die every year from asbestosis (mesothelioma...cancer) you want employers to be able to avoid the regulations....like MANY do now ?
Funnily enough UK biz did a survey to find out the costliest H&S "regulation".
It was the WORKING TIME LAWS.....enacted as a H&S regulation in the UK.....costing industry some 17 billion over 10 years....and TOTALLY UNABLE TO BE ALTERED BY THE UK GOVERNMENT as it is an EU REGULATION.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

A You miss the point, methinks. You are looking at the wrong reasons why H&S is so despised. A lot of what they and their 'advocates' ban could be covered by a simple notice encorporating the phrase 'at your own risk'.

No one is talking about stopping the use of safety glasses, for example - however your lumping asbestosis into one problem is incorrect. White asbestos is not harmful, it is the blue and brown that is, yet 'crats consider all asbestos harmful - that is where H&S becomes instrusive......

John said...

The problem being that brown and blue asbestos tend to be present in white asbestos.
And since the most strident supporter of the "white asbestos is harmless" are the producers, I tend to pay no attention to them. asbestos of all kinds is perfectly harmless, if you are not exposed to it. Most of the people who propose the continued use of white asbestos will never use it, or go near it.
You cannot use "at your own risk" signs, the courts ignore them. If you run a business you HAVE to assess risks, it is mandatory. No choice. After the risk has been assessed you HAVE to record that assessment. No choice (unless you have only a few employees)
If the public have access to your premises the same applies.
And so on.....
Life was simpler when most people could not afford to pursue compensation for injury...the advent of no-win-no-fee ended all that.....and union members have had legal assistance for decades anyway....so H&S is of paramount importance to business.....
Getting the genie back into the lamp is going to be hard....

WitteringsfromWitney said...

J: Re white asbestos: suggest you go read Scared to Death by North/Booker.

I to am aware of risk assessments and what is required by law.

Yes H&S is important, but what is not is the spurious claims for compensation that are made. Instead of all risk assessments, warning notices that for example the floor is wet plastered all over the place just waiting to be tripped over, one notice at an entrance that the floor is wet and to take care as if you slip and hurt yourself its your problem and not the poor bloody owner of the property concerned.

Where I will agree with you is yes it will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle, but back in it has to be put!