Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Turk on 11 May 2011, 23:10:14

Title: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Turk on 11 May 2011, 23:10:14
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Dishevelled Den on 11 May 2011, 23:16:44
Yes, it's difficult to understand the suggested justification of his dismissal.

I'm sure his long service and potential pension payout upon retirement had nothing to do with the decision.
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Vamps on 11 May 2011, 23:59:58
Quote
Yes, it's difficult to understand the suggested justification of his dismissal.

I'm sure his long service and potential pension payout upon retirement had nothing to do with the decision.

You are more cynical than me..... ::) ::) ::)

He had the power disconnected so how can he have been in breach of H&S.... ::) what would have been reported had he not acted and a train crashed into the trolley and caused an derailment.....H&S gone Mad.... >:( >:(
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: albitz on 12 May 2011, 01:34:47
Common sense must be banished from the national mindset.
It involves people thinking for themselves, and we just cant allow that sort of thing to happen. It would cause chaos, where would we end up if everyone goes around thinking for themselves and making decisions based on those thoughts. ;)
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Banjax on 12 May 2011, 01:43:56
Quote
Yes, it's difficult to understand the suggested justification of his dismissal.

I'm sure his long service and potential pension payout upon retirement had nothing to do with the decision.

quite often the case where companies are looking to reduce costs, ie anything which can be technically a breach of contract and hence a cheap way of sacking someone - utterly disgraceful  >:(
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: albitz on 12 May 2011, 01:46:30
Yep, I got instant dismissal after 20 years service for having a spazzy leg. ::)
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: bigegg on 12 May 2011, 12:37:04
as with all new stories, I am sure that there is more happening behind the scenes than has been reported.
For example - he *asked* for the power to be turned off. was it? Was he specifically told not to remove the trolley by his superior? (I can't imagine a shopping trolley derailling a train when a car won't).
Was this a repeat offence?
Where did this happen? On an open section of track where you can see a train coming from 5 miles away?

To me, the station master was a bl88dy idiot to even think about going on the tracks - he should certainly have received a final written warning for his actions *at least* - and that's with mitigating circumstances.

It's on a par with running into the fast lane of a motorway to retrieve a bag of crisps, *in case it causes a traffic hazard*

Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Chris_H on 12 May 2011, 14:22:20
Quote
as with all new stories, I am sure that there is more happening behind the scenes than has been reported.
For example - he *asked* for the power to be turned off. was it? Was he specifically told not to remove the trolley by his superior? (I can't imagine a shopping trolley derailling a train when a car won't).
Was this a repeat offence?
Where did this happen? On an open section of track where you can see a train coming from 5 miles away?

To me, the station master was a bl88dy idiot to even think about going on the tracks - he should certainly have received a final written warning for his actions *at least* - and that's with mitigating circumstances.

It's on a par with running into the fast lane of a motorway to retrieve a bag of crisps, *in case it causes a traffic hazard*

More on a par with a Traffic Cop removing a loose wheel from a quiet motorway I would think. >:(
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Banjax on 12 May 2011, 14:43:28
Quote
Quote
as with all new stories, I am sure that there is more happening behind the scenes than has been reported.
For example - he *asked* for the power to be turned off. was it? Was he specifically told not to remove the trolley by his superior? (I can't imagine a shopping trolley derailling a train when a car won't).
Was this a repeat offence?
Where did this happen? On an open section of track where you can see a train coming from 5 miles away?

To me, the station master was a bl88dy idiot to even think about going on the tracks - he should certainly have received a final written warning for his actions *at least* - and that's with mitigating circumstances.

It's on a par with running into the fast lane of a motorway to retrieve a bag of crisps, *in case it causes a traffic hazard*

More on a par with a Traffic Cop removing a loose wheel from a quiet motorway I would think. >:(

i agree, at the end of the day its a large piece of metal lying on the tracks, may not derail a train but could certainly pose a danger to the surrounding area  :o
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: ZacVegas on 12 May 2011, 16:12:54
The power was not turned off, he asked, but it wasn't done in time. Cannot blame them for sacking him, he knew the rules.
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Amigo on 12 May 2011, 19:35:00
Another view is had he hurt or killed himself imagine the outcry & ensuing compensation claims, these things work both ways.

  That said i think he should've been disciplined but not dismissed. As already said his dismissal does smack of let's not pay his pension in which case those responsible should be ashamed of themselves. Bet they'll draw theres! :(
Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: bigegg on 12 May 2011, 20:03:59
Quote
Quote
as with all new stories, I am sure that there is more happening behind the scenes than has been reported.
For example - he *asked* for the power to be turned off. was it? Was he specifically told not to remove the trolley by his superior? (I can't imagine a shopping trolley derailling a train when a car won't).
Was this a repeat offence?
Where did this happen? On an open section of track where you can see a train coming from 5 miles away?

To me, the station master was a bl88dy idiot to even think about going on the tracks - he should certainly have received a final written warning for his actions *at least* - and that's with mitigating circumstances.

It's on a par with running into the fast lane of a motorway to retrieve a bag of crisps, *in case it causes a traffic hazard*

More on a par with a Traffic Cop removing a loose wheel from a quiet motorway I would think. >:(

sorry - I was being more than a little bit facetious there.
I was trying to think of an example of something which isn't really a danger to traffic.

I suppose a shopping trolley could do a minor amount of damage to a train - not enough to warrant risking a life.

And we don't know that it was a "quiet" line.

Title: Re: Another ridiculous H&S ruling.
Post by: Ken T on 12 May 2011, 20:11:03
It all depends on the exact situation. It is not dangerous to go onto a 3rd rail system, provided you don't touch the 3rd rail and give due regard to approaching trains. The railway have systems of work for doing these things, and that is probably what he breached. How dangerous was the act ?. We will never know.

Ken