Friday, 18 June 2010

Dizzyingly Good

Dizzy is sceptical of the prospects for a radical shake-up of Health & Safety laws. This is a serious and important topic, which merits proper thought and discussion. However, I'm going to link to him purely because I like this wonderful piece of prose:
Here's the funny thing about "elf' and safety", half the time the stories are not because of legislation that deems the mundane a risk but rather over-zealous Council officers and pathetically scared facilities managers worrying about a vexatious lawsuit to the point that common sense doesn't just leave the room but actually runs up a mountain, finds a cave and refuses to come out until someone checks that the grass verges it needs to walk on have been freshly cut lest they cause it to have a terrible bout of hay fever.


  1. "...over-zealous Council officers and pathetically scared facilities managers worrying about a vexatious lawsuit..."

    He's not wrong, is he? Case in point.

  2. I tend to blame the judges who are prepared to award damages to individuals who do something which is contrary to all common sense. Like the criminal who fell through a roof whilst trying to escape the police; the woman who went swimming in a castle moat because there was no sign that said she shouldn't; the lout who threw a brick at a bus shelter, but was hurt because it bounced back because the "glass" was in fact polycarbonate.
    Warning notices should only be necessary when there is some danger which is not apparent and may be overlooked.
    McDonalds apparently stopped all these claims in the US when they decided enough was enough. Their insurers invariably gave in to claims on the grounds that it was cheaper than fighting, and merely put up the premiums each year. McDonalds apparently announced publicly that they would in future fight each and every claim, to the Supreme Court if necessary, and suddenly all the "no win, no fee" lawyers decided to look for easier targets.
    But I still blame the judges!