Latest posts:
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
Fatal accidents always engender strong feelings & emotions and can bring about much pressure for a prosecution.
It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether it has enough evidence to offer a realistic prospect of a conviction and if so whether the public interest requires a prosecution.
As prosecuters one must question the wisdom of the CPS in bringing just "a Health and Safety Case". Far more merit if the prosecution was commenced by the HSE who have a greater track record in successful health and safety prosecutions than the CPS.Interestingly, the HSE are not involved here.
After several spectacular high profile cases where the CPS got it completely wrong-the P&O case( Herald of Free Enterprise), the Southall, Ladbrook Grove and Hatfield train disasters to name a few- it now seems that they (CPS)are still under political pressure to take a scalp for corporate manslaughter.
Section 40 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act does not in my view provide a realistic basis upon which to mount a successful prosecution. The section does not provide for a charge of corporate killing and it remains to be seen what the agenda is here.
If the officers concerned in the shooting were acting reasonably in the circumstances what benefit is to be gained by prosecuting an organisation that has no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked. Unless an individual police officer or a controlling mind is convicted of unlawful killing there is absolutely nothing to be gained by attempting a prosecution against the Metropolitan Police under S 40 the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
I concur with the sentiments of Shaun Deely above. We ought to be supporting our police officers and forces instead of persecuting them under health and safety legislation when they are operating on the frontiers of terrorism. What next - application of the Geneva Convention?
Finally - remember, it is tax payer's money that will fund this prosecution that is likely to result in another spectacular own goal scored by the CPS.
An abuse of process?
John Mc Guinness MA CMIOSH MIIRSM MaPS
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
Report this matter to the Local Authority or HSE Inspector
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration is responsible for health and safety matters at Federal level in the USA. A good starting point would be to purchase CD version of 'OSHA 1910 Regulations Guide'(there are over 1910 sets of H&S Regulations in the US. This can be obtained from: All About OSHA, 16514 West Sandia Park Drive, Surprise, Arizona, Az 85374- 6293. USA. Tel. 001 623 556 5343. email: info @allaboutosha.com. It is costly (about £150 in UK currency) but of immense value. We have found this to be extremely good for day to day and reference use.
The OSHA website would be another consideration but not exactly easy to navigate. Hope this helps.
John Mc Guinness MA CMIOSH MIIRSM MaPS
Shires Safety Consultants.
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
This is an interesting one- if fathers can be allowed time off to develop a relationship, and to master the "complications" sic of caring for the children full time why do the Divorce Courts deny them this privelege when there is a divorce?.
Sorry to be cynical - but perhaps this maternity/paternity business award has gone much too far.
John
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
Simon Hodge appears to be somewhat off target with reference to certain regulations. The Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases Gases Regulations were repealed by DSEAR 2002.
Likewise the The Pressure Vessels (Verification) Regulations 1988 were repealed by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 /568) -which came into full force on 19th May 2004. The cost of this document is £9.00 and can be obtained from The Stationery Office Tel 0870 6005522
Storing appears to be key word in the original question - DSEAR would be a good starting point. There is no point in seeking compliance by researching repealed regulations.
John Mc Guinness MA MIOSH. RSP MIIRSM
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
Presumably,the key word here is storing. You should at first instance check out the criteria in the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. (SI 2002 No 2776). These Regs. are supported by 5 ACOPS which are very expensive to purchase.
DSEAR repealed the "Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972"; the previous applicable Regulations. Other Regulations will undoubtedly apply-depending on your undertaking
Hope this helps.
John Mc Guinness MA MIOSH RSP MIIRSM MaPS
Shires Safety Consultants.
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
Photo-copiers and printers are a well known source of potential medical and health issues. The micro-fine overflow ink spray from inkjets is sometimes associated(but not clinically proven) with asthma and other breathing difficulties. Laser printers and copiers use very fine powdered Toner. Lift the lid of the printer and look out for evidence of over-spray (usually a high percentage of green - in colour printers). In lasers look for evidence of overspill or excessive fume emissions. Also, keep the printer (and copier)switched off when not in use.
A suitable and sufficient risk assessment carried out by a competent person should indicate whatfurther action (if any) is required.
Finally,such equipment is captured within the framework of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998,particulary Reg.4.
Hope this helps.
John Mc Guinness
MA.MIOSH.RSP.MIIRSM.MaPS
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
The news that charges of "Corporate Manslaughter against the Balfour Beattie and Network Rail five have been dismissed comes as little surprise. Indeed it is mystifing why the charges were prosecuted since there was apparently no compelling evidence to establish that the individuals charged were the "controlling minds" of the companies in question. Since no one within the corporate structure of BB and RT who did the acts or omissions could be found,there could be no liability attributed to the two companies. Clearly the trial judge was bound by the well documented earlier authorities.
Despite the one million pages of documentary evidence gathered from more than 1,500 witnesses and 54 persons interviewed under caution,the 223 page document setting out the prosecution case contained no cogent or credibile explanation of how those charged could be guilty of "Corporate Manslaughter". (Figures from CPS Press Office No. 120/03 9th July 2003).
The trial therefore is yet another example of a spectacular and costly failure.
Are we returning to the dictum of Baron Thurlow who said "a corporation has no soul to damn and no body to kick - they therefore do as the like".
The dubious "Corporate Manslaughter" Bill will need to be substantially ammended if it is to capture those corporate barons responsible for injury or death and then hide behind the veil of incorporation.
Perhaps a more realistic option would be to adequately finance the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that more Inspectors are available and retained so that a more pragmatic inspection and enforcement regime can be operated. If prosections are successful under s.37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 then the court has at its disposal a wide range of criminal sanctions against those that are responsible for death or injury at work. The culpability of the company will follow.
Only then will justice be seen to be done.
John Mc Guinness MA.MIOSH.RSP.MIIRSM.MaPS.
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
A large number of these MPs are themselves corporate barons or directors of companies in another life.
Can we really expect these to legislate against fellow directors? Of course not. A certain rail maintenance company and its director springs to mind!!!! . I agree wholeheartedly with Paul Jarvis in so far as these "crminaloids" should be behind bars if they endanger or kill their workers by negligent acts or omissions. But there will be no room in the chillers - the cells are already reserved for fox killers.
John Mc Guinness MA.MIOSH.RSP.MIIRSM MaPS.
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
It is now almost 8 years since the Southall Train crash following which Labour first promised to legislate for the new offence of Corporate Killing. Yet again we learn that there is insufficient time to allow for such legislation or debate. When one considers that immense time has been allowed to debate the criminality of those that kill foxes and blue bells but no time allowed to debate the criminality of those directors and their companies who kill their employees or members of the public it really doess suggest that New Labour is putty in the hands of the commercial and institutional barons.
The HSE appears to have adopted the corporate line: that the best way of dealing with it is to rely on voluntary compliance. Evidence shows that this is not working and killing at work is on the increase.
Consider the NHS - it is one of the nation's largest employers and is also the country's largest "killer". A National Audit Office paper indicated some 5000 persons die each year as a result of nosocomial infection. If Trust Senior Executives were to be "Criminalised" and held responsible for these deaths it would surely be a spectacular "own goal"indeed.
Perhaps I am a cynic but if this is one of the reasons it goes a long way to proving my theory.
John Mc Guinness MA. MIOSH, MIIRSM MaPS
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
A client has been notified by a disability pressure group that their toilet facilities which are 4 years old do not comply with the DDA. There is a "disabled persons toilet" the opening of which is 0.9 metres . The pressure group say that this must be at least 1.0 metre. Our client has no disabled persons in his employ. Is it necessary to carry our major remedial works to increase the opening to 1 metre and if so where is the authority for the proposition.
Thanks for all advice in the matter
John Mc Guinness MA. MIOSh. MIIRSM. MaPS
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
This seems to be yet another over zealous and reactive measure by a health and safety officer. Of course we do not know how long these workers were without their hard hats and whether they were actually "working" in a danger zone. It is of course quite correct to enforce health and safety policies and procedures - but these must be tempered with a degree of reasonableness. Perhaps it might have been more productive to all concerned if the Health and Safety officer acted reasonably and fully understod the reasons why these men removed their hard hats and jackets and in what circumstances.
He might have been surprised by their reply. !!!
With the rise in summer temperatures perhaps it might also be prudent for employers to be more realistic in the requirements of their employees to work in jackets and hard hats not so desined for extreme temperatures. Designers must also play their part.
Hopefully the tribunal will focus on "what is reasonable in all the circumstances"
John Mc Guinness MA, MIOSH, MIIRSM, MAPS
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
Once more the employer's easy route to dismissal with impunity for workers of under 12 months employment is much in evidence. It surely is A HARD LINER that can dismiss a person who has been been advised by medical practitioners to take time off following a bereavement. Of course we do not know the length of time taken off and what other avenues were explored (if any) but the reality is that it went to tribunal. I agree with previous comments and perhaps it might not be a bad move away from an employer such as the one in question.
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
To assist police and trading standards officers perhaps it would be a good idea to contact these "scamsters" asking a few pertinent questions ie their address for payment, an invitation to visit etc etc.
John Mc Guinness MA MIOSH MIIRSM MAPS
Shires Safety Consultants
Rate this!
John Mc Guinness
Member - 17 posts
Having now noted the existance of the Architects Registration Board and its ease of use website to check on members endorsed thereon perhaps it would be a good idea if the same principle could be adopted for persons masquerading as Health and Safety Consultants. There is a large number of individuals "practicing" without any formal qualifications or without adequate PII. Of course they will undercut the qualified and experienced practitioner. I will support any initiative to weed out such individuals.
John Mc Guinness MA MIOSH MIIRSM MAPS
0 (0)
