Model Boat Mayhem

Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: Bryan Young on May 01, 2013, 02:38:40 PM

Title: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Bryan Young on May 01, 2013, 02:38:40 PM
Health end Safety Rules get stupider by the day.
For years now my wifes allotment association has held an annual “Scarecrow” competition combined with a “Families” picnic afternoon.
Or they have done until this year when the H&S lot stuck their oar in.
They now want a written 6 monthly risk assessment on each of the 100 plus allotment plots.
This will probably include the chances of spiking a foot with a fork or cutting off a toe with a spade. The fire risks of burning rubbish (in an incinerator) plus anything else they can dream up.But my point in writing this is to wonder how long it’ll be before the hobby of sailing/driving model boats/ships falls into their draconian clutches. Their opportunities for meddling and possible “banning” of such an activity are quite alarming. But draw your own conclusions! BY.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 01, 2013, 02:51:57 PM
Wait until you shuffle off this mortal coil Bryan, cemetery regulations are horrific. A headstone is considered to be a potentially lethal weapon and all bits of metal have to be removed before they will even consider putting a match to the cremator.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: ardarossan on May 01, 2013, 02:58:54 PM
Would I be right in assuming that the request to provide assessments is from a local grouop or 'authority', hiding behind the term 'Health and Safety', and not actually from 'H & S themselves?

Either way, bury them in their own bureaucracy and ask who is supposed to provide the written risk assessment? Unless the reports are written to a specific standard, and by a qualified and/or approved body, the actual risk assessment reports themselves would be a H & S issue.

Andy

Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: sparkey on May 01, 2013, 03:14:55 PM
 >>:-( Before I retired I used to be a maintenance manager,a good part of my time was spent filling out risk assessments forms for the
health and safety  officer who's main job was to make everybody's life a misery. We had risk assessments for everything from using a
computer to driving a cherrypicker and everything in between,now I am retired I use good old fashioned common sense as I was taught
when I was a young apprentice,good old days,Ray >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( [size=78%]             [/size]
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Bryan Young on May 01, 2013, 03:24:08 PM
Wait until you shuffle off this mortal coil Bryan, cemetery regulations are horrific. A headstone is considered to be a potentially lethal weapon and all bits of metal have to be removed before they will even consider putting a match to the cremator.
Thanks for the concern Colin. I'll let you know all about it after the event. Bryan.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Bryan Young on May 01, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
Would I be right in assuming that the request to provide assessments is from a local grouop or 'authority', hiding behind the term 'Health and Safety', and not actually from 'H & S themselves?

Either way, bury them in their own bureaucracy and ask who is supposed to provide the written risk assessment? Unless the reports are written to a specific standard, and by a qualified and/or approved body, the actual risk assessment reports themselves would be a H & S issue.

Andy
Local authority (in this case the Metropolitan Council of North Tyneside).
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Bob K on May 01, 2013, 03:30:30 PM
A bit of devils advocate here …

Allotments are generally owned by the local authority and rented to individuals.  Bye laws etc re the rental agreement cover what individuals can do.  I am sure the allotment association also has rules.
The problem arises when the ‘public’ are invited to an ‘event’ there.

Risk assessments are merely a simple means of covering backs in case of litigation, to show you have considered additional risks for the event, and taken reasonable steps to either eliminate or reduce them.  ie  a huge BBQ for 200 people.   If people are paying admission they have a right to expect reasonable safety.

Before anyone gets fired up, R.A.’s only take minutes to write.  Three columns. Single page.  Identify a genuine hazard (calor gas fire, trip hazard), who is likely to be affected, and what you have done to eliminate or reduce the risk.  Sign and CC it to the local authority. 

By all means flame me, but if the rubber gas pipe on the BBQ catches fire and there is an explosion which injures people at a 'paying event'  . . .

It is just old fashioned common sense, the only difference is that you have written down what should be ‘obvious’ beforehand. 
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: ardarossan on May 01, 2013, 03:51:13 PM
Local authority (in this case the Metropolitan Council of North Tyneside).

Often unfairly, the Health & Safety Exec (www.hse.gov.uk) get accused of interfering when it isn't actually them. Unfortunately their title is the same as that of the issues of concern, i.e. 'Health and Safety'
In the case of your allotments, it's just the local-authority conducting a pre-emptive ACE (Ass-Covering Exercise), and that process is explained nicely in Bob K's reply.

So, more importantly, what are the rules for the Scarecrow competition?

Andy


Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Netleyned on May 01, 2013, 04:09:50 PM
Any scarecrow approaching the exploding gas bottles
of the barbecue will be deemed a fire hazard and
promptly put out by the duty fire watcher

Ned
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: GAZOU on May 01, 2013, 04:16:27 PM

    >:-o
There are many people who die in their beds.

Do you have insurance for this? How much does it cost?

Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: sparkey on May 01, 2013, 04:17:45 PM
 {-) On the subject of scarecows have you seen the state of us boaters(me included),we tend to dress in some old gear that we feel comfortable in, I like to wear old clothes just in case the worst happens and I fall in, which has occurred in the past,the waders I was wearing
slipped on the concrete and in I went,so can't we have a scarecrow competition for us lot,Ray {-) {-) {-) [size=78%]  [/size]
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Bob K on May 01, 2013, 04:23:48 PM
>:-o
There are many people who die in their beds.

So true Gazou   :-))

Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: GAZOU on May 01, 2013, 05:18:47 PM
If I had the choice I would like to leave this life “in the act of flesh”.
    :-)) if that happened to me it would be a miracle and St. Pierre would not believe
I think it tells stories and send me to hell   >>:-(
 
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Colin Bishop on May 01, 2013, 06:18:00 PM
Don't go like Elvis did!
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Netleyned on May 01, 2013, 06:21:33 PM
Thought he was working in a chippie %%

Ned
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: grendel on May 01, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
the trouble is, even the act of identifying some risks is in itself an admission, if for instance you identify a dozen different risks and despite this and notices etc someone injures themselves in a way you had not identified - by having identified a dozen other risks the question will then be why you failed to identify the one the person injured themselves by.
much easier to put up a notice that there might be hazards on the site and people should take appropriate care, and keep children under supervision at all times, this way you identify no specific risks, but make people aware that they need to take care and look after themselves (and their kids),then if someone has an accident you can point to the sign and say, they were warned to take care. H&S is a whole minefield of damned if you do damned if you dont, why do you think the H&S reps want someone else to write the risk assessment.
Grendel
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: CF-FZG on May 01, 2013, 06:48:55 PM
much easier to put up a notice that there might be hazards on the site and people should take appropriate care, and keep children under supervision at all times, this way you identify no specific risks, but make people aware that they need to take care and look after themselves (and their kids),then if someone has an accident you can point to the sign and say, they were warned to take care.

Putting a sign up can only be used as a warning, you cannot delegate risk or responsibility, they remain in the responsibilities of the organisors
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Bob K on May 01, 2013, 08:29:30 PM
With Wicksteed coming up I thought you may be interested in reading the latest Risk Assesment of Wicksteed Park MBC.  All good simple common sense stuff, but having taken the time to consider the possible situations and working with the park authority helps everyone.
 
http://www.wicksteedparkmbc.com/risk-assessments.html (http://www.wicksteedparkmbc.com/risk-assessments.html)
 
 
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: kinmel on May 01, 2013, 08:42:22 PM
You do not have to accept these crazy H&S demands.

Threaten the Council with a complaint to the H.S.E. "MythBuster" panel; whose job it is to put these "Jobsworths" back in their boxes

see :-   http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/myth-busting.htm (http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/myth-busting.htm)
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Guy Bagley on May 01, 2013, 08:44:01 PM
being someone who has filled out way too many risk assessments and method statements plus being both IOSHH AND NEBOSH trained i think wicky's RA's are pretty woolly... the risk level  is stated but the likelihood isn't..... neither is the next date of review and also who put this document together..........but i agree generally 'elf and safety' has gone mad recently.....


the most dangerous part of the day at mayhem at wicky would be travelling by road to the event, and if we honestly looked at the risks  like the 'elf and safety brigade' would want us to - then  half the attendees would never set foot away from home !!!
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: GAZOU on May 01, 2013, 09:22:38 PM
Hello

for Gazouland is how it goes:

I'm not host, I go on vacation for a week and my friends can join me in Marcon. This year 170 friends come on holiday with me. Everyone does what he wants, he goes sailing or walking, it's the holidays. This is also why there are no sellers
I have insurance in case an accident should happen, but everyone already has a compulsory insurance with his house. This insurance is for the sport. The model is a sport .......................... French is not yet as the U.S., there is not a trial for small unimportant thing.

IF anyone was looking for me in trouble he would have all the members of my forum against him.
I thought that if someone was looking for trouble MARTIN all members of Mayhem would be against the enemy.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 01, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
>>:-( Before I retired I used to be a maintenance manager,a good part of my time was spent filling out risk assessments forms for the
health and safety  officer who's main job was to make everybody's life a misery. We had risk assessments for everything from using a
computer to driving a cherrypicker and everything in between,now I am retired I use good old fashioned common sense as I was taught
when I was a young apprentice,good old days,Ray >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(

Without reading further there is the problem. Why, simple, common sense is now dead. <:( <:( <:(
It's all about making you protect/save me and from my own stupidity >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
It is also getting that way here in Australia.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 01, 2013, 10:57:40 PM
the trouble is, even the act of identifying some risks is in itself an admission, if for instance you identify a dozen different risks and despite this and notices etc someone injures themselves in a way you had not identified - by having identified a dozen other risks the question will then be why you failed to identify the one the person injured themselves by.
much easier to put up a notice that there might be hazards on the site and people should take appropriate care, and keep children under supervision at all times, this way you identify no specific risks, but make people aware that they need to take care and look after themselves (and their kids),then if someone has an accident you can point to the sign and say, they were warned to take care. H&S is a whole minefield of damned if you do damned if you dont, why do you think the H&S reps want someone else to write the risk assessment.
Grendel

Your sign is fact an admission that there is a problem which you failed to identify, otherwise there is no need for the sign.
 
The disclaimers which were universally used for anything and everything, such as failure to read the instructions, or some such, etc will not make us liable etc  have all been challenged and can no longer be relied upon as a defence.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 01, 2013, 11:10:33 PM
With Wicksteed coming up I thought you may be interested in reading the latest Risk Assesment of Wicksteed Park MBC.  All good simple common sense stuff, but having taken the time to consider the possible situations and working with the park authority helps everyone.
 
http://www.wicksteedparkmbc.com/risk-assessments.html (http://www.wicksteedparkmbc.com/risk-assessments.html)

Don't go far enough, vague and you can drive a truck through them.
 
Cross your fingers.
 
Don't know about the UK, which I suspect would be similar, but here in OZ the underlying principle of OH&S is your Duty of Care.
 
Simple example, you are the Safety Bod and people need to wear a safety helmet.
 
Bod A hasn't got one, so you give bod A a safety helmet but he doesn't wear, it so you instruct him to wear it at all times you have done your bit.
No, No, No, because, if he is not using the safety equipment, you, under duty of care, have to remove him from the danger, namely remove him from the site.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 01, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
being someone who has filled out way too many risk assessments and method statements plus being both IOSHH AND NEBOSH trained i think wicky's RA's are pretty woolly... the risk level  is stated but the likelihood isn't..... neither is the next date of review and also who put this document together..........but i agree generally 'elf and safety' has gone mad recently.....


the most dangerous part of the day at mayhem at wicky would be travelling by road to the event, and if we honestly looked at the risks  like the 'elf and safety brigade' would want us to - then  half the attendees would never set foot away from home !!!

 O0 O0 O0   :-)) :-)) :-))
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: raflaunches on May 01, 2013, 11:33:06 PM
Before this goes too far-


I helped write the Wicksteed Park MBC RA and whilst its not the most in depth version for every little possible incident that could occur, it has been accepted by Wicksteed Park management and they even asked us to add a small section regarding emergency services. The version you see displayed at the lake is dated and signed, and the renewal date is also stated, the version on the website is just for viewing on the website. The one by the lake is the important one and legally the one we have to display.


However, I do agree that Health and Safety has gone mad over the past few years. Where I work requires me to wear a bump hat whilst I'm working on the aircraft but if I want to open the hangar doors I have to put on a hard hat! The reason... In case sticks from birds nests fall on to us! %%
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: essex2visuvesi on May 01, 2013, 11:56:49 PM

the most dangerous part of the day at mayhem at wicky would be travelling by road to the event, and if we honestly looked at the risks  like the 'elf and safety brigade' would want us to - then  half the attendees would never set foot away from home !!!


Or looking at Martin's shirt without suitable eye protection  ;D
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Shipmate60 on May 01, 2013, 11:58:51 PM
Having been at work when the 1974 Health and Safety Act was passed.
It was designed to reduce risk while carrying out the process.
I have watched it change from a reason to carry out a process safer till now it is a reason to not carry out the process.
It has little to do with the "Compensation Culture" but everything to do with the fear of the compensation culture.
Once fear is used as a reason common sense goes out the window.
Also I have seen Fully Trained Safety Officers replaced with lesser trained ( and cheaper ) replacements after all the Risk Assessments and COSHH was complete.
So it could be in the incumbent Safety Officers best interests to ensure that their services are required.
 
Bob (Ex H S rep and Shipboard Safety Officer)
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 02, 2013, 12:11:51 AM
Before this goes too far-


I helped write the Wicksteed Park MBC RA and whilst its not the most in depth version for every little possible incident that could occur, it has been accepted by Wicksteed Park management and they even asked us to add a small section regarding emergency services. The version you see displayed at the lake is dated and signed, and the renewal date is also stated, the version on the website is just for viewing on the website. The one by the lake is the important one and legally the one we have to display.


However, I do agree that Health and Safety has gone mad over the past few years. Where I work requires me to wear a bump hat whilst I'm working on the aircraft but if I want to open the hangar doors I have to put on a hard hat! The reason... In case sticks from birds nests fall on to us! %%

Without being a wet blanket, all that means is they have passed the buck to you and will refer, hang their hat on your assessment, as their defence against any action for liability.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 02, 2013, 12:23:36 AM
 
An aside.
 
Recall, one project where the OH&S guy was giving everyone unnecessary grief.
 
This guy was a chain smoker and smoking was banned for OH&S reasons, health etc.
 
After a while, we put it to him that he had a conflict of interest, namely his smoking.
 
New OH&S guy, problem solved, project back on track. :-))
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Bob K on May 02, 2013, 12:36:11 AM
Before this goes too far-


I helped write the Wicksteed Park MBC RA and whilst its not the most in depth version for every little possible incident that could occur, it has been accepted by Wicksteed Park management and they even asked us to add a small section regarding emergency services. The version you see displayed at the lake is dated and signed, and the renewal date is also stated, the version on the website is just for viewing on the website. The one by the lake is the important one and legally the one we have to display.


Well done Nick, and to WPMBC.  As a qualified safety officer for a major sports organisation for many years I did these all the time.  Both WPMBC and the Park have covered the minimum bases.  OK, ideally it should be done on the standard multi column format, but the important thing is that reasonable care has been demonstrated and documented.
 
I agree that some 'safety officers' do not understand and pad it out with uneccessary waffle that obstructs the principles rather than assure them. 
 
Reasonable care does not include wearing scuba gear in case you fall in the lake or being abducted by aliens, things that can turn H&S into newspaper jokes.
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: ardarossan on May 02, 2013, 12:47:44 AM
Reasonable care does not include wearing scuba gear in case you fall in the lake or being abducted by aliens, things that can turn H&S into newspaper jokes.

Very true.  :-))

Scuba gear is totally useless for alien abduction, you're much be better off with an Anti-Radiation Suit and a Blaster.

Andy
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: derekwarner on May 02, 2013, 03:03:50 AM
 %% O0  .......................Derek
 
[font=]Click on the link ....[/font]
 http://www.safeshare.tv/w/kRRyGqbZGQ
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: GAZOU on May 02, 2013, 12:06:08 PM
 ok2 diving equipment is handycapant if my neighbor who takes away
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 02, 2013, 12:07:06 PM
Derek,
They didn't use a rope as the risk assessment was he might get strangled so digging him out was safer %% %% O0 {-) {-)
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: grendel on May 02, 2013, 12:23:35 PM
I once used h&s to my advantage, I was informed that I had to wear a tie for work, I responded with a risk assessment of our very old eagle anatech plan scanner (one of the first 40" width plan scanners ever - cost Ł250,000) and the pinch rollers that grabbed the plan to transport it through, when I pointed out that if a tie went into the pinch rollers, even I did not have long enough arms to reach the off or reverse button, they backed down.
when we scrapped this scanner I wish I had saved the 12 cameras that made up the sensor array, I did have a 4 foot section of the frame - 2"x2" square steel tubing 3/8" thick, you could have driven a tank over this beast and it would have carried on running - though the camera alignment process was a three day event, aligning and focusing the cameras)
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: Alan R on May 06, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
 Hi
I remember back in 1962 after the first couple of months of my apprenticeship ( which in those days was 5 years ) we were all taken to London for the afternoon to visit a museum, run by, I think it was the factory Inspectorate who at that time where responsible for factory safety. I seem to remember it consisted of 2 areas, one was a vast collection of photographs of various factory accidents and the other was an area which had various machines set up as they were after an accident had happened.
There were 3 that I still remember to this day. The first was a radial arm drill with a 2inch morse taper drill fitted with a mass of blond hair splattered with fake blood and bits of skin rapped round it. The second one was a centre lathe with a shaft running between centres and the sleeve of an overall and again fake blood and skin wound round the shaft. The third one was a capstan lathe with a casting in the chuck and a tie rapped round the casting again with fake blood and skin. Our instructor who was an old school foreman complete with bowler hat told us if we did not what to finish up like that lot, use that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!thing between your ears every time you do anything connected to using machinery. And to this day I have never forgotten that visit and the advice from our foreman.
All the best.
AlanR 
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: eddiesolo on May 06, 2013, 04:45:20 PM
It is a scary issue and it is all down to blame. Who can we blame if something goes wrong, the safety guy the organisers etc etc. Of course we should have a sensible approach to make sure that trip hazards, cables and what-have-you are safe and not going to hurt anybody but responsibility as a individual being a berk is secondary, if folk are that stupid then that is their fault, all this H&S is making our youngsters hide behind rules and then when it goes wrong to sue...use ya chuffing ears and eyes. Many years a go a young lad thought it was cool to mess around on garage roofs, of course he fell through and broke his neck...the local council got the blame but the lads mother said something rather profound having just lost her son..."The blame lies on one person alone, my son, he shouldn't have been on the roof and was told about it, he was punished for disobeying us but still sought to climb on the roof, it is a very sad loss but the only person at fault is my lad." I still remember this and the council put signs up regarding the fragile roof. But although the lady was in anguish she blamed her son not the council or the roof maker or the trainer makers for making the trainers sole have a super grip...she also blamed herself. Should we all never leave our homes for fear or offending someone or hurting someone in a accident and therefore being sued. Madness.7
 
Si:)
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: sparkey on May 06, 2013, 06:24:19 PM
 >>:-( I also was an apprentice in the early 60's, ours wasn't a field trip to the museum but an afternoon in the C.E.G.B. training centre cinema
watching some very graphic films on what happens to people working with electricity including some very burnt corpses,frightened the life out
me and made me rather sick,made us all very careful after that,  we are responsible to make sure that what we do is safe,we only have one
life so look after it,Ray. :-)) :-)) [size=78%]        [/size]
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: pugwash on May 06, 2013, 06:59:20 PM
Unfortunately I didn't get to see films or mockups but as a young bobby I had to deal with the
aftermath and then the families then do the report for the coroner's inquest.  Forget the blood and
gore the worst bit was having to tell the family that the son or hubby that went out the door that
morning, would not be back.
Geoff
Title: Re: Another H & S Issue.
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on May 06, 2013, 08:23:19 PM
I suppose it can be said that we are in this predicament, because of the weakness of politicians in allowing legislation that allows the suing for all and everything, not to mention insurance companies, who insure for all and everything.
When it gets to court it is not a matter of right or wrong, but how much blame can be attributed to all concerned, as no one is 100% blameless
After all, they are insured aren't they, so take the risk and if it goes wrong insurance will pay up.
 
When the only insurer was the Government, these types of accident claims were few and far between and were legitimate accidents, not stupidity and carelessness.
 
Ah the bliss of living in an enlightened society, which can only improve.