What type of "caring" and "we're in this together" Government removes H&S inspections UNLESS an accident occurs as most companies are deemed not to be "high-risk".
H&S inspections are carried out to prevent accidents.

I was a H&S rep for over 20 years and active within the borough and my place of work. Most accidents come from torn carpets type scenarios not scaffold collapses. They cause time-off and sometimes quite serious injuries.

I'm not sure I know what's worse: the government attitude (although even they have admitted that there is nothing wrong with H&S legislation – only how [isome[/i people interpret it) – or the behaviour, over years, of substantial elements of the media that have promoted a myth that 'elf 'n' safety' is killing us (so to speak), with many of the public genuinely believing it.

It stands to reason that avoiding accidents happening in the first place is going to save time and money.

Agree with this.

I often have to remind myself that the current Prime Minister isn't called Paul Dacre.

Spot on.

Although I strongly suspect that Dacre is far, far cleverer.

Cameron is just a PR puppet, I think, with a number of people pulling the strings.

Health & Safety told me about 2 years ago they are not interested in preventing accidents (queries safety of scaffolding) they spend all their time dealing with the aftermath of accidents! Can you believe that attitude? I then emailed them some photos so they had documentary evidence of the position and that encouraged them to come round. Like most public sector bodies they're too idle to scratch fire off their s. The only way to get a response is to write and put the ball into their court by pointing out the potential ramifications of them failing to act.

Dally, you are aware of the risk-assessment model. They may have been told of such in your examples.

Also Health and Safety teams have to be responsive: unless an actual law has been breached (e.g. guards on a cutter, temperature in a foundry) they can only act as advisory: advice that if ignored will reflect badly on the guilty in court.

IMO H&S is not the problem. Lawyers promising fabulous pay-outs are.

Doubtless H&S told Dally they 'weren't interested', because they were desperately hoping he'd have an accident that would put us all out of our misery.

I couldn't agree more.

One of the low risk categories being removed is pubs. Does hygiene come under health and safety or is that a different department? Apart from the fact pub kitchens will become more dangerous for the employees I can't say the idea of kitchens being outside the scope of H&S fills me with confidence as to them keeping up hygene standards either.

I heard aobut this on BBC R2 news on the way home. They had a bloke form the Institute of Directors on, that well known right wing organisation and the business reporter was just basically feeding him lines so he could say what a jolly good idea this was. BBC propaganda machine in full force.

His main argument was twofold. First of all even without H&S legislation that doesn't mean these workplaces will become dangerous places; people are inherently careful. Secondly and echoing what you say above he painted H&S as an onerous regime with inconsistent inspectors who often over-inspected making several trips giving different results each time.

It seem blindingly obvious to me that his first point will be debunked within a matter of months if not sooner after this is scrapped and if the problem is his second point then fix [ithat[/i problem without scrapping the H&S inspections.

It also seems obvious that if you comply with H&S guidelines then an inspection should be a rubber stamp job not something that always leads to increased costs. If there some little Hilter H&S inspectors out there who make this not the case then sort [ithem[/i out don't scrap the H&S guidlines.

He also cited an example where an inspector found a vacuum cleaner just lying around so told the business to build a cupboard for it. He cited this as the kind of OTT recommendations H&S indulge in. Sorry but if someone had fallen over the thing and broken a bone oir worse that business would have bee sued.

At the end of the day its jut another bit of idiotic legislation like removing the planning guidlines that isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to the economy. Yet another excuse of so-called economic benefits being used to justify ideologically based legislation.

aaaaaaaaah a helf and safety fred. Any chance of a common sense thread. Ever wondered why living in this country is so expensive? Because everyone has to do a risk fuggin assessment.

I go to Barbados reguraly (sic). 1 year, the local workmen had dug a hole outside the hotel. I summarise for a reason. Workmen had finished for the day, and had not bothered putting cones around the hole. Naturally, I was aghast, so I stormed into the reception to complain ( in the stricktest possible way about the possible outcome of an unguarded manhole). Only to be told, " if you cannot see where you are going, that's your own fault." I almost had the thought of writing to my MP about such lacksity, but I thought sod it. So I got a few beers, sat down for the next hour and watched 3 people trip-over the man-hole. Each trip was funnier than the last, because Barbados has very few liability laws, basically how Britain used to be, and the dozy sods who did'nt look where they were going, could'nt put a claim in.

health and safety= the death of the country and common sense.

Similar in Turkey. For a short while I was concerned about things on a rough jeep excursion. Then I thought "what has our country done to me?" Then I embraced the freedom and had a great time - including chucking each other in concrete culverts!

So Turkey and the West Indies are the heights of enlightenment.

Yeah.

Right.