health & safety... where do you draw the line? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Strange Famous · 08-30-2009, 01:05 PM

Its pretty ridiculous that men of the calibre of Knox-Johnson and Fiennes are made to light a stove under supervision...

But what really got me was making them take guidance on Polar exploration before they were allowed to set off

Unless you somehow can channel the ghost of Amundsen, who exactly knows more about Polar conditions and is qualified to teach a lesson to Ranulph Fiennes??

Of course workers need protection... but surely its gone too far when men who have done more than any possible instrutor could have done are forced to take training courses? imagine the poor fuckers who were roped in to show Knox-Johnston how to sail a boat or Fiennes how to survive in the Arctic.....

Quote:

They are among the toughest and most resilient of men, having survived in some of the most unforgiving places on the planet.

But that does not mean that BBC health and safety mandarins trusted them
to be left alone to light a Primus stove - in case they had an accident.

Sailor Sir Robin Knox-Johnston revealed the 'absurd' rules he, Sir Ranulph Fiennes and war reporter John Simpson were subjected to on BBC2 adventure series Top Dogs.

The three men went on gruelling trips to Afghanistan, around Cape Horn by boat and across the Canadian Arctic.
But the trio, each well-known for their survival skills in tough conditions, were all understood to have been taken aback by the health and safety rules.

This included a ban on lighting a Primus stove without supervision, and being given a 'huge' document warning them about hazards - such as tripping over.
Despite the fact that explorer Sir Ranulph, 65, was in the Army for eight years, he and Sir Robin, 70, were also sent on a 'hostile environment course'.
And the trio were given guidance from an expert in Arctic exploration - even though Sir Ranulph has two medals for his polar expeditions.
Sir Ranulph was the first person to cross Antarctica by foot and has been described as the world's greatest living explorer.

He famously cut off his own frostbitten fingertips after a doomed attempt to
walk unsupported to the North Pole in 2000.
Sir Robin, meanwhile, was the first man to sail singlehanded and non-stop around the globe, and in 1994 won the Jules Verne Trophy for the fastest circumnavigation of the world by yacht.
The comments from Sir Robin come days after similar remarks from Simpson, 64, who has been shelled in Afghanistan, bombed with poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war and dodged bullets in Tiananmen Square.
Simpson complained about the health and safety 'nonsense' surrounding the series, which ended last night, saying he was given a risk assessment form 'the size of a telephone directory' for one episode.
Sir Robin said: 'Ran and I were told we could not light a Primus stove unless we were supervised. So that's the kind of nonsense you get.
'This young man came in and said he was going to supervise and we told him to clear off. Or words to that effect.'
The sailor added: 'It was just absurd. What do you think we cook on in boats?'
He attacked the BBC's insistence on giving the men an expert in Arctic exploration to make sure they kept safe. Sir Robin claimed: 'He had about 10 per cent of Ran's knowledge.'
He added: 'When you read the health and safety document, it is ridiculous. You just read it and thought you have got to be joking. This is just to create paperwork.'

But Sir Robin did praise the training for their Afghan trip, which taught them how to deal with being kidnapped.
A BBC 'general risk assessment form' shown on the National Union of Journalists' website provides a list of hazards including trip hazard, slippery surface, attacked by animal, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, lightning strike, laser light, noise, vibration, litter and stress.
On Thursday, the Daily Mail reported how health and safety rules meant BBC staff had to have a paramedic and a first aider watching over them when they changed a car wheel.
Producers had to fill out a risk assessment before the two BBC Radio Essex presenters each took off a wheel for a feature on programme about learning new skills.
A BBC spokesman said of Top Dogs: 'The BBC takes its responsibilities for health and safety very seriously.
'We knew that for each programme, one of the trio would be completely comfortable, operating in their own environment, but for the two novices learning the ropes, it was important that we minimised the risks as much as possible

Lucifer · 08-31-2009, 07:37 AM

90% of health and safety regs today are people covering their own asses.

MSD · 08-31-2009, 12:02 PM

Workers should be educated about potential risks of their environment and employers should be required to take reasonable precautions to protect employees. Let's make an example of something risky. A welder should be required to wear skin, face, and eye protection by the employer, and should be warned to ensure that all surfaces are clean and dry before welding (the average person, even the average welder, probably does not know that a welding torch will decompose chlorinated brake cleaner into hydrogen chloride and phosgene gases.) Even though anyone who is a certified welder should know it, they should be told that they are required to use ventilation equipment, and a respirator if appropriate to avoid metal fume fever. It is not necessary to warn a welder that a welding torch can cause third degree burns, that it should not be left burning unattended, that it should not be used to light cigarettes (seriously, the guy who did the exhaust on my old car did this as well as aiming, covering his eyes with his arm, and welding for a few seconds before checking his work instead of getting a mask,) and that it will be hot after it is extinguished. Safety equipment or reimbursement for it should be provided by the employer.

The UK has a reputation for being a nanny state because of the regulations you're mentioning. Also for things like banning the sale of steak knives and pizza cutters to minors, banning goggles in swimming classes, and recommendations that fire extinguishers be removed from common rooms in apartment buildings because they are a safety hazard (although that was from the Daily Mail and I'm not so sure about their credibility, they seem like a tabloid.) There is a fear of giving people responsibility or holding them responsible for their actions, and I feel that it is creating a society that is afraid to evaluate risks and whether they can be taken.

Daniel_ · 08-31-2009, 12:59 PM

I was until a couple of years ago the Health and Safety manager of a print works, and so am qualified and experienced in this area.

I also, as part of keeping up to date in the field I had to read the various digests and publications detailing H&S cases that had been prosecuted, and also listed the misguided attempts to ban things for reasons of "Health and Safety".

The key thing to be aware of, is that the vast majority of people who bring this sort of stuff up are not law makers, but are petty jobs-worths are gold-plating well intentioned rules "just in case".

All the storied about "conkers banned by health and safety nazis" and so on are bollocks. None of these were based on good solid legal advice, they are based on someone being scared of litigation.

All Health and Safety law in the UK is based on the test of "reasonable practicability". In essence, this means that provided what you did will convince over half of a jury that you acted with good intentions, you are not breaking the law.

Craven Morehead · 08-31-2009, 01:52 PM

Ranulph Fiennes is an amazing man. In 2003 he ran a marathon a day for 7 consecutive days, each on a different continent. That feat was performed 4 months following a heart attack and double bypass surgery.

Seriously, I think these guys could have 'survived' on their own. However, risk management is now a major consideration in every industry.

Daniel_ · 09-11-2009, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluerose

From your words, I believe everyone can see the serious problem of society.

Explain?

08-31-2009, 07:37 AM	#2 (permalink)
Lucifer Husband of Seamaiden Location: Nova Scotia	90% of health and safety regs today are people covering their own asses. __________________ I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. - Job 30:29 1123, 6536, 5321

08-31-2009, 12:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	I was until a couple of years ago the Health and Safety manager of a print works, and so am qualified and experienced in this area. I also, as part of keeping up to date in the field I had to read the various digests and publications detailing H&S cases that had been prosecuted, and also listed the misguided attempts to ban things for reasons of "Health and Safety". The key thing to be aware of, is that the vast majority of people who bring this sort of stuff up are not law makers, but are petty jobs-worths are gold-plating well intentioned rules "just in case". All the storied about "conkers banned by health and safety nazis" and so on are bollocks. None of these were based on good solid legal advice, they are based on someone being scared of litigation. All Health and Safety law in the UK is based on the test of "reasonable practicability". In essence, this means that provided what you did will convince over half of a jury that you acted with good intentions, you are not breaking the law. __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

08-31-2009, 12:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Workers should be educated about potential risks of their environment and employers should be required to take reasonable precautions to protect employees. Let's make an example of something risky. A welder should be required to wear skin, face, and eye protection by the employer, and should be warned to ensure that all surfaces are clean and dry before welding (the average person, even the average welder, probably does not know that a welding torch will decompose chlorinated brake cleaner into hydrogen chloride and phosgene gases.) Even though anyone who is a certified welder should know it, they should be told that they are required to use ventilation equipment, and a respirator if appropriate to avoid metal fume fever. It is not necessary to warn a welder that a welding torch can cause third degree burns, that it should not be left burning unattended, that it should not be used to light cigarettes (seriously, the guy who did the exhaust on my old car did this as well as aiming, covering his eyes with his arm, and welding for a few seconds before checking his work instead of getting a mask,) and that it will be hot after it is extinguished. Safety equipment or reimbursement for it should be provided by the employer. The UK has a reputation for being a nanny state because of the regulations you're mentioning. Also for things like banning the sale of steak knives and pizza cutters to minors, banning goggles in swimming classes, and recommendations that fire extinguishers be removed from common rooms in apartment buildings because they are a safety hazard (although that was from the Daily Mail and I'm not so sure about their credibility, they seem like a tabloid.) There is a fear of giving people responsibility or holding them responsible for their actions, and I feel that it is creating a society that is afraid to evaluate risks and whether they can be taken.

08-31-2009, 01:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
Craven Morehead Custom User Title	Ranulph Fiennes is an amazing man. In 2003 he ran a marathon a day for 7 consecutive days, each on a different continent. That feat was performed 4 months following a heart attack and double bypass surgery. Seriously, I think these guys could have 'survived' on their own. However, risk management is now a major consideration in every industry.