Main menu:
Journal Items - Classified:
Please do not misunderstand me: I believe that the concept of Health and Safety in the workplace is one of the great gifts of Trade Unionism and collectivism to working people. I believe that it is a legacy which must be maintained in the face of insouciant employers and which must both adapt to circumstances and encompass all working people.
However, there is a lack of clarity, and there is no doubt that some of the decisions which have been taken amount to being perverse. The danger is that the anti-Elf'n'safety brigade seize on these decisions to try to discredit the whole philosophy.
A More Rational Approach To Risk Assessment?
18 January 2008 .
Ofsted has reported that the quality of Geography teaching has declined over the past decade and is generally in rather a poor state. In the light of the so many challenges which we believe we're facing, and the changes in weather, farming and water resources which are already happening, this is - to it mildly - unfortunate and, if you think about it, surreal.
[But then, this is the society which, faced with historically high levels of hospital infections, endemic in the system, killing thousands of patients every year (which is, by the example of other countries, totally avoidable), fails to recruit enough hospital cleaners or train those who are recruited to do a proper job. Just wait until the new community-acquired MRSA from the US hits - then don't be ill.]
Apparently one area of particular concern is in the failure of a large proportion of schools to provide Geography field trips. As a one-time "A" level student I can say that I would not have been able to pass my exams without the necessary field work. But. In this risk-averse and litigious time in which we live, where the smallest error will bring banshee parents down on the teacher's head and can result in dismissal from job or even a spell in prison, and when the paperwork for a visit to the local Post Office takes sheets of paper and hours of time, one wonders why any teacher in his or her right mind will step out of the school gates in company with pupils. That so many are still willing to do so is a tribute to their dedication.
I've heard that Mr. Brown (who earns a capital initial for once) is setting up another quango, with the aim of trying to find a more realistic approach to risk assessment so that we avoid paralysis (which has even been affecting the fire service on occasion, recently). Another quango? Well, I wish this one every success, and I will risk holding my breath.
[Someone commented that 20 years ago, when a police officer received a citation which read, 'Officer X put their own life a risk while saving the life of this person', it accompanied a medal. The same citation now will be accompanying a disciplinary action under Health and Safety rules.]
'risk assessment' ofsted 'community-acquired MRSA'
How far can you go with Health and Safety rules?
15 December 2007 .
There are so many times, when I feel like having a little rant on this site, when I know that I've probably missed something in the rag or whatever which would no doubt take the wind right out of my sails. The case of Michael Barnett (the guy in Hull who became trapped in a grating during the flooding who, despite heroic efforts, died of hyperthermia) may be one such. The papers have talked about the terrible waste of his life several times, and did so again today.
I've seen mention of the fact that what actually caught Mr. Barnett's leg was a piece of park fencing which the local council had used to replace a grate over a drain which they had removed during, I believe, repair or maintenance work. It seems that it happened because the council was short of cash.
You do have to ask why there hasn't been either outrage at such a damnably stupid action, or an explanation of why there isn't a cause for outrage.
Then again, I may not be giving credit where it's due. Perhaps the papers felt that the enormity of this error (economy?) was so self-evident that merely mentioning it would suffice, leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions.
Then, yet again: all the publicity and all the health and safety rules in the world won't legislate against stupidity.
'Michael Barnett'
Risk Assessment - Dipping a Toe into the Water:
12 November 2007 .
I have a Daily Mail moment coming on.
Reported by a teacher friend: A group of Year 12 'A' level students from a London comprehensive were taken on a study trip to the coast. When the day's work was done, there was a little time left before they had to head for home, so they all went for a stroll along the (sandy) beach.
Some of the students took off their shoes and socks in order to go for a paddle in the water. The teacher in charge forbad them to do so.
The teacher said that she had asked the school head, before the trip, whether the students should be allowed to paddle. She said that the head had instructed that they should not (apparently because there had been no risk assessment).
It has been pointed out to me that there would indeed have been a risk in allowing the youngsters to paddle: they might have started fooling around, got soaked and perhaps have become ill; or one of them might simply have stepped on broken glass.
Once again, I'm not arguing right or wrong, simply that I feel completely out of touch. A risk assessment before 17-year-olds have a paddle? Surely, we have lost all sense of proportion.
What really foxes me, if it's true: what sort of teacher would ask the head ahead of such a trip if 17-year-olds should be allowed to paddle? Did she also ask if they should be allowed an ice-cream, or to play tag on the beach, or to walk on top of the sea wall? There are so many things they might do - does every possible thing need to be assessed for risk?
(And yes, I do know supposed answer... that we live in a litigious society... but no, it really isn't an answer.)
'Risk Assessment' 'vexatious litigation'
Site Map
a25.