Health and Safety to prosecute over squashed Harrison Ford

Re: Hydraulic door?

"Plus sound affects in post-production."

AUGH! SHEEETT!

Re: Hydraulic door?

The ones in star trek were pushed and pulled by hand though.

Which would have no doubt knocked chunks off the budget if they did that for all the ones in this film to be fair.

Right. Like for allowing school pupils to make fireworks, or for a *walkway* being unable to support vehicle traffic, or for a *private* garden having a molehill that broke a trespassers foot.

The HSE website has a list of their prosecutions. In amongst the usual industrial accidents and cowboy builders are the 20-20 hindsight cases I mentioned. They're all real, not Daily Mail horror stories.

Having worked on a few sites with plenty of dangerous machinery, and moving very heavy steel toe caps wont save you objects about. I have to agree, it stops people sometimes being silly to save time. Check some countries without HSE and see what they can be like.

Is that due to HSE or to the loss of the mining, fishing, quarrying, steel and other dangerous industries?

The HSE has done a lot to make dangerous jobs less dangerous - but there are a lot fewer of those jobs

On this side of the Pond, our equivalent OSHA is rather small agency, much smaller than the EPA. The OSHA regulations, when you step back, generally make sense and are relatively easy to understand. Both are very rare with the ferals.

The problem with any regulatory agency is prevent mission creep into areas where they have marginal competence and the effects of the regulations are more likely to be counter productive.

"The Fail might bleat on about "elf & safety gawn mad", but I raise a glass to the HSE, who have been doing a great job with little thanks for years."

The Fail bleats on in a lot of cases with good reason. H&S is frequently used as an excuse to avoid doing things and it gets on the HSE's tits - so much so that they actually sponsor a national conkers event to make a point.

Re: Are all employer liable?

Recent case : http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/14/sas-march-organisers-face-prosecution-after-verdict-of-neglect-over-deaths

Re: Are all employer liable?

>AFAIK the M.O.D has a "sort-off" waiver for 'elth un safe'y, but ONLY during combat situations.

Indeed, I've heard of UK military compounds where it is compulsory for car drivers to reverse-park into parking bays. It is good practise - you are less likely to knock into a pedestrian whilst reversing into a bay than you are reversing out of a bay and into a thoroughfare.

Re: Are all employer liable?

Some countries don't have health and safety oversight for their troop training - look at something like the Spetznatz or the Blue Berets as an example. As a result they're very good. But a much higher percentage die in training, and a higher percentage still are seriously injured.

When a single unit of your special forces is larger than the entire British army you can afford to be blasé about training losses. I for one am glad it's not something I had to worry about. And the jury is still out as to whether it makes them better troops. Most of our special forces will have already seen combat before they make it through selection in the first place, and the SBS seem to do just fine.

Re: Are all employer liable?

"

Basically, in a warzone (or police shootout) you can't stop your enemy shooting at you but you can take many steps to make it less dangerous -

"

My point was rather how do you ensure the safety of the enemy? After all, if the enemy kill you, that's a failing of their H&S. But if an enemy soldier wanders into dangerous fast-moving bullets from your machine-gun, that's surely down to a H&S failure on your part.

Re: "What a piece of junk!"

On one of the Indiana Jones movies Mr Ford was keen to do his own stunts... until a stunt man pointed out that it was doing him out of work. Mr Ford was, by all accounts, genuinely embarrassed that this hadn't occurred to him.

It says a heck of a lot about his character that he was embarrassed about that. That's why he's A-list rather than A-hole. Having said that, some feel an obligation because of a genuine search for authenticity, so there are arguments for both sides here.

I personally don't mind either, as long as it's done right.

Re: The rule is

I was under the impression that Jackie Chan underwrote his own film because he couldn't get conventional insurance.

Still, it would seem that nobody has been injured more in Jackie Chan films than Jackie himself (I've tried looking online to see if any of his employees have been seriously injured on set, but I can't see past the "Jackie Chan's Top Ten Injuries"-type articles.