# Health & Safety - Risk Assessments - Help !



## Scrums (3 May 2008)

Hi all,

I'm finding more and more now that booking a stall at a Craft show, particularly larger events involves submitting a risk assessment. Now, it's 25 + years since I worked PAYE and these thing hadn't been dreampt up then. I know they're in everyones interest...blah,blah,blah etc, especially in covering an organisers buttocks and passing the buck. But anyone come into contact with them in their jobs and give me advice?

Basically we have a 6' table covered with a fire proof cloth (yes...it has to be non flamable) covered in wooden bowls etc _(not fireproofed)_

Can anyone point out to me the risks involved and what steps I might take to remedy them? - saying "No Risk" just don't cut it.

Cheers,

Chris.


----------



## BradNaylor (3 May 2008)

Scrums":m96yrevr said:


> I know they're in everyones interest...blah,blah,blah etc, especially in covering an organisers **** and passing the buck.



You've got it bang on the nail, Chris.

'Risk Assessments' are nothing to do health and safety, and everything to do with buck-passing and pineapple covering!

They are the product of the beurocratic mindset whereby no-one ever makes a decision or takes responsibility for _anything_. They are a symptom of the cancer of jobsworthness and political correctness that is destined to help reduce our once great country to the level of the third world. While we're messing around with this b*ll*cks China and India are busy making things!

Having said that, you've still got to fill the pipper in! 

So long as you tick the right boxes, it doesn't really matter what you put - no-one is ever going to read it! The important thing is that it exists and is 'on file', to protect the backside of the highly paid 'team member' who has the job of making sure that everyone has completed a risk assessment.

As you can tell, I'm not a fan!

In the old days, there were just sensible rules that you had to follow in the interests of health and safety. What was wrong with that?

Dan


----------



## Digit (3 May 2008)

I often wondered if people actually read all these things they dream up. I once filled a form in at Vauxhall Motors as 'Operator needs stuffing!' and signed it 'D. Duck!' 
Nothing happened!
Mind you, my clock number was 007! Might have put somebody off I suppose!

Roy.


----------



## mr (3 May 2008)

Dan Tovey":3844lxky said:


> Scrums":3844lxky said:
> 
> 
> > I know they're in everyones interest...blah,blah,blah etc, especially in covering an organisers **** and passing the buck.
> ...



Not the case at all as it happens and, with all respect, comments like that display a lack of understanding about the point of RAs. Risk assessments are not about covering some one else's rear end but about protecting ones self in the event that the worst case scenario is realised and about mitigating risk to ones self, ones employees and the general public. As a contractor the live events industry I have had to submit risk assessments and have been covered by others RAs. They have always been essential and have served to highlight potential dangers. Filling one with rubbish in in the expectation that no one will read it is irresponsible and itself risky. I have also had to take out a £5M personal liability insurance policy in the past. Obviously the risks of disaster occurring at a craft fair are minimal but I have been on site when contractors working on the same event as me have been killed (more than once) and crippled for life ( on two occasions), furthermore I frequently hear about fatalities arising from risk taking and poor preparation. Different world from that of craft fairs I accept but to dismiss RA s as buck passing and a*s* covering is wrong. 

To return to the original issue of how to draw one up, in its simplest form you need to identify potential risk, calculate its severity and likelihood of occurrence, these can be charted against each other and then explain how you plan to mitigate against it. I have some examples of how you plot consequence against likelihood of occurrence somewhere if thats of any interest. The Op mentions fire proof table cloths, using this as an example you would say risk of fire on a scale of A - E where A is likely is a D. Consequence of fire on a scale of 1 - 5 where 1 is catastrophic resulting in fatality etc is possibly a 2. Which would result in low and acceptable risk on a tolerated risks chart. Any risk reduction steps taken - flame proof cloths reduce risk further. Anyway here endeth the rant. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## BradNaylor (3 May 2008)

mr":2uw117eh said:


> Anyway here endeth the rant.
> 
> Cheers Mike



It wasn't as entertaining as my rant!

:lol: 

Dan


----------



## mr (3 May 2008)

Dan Tovey":2jc1dmw3 said:


> mr":2jc1dmw3 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway here endeth the rant.
> ...



I concede that yours was much more fun.  

Cheers Mike


----------



## RogerS (3 May 2008)

Dan Tovey":1qondriy said:


> ....... They are a symptom of the cancer of jobsworthness and political correctness that is destined to help reduce our once great country to the level of the third world. ......
> Dan



Destined? Some would argue that, as far as some aspects of this country are concerned, we're there already!


----------



## Paul Chapman (3 May 2008)

As your display is simply a table with wooden items on it, I would guess that the main risk would be the table collapsing and the table and items falling on someone (more likely if it's a fold-up table).

From what I've seen, stuff at craft fairs doesn't move fast enough to catch fire............

Hat, coat,






Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## JackL (3 May 2008)

Chris,
I'll PM you a standard risk assessment form that you can download.

I did dozens of the things when I worked in Local Gov. The form looks intimidating when you first see it, but there are explanatory notes at the end.
If you get a problem, get in touch and I'll try to help. Once you've filled in one, save it and then if ever you have to do another, all that is required is a minimum amount of editing.
Hope this works OK
Jack.


----------



## Digit (3 May 2008)

> Obviously the risks of disaster occurring at a craft fair are minimal but I have been on site when contractors working on the same event as me have been killed (more than once) and crippled for life ( on two occasions), furthermore I frequently hear about fatalities arising from risk taking and poor preparation.



Which begs the question as to how useful RAs are? How does one assess the risk of the unforseen, that is which catches many out.
Expect the unexpected! One of the most useless phrases I have ever encountered.

Roy.


----------



## mr (3 May 2008)

Digit":16570x40 said:


> [
> 
> Which begs the question as to how useful RAs are? How does one assess the risk of the unforseen, that is which catches many out.
> Roy.



In each of the instances I mention Risk assesment had not been done or had been filled in by rote - ie copied from generic statements with no further application of thought or steps to mitigate risk had not been taken despite having been identified demonstrating that simply having a risk assessment document on file is not sufficient to avert catastrophe. Further to that another point of the risk assessment process is to demonstrate that reasonable steps have been taken to reduce risk to an acceptable level. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Smudger (3 May 2008)

My wife sells items she has made, mostly painted wood, at craft fairs. Not unreasonably she has to assess the paint, the sharpness of edges etc, especially in light of the fact that young children may handle the objects, so there could also be choking hazards. Less reasonably she has had to put printed notes in with oil burners that they may become hot and cause burns and that candles should not be stood on inflammable materials - but generally it is quite sensible. Mind you, the market she sells at regularly hasn't thought of this one yet.

It isn't entirely stupid, though, especially if you want to keep your house when someone gets hurt...


----------



## Digit (3 May 2008)

There's nothing wrong with the principle at all Dick, it's just that everything like this is seen as an opportunity for paperwork barons to excercise their authority. 
If they knew what they were doing, or read those RAs that Mike spoke of, they might have spotted that the authors were as certain as the cases seem to indicate that few of these papers actually achieve much or are even read!. 
Having dealt, face to face, with some of these people I can assure you that some of them couldn't run a pie stall! 

Roy.


----------



## JackL (3 May 2008)

Mike wrote


> In each of the instances I mention Risk assesment had not been done or had been filled in by rote - ie copied from generic statements with no further application of thought.



Valid point there Mike. When we first started filling them in years ago, I thought as did most people, that they were a waste of time. My guess is that there are one or two people alive today, or at least walking around with all of their limbs who would not have been prior to risk assessments coming in.
I can well remember the number of unguarded belt drives that use to be spinning around ten or fifteen years ago.


----------



## Digit (3 May 2008)

> I can well remember the number of unguarded belt drives that use to be spinning around ten or fifteen years ago.



RAs should have had nothing to do with that situation, that would have been an offence under the Factories Acts at that time.

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (3 May 2008)

What's a 'paperwork baron'?


----------



## Digit (3 May 2008)

The easiest way I can explain that is the people who lumber the police with so much paperwork that they managed without before the 'Paperwork Barons' decided the police need more forms to fill in.
Ask some who filled in a government form some years ago and has filled in a similar one recently. At one time they managed with a couple of pages and now it takes 40 plus. 'Paperwork Barons' at work!

Roy.


----------



## Finial (3 May 2008)

There are some very interesting points of view in this thread so far. Personally, I think risk assessments are a useful and sensible thing to do and it is good that event organizers are asking for them. It is true that they probably don't read them and it would be interesting to ask for theirs and see what you get back. For example if you are outdoors using an extension lead have they provided a power breaker or do you need to bring one yourself? They should be informing you accordingly. When your assessment definitely will be read is after someone is hurt, and if you haven't taken all reasonable safety precautions and the fault is yours, you could have some explaining to do.

I don't think it is all that useful to do calculations of risk, what you need to do is write down 

the hazards that operating your stall might expose people to
who might be injured
the precautions you ought to take (normally simple common sense), and whether you actually do take them. 

The hazards depend on all sorts of things such as what you sell, how you display the goods, do you demonstrate, do you use power, indoors or outdoors. Probably the main one is people tripping over your packing boxes or the electric cable. if you do demos or sell dangerous items or have a generator or gas burner etc it gets more complicated.


A simple risk assessment for tripping over boxes could be something like: 

hazard - people tripping over boxes
people who may be affected - customers and other stall holders
precautions taken - boxes are unpacked before customers are on site, stored under stall, not left in any traffic route.


----------



## Digit (3 May 2008)

Despite my earlier remarks basically Finial I agree with your viewpoint. Where it falls apart is when, either to comply with some regulations or to cover their backsides, we are in receipt of such gems as, 'May contain nuts!' on a packet of Pea Nuts.
Or 'Do not touch rotating cutter!'
Etc.
Just who do these idiots think we are?

Roy.


----------



## Finial (3 May 2008)

I don't think it is usually regulations, just backside protection. People are afraid they might get held to blame, so they write stuff that they know as they do it is not really needed.

They probably think they are writing it for all the idiots out there.

Where it falls apart is when, either to comply with some regulations or to cover their backsides, we are in receipt of such gems as, 'May contain nuts!' on a packet of Pea Nuts. 
Or 'Do not touch rotating cutter!' 
Etc. 
Just who do these idiots think we are?


----------



## Scrums (4 May 2008)

Thanks for the input all.

I know what I'm putting on the form now and in retrospect it's not so silly having these.......It's made me consider just what risks we might have.
We'll now have a Fire extinguisher with us and a RCD socket adaptor.

....think that's my pineapple covered and the buck passed.

Chris.

PS:


> Or 'Do not touch rotating cutter!'


 - that's good advice, I've done it twice and it's messy and painful.


----------



## Digit (4 May 2008)

> I've done it twice and it's messy and painful.



So much for the safety instructions then! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Scrums (4 May 2008)

> Just who do these idiots think we are?



.....well, sometimes you just have to clear the shavings out of the way.....sufficient guarding would have helped. 

Chris.


----------



## Losos (4 May 2008)

Finial":17uz32vy said:


> A simple risk assessment for tripping over boxes could be something like:
> hazard - people tripping over boxes
> people who may be affected - customers and other stall holders
> precautions taken - boxes are unpacked before customers are on site, stored under stall, not left in any traffic route.



OMG so now the poor stall holder has to *spend time *(Which he doubtless has a limited amount of) just in order to explain in advance that some stupid moronic silly person *might not be looking where he is going *:evil: 

I'm sorry but your example is not a good one e.g. what happens if you lend a box from your neat pile under the table and the borrower returns it by dumping it in the corridor :?: 

What happens if someone chucks a fag under the table and all those boxes catch fire :?: (which they likely *wouldn't do *if they were spaced out around the stall) :? 

So now this poor stallholder is faced with the doors opening paying customers comming to his stall, picks up nice looking wooden object and trys to pay but stall holder can't attend to him 'cos he's still stacking boxes neatly under his table, or maybe there's not enough room so he has to tale some of them back to his car, potential customer gets pineappled off and walks away - result lost sale :evil: :evil: :evil: 


Risk assesments might have some point if your building a petrol refinery but surely in Gods world we don't need one for a craft fair.

In the late 70's and early 80's SWMBO used to do a craft fair almost every week end. *never ever *(in about 200 fairs) did anyone get injured let alone killed. 

If this isn't a**e covering by the organisers then I don't know what is :lol: It's dumbing down of the worst kind, people don't look where theya re going therefore we have to spend time and money making sure they don't sue us.

If we lived in a real worls all the slimy lawyers would just laugh at such claims, but nowadays if there's the faintest chance of blaming someone (and getting some insurance money off them) they'll do it.


----------



## neilyweely (5 May 2008)

I can remember when I was doing my chainsaw training, and we spent more time filling in risk assessments than we did physical training.

However, the idea is sound, as much as anything else it is designed to try and identify potential hazards in order to learn from mistakes. So, ideally this wouldn't be necessary, but whilst climbing a huge old oak tree with a running chainsaw tied to my waist I was told that there was a greater likelihood of my being killed driving to the job than in the job itself.

Makes you think, doesn't it, and that is the point.

neil (who isn't really a fan of any paperwork, but enjoys life)


----------



## Smudger (5 May 2008)

Losos":n8u9rcdl said:


> Finial":n8u9rcdl said:
> 
> 
> > A simple risk assessment for tripping over boxes could be something like:
> ...



The stallholder has to ensure that the boxes do not cause a hazard, or are not dangerous in any avoidable way.
What's wrong with that?
Some people have limited vision (I do, downwards) or are limited in their mobility. Some are lacking in forethought. If you take the choice of selling goods in a public place you have to take safety into account for the public good.

I really don't see the problem. And I still don't know what a paperwork baron might be.


----------



## Digit (5 May 2008)

> Some people have limited vision (I do, downwards)


 
Same here! But let me give you an example of why I believe a large amount of this paperwork is Bull s**t. 
Mister Loophole! Famous for getting people with lots of cash off charges on technicalities. 
If you have followed any of his cases you will be aware of the fact that in most case the paperwork procedures have not been completed correctly, usually it seems some item is missing. 
What does this tell us? Well it tells me that either the police and CPS are helping the gentleman build a rep by deliberately getting the paperwork wrong or that in most cases nobody bothers with the minutae, neither the Police, nor the CPS, nor the average defence lawyer. 
I rest my case! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## lurker (6 May 2008)

Interesting discussion!
I'm pleased that many people understand that H&S has some worth.
I'd agree that a poor RA is worth nothing 

The stupid A**e covering stuff should be firmly laid at the foot of the insurance companies and ambulance chasing lawyers.

Most "daft " H&S stuff you hear about is caused by p*ss poor H&S advisors.
My Professional body, Insitute of Occupational Safety & Health are campaigning for regulation to stop any tom dick or harry setting themselves up as a safety expert. 

I'd like to think none of you would object to anything I did as a H&S expert.

Real Safety experts enable

See for example http://www.iosh.co.uk/index.cfm?go=news.release&id=509 

Also IOSH sponsored last years world conker championship - I'm sure you have all seen the rubbish about 'elf n safety banning conkers.


----------



## Smudger (6 May 2008)

An example of how a poorly-written RA can cause problems.
Last week my wife went on a school journey (10 year-olds) to a site in Dorset. It was very hilly, but the previous RA written by a previous set of teachers was a 'joke' one, so this set of teachers arrived unprepared for some stiff hills (which affected the health of one pupil) and led to four injuries (walking on wet grass/mud instead of the steps they had expected), one quite unpleasant. Just a single, simple example of where things could have been much better if the RA had been carried out properly.
In workshops at our school RAs have made some people think very carefully about risks, and especially about signage and warnings. It didn't stop a kid getting her finger caught in a disk sander, but that isn't necessarily the point. It is about foreseeing and reducing risks, it is not possible to predict all dangers, but the ones you can predict should be eliminated or reduced. 

Which, I think you would agree, is sensible.


----------



## Digit (6 May 2008)

> teachers arrived unprepared for some stiff hills


 
Why? I know map reading is going out of fashion but it would seem that more time spent on learning about the area than filling in forms would have prevented the problems you mention. 
Our local rescue services spend every summer rescuing people from the their own stupid dilemmas. Walking Snowden in summer clothing and trainers, pulling them off cliffs where they get stuck, rescuing them from the incoming tide. 
A couple of years ago we had a death, a middle aged lady decided to make a fuss of that lovely cuddly Seal cub lying on the beach with its mother. The rescue services had to bring in her remains.
I think a measure of common sence might achieve more than written forms. 

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (6 May 2008)

Oh yes, every time we take a school party to an activity camp we get out the OS maps and check the topography.

You are making yourself look silly.


----------



## Digit (6 May 2008)

A map would have shown the steepness of the hills would not it Dick, and how do you fill in an RA form if you you don't know what you 're talking about. It becomes meaningless. Tourists provide endless hours of mirth here each summer because they no longer have any experience of life outside of towns. 
Why should the kids have expected steps? Last year we had two kids on school trips drown 'cos they jumped into fast flowing water off the hills, the shock of cold water must have near paralysed them. No local kid would have done it. The reason for bringing them here is I believe to give them some experience of life out of town. That means no street lights, no foot paths, no steps, soft sand that bogs your car down, sea water that ebbs and flows over your car, narrow lanes full of sheep and slow moving tractors. 
If they are nor prepared for it, and their leaders also are not prepared for it, how can anyone meaningfully fill in a form about avoiding difficulties they haven't thought about already or not are aware of? 

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (6 May 2008)

You are completely mistaking what the RA is.
A group (2 usually) goes round the site and using experience and some imagination look for potential hazards. Such as steep slopes which get muddy and have to be negotiated several times a day. This is then noted so everyone knows what they will deal with, and advice about footwear etc is sensible.

The rest of your post is looking for objections to make the process seem ridiculous, which it isn't. I really don't understand what your objection to safety planning actually is, or what 'paperwork barons' are.

To be perfectly honest it sounds like you have a problem somewhere along the line with this and are trying to make it sound ridiculous when it really isn't.

And your other comments don't show any real understanding of what happens in these circumstances.

Sorry to be harsh, but from the pov of someone who does do these things (and is also a union rep so partly responsible for health and safety in that context) your comments are way off the mark.


----------



## Digit (6 May 2008)

My objections are based on the fact that they rarely seem to work. If all that you describe took place how comes the students had the troubles that they did? 
According to what I have read, I am open to correction, the Police are required to carry out a RA before, for example, a drugs raid. How the hell are they supposed to know how they are going to react if things turn nasty? 
Put it this way, my daughter used to run a market stall, so she is required to place boxes etc under the stall, nobody falls over them, therefore RAs are a success! Nobody fell over them before the RAs became mandatory either! 
I would also point out that you and I are paying the salaries for these people and for their pensions as well, I feel the money could be much better spent elsewhere. 
My local kid's playground has recently been stripped of all the things that you and I were familiar with as kids, no swings, no climbing frames, no slide. The reason, the council jobworths carried out a RA and decided that they were all too dangerous to let the poor little kids go near. 
I would add that the kids had managed to play there for years with nothing more serious than the odd scraped knee!

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (6 May 2008)

You still haven't said who these 'paperwork barons' are that I am paying the salary of. I suspect I might be one of them according to your definition.
My post (I thought it was clear) said that the reason there were problems was because the people who were supposed to fill in the RA didn't do a very good job of it - they treated it as a joke - just as you seem to want people to do...

I'm out of this conversation.


----------



## Digit (6 May 2008)

These 'paperwork Barons'. Try the Guardian. 'Five a day facilitator', 'Green Agenda Co-ordinator', etc and all the other non-jobs that seem to be currently in vogue. 

Some example for you to work on. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770 

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (6 May 2008)

Roy - if you are quoting the Daily Wail, then...


----------



## Digit (6 May 2008)

Tell me Dick, which would be better in the case of our local park as mentioned earlier. To spend money on a Park Keeper with first aid knowledge whose presence would allay mum's fears of paedophilia, prevent bullying, deal with any emergencies and improve the local kid's health and welfare or hire a 'Five a Day Co-ordinator?' 

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (6 May 2008)

Both are important.

Roy - I don't want an argument about this, but you have to see that a lot of these ideas actually improve the quality of people's lives, and to dismiss them all out of hand is missing a big trick, to say the least.


----------



## Digit (6 May 2008)

Agreed, so I don't dismiss them out of hand. But I have had two run ins with the HSE, both of which they lost because they were acting like a law unto themselves and making the rules up as they went along. 
They even threatened to prosecute me on a non-existent law till I challenged them! 
One even stated that he had no compunction whatsoever about closing the company I worked for down and putting 24 people out of work! 
This was based on his flawed interpretation of the rules and he even refused to consider that he was wrong and stormed off when his superior over ruled him. 
Therefore Dick I speak as I have found the situation to be in relation to my own experience. 

Roy.


----------



## Rich (6 May 2008)

have to vote for common sense on this debate, nobody can tell what's going to happen next, and as far as the RA's are concerned, this agenda has been (not pushed) but bulldozed by the insurance companies employed by the big hitters, ie, Keir, Jarvis, ISS, ( whom I work for) etc etc, it's in their interest not to invest in the interest of their employees h/s as this costs money, so every one is inducted in a one off lesson when arriving for the first time on site, result, the company is absolved of any accident occuring, risk assessments, it,s title is an anomaly, how can anyone other than mystic meg know what's coming? yes, you can plan for unforeseen occurences, these are commonly called accidents,when this government took office in 1997, did they issue a R/A?, yes, that's an outlandish thing to say, but just ask yourselves, HOW did we get by without it before? obviously the answer is common sense, therefore it proves that the only people gaining from this law is are the insurance companies and employers who have indemnified themselves against looking after their employees, as far back as 1969, I was told that I was my own safety officer, that still stands today, and it makes GOOD sense.

Rich.


----------



## Digit (6 May 2008)

The bribe's in the post Rich! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## lurker (8 May 2008)

Rich,

The flaw in your arguement is that common sense is not that common.

I too work for big construction concerns and am sick of dealing with stupid prats who do daft things injure themselves and others and then try to claim compo. They fail because we have a tight system. We have to have a tight system otherwise these idiots would bankrupt us.

I've spent 3 weeks (instead of doing something worthwhile) fighting off a "no claims no fee" tw*t employed by a bloke who took a shortcut across a garden from the car park (instead of a perfectly good path)and tripped over the kerb. The sod was "off sick" for four months and we paid him a full wage and then he did this!!!

You ask what happened in the old days - well, people died and their widows & kids went to the workhouse.

H&S has been around in UK for 200 years and believe it or not there are currently less H&S laws than there have been since before WW2. 

For all its failings this is the safest country in which to go to work.


----------



## Losos (9 May 2008)

Digit":3n77il1f said:


> I think a measure of *common sence *might achieve more than written forms.
> Roy.



Yes I agree with you Roy (This is getting to be a habit :lol: )

People should note that I did say planning and building a petrol refinery *does definately require risk assesments *and probably many of them.

Likewise I am *not degrading proffessional safety advisors*, but surely their influence is best done in a 'hands on' situation.

Asking people who have no experience of filling in a risk assesment is like asking someone how toget from London to Lands End when they have never done that journey, have no maps to refer to, and even less time to research the question.

IMO the craft fair organiser should have employed a proffessional safety adviser to do what ever it is they do and the cost should have distributed across all the attendees, that way the OP would not waste his valuable time, a proper assesment would be done and the cost to all the stallholders would be minimal (Seein as how it would be spread across all of them)


----------



## Finial (13 May 2008)

People should note that I did say planning and building a petrol refinery does definately require risk assesments and probably many of them.

The risk assessment for a craft stall will be simpler than one for a power station, but the principle is the same and doing one is a bit easier. Also, it may only have to be done once. As for common sense, that is what doing the assessment is, whether or not you write it down. You try to think what might go wrong and how you can prevent it. What's so hard about that? 

People say they have always followed common sense without doing a risk assessment. But a risk assessment is what they have been doing all along, just not writing it down. Now someone who doesn't know them wants reassurance that they will pay attention to safety. So they ask what risks there might be and what precautions will be taken. If someone is hurt they don't want to get the blame. That seems reasonable to me. It wouldn't look good if they hadn't even asked.


----------



## Scrit (13 May 2008)

lurker":1bd06d94 said:


> The flaw in your arguement is that common sense is not that common.
> 
> I too work for big construction concerns and am sick of dealing with stupid prats who do daft things injure themselves and others and then try to claim compo. They fail because we have a tight system. We have to have a tight system otherwise these idiots would bankrupt us.


I'd agree with you that common sense is not so common. And as someone who periodically has to do work on sites (I've got my CSCS, full PPE, etc) I'm always amazed at (a) the stupidity of some construction workers (b) the naivety of the management on some sites and (c) the complete idiocy of the multiple choice questions in the CSCS tests.......

What is certainly the case is that many safety regulations were introduced because employers and employees were blatantly not using common sense. For example the requirement for circular saws to possess riving knives and crown guards dates back to a Board of Trade edict of 1929. It reduced amputations and lacerations considerably and when combined with proper training resulted in a much reduced accident record on the circular saw. Whilst you can't see into the future, being aware of the potential dangers can help you plan a safer work strategy. I feel that this is what Risk Assessments are all about, and if you'd bothered to do one, Dan (as the law requires you to in a multi-person commercial workshop), maybe you wouldn't have fed your thumb into the saw earlier this year.



Finial":1bd06d94 said:


> People say they have always followed common sense without doing a risk assessment. But a risk assessment is what they have been doing all along, just not writing it down.


Precisely! 

Scrit


----------



## Digit (24 May 2008)

Some time ago the head of the HSE stated the his dept was not responsible for some of the 'lunatic' decisions enforced by council officers. 
I offer this from today's Express 

At Fordham Primary School teacher Jean Williams wished to hatch six hen's eggs using an incubator to show her class of 7yr olds how eggs hatch and chicks grow. 

Not a chance! 
Council HSE officials stepped in insisting that biological, electrical, teacher and child risk assessments must be carried out and that the eggs must be free of Salmonella! 
This sounds more like a visit to Porton Down! 
I sincerely doubt that those who framed our current HSE regs ever intended that they be used in this manner. 


Roy.


----------



## RogerS (24 May 2008)

Digit":1r17k48u said:


> Some time ago the head of the HSE stated the his dept was not responsible for some of the 'lunatic' decisions enforced by council officers.
> I offer this from today's Express
> 
> At Fordham Primary School teacher Jean Williams wished to hatch six hen's eggs using an incubator to show her class of 7yr olds how eggs hatch and chicks grow.
> ...



Agreed but its' only because we've become a society of ambulance chasing no-win-no-fee legal firms...and for that we have our ex-PM and his Govt to thank for that. They introduced two pieces of legislation that by themselves were OK...but no-one had the brains to see what would happen as a result of them both being enacted. Dimwits.


----------



## Digit (24 May 2008)

As in the human rights legislation, only 13000 immigrants, the Olympics were only going to cost ------.
In private industry they'd get the boot. PDQ.
In the full article the head master said he believed in taking risks, so he was going to alloy snow ball fights, this summer!

Roy.


----------



## Finial (25 May 2008)

Some time ago the head of the HSE stated the his dept was not responsible for some of the 'lunatic' decisions enforced by council officers. 
I offer this from today's Express 

At Fordham Primary School teacher Jean Williams wished to hatch six hen's eggs using an incubator to show her class of 7yr olds how eggs hatch and chicks grow. 

Not a chance! 
Council HSE officials stepped in insisting that biological, electrical, teacher and child risk assessments must be carried out and that the eggs must be free of Salmonella! 
This sounds more like a visit to Porton Down! 
I sincerely doubt that those who framed our current HSE regs ever intended that they be used in this manner. 


Come on now! Firstly, don't take anything in the Excess too seriously. For example there is no such person as a 'council HSE inspector'. Then consider that if there is anything in this report at all, the incubator is presumably new and CE marked, any salmonella risk is controlled by washing hands and the teacher has a clear CRB check already, and the risk assessment is about done. What the biological assessment is about I don't know. 

Why is there such a lot of nonsense printed about health and safety law? It only requires what any parent would expect to be done anyway, but sometimes isn't. Is it unreasonable for there to be legal controls over the possible use in a school of an electrical appliance in dangerous condition? What is the real agenda here? Could this be about a head teacher who doesn't want to take responsibility for safety?


----------



## Digit (25 May 2008)

The school is Fordham primary in Ely, Cambs, why not give 'em a call and see for yourself?
And when a child dies as a reseult of a hospital infection after cracking his head at the school and HSE prosecutes the head teacher, not the NHS, would you take resposibilty for a child's safety?
And that wasn't from the Excess by the way.

Roy.


----------



## Finial (25 May 2008)

And when a child dies as a reseult of a hospital infection after cracking his head at the school and HSE prosecutes the head teacher, not the NHS, would you take resposibilty for a child's safety? 

Do you know why the child cracked his head? It's part of the teacher's job to be responsible for safety. He or she was prosecuted because the HSE thought they had not complied with their duty to take reasonably practicable safety precautions. If the prosecution was successful the court must have agreed. 

Without the injury the child would not have got the infection, though possibly the hospital was to blame as well. Did the report say why they were not prosecuted?


----------



## Digit (25 May 2008)

The prosecution failed! How many NHS trusts have been prosecuted by the HSE, I believe they are immune, ( Crown Immunity) the child was in a part of the school where it was not supposed to be.
A parent also has a duty of care and that is why the prosecution failed as the court decided there was no way every child could be protected from everything all the time.

Roy.


----------



## Finial (25 May 2008)

The prosecution failed! How many NHS trusts have been prosecuted by the HSE, I believe they are immune, ( Crown Immunity) the child was in a part of the school where it was not supposed to be. 
A parent also has a duty of care and that is why the prosecution failed as the court decided there was no way every child could be protected from everything all the time. 

They are not immune but I don't know how many prosecutions are taken against them.

Quite right, a child (or an employee) cannot be totally protected and the law doesn't demand it. The more serious and forseeable the risk the stricter the precautions needed though.


----------

