Health and Safety

Our local community is looking to some weeding and landscaping in a local piece of woodland. The council has given permission but volunteers will need to be trained for Health and Safety reasons. I can understand why the council should give permission but the fact that I need to be trained for health and safety reasons has completely put me off from volunteering. Can we please remove all government imposed health and safety measures and let common sense prevail.

Why is this idea important?

Our local community is looking to some weeding and landscaping in a local piece of woodland. The council has given permission but volunteers will need to be trained for Health and Safety reasons. I can understand why the council should give permission but the fact that I need to be trained for health and safety reasons has completely put me off from volunteering. Can we please remove all government imposed health and safety measures and let common sense prevail.

Allow supermarkets to give away out of date food

wandering round a supermarket recently I spotted some food slightly beyond its sell by date. Rather than allow me to take it away for free and take the risk of eating it, the manager informed me that he had to dispose of it. This is silly – generating:

additional landfill

higher demand for food

extra work for everybody

Why is this idea important?

wandering round a supermarket recently I spotted some food slightly beyond its sell by date. Rather than allow me to take it away for free and take the risk of eating it, the manager informed me that he had to dispose of it. This is silly – generating:

additional landfill

higher demand for food

extra work for everybody

Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 – Section 40

This piece of legislation requires as section 40 the following;

In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement

This section should be repealed or amended so that it is for the prosecution to show that the defendant did not do what they should have done

Why is this idea important?

This piece of legislation requires as section 40 the following;

In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement

This section should be repealed or amended so that it is for the prosecution to show that the defendant did not do what they should have done

Allow all customers to take leftovers home in a doggy bag

Currently, the law states that restaurant customers may only take their food away in a doggy bag when the restaurant has a take away licence.

 

It is ridiculous to disallow someone to take home their leftovers, so the restaurant can tick a health and safety box and throw the leftover food out.

 

This is unnecessary waste in a time where waste is high on the agenda.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the law states that restaurant customers may only take their food away in a doggy bag when the restaurant has a take away licence.

 

It is ridiculous to disallow someone to take home their leftovers, so the restaurant can tick a health and safety box and throw the leftover food out.

 

This is unnecessary waste in a time where waste is high on the agenda.

Reduce health & safety intrusion

The drivng force behind the Health & Safety "industry" is the size of the pay-outs that are made to sucessful claimants. The law should be revised  so awards are capped so the "no win no fee" legal business became unprofitable, then the whole H & S culture would wither away. Furthermore, claimants should have to provide far more proof that the company/ authority have knowingly acted (or not acted) in such a way as to cause the liability. 

Why is this idea important?

The drivng force behind the Health & Safety "industry" is the size of the pay-outs that are made to sucessful claimants. The law should be revised  so awards are capped so the "no win no fee" legal business became unprofitable, then the whole H & S culture would wither away. Furthermore, claimants should have to provide far more proof that the company/ authority have knowingly acted (or not acted) in such a way as to cause the liability. 

Introduce a DUTY OF CARE TO SELF clause in H&S legislation

We need a 'Duty of care to self' clause in H&S legislation.  It is too easy to blame somebody else for a situation that should, with a little forethought and considration have not occurred.

Examples of where a 'Duty of Care to Self' might apply:-

If a pavement has a few uneven slabs it is encumbent on the pedestrian to make an assessment of the safety of the surface to walk on.  If the pedestrian deems the surface unsafe to use then they have a duty of care to consider an alternative route or to 'pick their feet up'.  If they trip on a slab that they have seen then it is not the duty of the council or any other body to fund an excessive fine.

If a person decides to climb on a roof of a building and falls, it is encumbent on them to have assessed the risk before they climbed on to the roof.  It should not be the responsibility of the owner of the building to install signs, fencing etc to prevent a person climbing on the roof in the first place

If a person purchases a cup of coffee, they have a duty of care to self to make sure the coffee is not too hot to drink.  If the beverage purchased is too hot at the time then they have a duty of care to self to allow it to cool before they consume it.

If a person purchases a knife and puts any part of their anatomy in front of the sharp edge it is not the duty of the manufacturer or the vendor to point out that the purpose of a knife is to cut.  The duty of care to self should ensure the purchaser knows the purpose of the impliment before they put it to any use.

If a person decides to walk across a road where the pedestrian signs shows that it is not safe to proceed and they walk in front of a car it is not the fault of the driver or any other person or body to have cut back a hedge in the vicinity.  If the road and the pedestrian signs are clearly visible then the duty of care to self would dictate that the display of signs warning that crossing a road was unsafe should suffice.

If a hole has been dug in a pavement or road or field and it has been reasonably fenced a duty of care to self would dictate that there is a hazard and it is not a sensible thing to do to walk through a small gap in the fencing. 

If surrounding a glass bottle bank there is evidence of broken glass on the floor a duty of care to self would assess this hazard and make a decision not to walk on the shards but to either wait until the broken glass has been removed or to walk more carefully so as not to tread on the glass

Anyone under the age of 50 would have no recourse to the manufacturers of cigarettes if they contract smoking related diseases. The information and smoking campaigns have been in existence longer than they have been alive so the knowledge that there is a risk involved with smoking should be part of the 'Duty of Care to Self'

If a person notices that the size of trousers/skirt they have to purchase is getting larger then under a 'Duty of Care to Self' they should assess why this is the case and adjust diet accordingly.  It is not incumbent on the manufacturers of fast food to monitor the calorific intake of their customers.

Why is this idea important?

We need a 'Duty of care to self' clause in H&S legislation.  It is too easy to blame somebody else for a situation that should, with a little forethought and considration have not occurred.

Examples of where a 'Duty of Care to Self' might apply:-

If a pavement has a few uneven slabs it is encumbent on the pedestrian to make an assessment of the safety of the surface to walk on.  If the pedestrian deems the surface unsafe to use then they have a duty of care to consider an alternative route or to 'pick their feet up'.  If they trip on a slab that they have seen then it is not the duty of the council or any other body to fund an excessive fine.

If a person decides to climb on a roof of a building and falls, it is encumbent on them to have assessed the risk before they climbed on to the roof.  It should not be the responsibility of the owner of the building to install signs, fencing etc to prevent a person climbing on the roof in the first place

If a person purchases a cup of coffee, they have a duty of care to self to make sure the coffee is not too hot to drink.  If the beverage purchased is too hot at the time then they have a duty of care to self to allow it to cool before they consume it.

If a person purchases a knife and puts any part of their anatomy in front of the sharp edge it is not the duty of the manufacturer or the vendor to point out that the purpose of a knife is to cut.  The duty of care to self should ensure the purchaser knows the purpose of the impliment before they put it to any use.

If a person decides to walk across a road where the pedestrian signs shows that it is not safe to proceed and they walk in front of a car it is not the fault of the driver or any other person or body to have cut back a hedge in the vicinity.  If the road and the pedestrian signs are clearly visible then the duty of care to self would dictate that the display of signs warning that crossing a road was unsafe should suffice.

If a hole has been dug in a pavement or road or field and it has been reasonably fenced a duty of care to self would dictate that there is a hazard and it is not a sensible thing to do to walk through a small gap in the fencing. 

If surrounding a glass bottle bank there is evidence of broken glass on the floor a duty of care to self would assess this hazard and make a decision not to walk on the shards but to either wait until the broken glass has been removed or to walk more carefully so as not to tread on the glass

Anyone under the age of 50 would have no recourse to the manufacturers of cigarettes if they contract smoking related diseases. The information and smoking campaigns have been in existence longer than they have been alive so the knowledge that there is a risk involved with smoking should be part of the 'Duty of Care to Self'

If a person notices that the size of trousers/skirt they have to purchase is getting larger then under a 'Duty of Care to Self' they should assess why this is the case and adjust diet accordingly.  It is not incumbent on the manufacturers of fast food to monitor the calorific intake of their customers.

Remove GPDO Rights for Mobile Telecommunication Companies.

My idea is that the present government should remove Permitted Development Rights for Mobile Phone Operators and make all telecommunication applications go through  full planning procedure.The present GPDO system puts MPO companies as 'Statutory Undertakers' alongside Gas & Electricity – this is unfair.

As the majority of the mobile network was completed by Dec. 2007, having being facilitated by the then Government, now is the time to restore fairness into the planning system by leveling the playing field. I believe that the operators are already having to use full planning in some parts of the UK.

Also, I would like to see LEA's making more use of wired computer systems in schools.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is that the present government should remove Permitted Development Rights for Mobile Phone Operators and make all telecommunication applications go through  full planning procedure.The present GPDO system puts MPO companies as 'Statutory Undertakers' alongside Gas & Electricity – this is unfair.

As the majority of the mobile network was completed by Dec. 2007, having being facilitated by the then Government, now is the time to restore fairness into the planning system by leveling the playing field. I believe that the operators are already having to use full planning in some parts of the UK.

Also, I would like to see LEA's making more use of wired computer systems in schools.

Stop Quangos making up safety rules

Health and safetly legislation is by and large well written and well thought out.

However official bodies (and Ofsted is a big offender) make up interpretations of the law which are ludicrous. School trips can't happen because "staffing ratios" are interpreted rigidly instead of allowing schools to decide what staffing ratio might be necessary. A childminder I know was asked by an Ofsted inspector to have a "cat food policy" because of "health and Safety". Theres nothing in legislation which requires this, it was just made up.

So don't scrap the legislation, put the brakes on those local authorities and quangos.

Why is this idea important?

Health and safetly legislation is by and large well written and well thought out.

However official bodies (and Ofsted is a big offender) make up interpretations of the law which are ludicrous. School trips can't happen because "staffing ratios" are interpreted rigidly instead of allowing schools to decide what staffing ratio might be necessary. A childminder I know was asked by an Ofsted inspector to have a "cat food policy" because of "health and Safety". Theres nothing in legislation which requires this, it was just made up.

So don't scrap the legislation, put the brakes on those local authorities and quangos.

Change the law so teachers are allowed to share information

 

I was a teacher who was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for sharing information with other professionals.  I showed my risk assessment for Child T, an 11 year old pupil, to the instructors at an outdoor education centre.  My risk assessment said that Child T was likely to run off, was reckless, refused to follow instructions and had a Statement which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.  Hackney Social Services complained because I hadn’t allowed them to change my risk assessment so that Child T would be allowed to stay in an unsupervised dormitory.  (Child T was a “looked after child” from Hackney)  The Department of Education said the disciplinary finding was reasonable because I hadn’t followed the correct guidance and the law. 

 

In summary Department officials said that what I should have done was either to have gone to the HSE to get permission to share information or entered into a formal dispute with Kent CC about it.  I had done everything else officials described; in fact it was KCC who had told me to write the risk assessment for Child T when I went to them with my great concern about taking him without his support at night.  In school, even with his support, he had managed to assault both staff and pupils.

 

The Department agreed that I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident if I had changed my risk assessment but said I shouldn’t have worried because Kent CC would have been criminally liable too! 

 

THE DEPARTMENT WROTE:

 

“ [a] with regard to your statement "I gave information to Bowles, in line with government guidance”

 

 [iii] it appears to DfES that anyway your action was not in line with DfES guidance.  While HASPEV advises school staff to give information to a provider (e.g.: "The group leader should also provide any relevant information to the provider such as the group's age-range, competence etc." – para 169), it also advises that the group leader's risk assessment for the visit should be approved by the head teacher (para 37).  DfES understands that your action in passing information to the provider in this case was not approved by the head teacher.  Therefore it appears that your action went against DfES advice on obtaining head teacher approval

 

 [b] You mentioned that you gave information to Bowles "as a PID" (Public Interest Disclosure).  DfES has not issued guidance on PIDs, though as you know, our web pages now refer enquirers to DTI and HSE advice on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  DfES's view is that the employment tribunal system is adequate for dealing with PID matters between school staff and their employers;

 

[c] Your letter seems to imply that your only choices were either to send the information as you did, or to modify the risk assessment in line with Hackney's wishes.  DfES believes that a school employee generally has more options.  The employee could pass the provider's request for information to the head teacher.  If the head teacher then sent to the provider, or directed the employee to send to the provider, information which the employee believed would endanger safety, the employee could take that concern to the school's Governing Body; and then, if still not satisfied, to the school employer.  If still unsatisfied with any response from the school employer, the employee could follow the procedures outlined by DTI (as mentioned above), e.g. by informing the HSE if the PID related to "matters which may affect the health or safety of any individual at work; matters which may affect the health and safety of any member of the public arising out of, or in connection with, the activities of persons at work" (source: DTI guidance).  DFES'S VIEW IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACTED SIMILARLY IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD OF SENDING INFORMATION TO THE PROVIDER;


[e]  You also wrote that if you had modified the risk assessment in accordance with Hackney's wishes "I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident".  It might be worth reminding ourselves here that, as we both know, the school employer retains the main responsibility under workplace safety law.  Therefore:

– IF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ACTS ON THE EMPLOYER'S INSTRUCTIONS, THEN THE EMPLOYER AT LEAST SHARES CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITH THE EMPLOYEE; and

– if the school employee has done what workplace safety law requires (i.e. has drawn to the employer's attention the employee's view that the employer should make further arrangements to deal safely with a workplace risk, and has otherwise cooperated with the employer's arrangements), then the employer, not the employee, will bear the main
criminal liability; and if the employee, exercising their common-law duty of care, still believes that a particular action approved by the employer would be negligent of a pupil's safety, then THE EMPLOYEE CAN AVOID ALL CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY REFUSING TO TAKE THAT ACTION AND ENTERING A FORMAL DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER as at 2c above.

[6]  DfES does not wish to take a view on whether any criticism by Hackney Social Services was or was not reasonable.  As stated at para 2c above, we believe that an employee can take a concern, about information which the employee believes would endanger safety, through internal and external dispute channels as outlined;”

Why is this idea important?

 

I was a teacher who was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for sharing information with other professionals.  I showed my risk assessment for Child T, an 11 year old pupil, to the instructors at an outdoor education centre.  My risk assessment said that Child T was likely to run off, was reckless, refused to follow instructions and had a Statement which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.  Hackney Social Services complained because I hadn’t allowed them to change my risk assessment so that Child T would be allowed to stay in an unsupervised dormitory.  (Child T was a “looked after child” from Hackney)  The Department of Education said the disciplinary finding was reasonable because I hadn’t followed the correct guidance and the law. 

 

In summary Department officials said that what I should have done was either to have gone to the HSE to get permission to share information or entered into a formal dispute with Kent CC about it.  I had done everything else officials described; in fact it was KCC who had told me to write the risk assessment for Child T when I went to them with my great concern about taking him without his support at night.  In school, even with his support, he had managed to assault both staff and pupils.

 

The Department agreed that I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident if I had changed my risk assessment but said I shouldn’t have worried because Kent CC would have been criminally liable too! 

 

THE DEPARTMENT WROTE:

 

“ [a] with regard to your statement "I gave information to Bowles, in line with government guidance”

 

 [iii] it appears to DfES that anyway your action was not in line with DfES guidance.  While HASPEV advises school staff to give information to a provider (e.g.: "The group leader should also provide any relevant information to the provider such as the group's age-range, competence etc." – para 169), it also advises that the group leader's risk assessment for the visit should be approved by the head teacher (para 37).  DfES understands that your action in passing information to the provider in this case was not approved by the head teacher.  Therefore it appears that your action went against DfES advice on obtaining head teacher approval

 

 [b] You mentioned that you gave information to Bowles "as a PID" (Public Interest Disclosure).  DfES has not issued guidance on PIDs, though as you know, our web pages now refer enquirers to DTI and HSE advice on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  DfES's view is that the employment tribunal system is adequate for dealing with PID matters between school staff and their employers;

 

[c] Your letter seems to imply that your only choices were either to send the information as you did, or to modify the risk assessment in line with Hackney's wishes.  DfES believes that a school employee generally has more options.  The employee could pass the provider's request for information to the head teacher.  If the head teacher then sent to the provider, or directed the employee to send to the provider, information which the employee believed would endanger safety, the employee could take that concern to the school's Governing Body; and then, if still not satisfied, to the school employer.  If still unsatisfied with any response from the school employer, the employee could follow the procedures outlined by DTI (as mentioned above), e.g. by informing the HSE if the PID related to "matters which may affect the health or safety of any individual at work; matters which may affect the health and safety of any member of the public arising out of, or in connection with, the activities of persons at work" (source: DTI guidance).  DFES'S VIEW IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACTED SIMILARLY IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD OF SENDING INFORMATION TO THE PROVIDER;


[e]  You also wrote that if you had modified the risk assessment in accordance with Hackney's wishes "I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident".  It might be worth reminding ourselves here that, as we both know, the school employer retains the main responsibility under workplace safety law.  Therefore:

– IF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ACTS ON THE EMPLOYER'S INSTRUCTIONS, THEN THE EMPLOYER AT LEAST SHARES CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITH THE EMPLOYEE; and

– if the school employee has done what workplace safety law requires (i.e. has drawn to the employer's attention the employee's view that the employer should make further arrangements to deal safely with a workplace risk, and has otherwise cooperated with the employer's arrangements), then the employer, not the employee, will bear the main
criminal liability; and if the employee, exercising their common-law duty of care, still believes that a particular action approved by the employer would be negligent of a pupil's safety, then THE EMPLOYEE CAN AVOID ALL CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY REFUSING TO TAKE THAT ACTION AND ENTERING A FORMAL DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER as at 2c above.

[6]  DfES does not wish to take a view on whether any criticism by Hackney Social Services was or was not reasonable.  As stated at para 2c above, we believe that an employee can take a concern, about information which the employee believes would endanger safety, through internal and external dispute channels as outlined;”

Health and Safety at Work Act

Scrap the act as it stands and re-draft it to make it less ridiculous. At the same time make it illegal for lawyers firms to advertise for  'accident victims' so they can obtain, as they say, 'compensation' for them.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the act as it stands and re-draft it to make it less ridiculous. At the same time make it illegal for lawyers firms to advertise for  'accident victims' so they can obtain, as they say, 'compensation' for them.

Amend all ‘child protection’ legislation so that it does not apply to teenagers

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Why is this idea important?

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Restore Common Sense

This nation has become obsessed with rules and regulations regarding Health and Safety.  Whilst Health and Safety is paramount to everyone, people's ability to use their own judgment and common sense has been taken away from them.  The ability to use common sense must surely be a civil liberty.

For example, my husband recently took my daughter to a Surestart centre organised event at which her photo was being taken for a Father's Day event.  When he asked a member of Surestart staff to help him brush my daughter's hair and put it in a ponytail for the photoshoot, he was told "I can't brush her hair -it's health and safety'".  What an absolute joke.

Can we not do something – anything – to restore people's ability to use their own judgement and common sense in everyday situations?

Why is this idea important?

This nation has become obsessed with rules and regulations regarding Health and Safety.  Whilst Health and Safety is paramount to everyone, people's ability to use their own judgment and common sense has been taken away from them.  The ability to use common sense must surely be a civil liberty.

For example, my husband recently took my daughter to a Surestart centre organised event at which her photo was being taken for a Father's Day event.  When he asked a member of Surestart staff to help him brush my daughter's hair and put it in a ponytail for the photoshoot, he was told "I can't brush her hair -it's health and safety'".  What an absolute joke.

Can we not do something – anything – to restore people's ability to use their own judgement and common sense in everyday situations?

Health and Safety

Health and Safety continues to be used as a means of preventing individuals from taking a personal, risk based approach to their individual lives.  Whilst I understand the need for key H&S controls to be mandated across the nations, I feel that the H&S agenda has become all pervasive and would like to see a review with a focus on simplifying and restricting the legislation in this area.  I think allowing individuals more personal freedoms strengthen their personal understanding and assessment of H&S issues and associated risks and enable people to set their personal risk tolerances for their personal situations.

Why is this idea important?

Health and Safety continues to be used as a means of preventing individuals from taking a personal, risk based approach to their individual lives.  Whilst I understand the need for key H&S controls to be mandated across the nations, I feel that the H&S agenda has become all pervasive and would like to see a review with a focus on simplifying and restricting the legislation in this area.  I think allowing individuals more personal freedoms strengthen their personal understanding and assessment of H&S issues and associated risks and enable people to set their personal risk tolerances for their personal situations.

Traditional Community Activities

Create a classification of community activity which is exempt from stupid health and safety or insurance requirements. Just be clear that people who attend are responsible for their own safety and attend at their own risk, barring common sense precautions like having St Johns present

Why is this idea important?

Create a classification of community activity which is exempt from stupid health and safety or insurance requirements. Just be clear that people who attend are responsible for their own safety and attend at their own risk, barring common sense precautions like having St Johns present

Homemade Nuclear Fusion Reactors

I saw a story in the news recently about a man building a nuclear reactor in his apartment in New York, apparently it's legal over in the USA but in the UK you'd not be allowed to do this sort of thing due to health and safety laws gone mad. If it's still considered too risky to put inside the house then I have a shed in the back garden which would be suitable.

Why is this idea important?

I saw a story in the news recently about a man building a nuclear reactor in his apartment in New York, apparently it's legal over in the USA but in the UK you'd not be allowed to do this sort of thing due to health and safety laws gone mad. If it's still considered too risky to put inside the house then I have a shed in the back garden which would be suitable.

End the compensation culture

The compensation culture, is preventing the normal pattern of life because combined with the  Human rights legislation, "smart arse" lawers are bringing court actions over things which should really be common sense. eg Tripping over an uneven paving stone, ….it is the individuals  responsibility to look after themself.

This also manifests itself in things like village fetes being cancelled because they can't afford the liability insurance.

People and organisations dont carry out normal functions because of the fear of legeal  action to the extent that even insurance compainies dont fight the actions because it is cheaper to "Roll over" than fight a principle.

Whilst nobody objects to a valid compensation claim, everything is out of balance.

I propose that in these fatuous cases the judiciary (and as far as I understand it, Judges should "Judge") the Judge  grants the case to the plaintif (thus satisfying the LAW) and awards £1 and no costs……..after a couple of these jugdments no solicitor in the land would encourage any case that wasnt cast iron, and thus the "compensation culture"  would soon evaporate.

Why is this idea important?

The compensation culture, is preventing the normal pattern of life because combined with the  Human rights legislation, "smart arse" lawers are bringing court actions over things which should really be common sense. eg Tripping over an uneven paving stone, ….it is the individuals  responsibility to look after themself.

This also manifests itself in things like village fetes being cancelled because they can't afford the liability insurance.

People and organisations dont carry out normal functions because of the fear of legeal  action to the extent that even insurance compainies dont fight the actions because it is cheaper to "Roll over" than fight a principle.

Whilst nobody objects to a valid compensation claim, everything is out of balance.

I propose that in these fatuous cases the judiciary (and as far as I understand it, Judges should "Judge") the Judge  grants the case to the plaintif (thus satisfying the LAW) and awards £1 and no costs……..after a couple of these jugdments no solicitor in the land would encourage any case that wasnt cast iron, and thus the "compensation culture"  would soon evaporate.

Health & safety used to justify universal freedom infringements

Jobsworths use HSE legislation to prevent traditional pleasures: Guy Fawkes bonfires; hanging flower baskets in high street; horses on village greens during Borders common-ridings; 'risk-assessment' before I take teenagers for a country walk; etc.

The existing framework for such curtailments of liberty and common sense should be repealed: this might require fresh emphasis that there is indeed such a thing as an 'act of God'; and it might require parallel restrictions on 'no-win no-fee' trophy-hunters

Why is this idea important?

Jobsworths use HSE legislation to prevent traditional pleasures: Guy Fawkes bonfires; hanging flower baskets in high street; horses on village greens during Borders common-ridings; 'risk-assessment' before I take teenagers for a country walk; etc.

The existing framework for such curtailments of liberty and common sense should be repealed: this might require fresh emphasis that there is indeed such a thing as an 'act of God'; and it might require parallel restrictions on 'no-win no-fee' trophy-hunters

Health and Safety Excessive and Regressive

Greatly reduce Health and Safety regulations in public places.

Make clear that all citizens of the UK have a responsibility to take care of themselves and others.

Ensure that the law is clear in respect of sueing for damages that only some of the responsibilty is with the authorities.

Take for example my local outdoor swimming pool, lucky to have one though it was closed for 3 years. The spring diving boards went years ago and then when it reopened last year the 1 1/2 metre diving platform was gone too. You know the reason is that "Health and Safety Regulations" will insist that an extra life guard or two would be required to supervise perhaps to ensure that no-one jumps on someones head.

The proof that we don't need this level of supervision is when we drive down any single carriage way, towards oncoming traffic at speeds of 100mph. We whizz past with total trust that the other driver wont swerve into us.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Greatly reduce Health and Safety regulations in public places.

Make clear that all citizens of the UK have a responsibility to take care of themselves and others.

Ensure that the law is clear in respect of sueing for damages that only some of the responsibilty is with the authorities.

Take for example my local outdoor swimming pool, lucky to have one though it was closed for 3 years. The spring diving boards went years ago and then when it reopened last year the 1 1/2 metre diving platform was gone too. You know the reason is that "Health and Safety Regulations" will insist that an extra life guard or two would be required to supervise perhaps to ensure that no-one jumps on someones head.

The proof that we don't need this level of supervision is when we drive down any single carriage way, towards oncoming traffic at speeds of 100mph. We whizz past with total trust that the other driver wont swerve into us.

 

 

Give Ambulances and Firemen the powers of arrest for stone-throwing yobs

To give all Ambulance and Fire Crews the powers to arrest mindless idiots who throw bricks and cause obstructions… which can then have other serious consequences, and then hand them straight over to the local constabulary to face criminal charges.

Why is this idea important?

To give all Ambulance and Fire Crews the powers to arrest mindless idiots who throw bricks and cause obstructions… which can then have other serious consequences, and then hand them straight over to the local constabulary to face criminal charges.

Saftey clothing should be discretionary in situations where it’s not really necessary

It's about time we had the right to choose whether to wear "safety" clothing at work in situations where it is not appropriate to the situation. I work for Veolia ltd in a seasonal capacity and I am expected to wear heavy, uncomfortable, steel toecapped footwear in a situation which doesn't warrant it.

My job involves pushing a refuse cart along the pavement up and down the seafront, picking up litter with a stick and sweeping, emptying dustbins etc. I never encounter any situation which could put my feet at risk, if anything the footwear itself is a health hazard as the boots are so heavy, making it so much more difficult to walk the long distances than it would be in normal footwear, especially so in hot weather. So here we have "health and safety" legislation which is being appllied in a situation where safety is not an issue and causing a detrimental impact on my health to boot (no pun intended).

The enforced wearing of high visibility waistcoats is another phenomenon which has mushroomed in recent years to the pont where just about anybody who has a job must dutifully surrender his dignity to the flourescent obedience bib. Obviously, in situations such as working in a dangerous warehouse with fork lifts or on the roads or raliways high-vis waistcoats are a worthwhile safety precaution but is it really necessary for a bus driver sitting behind the wheel or someone delivering leaflets from door to door to be made to wear one? I don't think so.

Why is this idea important?

It's about time we had the right to choose whether to wear "safety" clothing at work in situations where it is not appropriate to the situation. I work for Veolia ltd in a seasonal capacity and I am expected to wear heavy, uncomfortable, steel toecapped footwear in a situation which doesn't warrant it.

My job involves pushing a refuse cart along the pavement up and down the seafront, picking up litter with a stick and sweeping, emptying dustbins etc. I never encounter any situation which could put my feet at risk, if anything the footwear itself is a health hazard as the boots are so heavy, making it so much more difficult to walk the long distances than it would be in normal footwear, especially so in hot weather. So here we have "health and safety" legislation which is being appllied in a situation where safety is not an issue and causing a detrimental impact on my health to boot (no pun intended).

The enforced wearing of high visibility waistcoats is another phenomenon which has mushroomed in recent years to the pont where just about anybody who has a job must dutifully surrender his dignity to the flourescent obedience bib. Obviously, in situations such as working in a dangerous warehouse with fork lifts or on the roads or raliways high-vis waistcoats are a worthwhile safety precaution but is it really necessary for a bus driver sitting behind the wheel or someone delivering leaflets from door to door to be made to wear one? I don't think so.

Amend health and safety law to allow the individual to decide which personal protective equipment is required if any.

Why on earth must every one wear hi viz clothing the moment they step outside even in broad daylight with good visibility, fine for those who wish to, just amend the law to allow each individual to decide for themselves .

Why is this idea important?

Why on earth must every one wear hi viz clothing the moment they step outside even in broad daylight with good visibility, fine for those who wish to, just amend the law to allow each individual to decide for themselves .

Health and Safety in Schools

There are many times in my life where I wonder exactly what some of these so called council Health and Safety officers actually do. I am a teacher in a small primary school, where positions of responsibility can only be shared among a few people. With so many areas such as Child Protection and curriculum responsibilities on our shoulders, it would save us countless hours trawling the internet for policies and other guidance that we need if councils would provide a comprehensive guide for everything that we actually need.

Why is this idea important?

There are many times in my life where I wonder exactly what some of these so called council Health and Safety officers actually do. I am a teacher in a small primary school, where positions of responsibility can only be shared among a few people. With so many areas such as Child Protection and curriculum responsibilities on our shoulders, it would save us countless hours trawling the internet for policies and other guidance that we need if councils would provide a comprehensive guide for everything that we actually need.

Reduce the ridiculous Red Tape involved in planning school trips

I have just organised a residential trip for 30 primary school children and the paperwork that i had to fill in was ridiculous. It was a nightmare doing risk assessments for the various museums and other activities – even spending some time in Hyde Park needed to be risk assessed and we were only there for half an hour to eat our lunch. This is health and safety gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

I have just organised a residential trip for 30 primary school children and the paperwork that i had to fill in was ridiculous. It was a nightmare doing risk assessments for the various museums and other activities – even spending some time in Hyde Park needed to be risk assessed and we were only there for half an hour to eat our lunch. This is health and safety gone mad.

Doing electrical work at home

I think the regulation that stops people from doing electrical work in their own home that was brought in by Labour a few years ago should be scrapped.

I used to do my own work but now I cannot without hiring somebody to check it. I think that any benefit that might be gained in terms of safety is far outweighed by the damage done by the state telling me what I can do in my own home.

Why is this idea important?

I think the regulation that stops people from doing electrical work in their own home that was brought in by Labour a few years ago should be scrapped.

I used to do my own work but now I cannot without hiring somebody to check it. I think that any benefit that might be gained in terms of safety is far outweighed by the damage done by the state telling me what I can do in my own home.