Health and safety

Health and safety is not about protecting the public. It's about protecting business against litigation. That really is the start and end of it.

 

wrong!

because business are worried about litigation it suggests the public have protection with h & s regulation.

 

But in a football match situation would the football club be at risk of litigation for any accident or incident that occured on public land? I would have thought it could only possibly be sued for an incident on its own land, anything else is out of their control.

What frustrates me most about calling a match off for health and safety concerns is the hypocrisy. The carpark was unlit for a long time with the club using the excuse of ''lights are broken", bollards were hidden in a dark area of the ground with people regularly walking into them, cars were and are given free reign of the exit routes from the ground putting people in serious risk of being hit by a 2 tonne vehicle and the club are happy to play in those conditions where very real risks exist but snow is too much?

 

What about the Norwich fans surely we have a duty of care to them? Conditions are very poor in Norfolk. I wouldn’t want to be setting off to. CArrow Road. It’s only a match we can play it later when it’s not brassic.

 

But that assumes that away fans have some kind of right to travel to any match and we would be denying them that right.

It’s not a right though. It’s personal choice. I choose to travel to a match, or not. It’s up to me in the same way that it is up to anyone else. Every match, home or away, is a risk for me because I have to travel a good distance. Even in good weather driving at high speed has its risks. I accept that risk, or I stay at home. Simple enough, surely?

 

It is about protecting the business but that is part down to the number of made up and false claims that many people make, I've seen it many times in the industry I work in, companies have to protect themselves and as such we all are affected.

 

We are all part of tbe football family. Putting people in potentially dangerous situations when they can be delayed a few weeks and travel in safe conditions is an absolute no brainier. Most concerts have been cancelled for the same reason. I was meant to be going to Halifax tonight to see a band. She’s From bristol so has cancelled. I wouldn’t have fancied the journey in tbe dark. Common sense says do it when it’s safe.

 

Will it be safer? Today one journey is made in daylight and one in the dark. For the rearranged fixture both will be made during the dark with both journeys having fans rushing and one being late at night when drivers are more tired.

 

probably right, but does that mean that Burnley and all the other Prem Games today have their litigation costs covered by Sky Sports? Or do these clubs have a bigger rock salt budget with which they can sort the surrounding streets?

 

ST - think the club can only be liable for something that happened on its land.

In case of fire how does a wheelchair user leave the Legends Suite if the (service) lift can't be used.

 

I thought that would be the case and I've no idea as I've never been in the legends suite so I don't know what plans they have in place

 

Of course it’ll be safe. My cousins live in Norfolk they have been literally snowed in much worse than here and anyone coming up would be travellling smdown harem sacrum roads potentially full of black ice. Only sensible decision. If I were coming up for the rearranged fixture I’d do it in daytime having done that journey loads of times myself. It only takes a stray tractor to add an hour onto your journey.

 

But the vast majority of fans with tickets will have jobs so won't be able to travel during daylight. They will be forced to travel in the dark and under time pressure too and then travel back tired and again under time pressure.
It may seem safer to travel then rather than now due to snow but when you start thinking about the dangers of driving at various times you realise that from a travelling risk point of view there are pros and cons and it isn't as black and white as it appears

 

You've been living amongst the Tories too long.

 

No I'm not, I'm sorry. Companies spend Billions on implementing and assessing health and safety initiatives to protect themselves from litigation. That is the only reason. We live in a capitalist society where profits to shareholders is the only thing that matters in business. Money spent on health and safety eats into profits, but less so than paying out settlements, so that's why it's done.

 

A few years ago, as a hard grafting young lad, I turned up to work, in the snow, and decided my first task, that day, would be to grab a shovel and clear some pathways so staff, customers and vehicles could get in and out.
My, then, gaffer quickly stopped me and explained why I shouldn't do that.
I can't state this as fact, but he told me, if you clear it, you have to clear the LOT, as if someone slips and gets hurt, we're libel. If you leave it and someone slips and gets hurt, it's down to an 'act of God' and therefore nobody is to blame.
That's society nowadays I'm afraid. Everyone's out to sue someone and it's probably what's behind the reasoning for today's postponement.

 

That's the usual case of somebody hearing a rumour and not bothering to check it. As long as you don't do anything stupid like clearing slow using water which would then freeze you can't be sued for making reasonable attempts to clear snow

 

Correct. The same goes for Corporate Responsibility, I spent 3 years at Jaguar Landrover performing software analysis with the sole aim of moving the responsibility for it going wrong from the higher management down to me and my colleagues. For anyone interested it was based on a USA court case Sarbanes & Oxley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes–Oxley_Act