Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Health and Safety?


You don't know how much that infuriates me as only yesterday I was amongst hundreds in Oxleas Woods, Eltham watching the kis and dogs have the greatest fun.

Every type of device was used to sledge down the hill and I thought "this Country ain't so bad when all these people can have so much innocent fun and be so adventurous with their improvisations and no "H and S" Czar can spoil it!


Absolute Rotten B*****s:X

Shall I do it again? Oh fuck it why not


When people give out about H&S, what is it they are really giving out about?


I THINK they are giving out about "the council/The Man/inpetitude/broken britain/Littlejohn is right" etc etc but that is usually wrong


What is behind a decision to close a park on "H&S" grounds is the fear of being sued by YOU the public. If people stopped suing for every fekkin thing then there wouldn't be this fear of health and safety


It really is that simple.. so if you are going to vent, have the right targer and stop hitting people with a blunderbuss

DeborahC Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just back from Peckham Rye Park

> It's not closed due to H&S but apparently the

> locks on all the gates had frozen...



So boosboos is actually a liar posting what he wants to believe?


this calls the integrity of several other threads into doubt too. haha

Shall I do it again? Oh @#$%& it why not


When people give out about H&S, what is it they are really giving out about?


I THINK they are giving out about "the council/The Man/inpetitude/broken britain/Littlejohn is right" etc etc but that is usually wrong


What is behind a decision to close a park on "H&S" grounds is the fear of being sued by YOU the public. If people stopped suing for every fekkin thing then there wouldn't be this fear of health and safety


It really is that simple.. so if you are going to vent, have the right targer and stop hitting people with a blunderbuss



The head of the HSE was saying much the same on the radio last week. However, she also said that the number of litigation cases of "the public" suing councils / schools/ public bodies over perceived safety issues are, in fact, very few.


I'd agree that some insurance companies take a ridiculously avoid all possible risk stance. Within the health service (something I do know about) some TRusts have taken to defending all claims for slips & trips - where previously they would pay a "no fault" compensation to avoid the costs of defending silly claims. The new policy saved money in the end as the number of claims fell.


So, to summarise, everyone in authority and the general public should have the balls to allow individuals to take risks and expect individuals to take personal responsibility for their decisions about personal risk.


Don't cut down trees in case a conker falls, close parks in case someone slips over, ban snowball fights in case someone gets hurt etc etc.

There should be a piece in The Evening Standard's later edition on Peckham Rye being closed today. It's hilarious that they can close all the school in the area and the parks? All due to snow. Still they don't bother gritting the pavements and roads!! Someone somewhere has made the very important decision that today NOONE is allowed to have anyfun.....

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Shall I do it again? Oh @#$%& it why not

>

> When people give out about H&S, what is it they

> are really giving out about?

>

> I THINK they are giving out about "the council/The

> Man/inpetitude/broken britain/Littlejohn is right"

> etc etc but that is usually wrong

>

> What is behind a decision to close a park on "H&S"

> grounds is the fear of being sued by YOU the

> public. If people stopped suing for every fekkin

> thing then there wouldn't be this fear of health

> and safety

>

> It really is that simple.. so if you are going to

> vent, have the right targer and stop hitting

> people with a blunderbuss



Slightly off topic, but how long will it be before a forumite sues another for giving bad advice/recommendation etc?...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...