h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning all,

With the plethora of utterly stupid regulations issued by Council H&S personnel in the past year, from conker bans, too chopping down Horse Chestnut trees and /or removing hanging flower baskets, hasn't this gone way beyond intelligent and worthwhile, let alone cost effective service?

I strongly recommend that H&S Depts within councils are reduced in the New Year to One officer only, who has no 'office'. no 'staff', and works at home from his laptop.

We should also reinstate the Insurance caveats of Force Majeure and Act of God ( sorry Edward ), and get away from the present idea that an 'accident' is always someones fault , to which financial penalty must ensue. {not talking here about motoring - though we ALL know about false 'whiplash' claims)

Whilst on this rant I would also charge the No Pay No Fee solicitors an exhorbitant charge for their business rates - to provide a fund out of which anyone who has flower basket fall on their head , can claim.



Novo

Novo, maybe a bit of research is in order *before* ranting
http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12556-f0.cfm

Health and safety *can* be used as an excuse for not doing something that someone would rather not do, but when that happens, maybe it's better to challenge the people misinterpreting it for their own ends than criticise the regulations themselves.

Welll rather predictably as a Helath and Safety Rep I disagree entirely.

I think it is entirely proper that organisations or business think very carefully about whether or not the tihngs they do are likely to hurt anyone. It is especially importnant that public bodies do this.

I understand that if the majority of your world view comes form reading papers like the Mail and the Express it might seem that there is some sort of nasty liberal/PC/Health and Safety gone mad conspiracy in this country but that is simply not the case.

If anyone is injured or killed due tio the negligence and/or greed of a company or organisation then I think it is entirely proper that they be able to claim ocmpensation. And so would you if it happened to you Novo.

The simple truth is even in 21st centuary Britain you are 50% less likely to have a serious or fatal accident if you work in an industry which has a recognised Trade Union with a Health and Safety rep. I would like to live in a ocuntry where nobody died through greed or negligence but unfortunately we are light years away from that, until then we need Health and Safety in a BIG BIG way.

FB

Morning FB

As someone who spent an working life in industry, actually MAKING things I am well aware of the value of H&S in the workplace....and since I now work for an Employment Law and Health & Safety Specialist I am still pretty well clued up.

My post had a little tongue in cheek symbol, or did you miss it?

However, can you explain the validity of taking down hanging baskets( Bury ST Edmunds I believe ) whilst leaving cracked or raised paveing stones?

I entirely accept the value of sensible H&S but I do not believe that what is described as unfortunate press is invented.

Novo

According to the link, the baskets were taken down because of fears that the lamp posts were unstable. Given that hanging baskets are actually quite heavy, that seems reasonable.

As for whether the 'unfortunate' press is invented - it is. Sections of the British media actively seek out "why-oh-why world gone made" stories, and if they can't find them, they distort, misreport, or invent. Because it suits their agenda.

Sorry Novo, I did miss your .

I cannot epxlain the decision not having seen the relevant inspection/risk assessment. However I can well understand how this decisison might be taken.

If my business had hanging baskets over a walkway, and upon inspection I thought there was a likelehood that they may fall and injure someone I would tell my employer to make them more secure or take them down. If this is what happened then good on the H&S rep IMHO.

Buckle up Novo its about to get alittle bumpy.

Please learn the difference between making a point, making a joke and being repeatedly boring.

You almost always fail to do either of the fist two which is a shame as when both are done simutaneously they are amazingly effective in sticking in peoples minds...so unfortunately is the last one too.

Im bored with your clueless misinterpretations of headlines. You misinterpret headlines in papers as the truth when they so rarely are and continually misinterpret a companies or other organisations choice to stop doing something as a meddling nanny state "ban".

You seem to want to impose such onerous restrictions opn lwyers that if they accept any no-win-no-fee cases they will effectively have to pay such a high premium that they will lose out. Not the negligent party of their insurers. This would obviously suit those responsible for the rail accidents caused by lax and downright deliberately poor levels of maintenance, why you are siding wiht the share-holders and managers of such companies is frankly beyond me

Maybe you really do think that Hatfield was an act of God and dont want him taken to court

"utterly stupid regulations issued by Council H&S personnel in the past year, [included] conker bans"
Once again you are neither funny nor accurate. One school banned conkers *at school* the schoo I was last working at gave out FREE shoe laces at break and lunch times to play conkers, I was stood with a bradawl making holes in conkers for the kids! Its individual Headteachers who have as their duty to send children home in one peice and not with half a conker wedged in their eye who make those sorts of calls.

This was an interesting conversation the first time you brought it up now it is just a boring "it was better in my day ramble" and does not even have the level of vigour to consitute a rant.

one love

'one love' has a certain irony to it after that.

One thing that Novo is, almost unfailingly, is polite. So it seems that he has a lesson for you too.

Well said. That came across as unnecessarily harsh.

I'd like to third that.

Novo starts a lot of Forum discussions, brings up a topic, states his view, and invites comment. Without wishing to turn this thread into the Novo fanclub, there's few people more open minded and ready to take on board new evidence and arguments.

As I said in another thread, if someone is wrong about something, demonstrate with the utmost clarity and civility that they're wrong. Hopefully they'll rethink, and if they don't, they show themselves up as irrational or worse. If that makes me a 'wooly liberal' in some people's eyes then so be it, though I'm happier with the liberal bit than the wooly bit!

Good morning Blicky,

Up to YOUR old tricks too I see

1 Some points are best made in a joke

2 Sorry if I repeatedly bore you - just don't read anything that I post.

3 I post from 'headlines' to stimulate discussion. I cannot be responsible for the accuracy of BBC News reports , The Telegraph, The Times, or even The Daily Hate.

4 I make no link between the No Win no Fee lawyers and Hatfield or any other disaster avoidable by proper maintenance, If it were possible to sue the directors for corporate manslaughter then I would support it. I specifically excluded motor accidents (except artificial whiplash). However , it can be no coincidence that the growth of this sort of legal practice mirrors the USA and the assumption that ANY accident must have been avoidable and thus someone is to blame - and is therefore ripe for suing.

Bear in mind that I see this sort of thing in my work.

5 Happy to hear you helped lace conkers for shool kids. An action and spirit which I applaud. Extend it, even to those you dislike? .

Regards

Novo

Too Blicky

PS

Just as an aside, a lot of people have had enjoyment with "The Veil & The Cross thread", which I started on a news report basis, and subsequently had to withdraw because my posts were based on misinformation. However misguided the start - much debate came from it.

Regards
Novo

Stimulate debate, what a great idea. Why then do you choose to start essentially the same debate over and over again. Here is some evidence of why I say this. Political correctness(?) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=1993196 Respect...again http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=1925157 Random Violence (posts 1, 8, 9, 40 and 41) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=1712616 Foul Language http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=1201245 Is Nostalgia a bad thing? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=1201245 Im not just being rude for the sake of it. I am genuinely annoyed, I know I might come across as being rude and that is something Im prepared for and sound a little precious when I say this, but the forum was meant to be a place for serious debate. It has always been my approach to speak as I find and maybe that has come across in some of our conversations, this I know is not always the case. Novo Ive tolerated your Werther's Originals fulled blathering for a long time but I refuse to be as tolerable when you openly admits that his pointless regurgitations of the same old baseless arguments are some kind of joke. one love

Evening Blicky

You really don't have to look at any of my threads you know.
You can unsub from what angers you.
I suggest that is what you do,

Otherwise you are attempting to muzzle my right to free speech, simply because I represent to you a generation that you haven't reached yet.

You will also grow up one day, you will have memories for how things were in 2006, you will lament the passing of standards that you now feel are right, you will feel annoyed and despairing about the behaviour, social mores etc of those who are your age now, when you reach 66.

Meanwhile, please have the good manners to reply to the points I raise in my answers to your posts. Don't 'lecture' me because you have decided that I am an 'unpleasant' person. With respect Blicky you don't have that right.

Finally, if you don't like the books keep out of the library, Don't try to tell others what they should think , or write.

Novo


PS
Thanks to the other posters who wrote on my behalf today.

At the risk of derailing the thread completely by bringing it back on topic (), hows about this then..

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1950276,00.html

Simon Jenkins says that the HSE is suing someone for letting a tree fall over in high winds. The tree hit another tree, which in turn fell onto an 8-year old boy. The HSE is suing for criminal negligence. This seems way OTT to me (that's over - the - top, Novo).

This blog suggests that he's not quite on the mark, though

http://naturenet.net/blogs/index.php/2006/11/19/stormtroopers


"A crime, as Jenkins implies but neatly skirts around explaining, could be neglect of the duty of care that a landowner and employer has to take reasonable steps to ensure that their trees do not harm people. But that doesn't really trip off the tongue, does it? "


I'm surprised the meeja haven't been all over this, to be honest. It's the sort of stuff the M**l loves, etc. BUT, not knowing the facts of the case, I'm not sure what to make of it.

OK I'll answer all your points.

From the first post:

"With the plethora of utterly stupid regulations issued by Council H&S personnel in the past year, from conker bans,"

What conker bans issued by council H&S personnel



"too chopping down Horse Chestnut trees and /or removing hanging flower baskets, hasn't this gone way beyond intelligent and worthwhile, let alone cost effective service?

Dont know because as usual you dont make it clear what examples from which councils you are talking about, but at a guess Id say that it is cost effective to protect people from injury because good health to quote the old saying is beyond price.



"I strongly recommend that H&S Depts within councils are reduced in the New Year to One officer only, who has no 'office'. no 'staff', and works at home from his laptop."

What would be the point of that? Are you not aware that H&S is the responsibility of EVEVRY employee. It would change very little apart from making more demands on less specifically trained people.




"We should also reinstate the Insurance caveats of Force Majeure and Act of God

We dont have to if either of these is an actual reason for an accident no lawyer would gamble of getting a finacially favourable outcome from p[ursuing such a case on a no win no fee basis. However if it is not the case and under the exisiting laws of this land someone is responsible I think we should democratize litigation and make it available to even poor people. Dont you?



The "points" from post 11:

"Up to YOUR old tricks too I see"

Yes, give yourself a point for geting something right.




"1 Some points are best made in a joke

Id still like to know if you *have any points to make other than "it was much better in the old days" and where are the jokes





"3 I post from 'headlines' to stimulate discussion. I cannot be responsible for the accuracy of BBC News reports , The Telegraph, The Times, or even The Daily Hate.

I havent asked for you to make their reporting accurate, but if you report them to us why not do us the dignity of not expecting us to accept them as valid starting points for discussion on what is meant to be a serious thread. Unless of course you are starting a conversation about deliberately misleading distortions by the press and sloppily written condensed web paged on the BBC.



"4 I make no link between the No Win no Fee lawyers and Hatfield or any other disaster avoidable by proper maintenance, If it were possible to sue the directors for corporate manslaughter then I would support it

I know you didnt make that connection *I* did and when their is no other legal recourse suing people who put profity before the life and limb of others is a vital avenue to have open, but if you cant afford it why make finicial penalties of a kind that make it almost impossible as you have suggested in post 1 of this thread.




"5 Happy to hear you helped lace conkers for shool kids. An action and spirit which I applaud. Extend it, even to those you dislike? .

Well I am I have been fairly pleasant and fairly rude neither seems to get through to you that you are seeing so many things. I can but try.



From post 14:

"You can unsub from what angers you.

Annoyed and bored doesnt mean angry.




"I suggest that is what you do,
Otherwise you are attempting to muzzle my right to free speech, simply because I represent to you a generation that you haven't reached yet.

Now who's try to get rid of an opposing view? For the record I have NEVER tried to muzzle anyone I have often been accused of it but no-one has proved it. What you see as muzzling is an attempt to disaude you from something there is no force or insitence involved. It is not related to your age it is ALL about the contents of your posts.




"You will also grow up one day,

Ive heard that before...even from people who know the way I ride bikes Myself, Im not so sure....




"you will have memories for how things were in 2006,

Spoken like someone whose never seen me drinking or smoking "festival cigarettes"





"you will lament the passing of standards that you now feel are right, you will feel annoyed and despairing about the behaviour, social mores etc of those who are your age now, when you reach 66.

That is an opion you are projecting onto me based only on the fact that YOU do things that way.




"Meanwhile, please have the good manners to reply to the points I raise in my answers to your posts.

Always a pleasure
never a chore
but when the points
ne'er change
'tis somtimes a bore







"Don't 'lecture' me because you have decided that I am an 'unpleasant' person. With respect Blicky you don't have that right.

Sorry I missed the meeting where it says the pot cant call the kettle any damn thing it likes as long as it is within the current house rules.





"Don't try to tell others what they should think , or write.

Does that sentence constitute you writting to tell me, not to write things that tell others what not to write.

one love

Good morning Blicky,

Thank you, and enjoy your day

Novo

Morning Pedro

The matter of Dunham is sad.

Tragically sad for the family whs lost a little lad. Sad because, as a frequent visitor to that particular park, I have seen the amount of tree felling that has ensued, and which will take years to recover it's aboreal glory.

I cannot tell whether it was necessary to fell as many as they have. That needs an expert opinion. In spite of he tenor of my opening post I entirely accept that the family should be compensated.

It ought not to involve expensive litigation if, like me personally, the NT carries a Personal Liability Insurance for £2,000,000.

I will comment no futher on the wider beef here, because it was a tragedy, and a family's life has been irreparably damaged.

Novo

Blicky, for whatever it's worth, which probably is not much, I'd like to offer a few unsolicited thoughts about the "disagreement," for lack of a better term, between you and Novo during the course of this conversation. I've done my best to give it some dispassionate consideration, inasmuch as I'm not directly involved, at least not yet at any rate.

What finally strikes me as a telling point is the following: what would become of hootoo if each and every researcher began taking it upon him or her self to critique the merits other researchers' posts? Where would it end? And how would it affect the h2g2 community, such as it is?

I've come to think of these h2g2 conversations as being in many ways like conversations among a group of old friends. Taking that position as my starting point, I then apply the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'd guess that each of us has at some time or other made a post or two that falls short of revealing our true "inner genius." Perhaps even you might have made such a post. I know I have. But I also know that I appreciate my fellow researchers exercising a bit of forbearance in publicly calling me to task and ridiculing me for my shortcomings. In appreciation, I try to extend the same courtesy to others. It seems to make for a more harmonious world. Just my

>>"I've come to think of these h2g2 conversations as being in many ways like conversations among a group of old friends."

Hmm. I see your point, but I must admit when there's *another* conversation started on the basis of misinformation by someone who you'd think was perfectly capable of doing a bit of fact-checking, it does get rather dull rather quickly.

If someone started a conversation saying:
"The EU is going to ban the British Sausage!"
and didn't seem particularly interested if someone said that it really appeared that claim was simply false, and still carried on with an anti-EU rant, I'd conclude that they weren't really bothered about honest or meaningful debate, but only in riding their hobby-horse.