Domestic Snow Clearing

[Jake]

I think the risk is entirely theoretical - still it gives the fulminators a nice hypothetical to fulminate about.

 

[Smudger]

Instead of quoting 'The Sun', you might like to look at the statement from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the professional (not governmental) body that is quoted in the Mail, Telegraph and Sun:


Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday reporting of so-called ‘IOSH guidance’ on gritting pavements

10 January 2010

The Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday both ran a story on Sunday 10 January claiming that IOSH was warning businesses not to grit public paths because this could lead to legal action. The Sunday Telegraph stated that, “in guidance to its members”, IOSH said: “When clearing snow and ice, it is probably worth stopping at the boundaries of the property under your control” and that clearing a public path “can lead to an action for damages against the company, eg if members of the public, assuming that the area is still clear of ice and thus safe to walk on, slip and injure themselves."

This is not the IOSH position on gritting public areas. Neither has IOSH issued this as guidance. The words are, in fact, taken from a Croner contribution to the “Just Ask” column of SHP magazine, in February of last year.

We were contacted by The Sunday Telegraph about the story on the afternoon of Friday 8 January and offered a detailed comment from our Policy & Technical Director Richard Jones:

“Deciding whether to grit beyond the boundaries of their property needs to be carefully considered by companies. If access to the premises is covered in ice, companies may choose to grit the access to help their staff and visitors arrive and leave safely, even though it’s not their property. However, in this instance, if they failed to grit the surface properly and someone had an accident as a result, then they could incur some liability.

“As a general rule, though, it’s sensible for firms to consider the risks and take reasonable steps to prevent accidents from happening. If this means gritting outside the boundaries of your workplace, then it’s better to do that than to have people slipping over or involved in car crashes on your doorstep.”

In other words, our position is to encourage businesses to be a good employer and neighbour by gritting beyond property boundaries and to make sure that the task is carried out thoroughly.

This comment was ignored by The Sunday Telegraph and the wording from the Croner article used instead and attributed to IOSH. This was done without the knowledge of our Media team, with no follow up check being made.

Communications Director Ruth Doyle was dismayed by the Telegraph’s approach: “To lift this wording from an outside contribution to SHP magazine, published nearly a year ago, and pass it off as ‘IOSH guidance’ is completely irresponsible.

“The IOSH position is most definitely to encourage people to be good employers and neighbours by gritting icy areas and to show health and safety wants to help protect life and limb, not endanger it.”

We took the ‘story’ up with Channel 4 News, on Sunday and fielded a spokesman for interview but the item didn’t make it into that evening’s programme. We are taking the matter up with the Telegraph and will be issuing a statement to all media, later today.

 

[Digit]

I don't write 'em, I only post 'em. If they are wrong, tell them!

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

I don't write 'em, I only post 'em. If they are wrong, tell them!

Roy.

Oh come on, you can't get away with that. You posted those URLs as 'proof' of what the Mail had lied. Now you're wriggling.

 

[Digit]

I posted that to show that the Sun, Telegraph and Ventnor papers had posted certain stories.

Andrew Turner has criticised the ‘ludicrous’ situation in which householders could potentially be sued for clearing snow and ice from public pavements in front of their homes.

Read more: http://ventnorblog.com/2010/01/10/could ... z0cLUeRcrC

Have a go at him as well while you're at it, or am I responsible for what that paper posted as well?

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Bang to rights.

The way the right wing press has an army of gullible suckers at its beck and call always astonishes me.

 

[Smudger]

I posted that to show that the Sun, Telegraph and Ventnor papers had posted certain stories.

Andrew Turner has criticised the ‘ludicrous’ situation in which householders could potentially be sued for clearing snow and ice from public pavements in front of their homes.

Read more: http://ventnorblog.com/2010/01/10/could ... z0cLUeRcrC

Have a go at him as well while you're at it, or am I responsible for what that paper posted as well?

Roy.

No, but you are responsible for what you use to back up your claims. If you didn't believe it (ha ha) why post it? If you didn't know whether or not it was true, why post it as evidence?

To be honest I didn't even look at the 'Ventnor Source'. I mean, Ventnor?

 

[Digit]

Tell you what, in future I'll add a personal disclaimer for anything I post from the media, then you'll have to puppy at something else.
I suppose the MP didn't say that either, again I wouldn't know, I only posted it?

Roy.

 

[Smudger]

Tell you what, in future I'll add a personal disclaimer for anything I post from the media, then you'll have to puppy at something else.
I suppose the MP didn't say that either, again I wouldn't know, I only posted it?

Roy.

Eh? What MP?

In general it is considered the done thing to post that which is true, and to stand by your opinions, yes.

As a rule of thumb, anything from the Mail is highly suspect.

And I'm not bitching, I'm calling you on posting things that aren't true. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Digit]

Ventnor MP.
Certainly anything I do I will stand by, what others claim, I post as their claims, not mine. And that also applies to the MP and the newpaper that claims to have reported it.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

Different point, Sky Net are listing temps for this locale as of tomorrow way above freezing, and it's thawing out side, is that general anyone?

Roy.