Cameron on 'Elf n safety' culture.

[Kozy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8388025.stm

This is sounds too good to be true, and therefore must a total lie.

Either way, he's got my vote...

[Digga]

Caught some of this on R4 on the drive home and it sounded good - needed saying IMHO - and I'll be interested to see where it leads.

David Cameron said:

the biggest cause of the UK's health and safety culture was the "perception" that behind every accident there is someone who is personally culpable, someone who must pay.

We followed the USA into this - the boiling hot coffee shocker springs to mind - and yet it was only ever going to end badly.

Edited by Digga on Wednesday 2nd December 14:59

[rs1952]

Kozy said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8388025.stm

This is sounds too good to be true, and therefore must a total lie.

Either way, he's got my vote...

The trouble is, to make this effective he'll need legislation to outlaw "ambulance chasers"

You can't have a "compensation culture" and also a common sense approach to Health & Safety.

PS - Not a Health & Safety supporter, just a realist

[F i F]

If you'd heard the interview with the retired headteacher on the goggles and conkers issue you'd realise what Cameron is, Bliar with a blue tie.

Sorry I will not vote while that clown is in charge, and yes I do realise that means Labour might not get the bum's rush in 2010.

It's a major problem, Labour, Tories, Lib Dims all now unelectable.

[anonymous-user]

Wasn't it the last Tory government that passed the legislation allowing US style "no win no fee" ambulance chasing to happen thus opening the floodgates?

[nonegreen]

F i F said:

If you'd heard the interview with the retired headteacher on the goggles and conkers issue you'd realise what Cameron is, Bliar with a blue tie.

Sorry I will not vote while that clown is in charge, and yes I do realise that means Labour might not get the bum's rush in 2010.

It's a major problem, Labour, Tories, Lib Dims all now unelectable.

I agree, however the H&S at work act 1974 is the problem. Unlike its predecessor which prescribed the safe working processes under law, HASAW ia an enabling act, it enables idiots, namely the HSE to make and remake prescriptive ACOPs. The obvious problem then occurs. These people depend on continuous improvement to provide them with continuous employment. The basis for HASAW comes from Brussells. The only sensible legislation left in europe on Safety is the Swiss system where safety is effectively monitored by insurance companies as a covering bond is mandatory. None of this has anything to do with ambulance chasers, they have them in America and it has gone a very long way to stop criminal negligence.

[rhinochopig]

nonegreen said:

F i F said:

If you'd heard the interview with the retired headteacher on the goggles and conkers issue you'd realise what Cameron is, Bliar with a blue tie.

Sorry I will not vote while that clown is in charge, and yes I do realise that means Labour might not get the bum's rush in 2010.

It's a major problem, Labour, Tories, Lib Dims all now unelectable.

I agree, however the H&S at work act 1974 is the problem. Unlike its predecessor which prescribed the safe working processes under law, HASAW ia an enabling act, it enables idiots, namely the HSE to make and remake prescriptive ACOPs. The obvious problem then occurs. These people depend on continuous improvement to provide them with continuous employment. The basis for HASAW comes from Brussells. The only sensible legislation left in europe on Safety is the Swiss system where safety is effectively monitored by insurance companies as a covering bond is mandatory. None of this has anything to do with ambulance chasers, they have them in America and it has gone a very long way to stop criminal negligence.

I take a slightly different view. It's very little to do with the HASAW act or the HSE, it's the fear of litigation that drives groups, charities and organisations to ridiculous lengths. Prescriptive regulation doesn't work that well IME. Contrast the UK vs US nuclear industries. The US has a poorer safety record and spends more money having a prescriptive system than the UK does with its goal based approach.

[rypt]

unrepentant said:

Wasn't it the last Tory government that passed the legislation allowing US style "no win no fee" ambulance chasing to happen thus opening the floodgates?

No win no fee is not the issue, the issue surely are the judges/magistrates/juries who seem to be happy to hold someone else accountable for what the original person CHOSE to do.

[Halb]

If we didn't have health and safety then the police would have been able to remove gnomes from the bottom of a pit...watch QI:P

[B Oeuf]

Kozy said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8388025.stm

This is sounds too good to be true, and therefore must a total lie.

Either way, he's got my vote...

and get 'green' taxed to buggery and back.....he can go whistle

[The Black Flash]

rhinochopig said:

I take a slightly different view. It's very little to do with the HASAW act or the HSE, it's the fear of litigation that drives groups, charities and organisations to ridiculous lengths.

Agreed. Most of it is driven by insurance companies I believe. It's cheaper for them to exclude any possible danger of litigation than to fight it, even when they would almost certainly win.

See gritting car parks in the winter for example. Obviously the right thing to do. But there is a tiny chance that someone might fall over and attempt to sue you for not gritting properly. There is then a tiny chance that they would win, rather than getting thrown out of court.
So rather than do the right thing, and take the tiny risk that they might have to stand by it, they just say "no gritting".

Which is clearly dumb, by anyone's standards.

[F i F]

The Black Flash said:

Agreed. Most of it is driven by insurance companies I believe. It's cheaper for them to exclude any possible danger of litigation than to fight it, even when they would almost certainly win.

Agree again. It's also cheaper for insurance companies to agree claims and offer a sum which is more or less wholly taken up by the insurance excess.