David....
Your memory is failing. You started this with the following:-
"1) The stupid overkill rules don't save anybody.
2) You can't legislate against stupidity.
3) You can legislate for the use of safety equipment in the workplace as well as training for tasks outside the remit of normal everyday life.
H&S has gone from enforcing practical measures (a good thing)...."
That seems to be a pretty strong REJECTION of H&S.
You NOW claim the following:-
" I have further developed that statement to assert the negative impact H&S is now having. i.e. No net gain in safety but a net loss in efficiency, practicality and personal freedoms and responsibilty."
You ALSO claim "..H&S has had a positive effect"....
errr...
Well you wouldn't think so from you PREVIOUS and POST claims!
I'd also like to know how:-
"The stupid overkill rules don't save anybody."
......as a concept can exist with the NEXT concept that:-
"H&S has had a positive effect"....
Go on... tell me HOW it has had 'positive effects' WITHOUT 'sav[ing] anybody'!!!
However, if you have now arrived at the point where you ACCEPT that it has done more GOOD than harm, then I am satisfied; becasue that is EXACTLY what I have claiming CONSISTENTLY from the start!
Ian
|
|