Human Rights Act / Health and Safety

spen666

In another thread on here, someone has made a light hearted reference to the HRA.

This legislation gets blamed for so many things as does H&S legislation.

Its interesting to read so much abuse on such legislation. I can understand why people think that way, but with both pieces of legislation, if you read them there is nothing you could really disagree with.

for some reason, the courts have allowed the HRA to be abused and used in ways that are not appropriate. Upholding spurious claims.

On a similar note, H&S legislation is blamed for things being banned, when this is just an abdication of proper risk assessment by the H&S / compliance type people.

2 good pieces of legislation have been shamelessly abused

beverick

Where there's smoke there's fire......

Bob

Tony1976

My own opinion is that the HRA has not been used for the original purpose it was set up for, which, i would hope, would be to protect innocent people, not just to be something that every scumbag jonny thief can use in order to get a playstation or plasma tv in his cell when he is banged up cos the state of the cells isnt good enough for him, i know this could spark a whole new debate but jonny should avoid the occupation of drug using thief if he doesnt want to be put in these places and do something productive with his time on the planet.

The H&S side of it is something i have more sympathy towards, but only when it is used in sensible ways, ie to protect the guy working in a saw mill by providing him with gloves, eye protection, guards on the saws etc but when you have "caution contents may be hot" on the side of a plastic cup of coffee from McDonalds then the world has gone mad!!! of course its going to be hot, you would be mad if it wasnt, and if you spill hot things it will burn!

To me the problem is that money is being wasted on daft things like whether a green grocer is selling the correct shape bananas rather than that money being used elsewhere, like care for the elderly, helping the unemployed back into work, providing facilities for the disabled, the health service etc etc

My opinion of the above has been made by what i have seen in the press and on television which only reports the bad side of it, which is where the majority of people will form their views from and will also then result in the negative feelings towards both HRA and H&S.

Sorry for going on by the way but its omething that gets under my skin, there are some lawyers and solicitors who have become very very wealthy due to all of the above and it annoys me.

passout

Health & Safety Law (1974 act especially) has saved lives - hundreds if not thousands in constructions alone. Also few would disagree with strict fire safety for businesses. So, there is nothing wrong with Health & Safety Law itself BUT there is alot wrong with the way in which most people (including the HSE) have intrepretated it. Many have been over zealous to say the least. The HSE says it wants a common sense approach to risk but then procecutes when perhaps it shouldn't.

In fairness you cannot blame H&S law for blame/compensation culture but it does need to be altered as a reaction to it.

alfablue

I believe the main objectors to H&S law are greedy, lazy or negligent employers, and I also believe the Health and Safety Exec are underfunded, understaffed, and many serious breaches go unnoticed until injury or tragedy occurs. I have personal experience of attempting to get the Manual Handling Regs (MHOR, 1992) enforced in health care settings; despite early hard won successes, I can still see appalling manual handling practice taking place in hospitals today, to the detriment of workers and patients alike. Fortunately, nursing, whilst being one of the largest workforces in the country is also the meekest, so nothing changes!

spen666

Tony1976 wrote:

My own opinion is that the HRA has not been used for the original purpose it was set up for, which, i would hope, would be to protect innocent people, not just to be something that every scumbag jonny thief can use in order to get a playstation or plasma tv in his cell when he is banged up cos the state of the cells isnt good enough for him, i know this could spark a whole new debate but jonny should avoid the occupation of drug using thief if he doesnt want to be put in these places and do something productive with his time on the planet.

The H&S side of it is something i have more sympathy towards, but only when it is used in sensible ways, ie to protect the guy working in a saw mill by providing him with gloves, eye protection, guards on the saws etc but when you have "caution contents may be hot" on the side of a plastic cup of coffee from McDonalds then the world has gone mad!!! of course its going to be hot, you would be mad if it wasnt, and if you spill hot things it will burn!

i presume you have in mind the court case in the US where a woman was awarded huge damages against McD after being scalded by coffee. If you read the judgement in that case ( I have!) then you would not find it as silly as it is made out to be.

I take your point, its like the peanuts bag printed with the warning "this product may contain nuts". That was never what H&S legislation is about

To me the problem is that money is being wasted on daft things like whether a green grocer is selling the correct shape bananas

A good example of blame going to H&S or HRA. This is an EU directive that is nothing to do with H&S or Human Rights

rather than that money being used elsewhere, like care for the elderly, helping the unemployed back into work, providing facilities for the disabled, the health service etc etc

My opinion of the above has been made by what i have seen in the press and on television which only reports the bad side of it, which is where the majority of people will form their views from and will also then result in the negative feelings towards both HRA and H&S.

Sorry for going on by the way but its omething that gets under my skin, there are some lawyers and solicitors who have become very very wealthy due to all of the above and it annoys me.

spen666

passout wrote:

Health & Safety Law (1974 act especially) has saved lives - hundreds if not thousands in constructions alone. Also few would disagree with strict fire safety for businesses. So, there is nothing wrong with Health & Safety Law itself BUT there is alot wrong with the way in which most people (including the HSE) have intrepretated it. Many have been over zealous to say the least. The HSE says it wants a common sense approach to risk but then procecutes when perhaps it shouldn't.

In fairness you cannot blame H&S law for blame/compensation culture but it does need to be altered as a reaction to it.

My point exactly

jam1e

spen666 wrote:

In another thread on here, someone has made a light hearted reference to the HRA.

This legislation gets blamed for so many things as does H&S legislation.

Its interesting to read so much abuse on such legislation. I can understand why people think that way, but with both pieces of legislation, if you read them there is nothing you could really disagree with.

for some reason, the courts have allowed the HRA to be abused and used in ways that are not appropriate. Upholding spurious claims.

On a similar note, H&S legislation is blamed for things being banned, when this is just an abdication of proper risk assessment by the H&S / compliance type people.

2 good pieces of legislation have been shamelessly abused

Surely "good" legislation should be written in a manner which makes it difficult to (willfully?) misinterpret? The best that can be said for H&S/HRA laws is that they have good intentions - and we all know which road is paved with them...

spen666

jam1e wrote:

spen666 wrote:

In another thread on here, someone has made a light hearted reference to the HRA.

This legislation gets blamed for so many things as does H&S legislation.

Its interesting to read so much abuse on such legislation. I can understand why people think that way, but with both pieces of legislation, if you read them there is nothing you could really disagree with.

for some reason, the courts have allowed the HRA to be abused and used in ways that are not appropriate. Upholding spurious claims.

On a similar note, H&S legislation is blamed for things being banned, when this is just an abdication of proper risk assessment by the H&S / compliance type people.

2 good pieces of legislation have been shamelessly abused

Surely "good" legislation should be written in a manner which makes it difficult to (willfully?) misinterpret? The best that can be said for H&S/HRA laws is that they have good intentions - and we all know which road is paved with them...

You can't legislate for the way people will interpretate the legislation as they will always be differing views on things.
Hence some of the seemingly outrageous decisions from courts over the years

To do otherwise means you end up with legislation that is too specifgic and not flexible enough to cover enough situations where it may be needed

jam1e

So in this case we've ended up with legislation which is too "flexible"? Sounds to me like it needs tightening up a bit!

spen666

jam1e wrote:

So in this case we've ended up with legislation which is too "flexible"? Sounds to me like it needs tightening up a bit!

Try reading it and then say how you could tighten it up.
Its the same with anything. Its created initially with one thing in mind, but people find other ways to use it.

Here, the courts should not have allowed such wide interpretation of it to the exclusion of its over riding principles

jam1e

Read them? Why the hell would I want to do that?! (Which raises the point that if they're incomprehensible to the average person how can they be expected to be followed by the average person running a business?)

So are you saying that they're as well written as possible? I personally think that if they've that much room for interpretation then they need to be made more specific.

By this I mean instead of a one size fits all H&S act why not write seperate H&S at school, H&S in hospitals, H&S in HM Forces legislation which would be much more applicable? This would include clear examples of risk assessments, personal responsibilities and acceptable exemptions etc. Surely this would reduce the potential for misinterpretation...

It's not like the government dislikes giving money to lawyers, why not make it money well spent for a change?

spen666

jam1e wrote:

Read them? Why the hell would I want to do that?! (Which raises the point that if they're incomprehensible to the average person how can they be expected to be followed by the average person running a business?)

spo you haven't tried to read them, but you claim they are incomprehensible to the average person?

Based upon what exactly?

So are you saying that they're as well written as possible? I personally think that if they've that much room for interpretation then they need to be made more specific.

Make your mind up? You have just claimed they are incomprehensible, now you want them more specific? A contradiction surely


how do you make them more specific? If you want them to cover the situations they already do, but be specific, the HRA would need to be millions of pages long.

Have you ever tried to read an Act of Parliament?


I suspect not, yet you are prepared to criticise its drafting? Upon what basis?

By this I mean instead of a one size fits all H&S act why not write seperate H&S at school, H&S in hospitals, H&S in HM Forces legislation which would be much more applicable?

You claerly have not thought this through, nor have you read any of the legislation. It does not lay down any specific requirements for anywhere. If you try to be specific, you will always be ammending legislation as you come across situations that were not covered

This would include clear examples of risk assessments, personal responsibilities and acceptable exemptions etc. Surely this would reduce the potential for misinterpretation...

it would simply increas opportunities to find loopholes

It's not like the government dislikes giving money to lawyers, why not make it money well spent for a change?

jam1e

I can see this dragging on...

I've (unfortunately) had to read enough of them to form an opinion regarding their ease of use, subsequently I'm not going sit and read the remainder.

"Make your mind up? You have just claimed they are incomprehensible, now you want them more specific? A contradiction surely " -
Why is wanting them to be more specific and relevent the same as wanting them to be incomprehensible? I'm sure it's not impossible to write something that's clear, straightforward and comprehensive...


"Have you ever tried to read an Act of Parliament?
I suspect not, yet you are prepared to criticise its drafting? Upon what basis?" -
I'm prepared to criticise the drafting of an act of legislature based upon it's results. I've never tried to build a bike frame but I'd criticise a manufacturer who repeatedly built frames which fell apart when people rode them...

"You claerly have not thought this through, nor have you read any of the legislation .It does not lay down any specific requirements for anywhere. If you try to be specific, you will always be ammending legislation as you come across situations that were not covered" -
Maybe if it did it would be more successful... What's wrong with amending legislation based on new findings? Surely that's better than allowing it to continue to be misused?

"it would simply increas opportunities to find loopholes" -
good point, loopholes have never been exploited in the current situation...


So is it perfectly written in every respect or could it be improved?

spen666

jam1e wrote:

I can see this dragging on...

I've (unfortunately) had to read enough of them to form an opinion regarding their ease of use, subsequently I'm not going sit and read the remainder.

"Make your mind up? You have just claimed they are incomprehensible, now you want them more specific? A contradiction surely " -
Why is wanting them to be more specific and relevent the same as wanting them to be incomprehensible? I'm sure it's not impossible to write something that's clear, straightforward and comprehensive...


"Have you ever tried to read an Act of Parliament?
I suspect not, yet you are prepared to criticise its drafting? Upon what basis?" -
I'm prepared to criticise the drafting of an act of legislature based upon it's results. I've never tried to build a bike frame but I'd criticise a manufacturer who repeatedly built frames which fell apart when people rode them...

"You claerly have not thought this through, nor have you read any of the legislation .It does not lay down any specific requirements for anywhere. If you try to be specific, you will always be ammending legislation as you come across situations that were not covered" -
Maybe if it did it would be more successful... What's wrong with amending legislation based on new findings? Surely that's better than allowing it to continue to be misused?

"it would simply increas opportunities to find loopholes" -
good point, loopholes have never been exploited in the current situation...


So is it perfectly written in every respect or could it be improved?

You are criticising the dradfting of an Act you have never read. Upon what are you basing this? The decisions of the courts? Perhaps it could be the courts that are the problem

I will repeat the question I have asked earlier- what EXACTLY & SPECIFICALLY is wrong with the drafting of the HRA?

You refer to the fact businesses can't understand it as it is incomprehensible.

You admit not having read it. How do you know it is incomprehensible then?

What is the relevance of businesses not understanding the HRA? Why is that aproblem?

spen666

6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Now that seems very clear to me

It says that is is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompativble with a Convention right.

Which part of that do you not understand?

Which part of it is not clear?









Your postings on this subject clearly expose that you have no understanding of the legal process or the completely unworkable situation your suggestions would cause. You would be forever sshutting the stable door after the horse has bolted if the giovernment were stupid enough to do as you suggest. Criminal Legislation is not retrospective

alfablue

jam1e wrote:

Read them? Why the hell would I want to do that?! (Which raises the point that if they're incomprehensible to the average person how can they be expected to be followed by the average person running a business?)

So are you saying that they're as well written as possible? I personally think that if they've that much room for interpretation then they need to be made more specific.

By this I mean instead of a one size fits all H&S act why not write seperate H&S at school, H&S in hospitals, H&S in HM Forces legislation which would be much more applicable? This would include clear examples of risk assessments, personal responsibilities and acceptable exemptions etc. Surely this would reduce the potential for misinterpretation...

It's not like the government dislikes giving money to lawyers, why not make it money well spent for a change?

I don't think it is right to view the HRA and H&SWA in the same way in this respect. There is a lot of detailed regulation and guidance pertaining to H&S and 34 years of case law, it shouldn't really be a mystery any more - and by the way, it is the duty of any business owner/employer to "get their act together" in respect of any H&S legislation pertaining to their business, if they are too ignorant or can't be bothered they need to buy advice, training or assistance (readily available) or they are not suitable to be in business. If they think they can't afford it they have a business model that is not viable, and / or are taking excess profit or adopting uneconomic pricing.

There is specific HSE guidance for many industries, there is no need for separate laws. It really isn't that difficult.

As the OP pointed out, many of the headlines we see (this or that banned because of H&S) are often incorrect reporting or due to flawed risk assessment or due to insurance issues, not flaws with the legislation itself.

HRA is much more recent and specific application of these rights is still being tested in the courts. When we have 34 years experience with the HRA we should know where we stand on most issues.

chuckcork

I'd go with the problem being implementation of the legislation and its interpretation, not its drafting.

Some examples I've come across personally:

1. Queried why mail address to me at an address wasn't delivered, and was instead sent back to the sender (in England). I had made the mistake of not specifying which of 3 companies in a building i worked for, so the mail deliverer tried the first one, who didn't know who I was, and then because of 'health and safety' and not being able to deliver past the first point of delivery, gave up. Which is to say he couldn't climb the stairs. By comparison I was cycling 14 miles each way to work along some busy roads, my comment back was I don't know how they get out of bed what with dealing with such dangers.

2. Close to the McDonalds coffee case, the building i was working in was something like 5 stories high and fairly large, but had only 1 tearoom where you could make a cuppa. People making such a cuppa had to use a covered mug (specifically required by management) because if you walked into someone with a hot drink and they were scalded the management could be sued.

That you might walk into them with a hot drink and the styrofoam cup supplied as an alternative by the canteen would simply crush and spill anyway was beside the point.

I see other things like that as well. Charity collectors in a pedestrian mall wearing high viz yellow, or people walking through someones house on TV in some interior design program in High Viz as well, regardless of their not being on a construction site but in someones home that someone is living in, without the safety benefits of High Viz.

Examples like these make sense at one level but can be totally nuts when viewed a different way. Problem is that there is risk that is normal and there is abnormal or elevated risk, and the normal risk is dealt with by going to abnormal extremes.

Can you imagine for example on building sites, restrictions on working at height going this way? You'd never get past buildings 3 feet tall because of stupidities like these.

spen666

chuckcork wrote:

I'd go with the problem being implementation of the legislation and its interpretation, not its drafting.

Some examples I've come across personally:

1. Queried why mail address to me at an address wasn't delivered, and was instead sent back to the sender (in England). I had made the mistake of not specifying which of 3 companies in a building i worked for, so the mail deliverer tried the first one, who didn't know who I was, and then because of 'health and safety' and not being able to deliver past the first point of delivery, gave up. Which is to say he couldn't climb the stairs. By comparison I was cycling 14 miles each way to work along some busy roads, my comment back was I don't know how they get out of bed what with dealing with such dangers.

This is a great example of people using H&S as an excuse. There is nothing at all in H&S legislation to support the mail deliverer or his company's position.

H&S is blamed, but you might as well blame the Loch Ness Monsater, it is as much the monster's fault as H&S legislation.

We let poor working practices continue by allowing the excuses such as this to continue

2. Close to the McDonalds coffee case, the building i was working in was something like 5 stories high and fairly large, but had only 1 tearoom where you could make a cuppa. People making such a cuppa had to use a covered mug (specifically required by management) because if you walked into someone with a hot drink and they were scalded the management could be sued.

That you might walk into them with a hot drink and the styrofoam cup supplied as an alternative by the canteen would simply crush and spill anyway was beside the point.

Again this is simply someone not doing their job properly. The isdea of a covered cup is perhaps sensible in a busy building, but its pointless if as you say the mug is styrofoam.

Whoever is responsible for H&S has done half a job, and management have not only allowed themn to do this but supported them by introducing the rule re the lid without considering the mug.

I see other things like that as well. Charity collectors in a pedestrian mall wearing high viz yellow, or people walking through someones house on TV in some interior design program in High Viz as well, regardless of their not being on a construction site but in someones home that someone is living in, without the safety benefits of High Viz.

Examples like these make sense at one level but can be totally nuts when viewed a different way. Problem is that there is risk that is normal and there is abnormal or elevated risk, and the normal risk is dealt with by going to abnormal extremes.

Can you imagine for example on building sites, restrictions on working at height going this way? You'd never get past buildings 3 feet tall because of stupidities like these.

You are right- it is people not doing risk assessments, but trying to avoid all risks in situations like the hi viz vest you refer to.

We allow H&S to try to eliminate all risks. This is not the position of H&S law. H&S law is about making judgements on the risk, limiting unnecessary risk.

Too often we allow H&S executives/ employees etc to seek to avoid a risk without considering the benefits of that risk - eg children playing conkers- may be a risk of getting hand hit by a conker etc, but benefit of play is to my mind far outweighs the conseqiences of that risk



But once again, it is the decisions of H&S employees, not what the law requires that causes this situation.

The law and practice are very different

alfablue

H&S regulations use the term "reasonably practicable" throughout - for example, it is reasonably practicable to avoid the manual handling of a patient in a hospital setting, but it is not reasonably practicable to avoid the manual handling of a patient out of their crashed car on the motorway. In the former case a failure to avoid/minimise/mechanise this handling would be a breach, in the latter it would not be. It really isn't difficult! The bizarre examples come from ill-informed application of the regulations.

chuckcork

Even with reasonably practical it can still be a little nuts, or at least seem that way.

On building sites for example (I'm an architect so would be expected to do initial designers risk assessment) there is the issue of lifting heavy construction objects, a single person cannot for example be lifting from than 20Kg, up to 32Kg you would need 2 people.

Fair enough and no problem with this, as 20Kg is quite heavy for repeated lifting, 2 people to lift each say concrete block is a waste of manpower, so as architects we design for now 100mm wide blocks which are obviously lighter than 140mm blocks.

But on one site the blocks being used were less than the 20kg limit, but not used because even if they were covered while on site, there was a risk they would become wet and as a result go over the 20kg limit.

Sensible interpretation of the rules? I couldn't say either way. It makes some sense, but is also introducing additional 'well what if this occured' scenarios in, which can be done without limit and which makes it hard to comply with the requirements.

Of course failure to complete paperwork is a big no-no in a bureaucratic world. Meath Co. Council got done for this vis. a crash on a road works site. Judgement stated that it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, but it was violation that would have to be punished.

So end result is I can cycle along the hard shoulder of a busy highway, and then find the hard shoulder is totally blocked by barriers added for 'safety' and forcing me into the 60mph dual carriageway.

This is acceptable as long as the paperwork is done and there is a process in place!

jam1e

spen666 wrote:

jam1e wrote:

I can see this dragging on...

I've (unfortunately) had to read enough of them to form an opinion regarding their ease of use, subsequently I'm not going sit and read the remainder.

"Make your mind up? You have just claimed they are incomprehensible, now you want them more specific? A contradiction surely " -
Why is wanting them to be more specific and relevent the same as wanting them to be incomprehensible? I'm sure it's not impossible to write something that's clear, straightforward and comprehensive...


"Have you ever tried to read an Act of Parliament?
I suspect not, yet you are prepared to criticise its drafting? Upon what basis?" -
I'm prepared to criticise the drafting of an act of legislature based upon it's results. I've never tried to build a bike frame but I'd criticise a manufacturer who repeatedly built frames which fell apart when people rode them...

"You claerly have not thought this through, nor have you read any of the legislation .It does not lay down any specific requirements for anywhere. If you try to be specific, you will always be ammending legislation as you come across situations that were not covered" -
Maybe if it did it would be more successful... What's wrong with amending legislation based on new findings? Surely that's better than allowing it to continue to be misused?

"it would simply increas opportunities to find loopholes" -
good point, loopholes have never been exploited in the current situation...


So is it perfectly written in every respect or could it be improved?

"You are criticising the dradfting of an Act you have never read. Upon what are you basing this? The decisions of the courts? Perhaps it could be the courts that are the problem"

Answered above

I will repeat the question I have asked earlier- what EXACTLY & SPECIFICALLY is wrong with the drafting of the HRA?"

Answered above

"You refer to the fact businesses can't understand it as it is incomprehensible.

You admit not having read it. How do you know it is incomprehensible then?"

Answered above

"What is the relevance of businesses not understanding the HRA? Why is that aproblem?"

"Equality and diversity" type issues are affected by the HRA - these are of a direct concern to many businesses.



I will repeat the question I asked you earlier "Is the legislation perfectly written or could it be improved?"

Your refusal to provide a straightforward answer to the above question is probably symbolic of the failure of the wider legal profession to provide sufficient clarity on the topics of H&S and HRA and the subsequent misinterpretations that ensue.

( I realise you'll undoubtedly use this statement as a further opportunity to ask for specific examples etc whilst simultaneously ignoring the question yet again...)

I'll spell out my position nice and slowly...

If legislation written witth a particular aim in mind leads to widespread confusion, misinterpretation and distrust amongst many of the people it's aimed at and the people responsible for enforcing or advising on it, it's a fair assumption the legislation is lacking something. What that something is and how the legislation can be improved is for the authors to decide following consultation with juduciary, trade unions etc.

If I write a report and many of the people who have to act upon it get a totally different idea of what the report says to what I believe it says, I'd be tempted to rewrite it. I certainly wouldn't say "it's perfect, nothing can be done to improve it"

So one more time, just in case you've "forgotten" to answer it... Is the legislation perfectly written or could it be improved?

spen666

jam1e wrote:

"What is the relevance of businesses not understanding the HRA? Why is that aproblem?"

"Equality and diversity" type issues are affected by the HRA - these are of a direct concern to many businesses.

Jam1e try to stop being so stupid

- try also to read about what you are criticising - the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT applies only to public authorities, not businesses

Whoops

spen666

jam1e wrote:

[
I will repeat the question I asked you earlier "Is the legislation perfectly written or could it be improved?"

Your refusal to provide a straightforward answer to the above question is probably symbolic of the failure of the wider legal profession to provide sufficient clarity on the topics of H&S and HRA and the subsequent misinterpretations that ensue.

you are the one making general criticisms of tthe act but refuse to read the act and refuse to provide any specifics

The key part of the HRA is

6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

How are you saying that should be clarified?

It is very clear to me what it is saying. I for one do not need it clarifying. I can read English and understand it. I can also read that it only applies to public authorities.

spen666

jam1e wrote:

I'll spell out my position nice and slowly...

If legislation written witth a particular aim in mind leads to widespread confusion, misinterpretation and distrust amongst many of the people it's aimed at and the people responsible for enforcing or advising on it, it's a fair assumption the legislation is lacking something. What that something is and how the legislation can be improved is for the authors to decide following consultation with juduciary, trade unions etc.

If I write a report and many of the people who have to act upon it get a totally different idea of what the report says to what I believe it says, I'd be tempted to rewrite it. I certainly wouldn't say "it's perfect, nothing can be done to improve it"

..

so, go on then rewrite the key section which is

6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

What is this lacking?

How can it be improved?

Instead of ranting on about changing something you have not read and do not understand

Try rewriting the key clause as quoted above, into the wording you think it should say

Bet you wont/ can't though

jam1e

Wow - has somebody got their overly tight pants on today?! And you accuse me of ranting...

Who knew the entire HRA was only 1 sentence long...?
That sentence is remarkably similar to saying something along the lines of "it is illegal to commit crime..."

You ask whats so difficult to understand about that single line? You tell me - you claim that judges and other officials are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the HRA legislation. Surely if it's as straightforward, clear and with as little room for error as that single sentence, then these mistakes wouldn't happen?

You posted an opinion, saying that the legislation was wrongly blamed for many H&S/HRA type stories, which is fair enough. To me it seems straightforward - if so many people responsible for implementing and enforcing the legislation misinterpret it so regularly, it's probably worth looking at to see if the reason for these missunderstandings can be rectified.

And business not being affected by the HRA? Is it no longer the case that businesses and non-profit organisations as well as private individuals can attempt to use the HRA if they feel that they have been wronged by a government department etc.

The whole point of your post appears to have been - "This is my opinion if you don't agree I'm going to quote and question you into submission" demanding specific examples even when discussing relatively unquantifiable generalities and public perceptions...

So to summarise then - It's perfect, none of the mistakes are the fault of the legislation but are due to people being incapable of following it correctly, despite the fact that many "experts" fail to agree on what exactly it means.

So is it perfect or could it be improved? (4th time lucky in the attempt to get a straight answer to a simple question...)

(See this is me asking you a question - you can answer it (which would be a surprise) by either saying it is perfect or it could be improved, what isn't a useful answer is you asking how I would improve it, whilst failing to give your opinion whether such change is needed)

spen666

jam1e wrote:

Wow - has somebody got their overly tight pants on today?! And you accuse me of ranting...

Who knew the entire HRA was only 1 sentence long...?

Erm

Who apart from you said the HRA was one sentence long.

You may note that I referred to the key clause being 6(1). I did not say it was the whole act.

However as you are pontificating on the drafting of an act you have not read it comews as no suprise you are so wrong. An act you think applies to private businesses (what part of private businesses are public authorities?)

That sentence is remarkably similar to saying something along the lines of "it is illegal to commit crime..."

You ask whats so difficult to understand about that single line? You tell me - you claim that judges and other officials are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the HRA legislation. Surely if it's as straightforward, clear and with as little room for error as that single sentence, then these mistakes wouldn't happen?

I don't think I have said that at all.

Again though don't let this stand in the way of your ill informed comments

You posted an opinion, saying that the legislation was wrongly blamed for many H&S/HRA type stories, which is fair enough. To me it seems straightforward - if so many people responsible for implementing and enforcing the legislation misinterpret it so regularly, it's probably worth looking at to see if the reason for these missunderstandings can be rectified.

And business not being affected by the HRA? Is it no longer the case that businesses and non-profit organisations as well as private individuals can attempt to use the HRA if they feel that they have been wronged by a government department etc.

ahh so now you are jumping horses and these businesses as the claimants not the respondents.

ABOUT TURN

The whole point of your post appears to have been - "This is my opinion if you don't agree I'm going to quote and question you into submission" demanding specific examples even when discussing relatively unquantifiable generalities and public perceptions...

Not at all, but if you are going to attack the legilsation, then at least have something to attack it for.

You are atacking something you have not read, something you know nothing about.

You are just making baseless atacks.

I am not saying this legislation or any legislation is correct.

So to summarise then - It's perfect, none of the mistakes are the fault of the legislation but are due to people being incapable of following it correctly, despite the fact that many "experts" fail to agree on what exactly it means.

Is this what you think or are you inventing things again. I certainly have never said anything of the sort

Because I don't criticize something does not mean I think the same is perfect

So is it perfect or could it be improved? (4th time lucky in the attempt to get a straight answer to a simple question...)

I don't know if it can be improved. i am not seeking to criticize it. i am happy with what it says. You however are railing against it, but cannot give a single example of what is wrong with it

(See this is me asking you a question - you can answer it (which would be a surprise) by either saying it is perfect or it could be improved, what isn't a useful answer is you asking how I would improve it, whilst failing to give your opinion whether such change is needed)

You are asking me to tell you what needs changing, yet it is you who is criticising the legislation, but won't give a single example of what iss wrong with it.

How can anyone understand your criticisim if you can't give a single example of what is wrong with it.

You cliaim it is unclear, but refuse to answer what is unclear about the key clause of the legislation which is

6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right

What is unclear about that?

spen666

jam1e wrote:

....The whole point of your post appears to have been - "This is my opinion if you don't agree I'm going to quote and question you into submission" demanding specific examples even when discussing relatively unquantifiable generalities and public perceptions...
...

Ahhh we've reached this point of the debate

Its attack the poster because you can't answer the points raised.

6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right

go on lets us know what is unclear about the key clause of the HRA

jam1e

spen666 wrote:

jam1e wrote:

Wow - has somebody got their overly tight pants on today?! And you accuse me of ranting...

Who knew the entire HRA was only 1 sentence long...?

Erm

Who apart from you said the HRA was one sentence long.

You may note that I referred to the key clause being 6(1). I did not say it was the whole act.

However as you are pontificating on the drafting of an act you have not read it comews as no suprise you are so wrong. An act you think applies to private businesses (what part of private businesses are public authorities?)

That sentence is remarkably similar to saying something along the lines of "it is illegal to commit crime..."

You ask whats so difficult to understand about that single line? You tell me - you claim that judges and other officials are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the HRA legislation. Surely if it's as straightforward, clear and with as little room for error as that single sentence, then these mistakes wouldn't happen?

I don't think I have said that at all.

Again though don't let this stand in the way of your ill informed comments

You posted an opinion, saying that the legislation was wrongly blamed for many H&S/HRA type stories, which is fair enough. To me it seems straightforward - if so many people responsible for implementing and enforcing the legislation misinterpret it so regularly, it's probably worth looking at to see if the reason for these missunderstandings can be rectified.

And business not being affected by the HRA? Is it no longer the case that businesses and non-profit organisations as well as private individuals can attempt to use the HRA if they feel that they have been wronged by a government department etc.

ahh so now you are jumping horses and these businesses as the claimants not the respondents.

ABOUT TURN

The whole point of your post appears to have been - "This is my opinion if you don't agree I'm going to quote and question you into submission" demanding specific examples even when discussing relatively unquantifiable generalities and public perceptions...

Not at all, but if you are going to attack the legilsation, then at least have something to attack it for.

You are atacking something you have not read, something you know nothing about.

You are just making baseless atacks.

I am not saying this legislation or any legislation is correct.

So to summarise then - It's perfect, none of the mistakes are the fault of the legislation but are due to people being incapable of following it correctly, despite the fact that many "experts" fail to agree on what exactly it means.

Is this what you think or are you inventing things again. I certainly have never said anything of the sort

Because I don't criticize something does not mean I think the same is perfect

So is it perfect or could it be improved? (4th time lucky in the attempt to get a straight answer to a simple question...)

I don't know if it can be improved. i am not seeking to criticize it. i am happy with what it says. You however are railing against it, but cannot give a single example of what is wrong with it

(See this is me asking you a question - you can answer it (which would be a surprise) by either saying it is perfect or it could be improved, what isn't a useful answer is you asking how I would improve it, whilst failing to give your opinion whether such change is needed)

You are asking me to tell you what needs changing, yet it is you who is criticising the legislation, but won't give a single example of what iss wrong with it.

How can anyone understand your criticisim if you can't give a single example of what is wrong with it.

You cliaim it is unclear, but refuse to answer what is unclear about the key clause of the legislation which is

6. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right

What is unclear about that?

"Who apart from you said the HRA was one sentence long?" - We call that sarcasm, used in this case to highlight your use of 1 sentence from a much larger document in an attempt to extrapolate the simplicity inherent in this particular sentence into the entire doucement as a whole.



"You ask whats so difficult to understand about that single line? You tell me - you claim that judges and other officials are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the HRA legislation. Surely if it's as straightforward, clear and with as little room for error as that single sentence, then these mistakes wouldn't happen?"

" I don't think I have said that at all.

Again though don't let this stand in the way of your ill informed comments"

So you didn't say "But once again, it is the decisions of H&S employees, not what the law requires that causes this situation". then?

"ahh so now you are jumping horses and these businesses as the claimants not the respondents" - But it's still more accurate than saying "the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT applies only to public authorities, not businesses"

"Not at all, but if you are going to attack the legilsation, then at least have something to attack it for.

You are atacking something you have not read, something you know nothing about.

You are just making baseless atacks"

I'm "attacking" the legislation on the basis that it appears to cause confusion amongst many of the people involved in all aspects of it. A sentiment that seemed to cause you to start this topic in the first place...


"You are asking me to tell you what needs changing, yet it is you who is criticising the legislation, but won't give a single example of what iss wrong with it."

Go on then, show me the bit where I asked you what you would change, I'm fairly certain I (repeatedly) asked if you thought it could be improved or whether it was perfect as it is.


"How can anyone understand your criticisim if you can't give a single example of what is wrong with it".
My example of what is wrong with the acts is the very thing that you have highlighted - the confusion they cause. Can this be traced to a particular sentence? Probably not, but if there are lots of simple sentences each with a slightly different potential interpretation then difficulties may arise.

"Ahhh we've reached this point of the debate

Its attack the poster because you can't answer the points raised"

Some might argue we reached that point earlier in the discussion when you told me to stop being stupid...

spen666

H&S Example from that bastion of good journalism
Daily Mail

ConsciousPilot

IMO it is not the H&S act that is at fault. The people who are responsible for overseeing / implementing H&S in the workplace appear to be so consumed with fear of legal action that if there is even a hint of risk then it must be banned. Instead of berating the H&S (or HRA) we should be looking at the reason why lawyers are willing to pursue even the flimsiest of cases (mcdonalds case in point). Restricting the amount of money to be made by the legal profession may help to restore some common sense.