Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday accused of printing false comments from health and safety experts

The Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday both ran very similar stories at the weekend:

The professional body that represents health-and-safety experts has warned businesses not to grit public paths. (Mail)

The professional body that represents health and safety experts has issued a warning to businesses not to grit public paths. (Telegraph)

Both then went on about health and safety gone mad etc.

Only one problem.

The experts had said nothing of the sort.

The Sunday Telegraph had approached the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health who in fact gave a comment which said the opposite of what the newspaper subsequently reported. Far from warning businesses off gritting public paths, they actually on encouraged them to do so:

Deciding whether to grit beyond the boundaries of their property needs to be carefully considered by companies. If access to the premises is covered in ice, companies may choose to grit the access to help their staff and visitors arrive and leave safely, even though it’s not their property. However, in this instance, if they failed to grit the surface properly and someone had an accident as a result, then they could incur some liability.

As a general rule, though, it’s sensible for firms to consider the risks and take reasonable steps to prevent accidents from happening. If this means gritting outside the boundaries of your workplace, then it’s better to do that than to have people slipping over or involved in car crashes on your doorstep.

The IOSH subsequently commented:

The IOSH position is most definitely to encourage people to be good employers and neighbours by gritting icy areas and to emphasise that health and safety wants to help protect life and limb, not endanger it.

So where did the story come from? As explained by the IOSH in a comment on Malcolm Coles’s blog:

This comment [quoted above] was ignored, and instead they took words from the “Just Ask” column of SHP magazine in February last year, contributed by legal consultancy Croner, and attributed them to IOSH, passing this off as guidance issued by IOSH to its members.

IOSH has been completely misrepresented.

Health and safety gone mad? Poor journalism run amok more like.

UPDATE: Credit to Labour minister Lord Adonis for his very robust answer in Parliament when asked about snow, clearing, suing, world ending et al:

It is total nonsense to say that health and safety legislation should stop people being good neighbours or doing their local duty. People should do their local duty. They should show common sense, neighbourliness and generosity of spirit, which the overwhelming majority of people are doing up and down the country.

Read more by or more about , , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

8 Comments

  • Andrew Suffield 12th Jan '10 - 1:56am

    Sounds like firm grounds for a libel suit to me.

  • Hang on – in that bit after you say “the experts had said nothing of the sort,” their’s a quote from them saying something of the sort. Note in particular the words “they could incur some liability.” It’s the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and a daft state/legal system which is at fault here. The quotes are fine.

  • Sorry – “there’s” oh for an edit function.

  • In what way is “could incur some liability,” not “warned businesses not to grit paths.”? I’ll be blunt. The IOSH got it wrong here and it’s tried to lie its way out of it.

  • And anyway, the IOSH say they didn’t even make the statement attributed to them.

  • As a health and safety professional I can assure you categorically that there is no health and safety law whatsoever regarding people clearing their own drives and pathways and gritting. The H&S Act does not apply to householders. It applies to people at work i.e where there is employment. That is why is called the Health and Safety at Work Act. Nothing at all to do with domestic householders. Companies however should do all they reasonably can to prevent slips and trips in their premises. This is more a matter of civil law liability and insurance. The article would be better directed at solicitors and lawyers who bring this type of action just to line their own pockets.

One Trackback

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 20th Oct - 11:50pm
    Paul and David, at it again, getting me at it too , with much thanks ! A remarkable story , the unplanned speech, don,t ever...
  • User Avatarfrankie 20th Oct - 10:36pm
    Sheila, Time ticks on and everyday the leave case is shot to pieces. As reality bites the only thing that seems to be keeping Leavers...
  • User Avatarfrankie 20th Oct - 10:23pm
    Clegg came from a political bubble with limited inter action with normal people. He also seems to have fallen into a trap one of my...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 20th Oct - 10:19pm
    Well said, David! Long may you continue act as usefully as you do. Michael, thank you for pointing out what was already known about Palehorse...
  • User AvatarPeter Hayes 20th Oct - 9:28pm
    As my parents are both dead it is probably safe to say they remember me saying "let Daddy smack me" as an an alternative to...
  • User AvatarAndrew McCaig 20th Oct - 8:32pm
    Just so long as we are not going to go down the Norwegian route. There are, I am afraid, much worse forms of child abuse...