Front-Page Photo 'manx Independent' 30Th. July 2010

[johnboyle]

Just back from sunny Spain (Viva Espana!) to be handed the 30th. July edition of the 'Manx Independent' with reference to its front page photo that showed a near-collasped garage. I'm a retired master builder and it just struck me as odd. As did Mr. Bentham's statement that 'hard hats' must be worn at all times on a building site. Odd enough to send a letter of to the 'Manx Independent' who didn't print it. This is an edited version of what it didn't print.

I was somewhat confused (as I'm sure a lot of your readers were) by your story on the front page of the 'Manx Independent' Friday the 30th. July. The photo of the partly demolished garage was indeed dramatic; but it simply looked as though the garage had collapsed by itself. Surely if the builder were demolishing it he'd have removed the content of the garage first. A large stainless steel sink, for example, is clearly seen on the left-hand side of the picture. And if it turns out that the garage did in fact collapse by itself then some poor souls might consture that the picture is, as it were, 'sexed up' to help secure the conviction, by Mr.Bentham. Health & Safety(H/S) of Daniel Jorden. Althoug I'm sure this is not the case.

Mr. Bentham,(H/S) stated that there had been at least four fatal accidents 'avoided' on the Island by the use of hard hats. And if the at 'least' four fatal accidents were avoided, why should Mr. Benthan be involved in the first place? Is what's been said here is that people are now reporting accidents to (H/S) that were avoided? What are we to think of this statement of Mr. Bentham's "At least four fatal accidents were 'avoided' on the Island in recent years." (by the use of hards hats) His use of the word 'least' here undermines belief in the entire sentence. And,just like the dramtic picture 'least' is used here to 'sex up' the case against Daniel Johnson. Mr.Bentham doesn't even bother to give chapter and verse to his asserstion that at 'least' four fatal accidents were 'avoided' in recent years on the Island.

However, what is clearly evidenced by Mr. Bentham's assertion is that: among building trade operatives, on the Island, who have choosen not to wear hard hats (the majority) there has not been one fatality because of this choice. Among building trade operatives who have choosed not to wear a hard hat there has not even been one accident because of this choice. The rule that hard hats must be worn at all time on a building site is so stupid it practical drools.

Of course, hard hats should be worn on occassions - when working below others, or working in a trech, for example. But to wear a hard hat when there's nothing above your head - well, like I've just said - it's so stupid it practically drools. Unless of course, you're wearing it to protect your head for the thoughtlessness of over-head gulls.

However, if Mr. Benthan seriously and genuinely wants to change this whole indifference to wearing hard hats by the vast majority of building trade operatives he could do so by compromising.He should allow building trade operatives to wear hard hats when they themselves see the need. After all a hard hat itself is fexible: a hard, inflexible, shell on the outside and a flexible strap on the inside that allows adjustment to fit any size (almost) of head.

But what Mr. Bentham really needs to do here, is climb down from his ivory tower - makeing sure firstly, of course, that the ladder is properly secured at the top. And that someone is standing firmly on the last rung. And that two others are standing either side of the ladder each to gently take an elbow as Mr. Bentham, from Health and Safety make his arrival on planet earth.

[mojomonkey]

Sexed up – this isn't a dossier prepared to attempt to justify a war, a sense of perspective may be called for here. Plus you're in danger of sounding like you have a personal dispute or otherwise with Mr Bentham, who is acting under the terms of the legislation and is not the legislation.

 

Just because accidents weren't fatal it doesn't mean they weren't serious. Like you I don't know the facts around these incidents but I can't see any reason why H&S should not have got involved. H&S generally gets a bad press but when it comes to health and safety at work I feel it is justified. As a retired master builder can I assume you felt responsible for the safety of any workers on your site?

[Alias]

Should employees really be expected to choose when to wear a hard hat or not? And if so, then surely they should be made aware of every activity occuring on the site, and the risk assessments made for each activity?

 

It's impractical, and try explaining such a system to your insurer when you are trying to make a claim.

[johnboyle]

Sexed up – this isn't a dossier prepared to attempt to justify a war, a sense of perspective may be called for here. Plus you're in danger of sounding like you have a personal dispute or otherwise with Mr Bentham, who is acting under the terms of the legislation and is not the legislation.

 

Just because accidents weren't fatal it doesn't mean they weren't serious. Like you I don't know the facts around these incidents but I can't see any reason why H&S should not have got involved. H&S generally gets a bad press but when it comes to health and safety at work I feel it is justified. As a retired master builder can I assume you felt responsible for the safety of any workers on your site?

 

I thought 'sexed up' was topical at the moment with Dr.Kelly's name all over the national press. And it got your attention. Secondly, not only has there not been one fatality, on the Island, as a consequence of a building trade operative not wearing a hard hat, there has not been one serious accident either. However, I agreed with your sentence, "H&S generally gets (sic) a bad press but when it comes to health and safety at work I feel it is justiied." I also feel that the bad press H&S get is justified.

[mojomonkey]

There have been several accidents on work sites resulting in prosecution under Health and Safety legislation. I seem to recall some poor bloke nearly being crushed to death working on Callow's Yard.

 

Where such legislation helps stop people from dying or being seriously injured on building sites or in the work place I think it is entirely justified. I would agree that Health and Safety being used as reason to stop conker competitions, etc. is stupid, but I suspect that the majority of these instances are actually more connected to insurance than Health and Safety.

[johnboyle]

There have been several accidents on work sites resulting in prosecution under Health and Safety legislation. I seem to recall some poor bloke nearly being crushed to death working on Callow's Yard.

 

Where such legislation helps stop people from dying or being seriously injured on building sites or in the work place I think it is entirely justified. I would agree that Health and Safety being used as reason to stop conker competitions, etc. is stupid, but I suspect that the majority of these instances are actually more connected to insurance than Health and Safety.

 

None of the incidents that you 'seem to recall' were as a result of a building trade operative not wearing a hard hat. And it's the wearing of hard hats, all the time, on a building site - if you recall - that is the subject and not Health & Safety legislation per se

[sarahc]

Why shouldn't they wear hard hats?

 

And I suspect your letter wasn't printed because you're verging on offensiveness towards those with brain injuries/disabilities.

[jimbms]

You should try working on the rigs, hard hats are a minor issue compared to the rest you have to wear, why not just stop bleating and get on with your work, hard hats are not even a minor inconvenience and like motorcycle helmets are designed to be a preventative measure, if one life is saved they work, hard hats and safety boots have been worn for years on site, the building industry is one of the most dangerous going and anyone who does not take safety serious on them and wear the correct PPE is a complete tit and I for one would and have done in the past throw them off site, the rules are simple, you wear your PPE or you don't work, if you don't like it B&Q are recruiting. Now why don't you take your personal grievance with this man elsewhere.

[alibaba]

Wearing a hard hat when working on scaffolding I often hit the hat on the scaffold, thinking, 'ahh its good I was wearing this silly hat', but if I wasn't, I wouldn't have hit my head.

[mojomonkey]

None of the incidents that you 'seem to recall' were as a result of a building trade operative not wearing a hard hat. And it's the wearing of hard hats, all the time, on a building site - if you recall - that is the subject and not Health & Safety legislation per se

 

Ok, how would you define a dangerous situation or appropriate time to wear a hard hat on a building site?

[manshimajin]

If hard hats are required on building sites to avoid brain damage and/or fatalities why are they not similarly required to be worn by cyclists here as they also reduce the incidence of brain damage caused by cycling accidents (I note the really sporting cyclists do wear them here voluntarily). It seems sensible to take steps to avoid injuries.

[metisse]

I think smoking should be banned from building sites also, just think of the lives that could save.