<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cameron Hits Health &amp; Safety</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hrreview.co.uk/articles/hrreview-articles/health-safety/cameron-hits-health-safety/4973/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hrreview.co.uk/hrreview-articles/health-safety/cameron-hits-health-safety/4973</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:42:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mitchell Winter</title>
		<link>http://www.hrreview.co.uk/hrreview-articles/health-safety/cameron-hits-health-safety/4973/comment-page-1#comment-1544</link>
		<dc:creator>mitchell Winter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:18:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrreview.co.uk/?p=4973#comment-1544</guid>
		<description>Mr David Cameron MP vs Health &amp; Safety

Frankly Sir I am outraged at your completely misguided and condescending comments clearly and unambiguously stated in your interview.

All you have achieved is to regurgitate myths and rumours which could not be further from the truth in relation to Health &amp; Safety legislation.

It is somewhat ironic that your speech clearly aimed incidentally at “the Conservative grass routes” ignores the fact that it was your Government that led the adoption of the revolutionary introduction of new Health &amp; Safety Regulations in 1992 affectionately known as the “six pack”

To be precise, the “six pack” is led by The Management of Health &amp; Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (amended 1999)  which contains the primary requirement for Employers to undertake a series of Risk Assessments, from which non competent and misguided persons have so predictably misinterpreted this requirement leading to the state of confusion, rumours and myths that now exists, including the “conkers bonkers” scenario.

To suggest a review which would no doubt utilise millions of pounds of  tax payers money is ridiculous and unfounded. Perhaps Sir you should conduct a review to ensure the correct interpretation and application of the very same Regulations your party introduced.

So as to ensure you are aware of the bigger picture, it should be asked why Employers are so fearful of litigation (personal injury claims) and why we now live in such a litigious society. Most people consider we follow the American model and culture which could not be further from the truth. It is a direct consequence of the abolition of legal aid here in the UK for the majority of personal injury claims and to my limited knowledge first tabled by your Party and introduced in 1998 effective year 2000 under a Labour Government.

This abolition has led to an explosion of so called Personal Injury Lawyers who occupy most of the media with an ubiquitous advertising slogan “have you had an accident at work?” &amp; “No win No Fee” so who can blame the public for taking advantage of such a generous offer.

The true objective and general application of Health &amp; Safety is to ensure that Employees, Contractors and the Public are not subjected to unnecessary hazards so as to avoid for example slips, trips and falls that cost the NHS millions of pounds to treat in terms of time and money.

I personally invite Mr Cameron to spend a day with my Practice to see the good and appreciated work we do. Let him talk to the Workstation users who praise our efforts to ensure they do not suffer Repetitive Strain Injuries whilst sitting at a computer for hours on end or the Employers who thank us for increasing productivity and profitability and add value to their business by way of reduced absenteeism and not forgetting the reduced insurance premiums as a consequence of the absence of claims for personal injuries.

For the record Sir, hang your baskets, play conkers and encourage your children to go on school trips, learning should be fun. 

Sincerely

Mitchell Winter
Head of Practice
Winter &amp; Company Health &amp; Safety Consultants
City of London EC4.

www.health-safety.net

Tel:020 7353 4999.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr David Cameron MP vs Health &amp; Safety</p>
<p>Frankly Sir I am outraged at your completely misguided and condescending comments clearly and unambiguously stated in your interview.</p>
<p>All you have achieved is to regurgitate myths and rumours which could not be further from the truth in relation to Health &amp; Safety legislation.</p>
<p>It is somewhat ironic that your speech clearly aimed incidentally at “the Conservative grass routes” ignores the fact that it was your Government that led the adoption of the revolutionary introduction of new Health &amp; Safety Regulations in 1992 affectionately known as the “six pack”</p>
<p>To be precise, the “six pack” is led by The Management of Health &amp; Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (amended 1999)  which contains the primary requirement for Employers to undertake a series of Risk Assessments, from which non competent and misguided persons have so predictably misinterpreted this requirement leading to the state of confusion, rumours and myths that now exists, including the “conkers bonkers” scenario.</p>
<p>To suggest a review which would no doubt utilise millions of pounds of  tax payers money is ridiculous and unfounded. Perhaps Sir you should conduct a review to ensure the correct interpretation and application of the very same Regulations your party introduced.</p>
<p>So as to ensure you are aware of the bigger picture, it should be asked why Employers are so fearful of litigation (personal injury claims) and why we now live in such a litigious society. Most people consider we follow the American model and culture which could not be further from the truth. It is a direct consequence of the abolition of legal aid here in the UK for the majority of personal injury claims and to my limited knowledge first tabled by your Party and introduced in 1998 effective year 2000 under a Labour Government.</p>
<p>This abolition has led to an explosion of so called Personal Injury Lawyers who occupy most of the media with an ubiquitous advertising slogan “have you had an accident at work?” &amp; “No win No Fee” so who can blame the public for taking advantage of such a generous offer.</p>
<p>The true objective and general application of Health &amp; Safety is to ensure that Employees, Contractors and the Public are not subjected to unnecessary hazards so as to avoid for example slips, trips and falls that cost the NHS millions of pounds to treat in terms of time and money.</p>
<p>I personally invite Mr Cameron to spend a day with my Practice to see the good and appreciated work we do. Let him talk to the Workstation users who praise our efforts to ensure they do not suffer Repetitive Strain Injuries whilst sitting at a computer for hours on end or the Employers who thank us for increasing productivity and profitability and add value to their business by way of reduced absenteeism and not forgetting the reduced insurance premiums as a consequence of the absence of claims for personal injuries.</p>
<p>For the record Sir, hang your baskets, play conkers and encourage your children to go on school trips, learning should be fun. </p>
<p>Sincerely</p>
<p>Mitchell Winter<br />
Head of Practice<br />
Winter &amp; Company Health &amp; Safety Consultants<br />
City of London EC4.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.health-safety.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.health-safety.net</a></p>
<p>Tel:020 7353 4999.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Richardson</title>
		<link>http://www.hrreview.co.uk/hrreview-articles/health-safety/cameron-hits-health-safety/4973/comment-page-1#comment-1404</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Richardson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:26:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrreview.co.uk/?p=4973#comment-1404</guid>
		<description>Mr Cameron is obviously intelligent and so he should know the difference between criminal &amp; civil law. None of the things that he suggests would come under H&amp;S criminal law and I would suggest that he looks at the HSE website where they show &quot;Myth of the Month&quot;.  The problem is that when organisations are frightened about being sued they blame health &amp; safety.  The HSE would not prosecute for any of the examples quoted by Mr. Cameron and he appears to be playing to the media who regularly make the same errors. Perhaps he should talk to the families of people who have been killed or seriously injured at work and then he may realise what health &amp; safety is really about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Cameron is obviously intelligent and so he should know the difference between criminal &amp; civil law. None of the things that he suggests would come under H&amp;S criminal law and I would suggest that he looks at the HSE website where they show &#8220;Myth of the Month&#8221;.  The problem is that when organisations are frightened about being sued they blame health &amp; safety.  The HSE would not prosecute for any of the examples quoted by Mr. Cameron and he appears to be playing to the media who regularly make the same errors. Perhaps he should talk to the families of people who have been killed or seriously injured at work and then he may realise what health &amp; safety is really about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

