H&S gone viral - Head Teacher Fined

#1
Sorry for the lack of links (I'm sure someone will add it).

Just seen the Sky Stab - Head teacher fined 12K + costs for allowing a three year old to sky-dive down four steps and dies in hospital post infection.

What the hell!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry boys and girls but we have truely lost the plot. He has been sighted as failing to provide 'a nominal level of care and supervision' to a child who played batman down 4 steps.

I am truely threaders with this' Where there is blame - there is a claim' society. Parents demanding a one to one, bubble-rap approach to private (or even public) schooling. So any family of more than 2 kids should be automatically done if a kid falls off a swing? don't forget single parents - If your 2nd kid trips and grazes a knee in the park - it's your fault!
 
#5
Looks to me like the poor bloke is being made the Scapegoat for the Hospital that caused the infection. It is the infection that killed the child not the injury.

We had a similar thing happen to us where a customer was injured here but he died in the hospital 2 weeks later. The findings were Natural causes due to something else, which may or may not have been injury related.

I hope the appeal goes more in his favour and he gets a better defense lawyer next time.

I hate this blame culture, it frightens people for all the wrong reasons.
 
#6
'During his trial, the jury heard how Kian had been allowed unsupervised access to the steps at the school, which exposed him and the 10 other three and four-year-olds in the kindergarten class to a risk to their health or safety' shock horror!

But the key point (presumably) is
The jury was told there had been only one teacher on duty supervising 59 pupils when the incident happened during the morning break.

I would imagine that there are laws/ regs relating to this sort of thing. If you dont comply then you leave yourself open and at home when Mr Cockup comes a-knocking...
 
#7
And once the kid hurt himself, the one teacher had to concentrate one one kid - leaving 58 others unsupervised. As no-one has been charged on that front it just goes to show that the powers-that-be are a bunch of pillocks.
 
#8
This is a very sad story with a young child dying, but the death appears to be caused by the contration of MRSA. So I assume, usually a bad thing, that the head was prosecuted( or persecuted) because the child managed to injure himself playing on the steps unsupervised. Are HSE going to prosececute over the contraction of the MRSA next, which although it may have been caught in the hospital may have been brought into the hospital from outside from an untraceable source. I feel, this is my own view, that some of the beaurocrats are more interested in inflating their own personal self than really improving health and safety matters around the country.
 
#9
Agree with all of the above, however I would say that one teacher to keep an eye on 59 three year olds does sound on the low side.

Also, it's not the head per se who has to pay the fine. It's the school. He only has to pay it because he owns the school (in any event, I'm sure that he's insured).

PB
 
#10
I am just trying to find out some numbers. I agree I teacher for 59 pupils sounds a bit off.

But try this though, at a concert you must have at least 1 steward for every 250 people.

Not sure how 1 person is meant to control 250 people but thats what the guidance says.
 
#11
From the information given in the report this seems reasonable.
He should have carried out a risk assessment – not hard to do – came to the conclusion that the likelihood was high as was the severity. Realising this he would have put in place the preventative measures, gate, better supervision whatever and would not have ended up with a dead child and him in court.
Totally his fault and lucky to have escaped gaol.
 
#12
If the child had been on 1 to 1 or even 5 to one and decided to do a 'superman' off a park bench - would the supervisor have been able to stop him/her?

I wonder - who gets then 12K + cost? I do admit that 50+ to one 'tea-lady (sorry showing my age) in the present time does contradict policy however accidents do happen - who is the governing body who decides what is accident and what is culpable?
 
#13
Moosaca said:
who is the governing body who decides what is accident and what is culpable?
My experience says the Coroner, but the HSE or Local Authority Inspectors can and will still prosecute if possible for what ever they can get you on.
 
#14
The HSE is the governing body and will advise or prosecute as required. It’s not a case of what they can get you on either, it’s down to the acts or omissions which lead to an accident. This is well defined in the Health and Safety… Act and other relevant publications.
The man in charge was the head teacher and owner of the school and was culpable as he had the duty of care responsibility.
 
#15
4-8-Alfa said:
The HSE is the governing body and will advise or prosecute as required. It’s not a case of what they can get you on either, it’s down to the acts or omissions which lead to an accident. This is well defined in the Health and Safety… Act and other relevant publications.
The man in charge was the head teacher and owner of the school and was culpable as he had the duty of care responsibility.
You need to meet some of the fools I have had to deal with over the last few years. One openly admitted to not knowing what he was talking about yet still tried to prosecute us for a Risk Assessment that we were not required to carry out. The judge at the Tribunal knew this with in 15 minutes of the proceedings and it was kicked out.

He is trying from another angle now.
 
#16
And will probably continue until he finds a kindred spirit who will uphold his position, You have my sympathy.
 
#17
Ozzymick said:
4-8-Alfa said:
The HSE is the governing body and will advise or prosecute as required. It’s not a case of what they can get you on either, it’s down to the acts or omissions which lead to an accident. This is well defined in the Health and Safety… Act and other relevant publications.
The man in charge was the head teacher and owner of the school and was culpable as he had the duty of care responsibility.
You need to meet some of the fools I have had to deal with over the last few years. One openly admitted to not knowing what he was talking about yet still tried to prosecute us for a Risk Assessment that we were not required to carry out. The judge at the Tribunal knew this with in 15 minutes of the proceedings and it was kicked out.

He is trying from another angle now.
Ozzy
I’m not disputing there are some right plonkers out there and some of the H and S stuff is well OTT and well discussed on this forum.
What I am alluding to is there are rules in place to prevent this kind of thing happening. When they are used sensibly they do more good than harm, look at the reduction in accidents in the building industry since H and S was introduced.
At the end of the day it is every ones right to go home from work/play/anywhere in the same condition they arrived in.
 
#18
this is a real tragedy, as is the loss of any child. This however leads to a question.

How have we become so American?

Legally its someone else's fault and they must be sued, FFS The child caught an infection, it is a shame that the kid jumped and hurt himself but surely we cannot hold someone responsible for our actions?

For example: I go to the pub, I purchase and consume many pints of beer, I then go to the toilets downstairs and in the process I fall down the stairs. Am I responsible for being a drunk or is the pub responsible for selling me too much beer?
So after i go to hospital and contract some nasty bug, who is now liable? me, the drunk, the pub and landlord or the NHS for treating me!

The system needs to change and especially for serial claimers!
 
#19
4-8-Alfa: I couldnt agree more, I also have some fantastic enforcement officers I have to work with.

I think the job I do is the most hated within my organisation, until of course you can use it to your advantage, it of course is the best job in the world.

The culture here has definatley improved over the last few years I have been here.
 
#20
After the case, principal inspector Steve Scott said:... "This case is not about restricting play for children at school, nor should head teachers be concerned that this case means they will face enforcement action as a result of everyday incidents which often happen to children."

This case is all about both of those things. Unless the judgement is modified or reversed, private education will become too expensive to continue in the United Kingdom. Stupid little man.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top