RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted July 2, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 2, 2011 Following on from Steve Williams post 'obituary' ........... Perhaps some common sense might, just might, come to pass.. A relative until recently worked for a local council and was constantly questioning those 'unqualified' self appointed jobsworth council officers who banned the likes of tinsel at Christmas time on top of computer screen because they saw it as a 'fire risk' When questioned how many fires have been caused by tinsel, the answer was.."well none..but it could" They had heard about it from another council. At last the HSE has publicly castigated these people. Perhaps the Government should go further with their leglation re- 'no win, no fee' claims handling companies and injury lawyers and ban all television advertising so as to try and reverse the cursed 'compensation culture'. it just might save us all some money on our motor/home etc insurance in the future. Some summer fetes and winter firework displays in my home area have not taken place in recent years due to ever increasing insurance costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Playgrounds have become joyless, for fear of a few cuts and bruises. To be honest I don't really see that one. The playgrounds I remember had something like a slide, a roundabout, one of those long horse things and some swings. All located on skull smashing concrete. The playgrounds I take my daughter to these days are much better. They have things like zip wires, climbing frames sited in sand pits with pulleys and buckets for moving sand about, big spinning dishes to sit in, trampolines, the list goes on. No concrete in sight. Safer and way more fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nile_Griffith Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 It's the effect on the development of mankind as a species as a whole that worries me, not just the increase in insurance rates. With so much health and safety in place to prevent natural selection depriving the gene pool of the stupid gene. where are we going to be in three or four generations time? I mean it's a real concern. With a large number of congentitaly stupid people about, the drain on the public purse is going to be significant. Also leading to a spiralling of the Health and Safety effect. More stupid people requires more health and safety legislation meaning more stupid genes staying within the gene pool. You watch in three generations time text speak will be considered on a par with ancient aramaic now. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 When questioned how many fires have been caused by tinsel, the answer was.."well none..but it could" They had heard about it from another council. See this is where I get Angry. BTW I do Safety Audits for a living and the BIGGEST mistake public bodies always make it what you have just described. Risk is a balance of likelihood and consequence, if the likelihood is 1/5 but the consequence is 5/5 the overall risk is 5/25... Negligible! Alot of things could happen, I could get run over by a bus but its not likely so I continue to cross the road. You'll probably find the Other council had just heard about it from another council, ad-infinitum. Monday I'll be back trying to educate people how to actually do their jobs free from Persecution, listening to people say "can I actually do that? - yes you can". Bonkers Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekl Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 "Perhaps the Government should go further with their leglation re- 'no win, no fee' claims handling companies and injury lawyers and ban all television advertising so as to try and reverse the cursed 'compensation culture'. it just might save us all some money on our motor/home etc insurance in the future." "Compensation culture": this is a little bit of hoary myth dreamed up by the insurance industry. The level of personal injury claims has been roughly static for a good many years. (Lord Young reported to that effect last year). This despite the efforts of the insurance industry themselves to encourage claims - if you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a road accident your insurer is likely to encourage you to pursue a claim for personal injury (assuming there is some injury) - they will sell it to their panel solicitor for a nice little wad. As to the playgrounds - with me (clearly not very competently) in charge, my 2 year old grand daughter fell off the top of a slide. I was mightily relieved that the ground surface was rubberised matting, not concrete - injuries limited to quite a fright (for both of us) and a very minor bruise on grand daughter's cheek. (Sufficient to get me in bad books of daughter in law, mind you). Nile - I don't quite follow this argument, which assumes that only stupid people have accidents. I don't think that is supported by any statistical analysis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Slides and swings on concrete take us back to what the OP said....... How many young skulls were smashed on concrete? Grazed knees and elbows yes but they'll still get these on the super soft safety playgrounds. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Perhaps the Government should go further with their leglation re- 'no win, no fee' claims handling companies and injury lawyers and ban all television advertising so as to try and reverse the cursed 'compensation culture'. it just might save us all some money on our motor/home etc insurance in the future. If I suffer an injury or loss from someone else's negligence and lose salary or have medical bills to pay, why shouldn't the person at fault pay? And why should I have to pay the costs for any legal action if I'm not at fault? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JohnR Posted July 2, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 2, 2011 The problem with local authorities is that they are very risk averse. This is because of the added political dimension. If a minor accident occurred at a privately run playground, for example, no one would blink an eyelid. But if a kid cuts his knee on a council run playground - everyone from the local MP, the councillors, the local paper, the local community group, the mums support network etc will have an opinion and want everyone to know about it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted July 2, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 2, 2011 Slides and swings on concrete take us back to what the OP said....... How many young skulls were smashed on concrete? Grazed knees and elbows yes but they'll still get these on the super soft safety playgrounds. Mine for a start at the age of nine. No claim mind you. It was not even reported to the council. The world is better of (off?) for the improved awareness of Health & Safety, though I accept that some people take it too far. Don't confuse H&S with protection against claims. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 It's not the H&S rules per se that are at fault but rather the interpretation of those rules by some individuals with more power than sense. To be fair though, I do see the point that Nile was trying to make in the sense that many people, becoming accustomed to living in a kind of cushioned, risk-free bubble are increasingly behaving in a manner that suggests the absence of a sense of danger or basic survival instinct, believing that there will always be someone looking out for them. It's instantly noticeable in the manner of driving that is exhibited by an increasing number of (especially youthful) motorists. It starts to become a bit silly when the main drinking street in Carlisle is closed off every Friday and Saturday night, causing inconvenience to people driving through town, simply because people haven't the sense of restraint to stop drinking when they're no longer capable of walking safely across a street. To me, that is just making their problem my problem. Ordinary people do seem a lot less switched on to basic survival these days. It's a good job we don't let them loose with a shunter's pole in a 1950s hump yard! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointstaken Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Using a mobile phone while walking (or driving) instead of looking where you're going is probably a contributing factor in some accidents. Only the other day I saw a woman pushing a pushchair across the road at traffic lights, which were green at the time, whilst on her mobile and apparently completely oblivious to her surroundings. Luckily there were no vehicles travelling through those lights at the time, else the local rag and its associated politicians would have been screaming hysterically about road safety and the irresponsibility of the local council. Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 If I suffer an injury or loss from someone else's negligence and lose salary or have medical bills to pay, why shouldn't the person at fault pay? And why should I have to pay the costs for any legal action if I'm not at fault? If it is genuine negligence then fine, but most 'accidents' are simply that - sometimes things happen without anyone actually being to blame. That's the whole point, trying to stop solicitors trying to attribute fault to absolutely everything when it doesn't necessarily exist, making them lots of money (you don't think they do it for charity do you?) and putting insurance premiums up for everyone as a result. You might ask instead 'why should I have to pay additional insurance because of someone else's inappropriate claim'. The case of the woman in the US scalding herself on McDonalds coffee comes to mind. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted July 2, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 2, 2011 if the likelihood is 1/5 but the consequence is 5/5 the overall risk is 5/25... Negligible! errrr... 5/25 is the same as 1/5, a 20% risk, hardly negligible, in 5 cases one will go wrong! Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 "Compensation culture": this is a little bit of hoary myth dreamed up by the insurance industry. The level of personal injury claims has been roughly static for a good many years. (Lord Young reported to that effect last year). I am somewhat sceptical of that and would like to know what exactly is meant by "The level of personal injury claims has been roughly static for a good many years". It is a very bald statement, a sound bite devoid of any real content. If it is so, what is supporting the enormous Compensation Claims Industry which we see evidenced every day by countless TV ads? Yes, I know that many of these no win/no fee companies have the potential claiment take out insurance to cover the claims companies costs in the case of the claim being unsuccessful, but that insurance only works if some of the claims are successful. One of them went bust a few years back because they were taking on so many hopeless and unsuccessful cases that they could no longer get insurance cover. Are we expected to believe that all of these companies, all of these TV ads, are having NO impact on the total amount paid out by insurerers in claims over the years? Just what then is their business built on? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 They wouldn't be digging in that particular hill if they didn't think there was gold in it! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted July 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 3, 2011 You might ask instead 'why should I have to pay additional insurance because of someone else's inappropriate claim'. The case of the woman in the US scalding herself on McDonalds coffee comes to mind. But this case proved to be a genuine one, the coffee was deliberately sold 'too hot' to safely drink. http://www.caoc.com/...owPage&pg=facts The practice was to make the coffee as 'hot as possible' because they claimed people purchased it, then took it home or where ever to drink, thus they made it deliberately hot to allow for the travel time. This meant that anyone who opened it immediately, as is what happened in this case, risked a serious burn injury. Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 But this case proved to be a genuine one, the coffee was deliberately sold 'too hot' to safely drink. http://www.caoc.com/...owPage&pg=facts OK fair enough I picked a poor example from the pool of urban myth! But I still wouldn't put a styrofoam cup of coffee between my knees in a car in order to add milk and sugar, whether it was 180 or 140 degF. The chances of spillage are relatively high and common sense (here we go again) would dictate that it would be better to wait and/or choose a safer method. It's called personal responsibility for your own actions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted July 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 3, 2011 OK fair enough I picked a poor example from the pool of urban myth! But I still wouldn't put a styrofoam cup of coffee between my knees in a car in order to add milk and sugar, whether it was 180 or 140 degF. The chances of spillage are relatively high and common sense (here we go again) would dictate that it would be better to wait and/or choose a safer method. It's called personal responsibility for your own actions. Yes, I agree its plain silly. But your example is often quoted. Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 They wouldn't be digging in that particular hill if they didn't think there was gold in it! Too true Max. A nanny society = a helpless society IMV. Recent news stories about Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) mis-selling suddenly spawned a new set of claims handling firms on afternoon TV............. A new opportunity to grab 20-25% off lazy individuals who are not prepared to write letters and fill in forms themselves! And yet, individuals will end up doing just this if the people handling their case are to be furnished with all the necessary details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Irrespective of the courts ruling, the coffee case, to me, is still a good example of the compensation culture and the abrogation of personnal responsibility. Any adult knows that freshly brewed coffee is very hot and needs treating with care. Whatever the temperature, if you spill it on your groin it's your fault, not the person who made it for you. What next, McDonalds employ somebody to blow on your coffee to cool it down before you drink it. If we want treating like children that's where it will end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 If I suffer an injury or loss from someone else's negligence and lose salary or have medical bills to pay, why shouldn't the person at fault pay? And why should I have to pay the costs for any legal action if I'm not at fault? He didn't say you shouldn't - but a good solicitor can help you, you don't need a 'no win, no fee' firm to persue a genuine claim. Nearly three years after an accident where a car ran into my car from behind with me stationery at traffic lights I still get phone calls from 'no win, no fee' type companies even though I told my insurers at the time that I was fine and suffered no injuries and they're encouraging me to make a claim, which is surely morally suspect.... So as mentioned above, the compensation culture is clearly a myth isn't it?! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Slides and swings on concrete take us back to what the OP said....... How many young skulls were smashed on concrete? Grazed knees and elbows yes but they'll still get these on the super soft safety playgrounds. Our local MP lost his first daughter in a playground accident in the mid 70's. She fell off a climbing frame and landed on her head on the concrete. When I was a child we used to play together, but I never even spoke about it with the MP, who is a friend of mine, until he brought it up in conversation when we bumped into each other in the barber's shop. You never know if the hurt and heartache have healed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Nearly three years after an accident where a car ran into my car from behind with me stationery at traffic lights I still get phone calls from 'no win, no fee' type companies even though I told my insurers at the time that I was fine and suffered no injuries and they're encouraging me to make a claim, which is surely morally suspect.... I'm sure I'm not alone in receiving phishing cold calls from these sharks who start off with 'I understand you've had an accident recently' when there has been nothing of the kind 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 He didn't say you shouldn't - but a good solicitor can help you, you don't need a 'no win, no fee' firm to persue a genuine claim. Nearly three years after an accident where a car ran into my car from behind with me stationery at traffic lights I still get phone calls from 'no win, no fee' type companies even though I told my insurers at the time that I was fine and suffered no injuries and they're encouraging me to make a claim, which is surely morally suspect.... So as mentioned above, the compensation culture is clearly a myth isn't it?! To lighten things a bit... Some 20 years ago, we were waiting to pull on to the Coast Road in Jesmond, Newcastle, when two cars had a collision on the main road. One cannoned into the side of our Peugeot, totalling us, and giving us minor bruises and whiplash. We got out, and awaited the arrival of the police; as we did so, one of the other drivers came across to see how we were. He asked how we were, and advised us to see a doctor as soon as possible- he then said; 'I'm a solicitor- I specialise in Personal Injury claims..' My wife took one look at him, and said 'I can see that...' There was a piece in the Guardian, just before we went on holiday, which compared claim levels for road traffic accidents in various EU countries- UK claims for whiplash resulting from RTAs were much more numerous than anywhere else. Does this mean that UK drivers and passengers are physiologically different to those elsewhere? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 3, 2011 I'm sure I'm not alone in receiving phishing cold calls from these sharks who start off with 'I understand you've had an accident recently' when there has been nothing of the kind Occasionally I even get one for my dad - we buried him early in 2005 so these ^*>>ers clearly are not too hot on their research; maybe they can't afford new telephone directories? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now