H & S in a marina

[DHutch]

Colin didn't say a word. He just went back to his boat and started dismantling his new pontoon, and responded to their query as to what was he doing by telling them that he was moving his stuff to his new mooring.

Top (ba)nana!

[lesanne]

 

Who would want to do that!

Perhaps worth invading for a fortnight in June...

[Guest]

..Duplicate post

Edited November 26, 2015 by MJG

[churchward]

. You work and make a living from H and S I,m guessing, I was brought up by my nan, who survived for 100 years,saw two world wars the coming of the motor car, mans first flight, and loads of other things that make you proud to be a human, all those things happened completely unhindered and unaffected by H and S, all I see in your modern H and S world is a noose slowly tightening around the neck of the human animal, a classic example that we all see is mans lack of ability to cross an empty road unless the green man flashes and bleeps to allow it, kids have learnt not to touch the fire by burning there fingers for years and years, but not for much longer because they are so wrapped in cotton wool they will never be allowed to burn there finger, it's all just dumbing down the human being until we are just brain dead tax paying zombies that only jump when we are told to, sorry but I will carry on making my own decisions for as long as I possibly can thanks,

I agree with your sentiment broadly in that it is very important to take responsibility for ones own actions and how they effect others. People do need to learn life lessons by experience.

 

That is one side of the coin but the other is that for instance before WWII and much the same in the 50s and 60s there were 6000 or so deaths by work related accidents each year due to poor safety standards. The price of experience is no good if it costs you your life.

 

I sadly never met my paternal Grandfather. He survived all that you mention above but after WWII he was killed at work due to the lack of safe working practices. Those work practices were changed after his death making it safer for those that came after. Many of the current working environment legislation and Health and Safety laws have been bought with the blood of those that died due to the lack of them.

Edited November 26, 2015 by churchward

[craftycarper]

This one?

 

 

Bristol-based Tubular Access Scaffolds Limited has been fined more than £26,000 after an employee fell nine metres.

Bristol Magistrates’ Court heard how a man was dismantling a scaffold structure when he fell, causing life-changing head injuries.

An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred on 23rd July 2013, at Berkley Crescent, Clifton, found no evidence of any preventative measures taken by the company before the incident.

Tubular Access Scaffolds Limited, of Duckmoor Road, Ashton, was fined a total of £26,250, after pleading guilty to offences under Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

HSE principal inspector Helena Tinton said after the hearing: “If the company had managed a safe system of work with properly trained and equipped scaffolders, then the employee would not have suffered such terrible injuries.”

 

What's true then? That your relative's company did not operated safe systems of work, did not adequately train their staff and did not properly equip them? If so, they're lucky the victim wasn't killed and a charge of corporate manslaughter brought.[/quote I think you may be putting two and two together and getting five, sorry but I can't comment on the one above even though I do know this person as well,

[Loafer]

I agree with your sentiment broadly in that it is very important to take responsibility for ones own actions and how they effect others. People do need to learn life lessons by experience.

 

That is one side of the coin but the other is that for instance before WWII and much the same in the 50s and 60s there were 6000 or so deaths by work related accidents each year due to poor safety standards. The price of experience is no good if it costs you your life.

 

I sadly never met my paternal Grandfather. He survived all that you mention above but after WWII he was killed at work due to the lack of safe working practices. Those work practices were changed after his death making it safer for those that came after. Many of the current working environment legislation and Health and Safety laws have been bought with the blood of those that died due to the lack of them.

 

Hmm, difficult to argue that one, I'm thinking. Run out of greenies.

[craftycarper]

I agree with your sentiment broadly in that it is very important to take responsibility for ones own actions and how they effect others. People do need to learn life lessons by experience.

 

That is one side of the coin but the other is that for instance before WWII and much the same in the 50s and 60s there were 6000 or so deaths by work related accidents each year due to poor safety standards. The price of experience is no good if it costs you your life.

 

I sadly never met my paternal Grandfather. He survived all that you mention above but after WWII he was killed at work due to the lack of safe working practices. Those work practices were changed after his death making it safer for those that came after. Many of the current working environment legislation and Health and Safety laws have been bought with the blood of those that died due to the lack of them.

. And I do agree with you regarding the changes, but we have gone far beyond that now, fuelled by greedy lawyers telling everyone to sue any one they can, to the present situation were nobody feels responsible for there own action and just looks for the person they can sue whenever they feel wronged

[valrene9600]

So it is purely coincidence that work related deaths have more or less halved in the last 20 years? Nothing to do with H & S at all?

Yes of course we need h&s laws but they do at times get stupid and in my opinion just make some suppliers of h s equipment rich.

[CDS]

I don't care if it leads to being identified its all true and was proven, the £26 grand was the best deal we could have hoped for, had the case been lost it would have had another 100k stuck on it

fix it or cry it's still your home and your choice, but as is becoming quite clear you would rather moan,

Its not my Marina same way as its not my house,crafty carper?pointless carper!!

Thats why we have H&S law and all the rest of the legislation.For example,do you think

an employer supplies safety footwear because a) he cares for your feet b )he is compelled

to. Thank God we are not at war you would be saying bring your own gun.

Anyway I have risen to your bait so enjoy

Edited November 26, 2015 by CDS

[Jerra]

Yes of course we need h&s laws but they do at times get stupid and in my opinion just make some suppliers of h s equipment rich.

It isn't the laws which get stupid it is the way people try to use them and hide behind them as an excuse for not doing something. As somebody has already pointed out it is often an insurance company who wont take the risk and trot out the phrase Health and Safety.

[Dave_P]

 

This one?

 

 

Bristol-based Tubular Access Scaffolds Limited has been fined more than £26,000 after an employee fell nine metres.

Bristol Magistrates Court heard how a man was dismantling a scaffold structure when he fell, causing life-changing head injuries.

An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred on 23rd July 2013, at Berkley Crescent, Clifton, found no evidence of any preventative measures taken by the company before the incident.

Tubular Access Scaffolds Limited, of Duckmoor Road, Ashton, was fined a total of £26,250, after pleading guilty to offences under Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

HSE principal inspector Helena Tinton said after the hearing: If the company had managed a safe system of work with properly trained and equipped scaffolders, then the employee would not have suffered such terrible injuries.

 

What's true then? That your relative's company did not operated safe systems of work, did not adequately train their staff and did not properly equip them? If so, they're lucky the victim wasn't killed and a charge of corporate manslaughter brought.[/quote I think you may be putting two and two together and getting five, sorry but I can't comment on the one above even though I do know this person as well,

 

I did get chucked off my a level maths class for being too crap. :-(

[craftycarper]

Its not my Marina same way as its not my house,crafty carper?pointless carper!!

Thats why we have H&S law and all the rest of the legislation.For example,do you think

an employer supplies safety footwear because a) he cares for your feet b )he is compelled

to. Thank God we are not at war you would be saying bring your own gun.

Anyway I have risen to your bait so enjoy

the reason for your pointless little gibe is? With regard to boots I supply my own, I stopped letting other people dress me around the same time my testicles descended, and on your last war comment, I think we have been at war for the last 10 years or more, if not why has my daughter in law spent 6 months on a war ship off of Syria and ten months in the desert serving with the marines out of the last two years, and she also buys her own boots because she does not like the ones given to her by the queen, maybe she should get a solicitor on it ?

ame="craftycarper" post="1704271" timestamp="1448560670"]

 

I did get chucked off my a level maths class for being too crap. :-(

easy mistake right city,right industry and very simular sum of money involved, however we don't always work in the city we live

[frahkn]

. If it worry,s you fit your own ladder, why does everyone expect people to do everything for them, I fell off a slippery jetty in the middle of the winter last year in full winter clothing when I got out I stripped off in the laundry room chucked my cloths in the tumble dryer rushed back to my boat and sat by the fire until warm, I did,not complain or moan or try and blame I just went and got my pressure washer the next day and cleaned the slippery green shite of the jetty, it seems that no one wants to take responsibility for there own actions any more and just moan and complain and ultimately hope someone will compensate them, we are heading in a very sad and pathetic direction I'm sorry to say

When we moved marinas this year we were allocated a pontoon which had some boards loose and some missing.

 

I was worried that I might trip and fall (I am recovering from a stroke and still have poor balance) so I screwed down the loose ones and replaced those which were missing.

 

This was so that I felt safer. The alternatives - complaining to the marina, the HSE, the Queen etc - were other possibilities but I thought I would get a quicker result by fixing it myself. So I was motivated by pure self-interest, I'd rather not fall than fall and get compensation.

 

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't wish to see employers forced to look after their workers, nor that I disagree that responsibility really lay with the marina. It just means that I didn't want to trip.

 

Frank.

[DeanS]

Thread cleared of some tit for tat personal insults. Please read the site guidelines if your posts are suddenly missing.

[mayalld]

Wouldn't have guessed that.Your the one raising the past.

 

Strange world when I pay for a service to be supplied then do it myself.Someone rents from a private landlord,water pours through the roof,

you really do talk some rubbish

 

Ah, the council house slob mentality.

 

"I don't own this house, so I will leave the garden as a jungle, because I'm not improving it for them"

 

I know somebody with this attitude, and he's lived in the same house for 30 years, never lifted a finger to do anything, because he'd rather live in squallor than do anything that might be to their advantage.

 

The marina provide a service, which comprised a very basic pontoon (some of which were in need of repair). Colin paid for that service, but wanted something better. He did it himself, because he wasn't paying them for a deluxe pontoon.

 

Yes, his neighbour got the advantage, and yes (potentially) the marina would have the advntage when he moved away, but he got what he wanted at the time.

[Dave_P]

 

Ah, the council house slob mentality.

 

"I don't own this house, so I will leave the garden as a jungle, because I'm not improving it for them"

 

I know somebody with this attitude, and he's lived in the same house for 30 years, never lifted a finger to do anything, because he'd rather live in squallor than do anything that might be to their advantage.

 

The marina provide a service, which comprised a very basic pontoon (some of which were in need of repair). Colin paid for that service, but wanted something better. He did it himself, because he wasn't paying them for a deluxe pontoon.

 

Yes, his neighbour got the advantage, and yes (potentially) the marina would have the advntage when he moved away, but he got what he wanted at the time.

If the person you know genuinely lives in a squalid council house (for 30 years) then the council are seriously at fault. Remember, many disabled and otherwise vulnerable people are housed by councils. People not able to fully fend for themselves.

 

If the person you know is renting from a private landlord then my comments stand too. The state of private sector rented housing in this country is frequently abysmal. Slum landlords are very much with us in 2015.

 

If the person you know is an owner-occupier then your argument is irrelevent.

 

The poster CDS might have a forthright way of expressing him or herself but their comments have not actually been answered. Instead irrelevent points about daughters in the desert and lazy slobs have been made.

 

Put simply; when paying for goods or services, it is reasonable to expect the provder to provide them to a reasonable standard. Providing them in a way which puts the recipient at risk of harm just isnt acceptable.

 

(Too many reasonables and providings above - sorry!)

[Jerra]

Put simply; when paying for goods or services, it is reasonable to expect the provder to provide them to a reasonable standard.

This is true. However if the goods or services are seen and accepted in the condition they are currently in the buyer has accepted them.

[Dave_P]

This is true. However if the goods or services are seen and accepted in the condition they are currently in the buyer has accepted them.

Ultimately, that's for a court to decide. In general, using that as a defence doesn't work though. Any risk assessment must be done by the responsible person. If the risk assessment highlights a risk which can be reduced, they have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to reduce it. Whether or not the 'user' is prepared to take the risk themselves doesn't change the legal responsibility.

 

An example mentioned earlier was with steel toe capped boots. Amongst workers who are required to wear them there's a general view which is "my employer has to provide me with them and then it's up to me whether I wear them". In other words, the employer is simply covering their a*se when supplying them. This simply isn't the case. The employer is responsible for ensuring that all PPE is worn when required. If an employee refuses to wear it, then the employer must refuse to allow them to work.

 

Going back the the marina... the pontoon may pose a risk. The correct person to assess that risk is the owner/operator of the marina. They have the whole picture of the pontoon, it's surroundings, the various users of the site etc. etc. If the individual boater takes it upon themselves to 'fix' the pontoon and this leads to the pontoon collapsing under someone who then drowns, who is responsible? You might say its:

 

1. The boater who bodged the pontoon.

2. The boater who drowned (for not taking responsibility for this own safety)

3. The site owner.

 

Can you see what a legal mess this creates? The only way the courts can deal with these situations is the place the responsibility on the owner. Which is exactly what they do. For example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19681380

[mayalld]

If the person you know genuinely lives in a squalid council house (for 30 years) then the council are seriously at fault. Remember, many disabled and otherwise vulnerable people are housed by councils. People not able to fully fend for themselves.

 

He is perfectly capable

 

His "garden" is an unkempt mess.

 

I suggested that perhaps he might like to cut the grass, and put in a couple of flower beds, because that would make his home a nicer place to live in.

 

His response is "It's the councils grass, they should cut it, and why should I spend money on making the garden nice for the benefit of the next tenant (probably in 20 years time)

[gaggle]

well sadly I,m not but I am a relative of someone that's just been fined £26,000 because he employed someone on the back of a pack of lies, who then fell from a scaffold that he had made unsafe by removing all the decking boards after a liquid lunch, oh and he decided not to wear the safety harness that he had been supplied, the victim now drives around in a brand new Audi convertible, while my lad has had to sell the company to settle the legal bills, seems like a really good system can't believe I fail to embrace it at face value, the only people really benefiting from it are the lawyers and scammers sorry but that's my view of it

 

So a court must have found the person guilty of breaches of some kind to fine him , he never got fined for being blameless surely ?

[fluff001]

. If it worry,s you fit your own ladder, why does everyone expect people to do everything for them, I fell off a slippery jetty in the middle of the winter last year in full winter clothing when I got out I stripped off in the laundry room chucked my cloths in the tumble dryer rushed back to my boat and sat by the fire until warm, I did,not complain or moan or try and blame I just went and got my pressure washer the next day and cleaned the slippery green shite of the jetty, it seems that no one wants to take responsibility for there own actions any more and just moan and complain and ultimately hope someone will compensate them, we are heading in a very sad and pathetic direction I'm sorry to say

i couldnt agree more ! when i was a kid i learned that if i climbed a tree and fell out it hurtand it was my fault for climbing the tree ! now days they but a barrier around it ! to me thats not learning !

[Guest]

i couldnt agree more ! when i was a kid i learned that if i climbed a tree and fell out it hurtand it was my fault for climbing the tree ! now days they but a barrier around it ! to me thats not learning !

 

A scenario that is hardly transferable to the workplace though is it?

[Machpoint005]

i couldnt agree more ! when i was a kid i learned that if i climbed a tree and fell out it hurtand it was my fault for climbing the tree ! now days they but a barrier around it ! to me thats not learning !

 

Maybe a functioning attention span would help you mentally digest something larger than a soundbite?

[pearlygeoff]

Regarding health and safety in marinas and the refusal of CRT to acknowledge the problem and their policy of forcing people into marinas under threat of legal action.

This is an extract from the first letter in the Complaints Procedure submitted in 2009.

Sent to the Ombudsman , BW and various other people including an MP.

The result was they 'couldn't answer my questions as they raised legal issues and I would have to take them to court. This was part of the reason I said they would have to take me to court. They had a choice - answer my questions and deal properly with the complaint or take me to court.

They chose the latter.

''Marinas are, essentially, car parks for boats and are only suitable for boats which are unoccupied. Many,probably most, marinas do not allow people to live on boats, some do but you have to pretend that you don't, some local councils approve it, some don't.

It is a 'grey area'.

There is, generally, no provision for 'residential boats' as distinct from unoccupied boats.

Boats are crammed together along jetties which are, generally, no more than 18 inches wide.

If there was a fire on a boat it would be impossible to move the boat away to a 'safe place' and impossible to move other boats away from it. The majority of boats have gas bottles on board so the official advice is to get everyone away from the area until the fire has died down. Even the Fire Service do not go near a fire where there are gas bottles involved.

The fire will probably spread through several boats, there will be explosions, there may be casualties. There have been several fires in marinas of which I don't know the details but I know that with regard to local instances where the Fire Service has been involved they regard some marinas as 'deathtraps'. A marina does not have to have a Fire Certificate as boats are regarded as individual dwellings. All the Fire Service can do is issue boats with smoke alarms which they have done in this area to boats both in and out of marinas. Advice from the Fire Service would be that the marina environment is 'unsafe' but they do not have the authority to tell people not to live there. It is up to them.

I choose not to live in a marina. It is neither reasonable nor lawful for British Waterways to attempt by harassment and intimidation to force me to take a mooring in a marina which exists in a 'grey area', i.e. not necessarily lawful, and is 'unsafe' with regard to fire risk and also, therefore, with regard to Health and Safety. Ignorance of the requirements of the Health and Safety Act of 1974 is not a defence to the charge of Corporate Manslaughter. You are no longer ignorant as I have now informed you of your 'Duty of Care'.''

People are living permanently in marinas. Many now realise you don't have to pay a licence if you remain in the marina.

Many people on boats have a low income - they choose to live a life on a low income - and are entitled to claim housing benefit for rent payments.

In West Cheshire they insist you remain in the marina if you claim housing benefit as they are aware of people being forced to pay for a mooring when they don't, actually, want one, having been threatened with legal action.

Marinas, therefore,should, rightly, be classed as 'residential' and regulations should apply as in caravan parks with the extra consideration of being on, and surrounded by, water.

People living in marinas should, by rights, be 'evicted' and have to live on the waterway, and there should be no harassment to force people into an unlawful and unsafe environment with threats of legal action and the seizure of your boat. And then marinas should be redesigned and rebuilt in accordance with the law. (If they were to create suitable residential moorings it would be better to cut 'loops' allowing boats to moor to the bank, and provide proper facilities).

BW/CRT have been acting unlawfully and criminally - and still are.

Of course, the usual apologists who insist on the 'law', however dubiously interpreted, being applied to those dirty people on boats (such is their stereotype) see no problem with this extremely serious breach of the law which will result in, and probably has resulted in, the loss of lives of people - and dogs and cats - who fall in and can't get out as there are no ladders on jetties as there should be, or are unable to escape in the case of a fire. If a residential boat caused a fire in a marina that then destroyed other boats would those boats be insured.

The marina area on the riverfront in Northwich has no ladders and boats are on short jetties over 16 feet of water.

Of course, according to the bigoted buffoon, who thinks everyone who lives on a boat is a low-life scumbag, you should just rent the water and build the jetties yourself.

He thinks he's an expert on the law?

Feel free to ignore me or make personal attacks.

[b0atman]

i couldnt agree more ! when i was a kid i learned that if i climbed a tree and fell out it hurtand it was my fault for climbing the tree ! now days they but a barrier around it ! to me thats not learning !

 

 

A scenario that is hardly transferable to the workplace though is it?

I am thinking safety guards on machines so both points are relevant but there is overkill by some because of the fear of blame culture.

 

I was in a marina where a complaint would have led to a bye bye.