Live Wired wrote:aaaaaaaaah a helf and safety fred. Any chance of a common sense thread. Ever wondered why living in this country is so expensive? Because everyone has to do a risk fuggin assessment.
I go to Barbados reguraly (sic). 1 year, the local workmen had dug a hole outside the hotel. I summarise for a reason. Workmen had finished for the day, and had not bothered putting cones around the hole. Naturally, I was aghast, so I stormed into the reception to complain ( in the stricktest possible way about the possible outcome of an unguarded manhole). Only to be told, " if you cannot see where you are going, that's your own fault." I almost had the thought of writing to my MP about such lacksity, but I thought sod it. So I got a few beers, sat down for the next hour and watched 3 people trip-over the man-hole. Each trip was funnier than the last, because Barbados has very few liability laws, basically how Britain used to be, and the dozy sods who did'nt look where they were going, could'nt put a claim in.
health and safety= the death of the country and common sense.
Similar in Turkey. For a short while I was concerned about things on a rough jeep excursion. Then I thought "what has our country done to me?" Then I embraced the freedom and had a great time - including chucking each other in concrete culverts!
Especially if you're in the same rotary club as the prime minister.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 7760 Location: Prestwich - the original heart of Salfordshire
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:You are Dave Cameron and I claim my £5.
What bunkum! Unless a worker HAS BEEN INJURED there is nothing to promise him, now is there?
Unless you are suggesting that some guy is going to fall off a scaffold cos he's seen a compensation ad?
Not necessarily. I've worked with companies who have received claims from people who have never worked there, or claims relating to accidents that there is no record of (and I'm not talking about the type of charlatan company who would "lose" accident records) - some claims are speculatively submitted in the hope that the insurers just pay out rather than fight.
But this Government's attitude to health & safety is laughable. They commissioned the Lofstedt report to look at current regulation. It reported back in November and in the executive summary it stated:
Quote:I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner. There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right, and that regulation has a role to play in preventing injury and ill health in the workplace. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that proportionate risk management can make good business sense.
Yet the Government's press release accompanying the publication of the report began with:
Quote:The Government has announced plans to begin a major cut back of health and safety red tape as early as January. It will begin an immediate consultation on the abolition of large numbers of health and safety regulations and intents to have removed the first rules from the statute book within a few months.
I presume they thought nobody would read the report so they could say whatever they wanted in the press release.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:You are Dave Cameron and I claim my £5.
What bunkum! Unless a worker HAS BEEN INJURED there is nothing to promise him, now is there?
Unless you are suggesting that some guy is going to fall off a scaffold cos he's seen a compensation ad?
Not necessarily. I've worked with companies who have received claims from people who have never worked there, or claims relating to accidents that there is no record of (and I'm not talking about the type of charlatan company who would "lose" accident records) - some claims are speculatively submitted in the hope that the insurers just pay out rather than fight.
But this Government's attitude to health & safety is laughable. They commissioned the Lofstedt report to look at current regulation. It reported back in November and in the executive summary it stated:
Quote:I have concluded that, in general, there is no case for radically altering current health and safety legislation. The regulations place responsibilities primarily on those who create the risks, recognising that they are best placed to decide how to control them and allowing them to do so in a proportionate manner. There is a view across the board that the existing regulatory requirements are broadly right, and that regulation has a role to play in preventing injury and ill health in the workplace. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that proportionate risk management can make good business sense.
Yet the Government's press release accompanying the publication of the report began with:
Quote:The Government has announced plans to begin a major cut back of health and safety red tape as early as January. It will begin an immediate consultation on the abolition of large numbers of health and safety regulations and intents to have removed the first rules from the statute book within a few months.
Joined: Mar 05 2007 Posts: 13190 Location: Hedon (sometimes), sometimes Premier Inn's
Dally wrote:Health & Safety told me about 2 years ago they are not interested in preventing accidents (queries safety of scaffolding) they spend all their time dealing with the aftermath of accidents! Can you believe that attitude? I then emailed them some photos so they had documentary evidence of the position and that encouraged them to come round. Like most public sector bodies they're too idle to scratch fire off their arses. The only way to get a response is to write and put the ball into their court by pointing out the potential ramifications of them failing to act.
Below is a safety alert taken directly from the HSE website, which we are currently advising all clients of. There is also currently a campaign targetting the affects of RCS (respirable crystalline silica) caused from dry cutting of tiles by roofers, this is because recent studies show that the risks have been 'understated' recently. But don't let you sway from your belief that the HSE do bugger all until something goes wrong.
Safety checks for building sites in Yorkshire Date: 3 September 2012 Release No: Y&H/155/12 Construction sites in Yorkshire are being safety-checked this month as part of an inspection initiative aimed at reducing death, injury and ill health when working at height.
The targeted inspections are in response to the continued loss of life and serious injury arising from falls from height. In the year 2011/12, 49 workers lost their lives on construction sites in the UK, with falls from height being a major cause.
During September, inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will be visiting sites across the region. The inspections teams will start in Bradford before moving to other locations in West, North and East Yorkshire.
The initiative will primarily focus on those working on the external parts of buildings, but will target all types of work carried out at height
The key purpose is to remind those working in construction that poor standards are unacceptable and potentially cost workers their lives.
David Stewart, HSE's Principal Inspector for Construction in the Yorkshire region , said:
"Falling from height causes a significant number of deaths and major injuries. All too often straightforward practical precautions are not considered and workers are put needlessly at risk. In many cases, simple changes to working practices can make all the difference.
"Poor management of risk in this industry is unacceptable. As we have demonstrated in the past, we will take strong action if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily put at risk."
In recent months HSE has prosecuted several construction companies following incidents in which workers were injured, including:
· A North Yorkshire farm building manufacturer and a self employed contractor were each fined a total of £4,500 with costs of £1,150 after a worker suffered a smashed left heel and broken right ankle after falling four and a half metres while working on the construction of a new farm building. · A self-employed handyman died following a fall from the roof of a house in Bradford whilst undertaking minor roof repairs in March 2011. He had been using an unsecured extension ladder and a roof ladder to undertake this work. · A firm from Halifax was fined £13,500 when an employee installing a flue liner down a chimney fell seven metres from the roof due to provision of an inadequate work platform with no edge protection. · A roofing contractor from Ilkley was fined £23,500 after their employee fell through a fragile skylight on the roof of a garage where repairs were being carried out. Adequate measures had not been taken to prevent falls though the fragile material. The worker suffered severe head injuries. Further information about safe-working in construction can be found online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction[1] Falls from height remains one of the most common causes of fatalities and major injuries in the construction sector in Great Britain, with more than five incidents recorded every day. Further information on falls and trips in the construction industry http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/camp ... /index.htm[2]
Dally wrote:Health & Safety told me about 2 years ago they are not interested in preventing accidents (queries safety of scaffolding) they spend all their time dealing with the aftermath of accidents! Can you believe that attitude? I then emailed them some photos so they had documentary evidence of the position and that encouraged them to come round. Like most public sector bodies they're too idle to scratch fire off their arses. The only way to get a response is to write and put the ball into their court by pointing out the potential ramifications of them failing to act.
Below is a safety alert taken directly from the HSE website, which we are currently advising all clients of. There is also currently a campaign targetting the affects of RCS (respirable crystalline silica) caused from dry cutting of tiles by roofers, this is because recent studies show that the risks have been 'understated' recently. But don't let you sway from your belief that the HSE do bugger all until something goes wrong.
Safety checks for building sites in Yorkshire Date: 3 September 2012 Release No: Y&H/155/12 Construction sites in Yorkshire are being safety-checked this month as part of an inspection initiative aimed at reducing death, injury and ill health when working at height.
The targeted inspections are in response to the continued loss of life and serious injury arising from falls from height. In the year 2011/12, 49 workers lost their lives on construction sites in the UK, with falls from height being a major cause.
During September, inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will be visiting sites across the region. The inspections teams will start in Bradford before moving to other locations in West, North and East Yorkshire.
The initiative will primarily focus on those working on the external parts of buildings, but will target all types of work carried out at height
The key purpose is to remind those working in construction that poor standards are unacceptable and potentially cost workers their lives.
David Stewart, HSE's Principal Inspector for Construction in the Yorkshire region , said:
"Falling from height causes a significant number of deaths and major injuries. All too often straightforward practical precautions are not considered and workers are put needlessly at risk. In many cases, simple changes to working practices can make all the difference.
"Poor management of risk in this industry is unacceptable. As we have demonstrated in the past, we will take strong action if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily put at risk."
In recent months HSE has prosecuted several construction companies following incidents in which workers were injured, including:
· A North Yorkshire farm building manufacturer and a self employed contractor were each fined a total of £4,500 with costs of £1,150 after a worker suffered a smashed left heel and broken right ankle after falling four and a half metres while working on the construction of a new farm building. · A self-employed handyman died following a fall from the roof of a house in Bradford whilst undertaking minor roof repairs in March 2011. He had been using an unsecured extension ladder and a roof ladder to undertake this work. · A firm from Halifax was fined £13,500 when an employee installing a flue liner down a chimney fell seven metres from the roof due to provision of an inadequate work platform with no edge protection. · A roofing contractor from Ilkley was fined £23,500 after their employee fell through a fragile skylight on the roof of a garage where repairs were being carried out. Adequate measures had not been taken to prevent falls though the fragile material. The worker suffered severe head injuries. Further information about safe-working in construction can be found online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction[1] Falls from height remains one of the most common causes of fatalities and major injuries in the construction sector in Great Britain, with more than five incidents recorded every day. Further information on falls and trips in the construction industry http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/camp ... /index.htm[2]
'when my life is over, the thing which will have given me greatest pride is that I was first to plunge into the sea, swimming freely underwater without any connection to the terrestrial world'
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Iain wrote:Not necessarily. I've worked with companies who have received claims from people who have never worked there, or claims relating to accidents that there is no record of (and I'm not talking about the type of charlatan company who would "lose" accident records) - some claims are speculatively submitted in the hope that the insurers just pay out rather than fight.
And you're saying that this is a significant problem? Based on what?
A claim by someone who never worked there would be a clear attempt at fraud and should result in those concerned getting their collar felt, but exactly how would that be the fault of a lawyer, who (obviously) has no way of checking whether X worked for Z. The lawyer would assume that if X did not work for Z, then the response to any claim would be "Soz, X never worked for Z. Bye".
I would not rule out that the odd cowboys might not submit some "speculative" claims but what evidence is there of this being in any way significant, or a problem? Insurers are hardly naive ingenues who would fall for any sob story and reach for a chequebook, now, are they?
If they know there are such claims then that can only be because they got rumbled, didn't pay, and any lawyer involved in the claim lost money.
If the insurers have paid the claim, then they cannot sensibly say it was not merited, if you aren't liable, don't pay, simple.
Iain wrote:But this Government's attitude to health & safety is laughable.
No argument. In fact it is disgraceful. But of course when all inspections are abolished, and the system for thousands of businesses is reactive rather than proactive, inevitable some employers will take greater advantage and that will inevitably lead to a rise in the number of accidents and injuries.
I would bet that this lot will then go down the same vile road as they presently are with other claims, and screw all genuine claimants under the pretext of acting against some mythical great bogeyman, when in fact all they are doing is liming the pockets of the insurers.
Keeping on the road of trying to ensure that people weren't injured in the first place would clearly be the only moral way to go, but of course they wouldn't view that as of any interest.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 141 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
