Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 20:47:05 GMT
Well, that's a start, something of a method statement. Now what about the risk assessment, grade the possible risks from a scratch to a dead un, look at.the likeleyhood of those outcomes and how to ameliorate them. You know, a professional risk assessment. If a simple clown understands it can't be that hard can it. It wasn't a "start" of anything, . . it was a dismissal of your silly facetious remark from a bit earlier ! Facetious is one of only two words in the English language with all the vowels in the right order. The other is `abstemious'.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Nov 22, 2021 0:24:53 GMT
It wasn't a "start" of anything, . . it was a dismissal of your silly facetious remark from a bit earlier ! Facetious is one of only two words in the English language with all the vowels in the right order. The other is `abstemious'. Every day is a school day, who'd have guessed
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Nov 22, 2021 2:01:45 GMT
It wasn't a "start" of anything, . . it was a dismissal of your silly facetious remark from a bit earlier ! Facetious is one of only two words in the English language with all the vowels in the right order. The other is `abstemious'. And including the part time vowel abstentiously
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 22, 2021 9:04:07 GMT
It wasn't a "start" of anything, . . it was a dismissal of your silly facetious remark from a bit earlier ! Facetious is one of only two words in the English language with all the vowels in the right order. The other is `abstemious'. How apt, both fitting the same post. unkle dunkle is certainly abstemious with his Risk Assessment. Of course they are a PITA to those who can just get the job done, but they are seen as a necessity for any professional. On that front, are they only required if one is paid for a job, not required of amateurs?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 22, 2021 9:21:15 GMT
Facetious is one of only two words in the English language with all the vowels in the right order. The other is `abstemious'. How apt, both fitting the same post. unkle dunkle is certainly abstemious with his Risk Assessment. Of course they are a PITA to those who can just get the job done, but they are seen as a necessity for any professional. On that front, are they only required if one is paid for a job, not required of amateurs? I am sure they are required for amateurs aka volunteers. I bet there are reams of paperwork in CRT head office relating to the activities of volunteers. None of which will bear any relationship to reality, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 9:25:19 GMT
I imagine the Wigan Flight Crew have to have hundreds of hours on simulators before they are allowed to do the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 22, 2021 13:21:04 GMT
Tony, it’s the way the world is now - it’s how things are in every small, medium and large company up and down the land. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it’s a reality of doing business in the modern world - for better or Ill. Barking at the moon won’t change that - I wish it would sometimes! Being risk adverse is a great strategy for a business to take - the cost of which is ultimately passed on to its customers Wanting to get a job done quickly and efficiently comes way lower done the list I sit in too many meetings where we discuss ins and outs of a Duck’s arse, time that could be put to the job but won’t be for the fear of the remotest chance of blame being laid at someone’s feet. That's a very blinkered, although all too common, view that ignores the immense potential value of a business strategy that might be loosely termed "risk taking", . . with the "risk", such as it is, being borne entirely on the shoulders of those who make the decisions and determine the strategy. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 first came into effect it was rightly regarded by most businesses, large or small, as a typical piece of trade union lefties inspired business stifling nonsense. Within a very few years however, in my case by the late 1970's, it came to be recognised by some as a very valuable means of gaining a significant 'edge' over the competition. Unencumbered by all the time wasting, cost escalating nonsense of method statements, risk assessments and the rest of the pointless tripe that accompanies compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, a business can gain a significant advantage over its competitors in the pursuit of work by its resulting ability to both undercut the competition on price whilst at the same time increasing its own profit margins, and a time advantage over the competition in terms of speed of response to customer's needs. The one essential for applying this philosophy is of course that whoever dictates such a business strategy must have sufficient faith in himself and his abilities to put it into practice. I have applied this philosophy to the running of both my businesses - commercial carrying/marine contracting and marine engineering - from the late 1970's up to the present. It has NEVER yet gone wrong, . . none of the people I've employed over all those years, as and when needed, have ever suffered any mishap or injury whilst working for me under my personal supervision, . . AND their wages were significantly above the going rate for such work at the time. Slavish, unthinking compliance with H&S legislation as perceived by most is the refuge of first resort for the incompetent and those, probably quite rightly, lacking confidence in their own knowledge and ability.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 22, 2021 15:02:11 GMT
Being risk adverse is a great strategy for a business to take - the cost of which is ultimately passed on to its customers Wanting to get a job done quickly and efficiently comes way lower done the list I sit in too many meetings where we discuss ins and outs of a Duck’s arse, time that could be put to the job but won’t be for the fear of the remotest chance of blame being laid at someone’s feet. That's a very blinkered, although all too common, view that ignores the immense potential value of a business strategy that might be loosely termed "risk taking", . . with the "risk", such as it is, being borne entirely on the shoulders of those who make the decisions and determine the strategy. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 first came into effect it was rightly regarded by most businesses, large or small, as a typical piece of trade union lefties inspired business stifling nonsense. Within a very few years however, in my case by the late 1970's, it came to be recognised by some as a very valuable means of gaining a significant 'edge' over the competition. Unencumbered by all the time wasting, cost escalating nonsense of method statements, risk assessments and the rest of the pointless tripe that accompanies compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, a business can gain a significant advantage over its competitors in the pursuit of work by its resulting ability to both undercut the competition on price whilst at the same time increasing its own profit margins. The one essential for applying this philosophy is of course that whoever dictates such a business strategy must have sufficient faith in himself and his abilities to put it into practice. I have applied this philosophy to the running of both my businesses - commercial carrying/marine contracting and marine engineering - from the late 1970's up to the present. It has NEVER yet gone wrong, . . none of the people I've employed over all those years, as and when needed, have ever suffered any mishap or injury whilst working for me under my personal supervision, . . AND their wages were significantly above the going rate for such work at the time. Slavish, unthinking compliance with H&S legislation as perceived by most is the refuge of first resort for the incompetent and those, probably quite rightly, lacking confidence in their own knowledge and ability. So what would you have done if there had been a serious accident and H&S came knocking. To them there is no such thing as an accident, the risk should have been seen beforehand and documented with measures taken to ameliorate it. or smacked legs ensue!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 22, 2021 17:04:01 GMT
Being risk adverse is a great strategy for a business to take - the cost of which is ultimately passed on to its customers Wanting to get a job done quickly and efficiently comes way lower done the list I sit in too many meetings where we discuss ins and outs of a Duck’s arse, time that could be put to the job but won’t be for the fear of the remotest chance of blame being laid at someone’s feet. That's a very blinkered, although all too common, view that ignores the immense potential value of a business strategy that might be loosely termed "risk taking", . . with the "risk", such as it is, being borne entirely on the shoulders of those who make the decisions and determine the strategy. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 first came into effect it was rightly regarded by most businesses, large or small, as a typical piece of trade union lefties inspired business stifling nonsense. Within a very few years however, in my case by the late 1970's, it came to be recognised by some as a very valuable means of gaining a significant 'edge' over the competition. Unencumbered by all the time wasting, cost escalating nonsense of method statements, risk assessments and the rest of the pointless tripe that accompanies compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, a business can gain a significant advantage over its competitors in the pursuit of work by its resulting ability to both undercut the competition on price whilst at the same time increasing its own profit margins. The one essential for applying this philosophy is of course that whoever dictates such a business strategy must have sufficient faith in himself and his abilities to put it into practice. I have applied this philosophy to the running of both my businesses - commercial carrying/marine contracting and marine engineering - from the late 1970's up to the present. It has NEVER yet gone wrong, . . none of the people I've employed over all those years, as and when needed, have ever suffered any mishap or injury whilst working for me under my personal supervision, . . AND their wages were significantly above the going rate for such work at the time. Slavish, unthinking compliance with H&S legislation as perceived by most is the refuge of first resort for the incompetent and those, probably quite rightly, lacking confidence in their own knowledge and ability. All of which is fine until something bad happens which you couldn't have foreseen and were in no way culpable for. eg an employee doing something stupid that you had specifically told them not to do. But HSE jumps on you, demands to see your risk assessments etc and when you can't produce them, you are guilty regardless of anything else. End of.
But it seems fate was kind to you, you got away with it, be thankful.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 22, 2021 18:12:05 GMT
Being risk adverse is a great strategy for a business to take - the cost of which is ultimately passed on to its customers Wanting to get a job done quickly and efficiently comes way lower done the list I sit in too many meetings where we discuss ins and outs of a Duck’s arse, time that could be put to the job but won’t be for the fear of the remotest chance of blame being laid at someone’s feet. That's a very blinkered, although all too common, view that ignores the immense potential value of a business strategy that might be loosely termed "risk taking", . . with the "risk", such as it is, being borne entirely on the shoulders of those who make the decisions and determine the strategy. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 first came into effect it was rightly regarded by most businesses, large or small, as a typical piece of trade union lefties inspired business stifling nonsense. Within a very few years however, in my case by the late 1970's, it came to be recognised by some as a very valuable means of gaining a significant 'edge' over the competition. Unencumbered by all the time wasting, cost escalating nonsense of method statements, risk assessments and the rest of the pointless tripe that accompanies compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, a business can gain a significant advantage over its competitors in the pursuit of work by its resulting ability to both undercut the competition on price whilst at the same time increasing its own profit margins, and a time advantage over the competition in terms of speed of response to customer's needs. The one essential for applying this philosophy is of course that whoever dictates such a business strategy must have sufficient faith in himself and his abilities to put it into practice. I have applied this philosophy to the running of both my businesses - commercial carrying/marine contracting and marine engineering - from the late 1970's up to the present. It has NEVER yet gone wrong, . . none of the people I've employed over all those years, as and when needed, have ever suffered any mishap or injury whilst working for me under my personal supervision, . . AND their wages were significantly above the going rate for such work at the time. Slavish, unthinking compliance with H&S legislation as perceived by most is the refuge of first resort for the incompetent and those, probably quite rightly, lacking confidence in their own knowledge and ability. Okay I’ll do it, bullshit. If anybody ever needs loads of bulllshit you just need to ask tony, good for your roses apparently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 19:40:29 GMT
Being risk adverse is a great strategy for a business to take - the cost of which is ultimately passed on to its customers Wanting to get a job done quickly and efficiently comes way lower done the list I sit in too many meetings where we discuss ins and outs of a Duck’s arse, time that could be put to the job but won’t be for the fear of the remotest chance of blame being laid at someone’s feet. That's a very blinkered, although all too common, view that ignores the immense potential value of a business strategy that might be loosely termed "risk taking", . . with the "risk", such as it is, being borne entirely on the shoulders of those who make the decisions and determine the strategy. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 first came into effect it was rightly regarded by most businesses, large or small, as a typical piece of trade union lefties inspired business stifling nonsense. Within a very few years however, in my case by the late 1970's, it came to be recognised by some as a very valuable means of gaining a significant 'edge' over the competition. Unencumbered by all the time wasting, cost escalating nonsense of method statements, risk assessments and the rest of the pointless tripe that accompanies compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, a business can gain a significant advantage over its competitors in the pursuit of work by its resulting ability to both undercut the competition on price whilst at the same time increasing its own profit margins, and a time advantage over the competition in terms of speed of response to customer's needs. The one essential for applying this philosophy is of course that whoever dictates such a business strategy must have sufficient faith in himself and his abilities to put it into practice. I have applied this philosophy to the running of both my businesses - commercial carrying/marine contracting and marine engineering - from the late 1970's up to the present. It has NEVER yet gone wrong, . . none of the people I've employed over all those years, as and when needed, have ever suffered any mishap or injury whilst working for me under my personal supervision, . . AND their wages were significantly above the going rate for such work at the time. Slavish, unthinking compliance with H&S legislation as perceived by most is the refuge of first resort for the incompetent and those, probably quite rightly, lacking confidence in their own knowledge and ability. It depends on your reference point - that’s all well and good for a one man band operating by the skin of his teeth. Not so good when you are talking Turnover of £11M, Gross-Profit of £3M with Cash of £3M, assets of £21M from 33 employees. When you consider we vet our suppliers to ensure they have rigorous standards with regard things like modern slavery, race, equality for any stripe you wish to choose along with the usual hoops to jump through for bribery and corruption before we consider doing business with them - it’s no wonder being Risk adverse is high on the agenda!
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 22, 2021 19:44:37 GMT
Has anyone looked at Lady BSE's "Anyone passing Barrowford Locks?" thread over on CWDF lately ?
The crap she posted today is hilarious, . . here are a couple of examples : --
"The boat does not need to come out, it needs to stay where it is. No crane required. I will discuss any potential overstaying with the CRT, its not a problem. Try not to overthink my problem 😊 Things have moved on, the experts have moved in 😊"
and : --
"The mover never turned up, I dont think the welder wants to do the job, or he's not happy to do the job, certainly not started it yet. I've rung him several times, he's not sent his truck. The boat can stay where it is, so it can be repaired in situ. There are no boat movements even if I wanted a tow. Everyone has their own ideas, but I have to find a solution, a sucesfull solution. I think I feel like a lab rat in a maze 🐶"
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 22, 2021 22:33:32 GMT
... @socks has made the arrangements to @socks satisfaction and the job is in hand. We can all relax and leave it to @socks now Rog Ten days ago :-- " Wayne has been, the boat needs to come out. . . Dunkley now dismisses the guy who came to look at my boat, I have taken the advice of the man who has seen the boat. . . The boat has to come out as there iis no way other way to access the rudder." Today :-- The boat does not need to come out, it needs to stay where it is. . . No crane required. . .The mover never turned up, I dont think the welder wants to do the job, or he's not happy to do the job, certainly not started it yet. . . I've rung him several times, he's not sent his truck. . . The boat can stay where it is, so it can be repaired in situ. . . There are no boat movements even if I wanted a tow. . . Nope, not the Dunkley method. . . The proper method, I'm a bit more confident than I was two weeks ago. . . I now know what the problem is and I'm pretty sure it can be sorted, with assistance. . . I was never going to be able to do anything myself. . . The boat has moved a bit, but not of its own accord" What was that you were saying, . . Alice ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Nov 22, 2021 22:51:28 GMT
The solution is blindingly obvious.
The tiller and rudder need to be taken off and placed on the stern deck for three weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Nov 23, 2021 6:33:00 GMT
That's a very blinkered, although all too common, view that ignores the immense potential value of a business strategy that might be loosely termed "risk taking", . . with the "risk", such as it is, being borne entirely on the shoulders of those who make the decisions and determine the strategy. When the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 first came into effect it was rightly regarded by most businesses, large or small, as a typical piece of trade union lefties inspired business stifling nonsense. Within a very few years however, in my case by the late 1970's, it came to be recognised by some as a very valuable means of gaining a significant 'edge' over the competition. Unencumbered by all the time wasting, cost escalating nonsense of method statements, risk assessments and the rest of the pointless tripe that accompanies compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, a business can gain a significant advantage over its competitors in the pursuit of work by its resulting ability to both undercut the competition on price whilst at the same time increasing its own profit margins. The one essential for applying this philosophy is of course that whoever dictates such a business strategy must have sufficient faith in himself and his abilities to put it into practice. I have applied this philosophy to the running of both my businesses - commercial carrying/marine contracting and marine engineering - from the late 1970's up to the present. It has NEVER yet gone wrong, . . none of the people I've employed over all those years, as and when needed, have ever suffered any mishap or injury whilst working for me under my personal supervision, . . AND their wages were significantly above the going rate for such work at the time. Slavish, unthinking compliance with H&S legislation as perceived by most is the refuge of first resort for the incompetent and those, probably quite rightly, lacking confidence in their own knowledge and ability. All of which is fine until something bad happens which you couldn't have foreseen and were in no way culpable for. eg an employee doing something stupid that you had specifically told them not to do. But HSE jumps on you, demands to see your risk assessments etc and when you can't produce them, you are guilty regardless of anything else. End of.
But it seems fate was kind to you, you got away with it, be thankful.
Another way of looking at my 44 years worth of unblemished business track record would be to take the view that the planning, execution, and choice of employees for every major or out of the ordinary job undertaken was exemplary. During your career as a pilot, did you regard every incident free successful flight as something you had 'got away with', . . or did you see things somewhat differently ?
|
|