 | Home > Off Topic > health and safety prosecution |
 
|
|
|
| farmer giles Member Since: 09 Feb 2011 Location: worcestershire Posts: 1299  
|
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2013/rnn-ldn-0...9/4-feb-13
will schools and councils stop running Duke of Edinburgh awards and other camping trips if they get fined like this (note the fine is not connected to any compensation the victim may receive)? its a pity the pupils weren't shown a demonstration of the flamability of various fuels. |
||
4th Feb 2013 12:59pm |
|
| iruffell Member Since: 03 Sep 2010 Location: Marlow, Buckinghamshire Posts: 343  
|
Surely it's the girl who tipped the meths on the stove that should have been fined, but if they are never exposed to these things in a safe(ish) way then this type of accident will happen.
The Scout troop my son goes to still does all of their cooking at camps on wood fires, some controlled danger is good. |
||
|
4th Feb 2013 1:26pm |
|
| farmer giles Member Since: 09 Feb 2011 Location: worcestershire Posts: 1299
|
hse are very quick to point out that it is not them that cause cancellations of events but when fines occur (irrelevent to insurance costs and payouts) then the default setting is that it isn't going to be worth the risk of a huge fine.
|
||
|
4th Feb 2013 3:10pm |
|
| twopoint6khz Member Since: 18 Aug 2011 Location: North Lakes Posts: 654 
|
Those kind of H&S prosecutions make me laugh and cry in equal measure. On the one hand, it's just the government fining itself, so no money really changes hands (except to pay the lawyers, as usual). On the other hand, it adds to the fear of organising any 'adventurous' activities and puts people off, which is sad.
Pretty sure original H&S legislation (like the Health and Safety at Work Act) was never meant to end up like this. It was introduced following a public outcry over the Aberfan tip disaster, where hundreds of people died and the management of the colliery (who had been taking the  basically) seemed to get off scot-free. Compare that to a completely accidental, if stupid, incident with meths? Doesn't really make much sense to me.
Also it seems to end up that no matter how stupid the employees are, it's always the employer's fault. I'm pretty sure I could throw myself off a roof at work and my employer would be had up for 'not providing adequate training' or similar. Basically means you've got to have a lot of insurance to cover yourself against idiots  |
||
|
4th Feb 2013 5:11pm |
|
| farmer giles Member Since: 09 Feb 2011 Location: worcestershire Posts: 1299
|
employer insurance doesn't cover hse prosecutions, not the ones i've seen; they will only cover the injured party. We are facing a £150 fine for not having a fire extinguisher on a building site where we are just retiling a roof and carrying out minor timber repairs (no hot works)! |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 12:15pm |
|
| RFT Member Since: 13 Nov 2010 Location: Cheshire Posts: 678 
|
The council should be prosecuted their officer is a full time emplyee, the teachers are full time emplyees, this isn't a volenteer run camp, teachers are well paid, education departments are well staffed, they should get the basics of H&S correct.
If this was your daughter......? This will not stop sensible risky activities .... I teach 11year olds cycling on the roads for local school... Potential for a fatality but we manage the risk because we do it correctly and I'm not paid at all. Our scout group do full camps, yes we get a few injuries, but risks are managed, the basic safety practices are not allowed to be compromised... Our leaders are skilled, competent and responsible. Lets keep on prosecuting public bodies who fail... Mid Staffs Hospital for example. Richard 130 Puma HCPU with an Artica 240LR Demountable Camper |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 1:18pm |
|
| farmer giles Member Since: 09 Feb 2011 Location: worcestershire Posts: 1299
|
volunteer groups get prosecuted as well as paid organisations, Richard, and rightly so if there is gross negligence or a deliberate intention to save cost by avoiding simple safety measures.
you say that you get a few injuries in Scout camps but does that mean that you have failed your duty in educating, protecting and supervising minors in your charge. i assume the pupil had either been instructed how to recharge the stove or had seen someone do it for her to follow this course of action and she has failed to follow the steps correctly? |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 2:45pm |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1579 
|
It's a joke the young people will miss out on so much if some gonk from the Hse takes action.
What good has come out of this! Why should that guy who was taking those kids out have to go through all of this pain and stress. Because some kid didn't know that meths is dangerous. Unless the child had learning difficulties then the council and the d of e are not at fault. You don't need to told everything, a little common sense. I feel so bad for all parties except the Hse officer who should be sacked with no pension. That's my rant on the subject makes me so angry, as I did d of e and chief scout and loved every minute of it. |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 4:41pm |
|
| Glynparry25 Member Since: 16 Feb 2009 Location: Miserable Midlands Posts: 3015  
|
Reminds me of a quote I saw on Book Face just this last wekend:
It just that people who make mistakes, a lot of the time through lack of common sense (and especially if they are younger) aren't held responsible for their actions- it gets moved upto the next person which in this case is the guy running it. Glyn   |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 6:45pm |
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20294
|
I agree. IMHO there is only one place to blame for that though and one place only. The Schools. Their parents would be far more competent at learning them the essentials of day to day life than any School is and to cap it off they know there son / daughter. It's all very well having qualifications coming out of your ears but with people in the real world and not having practical skills I cannot see how it will tick. There needs to be a 50 / 50 mix but currently I see year on year that difference moving to the educated non manual workers and not manual skills. âï¸âï¸God Bless the USA 🇬🇧🇺🇸 âï¸âï¸ |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 7:19pm |
|
| landy andy Member Since: 15 Feb 2009 Location: Ware, Herts Posts: 5663 
|
Why were kids left unattended, with flames and meths?
Not well supervised. So not run correctly. I am all for non H&S but kids+meths+flames, non brainier, supervise. As above, you imagine it was your child that was injured, by another child's actions, due to the scenario. |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 8:03pm |
|
| leeds Member Since: 28 Dec 2009 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 8580
|
Reading the HSE report
So main leader has done some training presumably.
We use petrol stoves and I would imagine petrol is more flammable then meths. When travelling our main petrol container is 5 or 10 litre METAL fuel container. However we have 0.5 and 1 litre aluminium bottles which we use for topping up the stove as they are more manageable then the 5 or 10 litre containers. The minimum age for using a petrol pump is 16 so why was (now I am making an assumption) 15 year old girls allowed unsupervised access to 5 litre containers of meths? I am no fan of H & S in general terms, however in this case I think H & S were right. Yes children should be exposed to adventure and to danger but sensible precautions should be taken. Brendan |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 8:19pm |
|
| Glynparry25 Member Since: 16 Feb 2009 Location: Miserable Midlands Posts: 3015
|
When we are talking 'Kids' then yes full supervision is needed. But I wouldn't consider 15+ year old completly in the 'kids' bracket- they are entering into adulthood- many will be leaving school and entering full time work within a year.
I look back to when I was 15- I was hunting, driving farm machinery/ vehicles, camping, cooking, shooting amongst many other things, and some of this was under no or minimal supervision. I am now starting to think I had a crazy risky childhood....... and wondering how I have survived so far. Or is it because from a young age I was taught common sense by my parents-so I knew how to spot dangers and not do things that I don't know what the outcome would be? If I was that kid that got injured my parents would probably be speaking mainly to the parents of the other kid (the one that caused it) and would have probably had a go at me for not stopping the other kid doing something stupid. *EDIT* I was just thinking back to when I did my DofE and remembered thet it is all about doing it yourself. So just had a quick look at the website and it says this:
The highlighted part states that you are not accompanied- so if the supervisor is needed there to ensure you are doing things safely.... you have failed. I remember doing my Bronze, Silver and Gold award and on the expeditions the supervisors saw us at a few checkpoints during the day to make sure we were ok and then had a quick check once we had settled into the camp site. Glyn Last edited by Glynparry25 on 5th Feb 2013 8:51pm. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 8:20pm |
|
| RobKeay Member Since: 19 Jul 2009 Location: Stafford Posts: 1579
|
I would say they were using trangier cookers which are brilliant. I've always used them I guess from about 14. At 15 my parents let me go camping on our own. All they did was pop there head round the door a tea time. We had trangiers and drank milk straight out of the tank at the farm.
We are getting to the stage were young people will only be allowed Xbox until 21. This is the reason why I left the scouts too many gonks going on about insurance and safety. It's just utter rubbish. At 15-16 they are young adults and don't need to wrapped in cotton wool. Just glad I wasn't brought up unable to use a trangier, snare a rabbit or climb. Wonder how many kids get hurt on the D of E every year and how many gain real life skills. |
||
|
5th Feb 2013 8:50pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
