The problem occurs when you get some jobsworth who, having done a 2 week NEBOSH certificate, suddenly believes he is an expert in the field. They then get employed in an area of work they have absolutely no understanding of, and what we see here is the results.

H&S should be conducted by people who have years of experience in a particular field of work, and should only practice in that particular field of work. Its called in the regulations a "competent person"

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

Originally Posted by craftsmanx

There's nothing wrong with being aware of HSE rules just so long as you remember "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."

I think that is the best post you have ever written

Somebody has cloned his username surely

"As such we ask our volunteers to risk assess the situations they and the injured or distressed person find themselves in, and to ensure that whatever action they take does not put anyone in further danger.

He obvioulsy did do a risk assessment. I'd imagine it went something like this:

"I'm trained, fit, and pretty sure I can get to her but if I'm wrong I might fall and die. She's 13, terrified, and if I don't get to her right now she will fall and die"

Can see why they might want to give him a dressing down for the rule break, but surely it should be one of those tellings off that goes "Consider yourself reprimanded, well done"

Not long back it was reported that a young boy drowed as two police special had to stand by and watch it happen , being informed that they could not do anything as they had not had the right training for the rescue and would have to wait for trained people to arrive . By the looks of it your damed if you do , or you don't

Wait till happens to them
sorry can't help
don't have the right training
don't have the right equipment
your dead
can you say that or is it not PC

help need more beer

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

The problem occurs when you get some jobsworth who, having done a 2 week NEBOSH certificate, suddenly believes he is an expert in the field. They then get employed in an area of work they have absolutely no understanding of, and what we see here is the results.

H&S should be conducted by people who have years of experience in a particular field of work, and should only practice in that particular field of work. Its called in the regulations a "competent person"

Having spoken to a few H&S professionals I accept everything that you have written on this thread. But can I assume that you are aware of the effect of HSE rules combined with litigation worries organisations and the result is a nightmare in many situations.

I believe that ridiculous decisions by courts upon organisations to pay high cash awards to individuals when they get injured (often when it is that persons fault) scares the bejeesus out of management.

Personal experience of this was gained when I was subject to "H&S" inspection and made H&S representative for my section in a joint services unit.

Example 1) The unit H&S rep insisted that my toolbox was put onto a tool "shadowboard" when in camp but I was alowed to use my toolbox when on trials. The mad thing is that the "shadowboard" is intended to make sure all tools are present and none could therefore have been left on an aircraft. Yet I went nowhere near an aircraft (to work with tools) when on camp and yet I did just that (frequently) when deployed on trials.

Example 2) I was told to carry out a risk assesment for parachuting. No matter how low I rated a risk the consequences could not honestly be rated as less than death or multiple deaths. That required a response to "cease all activity until a safer way to work can be identified" or words to that effect. Guess what? I was instructed to find a way to fiddle a different result. I refused and got marked down on my subsequent C.R. WTF was the point of that effort? A complete waste of time and effort IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I consider H&S to be good thing. It has forced employers to consider the implications of taking shortcuts in safety, something that was regularly done by many employers pre-HSE. I do think it has gone too far though. Not entirely (or even mainly) HSEs fault but it is happening as demonstrated by the treatment of the brave man in this opening post.

H & S should be considered after the fact, this bloke made a decision it saved a life. what should be learned from this should be the activity not hounding him. this then means he would need bolt cutters or a more portable type system which would have allowed him to be safe as well as make the situation safe.
its all about money, insurance and blame culture.

its just another sad day, where we protect ourselves first before we save some one else, infact it wont be long before they disband the fire brigade, coast guard, RNLI search and rescue "the police" as the jobs are too hazardous and therefore not worth sacrificing further lives.

sorry wobbling a bit on a rant, but its just sad

Originally Posted by The_Rattler

H & S should be considered after the fact, this bloke made a decision it saved a life. what should be learned from this should be the activity not hounding him. this then means he would need bolt cutters or a more portable type system which would have allowed him to be safe as well as make the situation safe.
its all about money, insurance and blame culture.

its just another sad day, where we protect ourselves first before we save some one else, infact it wont be long before they disband the fire brigade, coast guard, RNLI search and rescue "the police" as the jobs are too hazardous and therefore not worth sacrificing further lives.

sorry wobbling a bit on a rant, but its just sad

I like this guy also.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7178672.stm

I am sure some H&S jobsworths people here (UK not arrse) would not agree with this boy scouts actions. I applaud the lad.

Perturbed, you are spot on and I think I have said similar earlier in this thread. As to the RA on Parachuting, the idea is to lower the risk down to as far as is reasonably practicable. You are correct, that a failure would surely result in death. In accordance with regulations, the remaining risk is either accepted or the activity is stopped. Now, parachuting continues (aircraft dependent) and so the risk is accepted - end off. You cannot fiddle a different result.

It is litigation and the blame culture that is responsible for the over cautiousness of employers.

I know several people who work for the HSE - they as an organisation accept that they are partly responsible for this cautiousness and are taking steps to remedy it. They now realise that even if you take all necessary steps to control the risks associated (as far as is reasonably practicable, in compliance with regulations!) with a particular hazard, sometimes shit just happens

In this case, as has been said, the guy at the scene was the competent person. He conducted his risk assessment (doesn't have to be documented!) and acted accordingly. Result should be 1 saved life and a brave man gets a pat on the back for a job well done.

Unfortunately result is 1 saved life and a jobsworth flapping about his paperwork, which in turn resulted in a brave man doing one

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

...

It is litigation and the blame culture that is responsible for the over cautiousness of employers.

I know several people who work for the HSE - they as an organisation accept that they are partly responsible for this cautiousness and are taking steps to remedy it. They now realise that even if you take all necessary steps to control the risks associated (as far as is reasonably practicable, in compliance with regulations!) with a particular hazard, sometimes s*** just happens

In this case, as has been said, the guy at the scene was the competent person. He conducted his risk assessment (doesn't have to be documented!) and acted accordingly. Result should be 1 saved life and a brave man gets a pat on the back for a job well done.

Unfortunately result is 1 saved life and a jobsworth flapping about his paperwork, which in turn resulted in a brave man doing one

I completely agree. The real HSE people I have spoken to accept risk providing efforts have been made to make said activity as safe as possible. All the (silly) problems I have encountered have been generated by H&S reps (amatuers in plain language).

Paul Waugh deserves praise not insults. I am fair sure that most HSE professionals would agree. However some H&S reps seem to have a different POV here.

Has H&S ever increasing regulations and employed jobsworth resulted in less accidents at work [which I suppose was the idea] over the last say 20 years? I read a report recently [sorry cannot remember where] that said in the building and construction industry accidents had actually gone up.
Whatever happened to plain old common sense? [CDF and ABI in barrackroom parlance]