Quote ="Mintball"Not now – sorted. '" Cheers. Here's a case that sounds similar: www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-yh-24410.htm

Quote ="Mintball"Not now – sorted. '" Cheers. Here's a case that sounds similar: www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-yh-24410.htm

Quote ="Keith"Cheers. Here's a case that sounds similar: www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-yh-24410.htm'" All this elf and safety madness – it's wot's stopping the country becoming great again!

Quote ="Keith"Cheers. Here's a case that sounds similar: www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-yh-24410.htm'" All this elf and safety madness – it's wot's stopping the country becoming great again!

1. You need to know that employers across the land up on employee safety, every day, all the time. Claims arising are almost an industry and it is mainly these that have served to slowly (but very significantly) increase employee safety (insurance premium driven, and an increasing risk assessment culture). I can assure you that thousands of employers ranging from careless through dolt to downright couldn't-give-a-shyite continue to exist and I think always will.

2. The possibility that an employee may be negligent is precisely one a good employer is well aware of, and takes into account.

But if your gaffer says "Do this, but stand at this side, so if it grabs your arm you can hit the stop button" it's all very well for you to be clever and say he was negligent for following the instruction, but it takes some courage to challenge your employer, all the more so in this economic climate, and personally I can entirely understand why someone worried about a risk may opt to shut up and take the risk of injury instead of speaking up and losing their job.

Oh, and it's "kerching" because:
(a) the machine was obviously dangerous in that configuration
(b) the specific risk of what happened happening was as plain as the nose on your face, and worse still, was seemingly specifically known to the employer
(c) it could easily have been eliminated (stop the machine, do your taping, restart the machine).
Open and shut.

Oh, and it fookin well SHOULD be "kerching", to teach assholes like this employer, who pay scant or no regard to the specific regulations they are legally obliged to apply, and thus are happy that their employees should run the risk of injury, a lesson. (And as Mintball points out, in appropriately serious cases, they can be prosecuted too).

Was there a whooshing sound as you typed that?

i'd ask to see the risk assesment for that machine before anything else?

HSE would ask the same thing, any safety guidelines, training and PPE etc required should be in that report?

April 6th, still 3 days under RIDDOR until then.

I am involved a lot with H&S on construction sites and I asked a manager what was the most important change in H&S legislation to him, he replied 'corporate manslaughter, now the bustards will let us have what we want'

RIDDOR

as stated reportable for a 3 day absense, although the poster above who said 7 days is nearly correct, that changes on April if legislation is passed.

Glad to hear there was no serious injury. I note you do not want to risk a fall-out with the company. It is worthy of note that you have 3 years to bring a personal injury claim, should you wish to at some point in the future.

the risk assesment was done in 2009

All the things what were needed e.g a winch system to lift 50k+ coils off wire on to a turntable were classed ticked as urgent as possibility off hurting backs an still not in place resulting in a complaint end off last year when a lad could't lift a reel he was called a wimp an told to get to the gym or go through the door by the superviser. He was a agencey lad the superviser was given a warning he left. cant rember anything about the lathe but a will have a look tomorow as have access to it

They accepted fault and give me full pay plus redoing the risk assesments also now gloves are not to be used well in opperation

Compensation?? Where there's blame there's a claim!!!!

Yeah, give that disgusting, hideous, fat, piggy-eyed toad Hudgell a ring. He'll sort you out.

The first part is good. But I wonder if the gloves are potentially a good thing provided other safety measures are in place - like amended practices, machine guards, etc? Sounds to me like they've potentially not fixed anything and gone for the cheapest option. I would imagine that gloves could prevent peoples hands getting slashed or worse if used in conjuction with a more safe working environment. I suspect what'll happen at some time is someone gets severe damage to their hand if there is a lack of other appropriate safeguards.

What I am saying is, of course, pure speculation.

Excellent

A step in the right direction. At least it's your speculation as opposed to the b0llox you monotonously quote from on a daily basis.

On the HSE website it says changes 6th April 2012.

They cant install guards dew to it would make it imposible to run the jobs as was discussed in the meeting. There were basicaly happy it was'nt as bad as ot could off been.

Doesn't the dew cause the machines to rust?

You'd think so. There must be bloody loads of (off?) the stuff, the number of times he's mentioned it.

LOL, but not as bad as Andy Good



The compensation culture infuriates me. I was reading something the other week about how the number of road traffic accidents has dropped dramatically, yet the amount of personal injury claims arising out of RTAs has gone through the roof.

We were hassled constantly by some scummy firm in Manchester after a member of the family had a cas accident. I was shocked to find out they were actually solicitors. Mrs D had to resort to threatening to report them to the Law Society for constant harassment - several 'phones calls a day, even though she was not involved in the accident. She was too soft - I would have called the senior partner (or whatever he was called), given him what for and then reported them.

Bump into tb?

only read 1st few posts of thread, but when I worked in sub contract engineering on lathes and as part of my HNC, one of big things was that you should never wear gloves when operating a lathe. better to get a cut than the swarf grip he glove and drag ur hand into the machine

read the rest now and see they are now adopting correct practice of no gloves when operating lathes, guess they have now sought proper advice.

You were reading the usual insurance propaganda and misinformation, now officially backed by Call Me Dave and his mate Djanogly that he put in charge of the job, even though he had a mammoth personal interest in looking after the insurers as his family trusts from which he benefits have huge insurance shareholdings.

There isn't a compensation culture. This is official. The government actually went to the mammoth expense of getting someone to do a detailed Report about it and that was the result.

What there is, is a FEAR of compensation culture. Which makes people and companies do frankly silly things, or be scared of doing or permitting perfectly reasonable things, for illogical FEAR of being sued. There is a huge difference.

Of course, nothing the report wrote (or anyone could write) would ever convince the readership of the Daily Mail that we don't have a rampant compensation culture that will ruin everybody within a week, but there you go.

I also don't understand this business about personal injury claims "going through the roof". I do understand very well that the insurers detect that they have their chums in the Tory government well on-side at the moment, and are filling their mercenary boots, but the (rather obvious) point is that it doesn't matter how many claims are MADE, the question is how many are PAID. If a claim is valid, then pay it, if there are lots that you pay, then stop whinging - you're an insurance company so that's what you're for.

If any given claim is NOT valid - then DON'T PAY IT!! But the rather clever tactic is currently to claim they've paid all these claims but which should never have been paid in the first place. Which is both utterly disingenuous, and as close to bollox as makes no difference.

I would fully accept that many people now do try it on in the case of specifically car crash claims, but that is not a "compensation culture", quite the reverse, it is just a single, specific issue which the insurers have themselves encouraged. How? Loads of ways. Why? Because they were seduced by sheer greed and saw an opportunity to make tens of millions of pounds by trousering £500-£700 a pop referral fees for hundreds of thousands of these claims, which they are now whingeing (with ZERO evidence) weren't genuine.

Also they regularly phone victims of accidents that their policyholders have caused, and offer them £1000 or so to settle on the spot, without any fuss or investigation. How does that tactic help to discourage debatable claims? Whatever, it is such hypocrisy to go out of your way to make such payments and then allege they would all have been bogus claims.

But of course they were probably playing the long game, part of the plan to deliberately exacerbate insurance payouts so they could then whinge how much they were costing.

Thats long been my argument - you can't have a fraudulent claim if you've paid out on it, not unless you are willing to admit to all and sundry (including all of your shareholders and investors) that you just hand out the money without checking the facts first.

If its fraud, don't pay it, if you think it might be fraud, delay and investigate it, if you think its genuine then pay it - pretty funkin simple really.

Its very similar to the bleats you get on various RLFans sites about the number of forward passes in xxx game over the weekend - its not a forward pass if the referee doesn't give it - it might be forward in your opinion, but you just don't count, not one iota.