Elf and Safety to lead to ban on Gallantry Medals ?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Trossachs, Dec 5, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting piece on Today this morning with a senior Cop analysing the potential effect of H&S. The logic went something like this:

    We give Awards, Commendations and medals to Policement for conduct where they took risks beyond what they are supposed to, while technically they risk prosecution or disciplinary action for breaking H&S rules by doing something too dangerous.

    We all kow that "Crown Immunity " has gone and thses things soon filter down from civilian life - so how long before this sort of logic affects us - What price charging a Taliban position then ? "Sorry Pte Bloggins, your VC citation is being used in evidence against you.... "
  2. I'm thinking that there is a break point between H&S considerations in a training environment, and the realities which apply in an operational theatre.

    The example of H&S in the procurement of the chaingun was cited on an Arrse thread about 18 months ago - can't find the link - with the corollary that GPMG, though arguably more versatile a system was not available due to fume extraction issues 'during training', leading to potential litigation.

    There might also be considerations of the nature of the unlimited liability contract which is in force for soldiers but not for the police.
  3. The cop made a point -sorry I was half asleep so can't quote exactly - but bringing in the decision to prosecute for the De Menezes shooting under H&S legislation - an operational environment ? - but the cops were castigated for failures in planning for public safety.
  4. Only a matter of time before it comes our way. Anyone tried to run a simple 30m range these days, we will soon be too frightened to front up any dangerous military training.
  5. H&S issues conflicting with extraordinary acts of humanity/gallantry in a non-service/operational environment (e.g. policing) was something that I brought up some time ago... and was laughed at. QGM nomination? Sorry PC Bloggs, no cigar. You had not attended the appropriate 'jumping in frozen lakes course', so consider yourself in breach of regulations... and be on my carpet Monday morning.

    And PYP... WTF IS that... thing in your avatar? 8O
  6. Is there actually an Act of Parliament and a Law enacted which stipulates all these Health and Safety rules and regulations that are suposedly being broken? or are these regs only "Guide Lines"? and if the latter, then who,s going to do the prosecuting for breaking a guide line. In my book, " Rules are made for the Obedience of Fools, and the Guidence of Wise Men". Admittedly many H&S rules are common sense, but some of them just beggar belief, as indeed do some of the "enforcement" poltroons who so very assiduously pontificate about them. Most of these are petty Town Hall apparatchicks trying to bolster their low setting on the Local Authority ladder of promotion by yammering around their Line Managers or CEOs in the hope of being noticed.
  7. We had all just taken cover, after coming under German LMG fire. Suddenly Corporal Smith stood up and ran forward towards the German positions. I called out to him that he was still wearing his large pack and so running, in boots, with a load, could be construed as high-impact aerobic exercise and presented several health hazards. He was also not wearing a Marching Troops tabard and the ground was rocky and uneven.

    He began firing his Bren gun from the hip and raking the German positions left and right. He did not use an approved firing position and was frankly recklessly avoiding any form of aiming point. He had not erected a red flag nor had he detailed sentries at either side of the road across which the German position lay.

    His ammunition expended, he threw the Bren gun away, without conducting NSPs moreover, and proceeded to throw hand grenades at the German gunner. He did not take cover between throws and disposed of the safety pins without consideration to local livestock. He then fell into the German position, to strike the German gunner with his bayonet repeatedly, despite the danger of incurring an RSI.

    He then succumbed to his wounds, which is quite understandable in the circumstances. He refused however to be evacuated with other casualties, in direct contravention of the battalion H&S policy. To my certain knowledge he made no attempt to enter his injuries in the Accident Book, nor indeed those of the thirteen German paratroopers he had killed.

    Finally he had the nerve to ask if he would be getting a VC for his acts...I should cocoa, it will be an HSAW workshop for him when he recovers!
  8. There is the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Act and a few others for more specific hazards (fire, electricity etc). Basically what the Health and Safety regulations state is that a formal procedure must be in place for a competent person to identify the hazards inherant in a process, assess the risks associated with that hazard and ensure that all practicable steps are taken to reduce those risks to an acceptable level.

    In other words, when someone says "Health and Safety says that you can't do that." what they mean is that someone's assessment of the risk recommends that you can't do that - or more normally that some jobsworth is either on a power trip or covering his own arrse cos the risk assessments haven't been completed properly.

    Should you wish to argue the assessment then you can always ask to see the relevent assessment and I believe that there should be a system in place for the assessment to be questioned.
  9. I can't see any evidence that Cpl Smith conducted a Risk Assessment prior to this action. His OC should send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service immediately.
  10. Some sense at last.

    The cry when some mong and they normally are mongs, say it is against H&S should be very loudly “is it, show me the risk assessment please”.

    Very few things are against H&S, not doing a risk assessment is on of them. The result of the assessment may be that the risk cannot be reduced, the process cannot be changed and the job still needs to be done. Providing you can show you used the process and can justify the outcome you can continue. ATO any one!
  11. http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm

    Their own take on all this.

    Personally, I run with the mong theory, weak thinkers trotting out cliched lines they've heard from the bigger kids.

    Make the effort to understand the legislation then use it to your reasonable advantage. MK
  12. I don't wish to appear rude; you clearly have a point to make. I have no idea what most of what you've written actually means, could you do it with a few commas thrown in, please?