Subject: Re: Scalpel in first aid kit on person/in car = offensive weapon?
From: Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:10:03 +0000, philmc...@gmail.com
> Has anyone had a look at template risk assessments and COSHH from
> the HSE?
> They imply that there is always room for risk reduction
> improvements (by contrasting what you are doing now and what can be
> done in the future), so anyone having to fill out those dreadful
> documents are stuck in a self-tightening ratchet of HSE madness.
You mean there's nothing like the statement on
which says "identify what, IF
ANY, further controls are required." (my emphasis). Do you think it
would be improved if it said explicitly "You do not need to include
insignificant risks", like it, errr, does say?
I guess it would help if some of the example templates had some rows
filled in saying "No further action", like
maybe under 'Further action' had "None", like
> Nowhere in the document is a sanity check of the H&S measures vs.
> common sense, business interest or "acceptable risk".
Perhaps they need a page titled "Principles of sensible risk
management". They could put on it statements like "Sensible risk
management is not about creating a totally risk free society". Maybe
they could put it at http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/principlespoints.htm
But I guess if they did all that people wouldn't be able to say things
> If the HSE had their way we would all be working in padded offices
> and commuting en masse in padded buses. The irony is that lots of
> people will then be dying of obesity.
I suggest you read what HSE actually says, rather than believing what
the Daily Mail says HSE says.
Moderators accept or reject articles based solely on the criteria posted
in the Frequently Asked Questions. Article content is the responsibility
of the submitter. Submit articles to ahbo...@mit.edu
. To write to the
moderators, send mail to ahbo...@mit.edu