Results of a sad event

[peterboat]

Be careful of volunteering it doesn't always end well

https://press.hse.gov.uk/2024/06/24/charitable-trust-fined-following-death-of-volunteer/

[Higgs]

Disgraceful and incompetent supervision by the Trust. Trust.

 

 

Edited June 28 by Higgs

[MtB]

Just to comment this is not CaRT. It is Wilts and Berks Canal Trust.

 

From the article:

 

"Wilts & Berks Canal Trust, of Dauntsey Lock, Chippenham, Wiltshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The trust was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £10,822 in costs at Swindon Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 2024."

 

It does seem pointless in a way though, fining a genuine charity funded by donations from the general public such a large sum. But maybe impeding progress on this project is what is needed if the volunteers are not paying attention to their own safety.

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

29 minutes ago, MtB said:

Just to comment this is not CaRT. It is Wilts and Berks Canal Trust.

 

From the article:

 

"Wilts & Berks Canal Trust, of Dauntsey Lock, Chippenham, Wiltshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The trust was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £10,822 in costs at Swindon Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 2024."

 

It does seem pointless in a way though, fining a genuine charity funded by donations from the general public such a large sum. But maybe impeding progress on this project is what is needed if the volunteers are not paying attention to their own safety.

 

 

Charities are not excused from having to take care just because they're virtuous -- or a charity, like CART or Eton College...

 

Note that more deaths like this is exactly what those proposing that canal repairs should be done "like in the good old days" should expect... 😉 

[john.k]

With 41,000 quid gone from the kitty,doesnt look like they will be doing any more maintenance.........Id say supervisory personnel were probably lucky not to be charged as well..............moral of the story ..a 62 yr old is not alert,quick thinking ,or quick moving. to the standard needed for construction work.

[MtB]

51 minutes ago, IanD said:

Charities are not excused from having to take care just because they're virtuous -- or a charity, like CART or Eton College...

 

 

But I suspect they are not a charity like CaRT or Eton College, they are funded entirely by voluntary donations. So what purpose is achieved by fining them, or confiscating their donations?

 

 

[Mike Tee]

Interestingly there was no mention of whoever put in the supports in the first place, other than criticism of how it was done. That was the person who should have faced criminal charges (unless of course it was the poor bloke who died). 

[IanD]

25 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But I suspect they are not a charity like CaRT or Eton College, they are funded entirely by voluntary donations. So what purpose is achieved by fining them, or confiscating their donations?

 

 

So if you're funded entirely by voluntary donations it's OK to kill someone? Really?

 

The same applies to loads of charities in the UK, including many of the bigger ones, and I can't see how it's acceptable for them to ignore safety regulations just because of their funding source.

 

The situation is clear with employers, they are responsible for the safety of their workers -- including any unpaid interns/volunteers who are working for them, so being unpaid isn't an excuse to be unsafe.

 

So the same would apply to paid employees of a charity (obviously), they're doing a job. IANAL but I assume unpaid volunteers doing work for a charity are in the same legal position as unpaid interns/volunteers working for any other company, the charity is still responsible for making sure their working conditions are safe.

 

Safety at work (or play) is also not something you can agree to sign away, for obvious reasons (e.g. rogue employers) -- even if you're doing something dangerous and sign an acknowledgement of this, there still have to be reasonable safety precautions taken, and if this is not done or they fail the employer is liable. You can agree to clean windows on a skyscraper dangling from a rope, but if the rope snaps and there's no safety line or similar as a backup the employer will still be liable.

 

An individual worker -- for example, whoever did whatever lead to the accident -- may also be found at fault, but only usually if they ignored safety precautions which were put in place. If there were no precautions or policy about them, the employer/charity is at fault. It's why people are made to sit through those boring safety briefings on how to do stuff and sign off that they've done the training and understood it...

 

Building sites -- regardless of whether owned by Wimpey, or CART, or the Wilts and Berks Canal Trust -- all have the legal requirements to take accepted and reasonable safety precautions to protect their workers. If they don't and tragedy strikes and they're found at fault -- as here -- then they'll be fined heavily. The Trust should have known this, and made sure the site was safe...

Edited June 28 by IanD

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

So if you're funded entirely by voluntary donations it's OK to kill someone? Really?

 

The same applies to loads of charities in the UK, including many of the bigger ones, and I can't see how it's acceptable for them to ignore safety regulations just because of their funding source.

 

And where did I say ANY of that?

 

I am questioning the appropriateness of fine in this circumstance. My personal view is personal prosecution and a criminal record for the managers would be a more suitable action.

 

But you obviously think handing out fines willy nilly is all that is required. 

[IanD]

Just now, MtB said:

 

And where did I say ANY of that?

 

I am questioning the appropriateness of fine in this circumstance. My personal view is personal prosecution and a criminal record for the managers would be a more suitable action.

 

But you obviously think handing out fines willy nilly is all that is required. 

 

No I don't. I think that it's up to the court to decide who is to blame based on the law and the facts, which neither you or I are fully aware of.

 

That includes whether the managers or the Trust are to blame -- was the fault a personal error by an individual manager, or a corporate one (yes I know they're a charity...) like not having put in place suitable site safety checks and procedures.

 

It seems that given the evidence the court decided the Trust was to blame, hence the fine. You don't have the full facts, so your personal opinion is just that... 😉 

[Arthur Marshall]

34 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

No I don't. I think that it's up to the court to decide who is to blame based on the law and the facts, which neither you or I are fully aware of.

 

That includes whether the managers or the Trust are to blame -- was the fault a personal error by an individual manager, or a corporate one (yes I know they're a charity...) like not having put in place suitable site safety checks and procedures.

 

It seems that given the evidence the court decided the Trust was to blame, hence the fine. You don't have the full facts, so your personal opinion is just that... 😉 

If the Trust is to blame, should the trustees not be liable as induviduals? Otherwise, what's the point of them? It's like fining a hospital a million quid for a gross error, taking money out of the NHS but leaving all the managers in place - a total waste of time. It's just an easy "look good" solution that achieves nothing, but makes everything a little worse.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If the Trust is to blame, should the trustees not be liable as induviduals? Otherwise, what's the point of them? It's like fining a hospital a million quid for a gross error, taking money out of the NHS but leaving all the managers in place - a total waste of time. It's just an easy "look good" solution that achieves nothing, but makes everything a little worse.

Because that's not how corporate responsibility works. The court fines the company/trust, if they want to sue (or fire) the individuals (or trustees, or directors) then they can do so -- but it's often difficult proving individual responsibility, it's much easier for the courts proving the company/trust was at fault.

 

It's why the Post Office is in the dock and likely to get a humongous fine, while the likes of Paula Vennells rarely go to jail. Though this may happen later as a separate court case once the PO has been found guilty, I believe it's up to the PO (or the affected subpostmasters) to bring the case against individuals.

 

It's not justice, but it's the way the UK legal system works... 😞 

Edited June 28 by IanD

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If the Trust is to blame, should the trustees not be liable as induviduals? Otherwise, what's the point of them? It's like fining a hospital a million quid for a gross error, taking money out of the NHS but leaving all the managers in place - a total waste of time. It's just an easy "look good" solution that achieves nothing, but makes everything a little worse.

 

Thank you Arthur, for properly articulating the thought behind all my posts on the subject!! 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Thank you Arthur, for properly articulating the thought behind all my posts on the subject!! 

 

 

I agree with both your sentiments, but unfortunately the law is not sentimental... 😞 

[Cheshire cat]

It's only taken eight years. I wouldn't be surprised to learn half the trustees are no longer around 🙄

[MtB]

43 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

It's only taken eight years. I wouldn't be surprised to learn half the trustees are no longer around 🙄

 

 

Ah but that's how corporate responsibility works. Or so we are told...

 

 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Ah but that's how corporate responsibility works. Or so we are told...

 

 

I never said that was a good thing, I agree with you -- but it's the law we've got and there's little chance of it changing.

 

Why? Because just think how bad it would be for all the company directors and CEOs (like Paula Vennells...) who pay lobbyists and donate to political parties if they risked going to jail, instead of getting off scot-free while the company pays the price... 😞 

[David Schweizer]

4 hours ago, john.k said:

With 41,000 quid gone from the kitty,doesnt look like they will be doing any more maintenance.........Id say supervisory personnel were probably lucky not to be charged as well..............moral of the story ..a 62 yr old is not alert,quick thinking ,or quick moving. to the standard needed for construction work.

 

What absolute rubbish. There are plenty of fit and alert people over the age of 62 being payed to work on construction sites, all well within the law.

 

 

Edited June 28 by David Schweizer

[Jon57]

5 hours ago, john.k said:

With 41,000 quid gone from the kitty,doesnt look like they will be doing any more maintenance.........Id say supervisory personnel were probably lucky not to be charged as well..............moral of the story ..a 62 yr old is not alert,quick thinking ,or quick moving. to the standard needed for construction work.

Better tell our government that.

BBC News - Pensions and retirement: 'I don't know how I'm going to work until I'm 67' - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggdy06r1lo

[Pluto]

7 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Charities are not excused from having to take care just because they're virtuous -- or a charity, like CART or Eton College...

 

Note that more deaths like this is exactly what those proposing that canal repairs should be done "like in the good old days" should expect... 😉 

After many years researching canal history, I have come across very few deaths or serious injuries mentioned, either in canal records or in newspapers. I suspect the standard of training was higher 100 to 200+ years ago, and management that had actual experience of what they were managing.

[Ronaldo47]

In the early 1970's, one of my former fellow students, by then a junior civil engineer in his mid-20's,  was killed when an excavation collapsed on him. He had ignored specific instructions not to go down as it was dangerous, and no action was taken against his employer.

Edited June 28 by Ronaldo47
typos

[mrsmelly]

14 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

In the early 1970's, one of my former fellow students, by then a junior civil engineer in his mid-20's,  was killed when an excavation collapsed on him. He had ignored specific instructions not to go down as it was dangerous, and no action was taken against his employer.

Its often a tough call. My little girl is a senior HSE inspector and puts the files together for prosecution. We dont talk about work as after all its just work but she told me of a house she went to that was having a swimming pool built in the back garden. Neighbours were worried so she had to go look. There was a large 3 metres deep hole she tells me with blokes working in the bottom, she told them to stop for various reasons and was confronted by burly builders who said it had been passed only yesterday by buildings control and so she could sod off. She explained she was elf and safety and in a nutshell to desist or else. Work stopped, next day she was back as one wall had collapsed and taken next door neighbours garden in with it and fence. Had anyone been working down there it would have been goodbye Vienna, her actions probably saved lives.

[ditchcrawler]

20 hours ago, Pluto said:

After many years researching canal history, I have come across very few deaths or serious injuries mentioned, either in canal records or in newspapers. I suspect the standard of training was higher 100 to 200+ years ago, and management that had actual experience of what they were managing.

Blisworth Tunnel, Grand Union Canal, NorthamptonshireThe construction of Blisworth Tunnel in 1805 claimed 50 lives, with 14 workers killed in just one incident when the first tunnel they were digging out collapsed.

[Pluto]

51 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Blisworth Tunnel, Grand Union Canal, NorthamptonshireThe construction of Blisworth Tunnel in 1805 claimed 50 lives, with 14 workers killed in just one incident when the first tunnel they were digging out collapsed.

I didn't say there were no deaths, just that I had only come across a small number in records. Craft training is based upon the experience of the trainer, which is fine for most situations. The chance of death or injury increases when the working environment is variable, and that was certainly the case at Blisworth, where the ground conditions were unexpected, as was the case with several other tunnels. Miners were employed on most tunnels, an area of expertise where immigrant labour had long been used. Several mines had employed German miners since Elizabethan times, many coming from the Harz region. Even comparatively recently, water power was used extensively underground there, and there was a navigable adit. The two drawings show the Dorothea mine in section, and an idea of how the navigable adit worked.

 

Going back to the OP, it would be interesting to see a compilation of statistics re deaths during canal construction. Tunnels do seem to have been the most dangerous sites, even during railway building, but what about other types of work. Were there any/many during the construction of Pontcysyllte, for example.

[john.k]

At the antique machinery society Im a member of there was an accidental  death a couple of years ago.........a member was driving his own  antique forklift with a 1000l tub of waste cooking oil and the forklift hit a hole and tipped forward .............basically ,he was doing a lot wrong ......carrying the load high ,speed excessive for rough ground, inoperable brakes,no  overhead guard ,etc ,etc..........fortunately for members ,its not a workplace ,and while WHS investigated ,there were no penalties............however the city council own the site ,and the society came very close to being evicted from premises where they have spent $ hundreds of thousands over the years.

Lawyers here will also point out its possible for individual members of a group to be sued for damages and loss by the dependants of the deceased ......... the lawyers will only go after the members with assets .

Edited June 30 by john.k