EC labels 'ban on re-using jam jars' stories 'completely untrue'

Following on from the 'ban on milk jugs' that wasn't, the EU has now been accused of banning people at village fetes from selling jam in re-used jars. 

On 6 October, the Mail reported:

They are the backbone of church fetes, village fairs and jumble sales all around the country.

But the thousands who regularly sell their home-made jam, marmalade or chutney in re-used jars may have to abandon their traditions after a warning that they are breaching European health and safety regulations.

Two days later, the Express, under the headline 'Home-made jam? EU bosses want to ban it', repeated the story:

The great British tradition of selling home-made jams and chutneys at fetes could be a thing of the past – thanks to meddling Brussels bureaucrats.

It seems the recycled jars generally used by jam-making enthusiasts are in breach of European health and safety regulations.

'It seems'.

The EC Commission in the UK has now responded to these claims - and called them 'completely untrue':

Recent media coverage on reusing jars for homemade jams for sale at charity events certainly fired up the imagination of the headline writers: “EU elf ‘n safety tsars ban jam sales at fetes” and “anger spreads over EU fines threat for reusing old jam jars”, “EU fine for homemade jam makers”. This is all completely untrue. There are no EU laws, new or old, which ban re-using old jam jars for fetes. The EU also has no powers to fine people.

There is indeed a body of EU food safety and hygiene legislation – notably so that the UK and other countries can be confident that food imported from or bought elsewhere in the EU is safe and of high quality. But these rules apply only to business operators and not to those preparing food for charity events such as church fetes or school bazaars.

What is more, the rules do not anyway ban re-using clean jam jars:  the European Commission is not aware of any risk from chemicals related to this re-use.

The Daily Telegraph to its credit reported this properly on 7 October, saying that the Church of England had issued guidance and quoting the UK Food Safety Authority explaining that the interpretation of the regulations was the responsibility of local authorities, who would decide what constituted a “food business” and adding that “an occasional event, like a fund-raiser… would probably not be considered to be a food business.”

The Express then span this into a ridiculous story about “meddling Brussels bureaucrats”. The Mail did at least mention that the FSA had said enforcement was down to individual local authorities…but left this until paragraph 7 of a story misleadingly headlined “Anger spreads over EU fines threat for reusing old jam jars.” The Telegraph then had another piece – at least it was an intentionally funny one – blaming EU Directives after all.

While BBC Radio 4 You and Yours covered the story sensibly, BBC Breakfast ran an item that assumed wrongly that the EU has banned jam jars.

None of the media who produced these seriously misleading stories contacted the European Commission first.

No contact with the EC, but both the Mail and the Express did find room for a quote from The Great British Bake Off's Mary Berry. 

'Firefighters were not stopped from entering the water due to health and safety protocols'

On Friday, the Mail was so excited about what it claimed was the latest 'elf 'n' safety' fiasco, it put the story on the front page:

The article by Eleanor Harding and Mark Duell states:

It looked like a major emergency – 25 firemen standing at the water’s edge assessing the life-threatening situation before them.

Stranded 200ft out and struggling for survival was the victim they had come to rescue...a seagull.

And if that scenario were not ludicrous enough, there was worse to come.

The firemen were then barred from going into the 3ft-deep water because it was judged to be a health and safety risk.

As crews from five fire engines stood beside the pond in South London for up to an hour, it fell to a member of the public to pull on his waders and rescue the bird, which was caught up in a plastic bag.

It was accompanied by an editorial (which included the curious phrase 'the legendary Mr Littlejohn') and was followed by comment pieces by Dominique Jackson and Mr Littlejohn. All refer to a health and safety risk assessment that stopped the firemen from rescuing the bird.

However, the London Fire Brigade's statement on the incident puts it slightly differently:

The Brigade was called to the scene by the RSPCA as an emergency and the Brigade always takes calls from such organisations seriously. Firefighters arrived on the scene at 1407 and the incident was declared over at 1411.

A London Fire Brigade spokesperson said:

“The RSPCA called us out as an emergency. Our firefighters rushed to the scene only to realise they’d been called out to a seagull with a plastic bag round its leg which was swimming around quite happily and wasn’t in any distress. This clearly wasn’t an emergency so the firefighters left it to a local animal rescue charity to deal with and swiftly left the scene.”

“Often, by the time our firefighters arrive at an incident, someone has waded in to try and rescue an animal only to get into danger themselves, so we send enough crews to deal with whatever we may find. The safety of the public and our firefighters is always our priority.”

Firefighters were not stopped from entering the water due to health and safety protocols. Just this week, LFB crews were called to rescue a man after the bulldozer he was driving fell 40 feet down into a quarry pit. When they realised the man’s life was at risk, the firefighters acted outside of normal procedures and risked their own personal safety to lift him out and save his life. London Fire Brigade’s firefighter are trained to make difficult judgement calls about when it is right to risk their lives in order to save another. 

The Mail has not published this statement.

The Mail also contacted the HSE's Mythbusters Challenge Panel on Thursday, and then wrote a critical, mocking article when they didn't get an immediate response - presumably, a response to the version of the incident as told to them by the Mail:

The Daily Mail contacted the panel at 3pm. But despite being given a whole afternoon to mull it over and it being only the fifth inquiry since the panel’s launch a day before, it failed to give an answer.

It's open to question whether contacting someone at 3pm really gives them 'a whole afternoon' to reply. But perhaps the Panel wanted to do a bit more fact-checking before giving a knee-jerk reaction? In fact, the Panel issued a statement on Friday - the day the Mail's front page article appeared. It said:

"We have now had chance to examine the facts in this case and it is clear that it was not about health and safety at all. The fire service itself has made clear that their decisions at Carshalton were not based on health and safety factors. We endorse this view.

"The Myth Buster Challenge Panel has been set up to bring common sense back to decisions made in the name of health and safety, and to do our job properly we need to establish the facts. We will try our best to meet deadlines when we can but not at the expense of working on hearsay rather than facts. We said that we aim to make a response within 48 hours and it has taken us less than 24 hours to respond to this case."

Despite the hurry to get the Panel's view, and the huffy response when they didn't get it within a few hours, the Mail has not yet informed its readers of this statement.

A statement which has, at time of writing, been in the public domain for two days.

'Claims were so quickly reported as fact'

One day in May, the Mail's website led with the story of Ian Faletto:

(image from Angry Mob)

The Mail wasn't the only media outlet to cover the story. In the Express, Richard and Judy said it was:

another health and safety loony tune

In the Telegraph, Jenny McCartney wrote:

A sad story from our railways: Ian Faletto, an award-winning stationmaster at Lymington Pier, Hampshire, saw a shopping trolley on the railway lines, which had the potential to cause an accident. He requested that the power be turned off, and then jumped on to the lines in protective shoes to remove the trolley.

A week later, a district manager saw the incident while reviewing CCTV footage, and found that the power had not, in fact, been turned off. Mr Faletto was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and given the sack...

Unless there is some other aspect to the case which South West Trains is not willing to reveal, it would seem that Mr Faletto's very enthusiasm has made the authorities uneasy. The rest of us, however, could do with many more public employees like Mr Faletto, who appear – within sensible limits – to be even more concerned about other people's safety than their own. 

But South West Train's side of the story was never fully revealed. As the BBC reported:

A South West Trains spokesperson said an employee had been dismissed for a “serious breach of safety” but refused to officially explain what this was.

“This action was taken following a full and thorough internal investigation and the decision was also upheld at an appeal hearing,” he said.

This didn't stop the Mail and others deciding South West Trains were definitely in the wrong. It was 'all down to elf 'n' safety' and an over-reaction from 'Elf 'n' safety tyrants'.

The latter was a headline on a comment piece by Richard Littlejohn, who said:

The sacking of Mr Faletto is beyond disgusting. Whoever runs South West Trains should be thoroughly ashamed.

He should be reinstated immediately with a grovelling apology.

And that was that. The media moved on.

A tribunal to consider Faletto's claim of unfair dismissal was to be heard on 1 November. The Mail, Telegraph, Express, Star and Sun haven't updated their readers on what happened. But the Guardian has:

A railway worker who claimed he was sacked for removing a shopping trolley from the track has withdrawn his claim of unfair dismissal.

Ian Faletto alleged he was sacked after 27 years of service by South West Trains for removing the trolley at Lymington railway station in Hampshire...

But after he was presented with new evidence, his counsel advised him to drop his claim, prompting a strongly-worded statement from SWT. It described the allegations by Faletto as "fictitious, Walter Mitty-style claims" and the company stressed he was not paid off.

The statement from SWT Director Jake Kelly is, indeed, strongly-worded:

''We are pleased that Mr Faletto has finally withdrawn his case, which proves definitively that there was never any substance to the claims he made.

''However, we remain angry at the way these fictitious Walter-Mitty-style claims were so quickly reported as fact. It is also doubly upsetting that many well-meaning people in community were so misled.

''This was a matter of principle and integrity and we were fully prepared to outline the truth to the employment tribunal.

''We are confident that they had heard all of the evidence, they would have found in our favour. For the avoidance of doubt, we have made no payment to settle this case and nor have we ever considered doing so.

''As we have maintained all along, this case involved a serious breach of safety. The fact is that there is no evidence to show that there was a trolley on the track, as Mr Faletto claimed, and the safety of our passengers was not compromised at any point.

''The only safety risk was caused by Mr Faletto's foolhardy actions in knowingly stepping down onto an area of live track for no justifiable reason.

''No 'trolley' incident was recorded in the station log or reported to management at the time - or even when Mr Faletto was first questioned by management.

''There was no evidence either of any call to a signalman or station.

''We are not interested in a box-ticking or jobsworth approach to these issues and the decision to dismiss Mr Faletto was not taken lightly.

''It is very sad that an individual who was recognised by the railway has acted in this way.'' 

Mr Faletto does, however, stand by his version of events.

The BBC, Guardian and Mirror all reported that Faletto withdrew his unfair dismissal claim and quoted Kelly's statement. Given that that happened several days ago, it looks unlikely the papers who did so much to champion Faletto six months ago are going to update their readers on the case.

(More from Zelo Street)

The 'obsession' with health and safety

In the Sunday Express on 3 July, Nick Ferrari focused his anger on the Health and Safety Executive:

The extraordinary assault on our crippling obsession with health and safety by the very woman who controls the cursed body in charge of it all couldn’t help but bring pots and kettles to my mind and I’m pretty certain most of yours too.

Well, not really, but go on:

Chairman of the Health and Safety Executive Judith Hackitt criticised the jobsworth culture that has robbed our young of a normal childhood, made employers’ lives a complex hell of regulation and inspection and allowed councils to field legions of tax-funded snoopers and petty enforcers.

We can only assume the poor lady had banged her head on a low-hanging flower basket or been partially blinded in a vigorous game of conkers on the day she gave this interview. For she runs the ghastly organisation that has closed playgrounds, had trees felled and even managed to stop tennis fans enjoying Andy Murray’s annual ritual not to get to the Wimbledon final – and she has done for three-and-a-half years!

Any more examples of what her 'ghastly organisation' has done, Nick?

I grew up being transported in a cot in a car, not a special seat that had to have been welded into place... If I needed pills from the doctor the bottle opened with a simple twist. You didn’t need the agility of an Olympic gymnast and strength of a weightlifter to open it. I bought packets of peanuts in the days when they didn’t need “warning: this product may contain nuts” all over them. Most puzzling of all I slept on a mattress that didn’t have the notice “do not attempt to swallow” on it.

All of which led Judith Hackitt to respond:

Nick Ferrari's column (Healthy dose of humbug, SE, 3 July link to external website) highlights part of the problem with the current debate on health and safety.

The term 'health and safety' has become used so widely and wrongly that it has come to stand for a huge range of things which have no relation to managing risks in the workplace.

HSE doesn't exist to shut playgrounds, or cut trees down. We don't have anything to do with children's car seats, or infuriating pill bottle tops. Mattresses, peanuts and conkers have nothing to do with safety at work, and are entirely outside our remit.

And regarding Murray Mount, Mr Ferrari couldn't be further from the truth - rather than pushing for it to be closed we were campaigning for a bit of common sense and making precisely the opposite point - there were no health and safety grounds on which to close it down.

Few would argue that we need to get the focus on health and safety back on managing serious risks in the workplace where it belongs. We certainly wouldn't.

Indeed, Hackitt wrote to the Lawn Tennis Association and the All England Club about the closure of Murray Mount on 21 June:

There is nothing in health and safety legislation which prohibits the continued broadcasting of centre court action to the crowds on the hill during the rain.

Health and safety is concerned with the proportionate management of real risks caused by work, not attempting to eliminate every minor risk from every moment of people's lives.

People have been walking up and down wet grassy slopes for years without catastrophic consequences. If the LTA was concerned about people slipping and suing for their injuries the message should have made clear the decision was 'on insurance grounds'.

Health and safety excuses are becoming as much a feature of the British sporting calendar as the rain. You will understand that while we can do nothing about the weather, we will not let the excuses pass unchallenged.

Health and safety, or conserving a piece of history?

The latest example of the Mail's 'hilarious' misspelling of 'health and safety' appears in this headline:


The article begins:

The apple tree which inspired Sir Isaac Newton to develop his theory of gravity has fallen victim to health and safety rules after tens of thousands of visitors damaged its roots.

'Fallen victim to health and safety'? How so?

The 400-year-old Flower of Kent apple tree has had a protective barrier fitted in the grounds of Woolsthorpe Manor, in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, Lincolnshire.

Then:

The 1ft-tall barrier allows visitors to get close to the tree without causing unnecessary damage to its root system.

National Trust conservation manager Margaret Winn said: 'The tree is getting on for 400 years old and we wanted to protect it.'

So is this really health and safety, or a conservation measure to help protect a piece of history?

Ann Moynihan, support officer at the National Trust property of Woolsthorpe manor, said today that the work will protect the tree 'for the future'...

'We now have over 33,000 visitors every year and...the sheer volume of visitors has compacted the earth around the trunk and affected the roots.

'The willow barrier is an unobtrusive way to protect the tree for future generations to enjoy in the years to come.'

And:

Mrs Moynihan denied the fence... was a response to any health and safety concerns.

It appears a local newspaper article has, once again, been picked up and churned by the Mail with the health and safety 'angle' added on.

At time of writing, there are 22 comments on the Mail's article - apart from one blaming 'Gordon Brown and his EU pc brigade', almost every comment criticises the Mail.

This is 'Tree Hugger' from 'Darkest Kent':

Where does Health & Safety come into it, DM? Why write this story from an 'anti' perspective rather than a 'pro'? This is a willow barrier, sensitively designed to be in keeping with the immediate environment. There's nothing 'H&S' about it. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Akela from Cambridge:

This appears to be about conserving a piece of history and nothing to do with health and safety. Someone got paid to write this rubbish? Good grief.

Stephen in Cambridge:

So "victim" actually means "protected from more damage". What's the weather like on your planet, DM reporters?

And Dave from Grantham:

I love it, being a local lad I've visited Woolsthorpe a few times and have to say I agree with the other comments here, the DM has it totally wrong, read the article and articles in local papers and you realise this barrier is about protecting the tree from the risk of root compaction, nothing more?! At the end of the day a 400yr old tree being visited by over 30,000 people a year, it needs a bit of love and attention!

(Hat-tip to BarnetAkela)

Did health and safety ruin a grandmother's funeral?

The latest example of 'health and safety gone mad' emerged yesterday: those 'killjoys' had ruined a grandmother's funeral, having 'scuppered' her dying wish.

The Mail said:


The article stated:

Over her lifetime she had collected a series of garden gnomes from all over the country.

So when it came to her funeral, Veronica Pratt had one special request – she wanted the colourful little characters to line the route.

The family of the 82-year-old grandmother duly obliged, placing 30 of them on a roundabout past which the cortege would drive.

But almost inevitably, the touching tribute fell foul to that scourge of modern life – the elf ’n’ safety police.

The same claims were made in the Metro:


And in the Mirror:


All these articles make it clear the gnomes were meant to line the funeral route, but were removed by 'health and safety'.

But it's not quite true. Yes, the family did place the gnomes on a roundabout near Narberth, and yes, they were removed - a few days later - by the council (under instruction from the Trunk Roads Agency). But according to the local paper, the Western Telegraph, the family acted:

the day after her funeral.

So they were never meant to be lining the route her 'cortege would drive'.

The Western Telegraph article, incidentally, is dated 22 April so it has taken these papers two weeks to publish this story - and yet they still get it wrong.

The BBC reports that a spokesman for Pembrokeshire Council has called the tabloids' interpretation a 'tall story':

Reports in several national newspapers claim the gnomes were placed on the Penblewin roundabout on the A40 before Mrs Pratt's funeral and then taken away by "elf 'n' safety police".

But the council said the story had been misreported.

It said initially their appearance was a mystery until Mrs Pratt's family contacted the Western Telegraph newspaper to say they had placed them there as a tribute the day after her funeral.

Her family told the paper that Mrs Pratt had always commented on how she enjoyed passing the roundabout - especially in spring when the flowers were in bloom - so they decided to place her gnomes there.

A council spokesman said it removed them a few days later after a request from the Welsh Assembly Government's Trunk Roads Agency on the grounds that they could distract motorists.

They were then taken to a council depot for storage.

And following an appeal for a new home they have now been given to a woman in Pembroke Dock for her garden.

Did 'elf 'n' safety' ban an Easter parade?

The Mail claims:


This is a dream for the Mail - health and safety, an alleged ban and the alleged persecution of Christians all in one story.

Nick Fagge reports:

Every year the Christians from different churches get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.

But this year their Good Friday parade has been banned – because it breaches health and safety laws.

So - it's been banned because of health and safety. That's clear, right?

Well, the statement from Brent Council that inevitably appears at the end of the article suggests it's not quite that clear:

‘Brent Council was not contacted about the march until around a week ago.

‘There is a strict legal procedure we have to follow to issue a traffic order closing roads so people can march in the highway, which includes advertising and consultation, and this takes about five weeks.

‘We are very sorry to say there is now not enough time for us to legally facilitate this march.’

Ah. So the organisers missed a five-week deadline for notifying the Council. Not quite health and safety.

But the parade has been banned, hasn't it?

Last night Brent Council told the worshippers to walk on the pavement.

Oh.

The man in charge of the parade, Father Hugh MacKenzie, knows the type of quotes that get you in papers such as the Mail, however:

‘The rights of Christians are being overlooked in favour of the rights of Islamic groups and gay rights organisations.

‘One does wonder whether if it was a homosexual rights or Islamic group the council would have been more flexible, as it doesn’t seem like rocket science to permit us to walk 400 metres.

‘The rights of Christians are just not respected in Britain.’

So blame the gays, blame the Muslims, blame health and safety. Don't blame yourself for applying too late for the Council's permission to close the road. And say you can't parade when you can.

The Mail also claims that this parade takes place 'every year' - those are the first two words of the article and they're repeated later in the piece. It appears, however, that the parade last took place in 2008.

A further statement has been issued by Brent Council, emphasising that the parade is definitely not banned from taking place:

Brent Council and the Metropolitan Police have advised and encouraged the organisers of this parade to hold this event as long as they stay on the footpath and the event is stewarded.

We have many other Good Friday Parades happening in Brent including one with twice the number of people and this takes place on the footpath every year avoiding the need for a traffic order.

Traffic orders are there for the safety of the parade participants, the general public and motorists and are needed by any group wanting to take over the highway.

This particular parade has not taken place for around three years.

In the past the police organised the road closures, however, a change in police policy has meant event organisers have to contact their Local Authority five weeks in advance to arrange a road closure.

The application for this parade was received 4 April.

(Hat-tip to Press Not Sorry. Primly Stable has also blogged on this 'ban' here)

Health and safety doesn't ban 'secret Santa'

Minority Thought has already covered this but here's a quick mention of the latest example of the Mail's health and safety myth-making:


The 'Secret Santa' has been leaving presents on a tree in a park in South Wales but, the Mail rages:

he didn’t bargain for today’s elf and safety legislation.

But the next two sentences prove that isn't really true:

Foul weather has ruined some of the presents left at Pembrey Country Park near Llanelli, South Wales – and the finders have simply thrown them away as litter.

So now he faces the threat of prosecution under litter and fly-tipping laws.

So not health and safety at all then.

But has this 'Secret Santa' been banned? Well, councillor Clive Scourfield is quoted saying:

‘We certainly don’t want to be the first authority to be labelled Scrooges for citing Santa for fly tipping. We would like to come to some kind of arrangement to better distribute his generosity – even if it is anonymously.’

And, from park manager Rory Dickinson:

‘Tis the season to be jolly and giving – but this does cause us a few problems. We cannot leave the presents out because of littering issues. Rangers have started a collection and will pass on the gifts to a suitable children’s charity.’

So they're looking for other ways to get the gifts to children. That's not really a 'ban' - and it's certainly nothing to do with health and safety.

The Express, the Star and angry mobs

Minority Thought has done an excellent job in looking at today's overblown Express front page headline and story.

The Express and its sister paper the Daily Star have tried to create a division between 'Muslims' and 'us' many times before. And the Express has form in trying to make the pronouncements of a few Muslims representative of the whole religion, too.

And in this case, 'a few' is right. Despite the Express using emotive terms such as 'angry mob' and 'another demonstration raged outside' it appears only three people were involved and, apart from shouting, all they did was wave around some bits of A4 paper with homemade slogans printed out in black and red capital letters.

By contrast, the demonstrations of the 'angry mob' called the English Defence League don't get mentioned on the front page of the Express. Their demos are bigger, involve people who hide their identity and usually end with people being arrested. Apparently, the Express isn't so concerned about that.

Mor, indeed, is the Daily Star, which has often taken a quite uncritical line on the EDL, under headlines such as 'Case for the Defence'. Recently, the Star's coverage of the EDL's plans to march in towns that ban Christmas (yes, really...) was praised by one EDL-supporting blogger.

Minority Thought sums up the Express' article perfectly:

The Express sees Muslims as a homogeneous mass that is in complete agreement with the ramshackle fanatics at its fringes. The headline is a dog-whistle signal for the idea that "Muslims" disapprove of "us British"...

That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslims thinks about the British.

* Minority Thought has also taken the Express to task recently over another 'health and safety bans...' myth.

The Express claimed that a ten-year-old swimmer had been 'banned from wearing googles because of health and safety'.

Usually these health and safety stories are about people being forced to wear goggles. But this one isn't true either - the advice (not ban) is that kids who swim should get used to eye contact with water. Health and safety had nothing to do with it.

'The health and safety aspect of the story is a media addition'

Here's what Richard Littlejohn said about health and safety on 21 September 2010:

For the past 15 years, this column has made a good living out of elf 'n' safety. Now, though, the Government is promising to put an end to the madness, scrapping the stupid rules and risk assessments, and derailing the spiv lawyers cashing in on the com-pen-say-shun culture.

No one has told Lancaster City Council, which has banned revellers from watching the city's annual fireworks display from Castle Hill, citing - you guessed - elf 'n' safety,

Even though it has taken place for the past 18 years without anyone getting hurt. Looks like there's still some mileage in it for me yet.

And here's what he says today:

Lord Young’s report on elf’n’safety stupidity was long overdue and his recommendations sensible — particularly over the spiv lawyers at Blame Direct and the hyper-cautious risk assessment industry.

But he’s got his work cut out. Over the weekend, the new, touchy-feely sunflower seeds exhibition at Tate Modern was closed down because of fears it could bring on asthma attacks...

Another report highlighted the loss of most of Britain’s historic cobbled streets, which are being dug up and buried under Tarmac by councils on the off-chance someone might slip over and sue for com-pen-say-shun.

This column has made a good living out of elf’n’safety over the years. If Lord Young succeeds, I’m out of a job.

Fortunately, given the stubborn endurance and bloody-mindedness of the British bureaucrat, I’m confident there’ll be some mileage in it for a few years yet.

It seems there is one type of recycling that Littlejohn thinks is acceptable...

But there's some interesting points made in the Young Report that Littlejohn has conveniently overlooked. Such as:

Britain’s ‘compensation culture’ is fuelled by media stories about individuals receiving large compensation payouts for personal injury claims and by constant adverts in the media offering people non-refundable inducements and the promise of a handsome settlement if they claim.

And:

One of the great misconceptions, often perpetuated by the media, is that we can be liable for the consequences of any voluntary acts on our part. During winter 2009/10, advice was given on television and radio to householders not to clear the snow in front of their properties in case any passer by would fall and then sue.

This is another manifestation of the fear of litigation. In fact there is no liability in the normal way, and the Lord Chief Justice himself is reported as saying that he had never come across a case where someone was sued in these circumstances.

And:

We have all read countless media stories blaming health and safety regulations for all manner of restrictions on our everyday life...

The Health and Safety Executive runs a successful ‘myth of the month’ page on its website; however, there is no end to the constant stream of misinformation in the media.

Again and again ‘health and safety’ is blamed for a variety of decisions, few of which actually have any basis in health and safety legislation at all.

Young looks at three health and safety stories that he says are myths. One is the case of the Dovedale stepping stones, which hit the headlines in August. 'Dovedale's iconic stepping stones paved over amid health and safety fears', screeched the Mail. 'Concrete slabs placed on historic stepping stones due to health and safety', huffed the Telegraph.

Young says:

Like so many health and safety stories in the media, the renovation of the Dovedale stepping stones has nothing at all to do with health and safety.

The stones date from the Victorian era but over time had weathered and sunk down into the river bed, thereby becoming uneven. Some had sunk to such a degree that the route became inaccessible for parts of the year. The only other route across the river is via a footbridge up a narrow scree slope, which is harder to access.

The stones are on National Trust land but as they form part of a public right of way Derbyshire County Council is responsible for maintaining them. Therefore the National Trust asked the council to look at the stones. This resulted in the stones being raised to their original height. Similar renovation methods have been used in the past.

The issue here was that a public right of way had become inaccessible. It seems that the health and safety aspect of the story is a media addition.

And, as this blog mentioned in a post about media articles about 'bans' that aren't really bans at all, Littlejohn and his ilk will continue to get their 'mileage' out of it if they keep exaggerating or inventing these 'health and safety' stories.

Banned

The Daily Mail reports:


James Tozer's article begins:

Once they fought them on the beaches. Seventy years later it seems they are fighting them in the aisles.

But this time the enemy is the German-owned Aldi supermarket.

It has infuriated war veterans by refusing to let them sell remembrance poppies in one of its stores.

Except at the end of the very same story, Aldi say:

‘Requests to collect in-store or leave collection tins in-store are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and due to Mr Myerscough’s age, we will gladly allow him to collect in store.’

It appears that one store - in Manchester - had originally said that the Royal British Legion could do their collecting:

under the ‘protective overhead canopy’ outside the store.

Tozer claims this was:

little more than a declaration of war.

But Aldi have since changed their mind and allowed him into the store.

So the Mail knew their headline and the spin on their article about poppy selling being 'banned' (and by Germans!) wasn't true. Yet they went ahead with it anyway.

This is the latest in a very long line of media reports about something being 'banned' which hasn't quite turned out to be entirely accurate.

At the weekened, the Star and the Telegraph both reported that traffic wardens and parking staff from one council have been 'banned' from smiling.

In the Star, Emily Hall wrote:

Traffic wardens have been banned from smiling in case it makes cheesed-off drivers more irate.

The Telegraph said clearly:


Quite how a council polices a 'ban' on facial expressions isn't immediately clear. But that implies Hall and the Telegraph churnalist have actually thought about this story.

In fact, the local paper revealed that during training, staff were told that smiling might not be appropriate when dealing with irate members of the public as it could upset them further.

Once again, a example of people being given guidance becomes a story about a 'ban'.

On Sunday, the Express claimed:

Nanny state rules have banned scissors, plasters and creams in council first aid kits to stop accident victims suing over medical mishaps.

Really? 'State rules' have 'banned' these things? There isn't a council first aid kit anywhere in the country with plasters and scissors inside? On what bit of comprehensive research has the Express come to this conclusion?

One worker for one of England’s biggest county councils, who didn’t want to be named, said: "It is ridiculous. The kit supplied in our pool car doesn’t have scissors, plasters or antiseptic cream and when I asked why not I was told about the legal implications."

Ah. One anonymous person from one unnamed council giving an example about one first aid kit. Even if what that one person says is true, it's a big jump to go from that to a nationwide ban.

Moreover, the HSE, in guidance revised in October 2009, say that in low-hazard work environments a 'minimum stock of first-aid items' would include 20 plasters, eye pads, triangle bandages, safety pins, wound dressings and disposable gloves.

Yes, it also says:

It is recommended that you don’t keep tablets and medicines in the first-aid box.

But that seems more like common sense than some indecipherable nanny-state ruling.

Then there was the story about Barnet Council 'banning' mother-in-law jokes which appeared in the Mail, Star and Telegraph (and many other places).

Had they? No:

Barnet Council has denied censoring staff by putting a ban on mother-in-law jokes, after a handout used at a training session described them as “sexist” and disrespectful to elders.

Around 30 staff members attending the equality and diversity practise workshop were given the booklet cautioning them on their use of humour.

In the document, put together by a £550-a-day independent trainer it says: “Careful on Humour: Humour can be incredibly culture-specific, and is very open to misinterpretation or even offense [sic] by other cultures. And don’t forget: when you don’t know what people are laughing at, it is easy to imagine that they are laughing at you.

“Example: British mother-in-law jokes, as well as offensively sexist in their own right, can also be seen as offensive on the grounds that they disrespect elders or parents.”

However, a spokesman for Barnet Council said the document was not a policy document, but merely used as an example of how workers should be mindful of causing offence to people of other cultures.

They added: "Barnet council does not have a policy on mother-in-law jokes. “The information was given in a handout to 30 staff who attended a one off training course by a third party trainer and is not a council document.

“Our advice to staff is that they should be polite and avoid giving offence to any member of the public.”

(More on that from Five Chinese Crackers)

One of the hacks who delights in this 'can you believe what they've banned now?' stuff is, of course, Richard Littlejohn. During the World Cup he claimed:

Just in time for the start of the World Cup in South Africa, a primary school in Essex has banned playground football. You guessed - elf 'n' safety.

Four days later, he had to publish an unqualified apology after the headteacher told him football had been suspended to punish bad behaviour.

But that didn't deter him. A few weeks ago, he wrote:

For the past 15 years, this column has made a good living out of elf 'n' safety.

How nice of him to admit that's he's been paid handsomely for flogging the same dead horse for a decade-and-a-half.

He continued:

Now, though, the Government is promising to put an end to the madness, scrapping the stupid rules and risk assessments, and derailing the spiv lawyers cashing in on the com-pen-say-shun culture.

No one has told Lancaster City Council, which has banned revellers from watching the city's annual fireworks display from Castle Hill, citing - you guessed - elf 'n' safety.

Even though it has taken place for the past 18 years without anyone getting hurt.
Looks like there's still some mileage in it for me yet.

Of course, one of the reasons he's been able to get so much 'mileage' out of it is because he wildly exaggerates what 'elf'n'safety' is actually responsible for.

In the case of the Lancaster fireworks, Primly Stable did more research than Littlejohn could manage. He found a report in the Lancaster Guardian that told a rather different story:

Lancaster City Council has decided not to allow people into the Castle and Priory area on November 6, citing negative feedback from visitors last year and potential safety issues.

Yes, safety was one issue (although it's not clear why ensuring people are safe should be considered a 'bad thing'). But what about the negative feedback?

Gill Hague, the council’s assistant head of community engagement, said that the area would be completely closed off to the public.

She added: “Visitors told us that the castle precinct was cramped and is not a particularly good area from which to view the fireworks due to its historic layout.

“Many people found that their view of the fireworks was blocked by spectators, buildings and trees. Last year we experimented with limiting numbers at the castle but we received similar comments.”

She added that people’s safety was one consideration.

So although safety was 'one consideration', the Council have actually 'cited' the fact that last year's spectators thought the area was cramped and didn't give a good view of the firework display.

That 'elf'n'safety' story appeared just a few days after the tabloids had given the Winterval myth yet another outing.

And on the 2 October the media was falling over itself to come up with examples of silly health and safety rules following a series of interviews by Lord Young - who has been asked by the Government to produce recommendations that will put an end to such 'madness'.

The Sun came up with several examples of health and safety gone mad. For example:

Residents in flats were barred from hanging washing on lines from their balconies by officials in Croydon, South London. They said the clothes may fall on passers-by beneath the flats and hurt them.

Except they didn't say that at all. Croydon Council weren't worried about a wet shirt falling on to passers-by, but entire rotary washing lines:

The use of rotary dryers attached to a balcony or a walkway...presents a health and safety risk to other residents if they fall. This could happen in high winds or when the dryer is overloaded with heavy and wet washing. They are also an eyesore and can cause damage to the council’s property. The council does not give permission to any resident to use a rotary dryer in this way.

Instead of fixing a rotary dryer to the building there are lots of other folding dryers available that are free-standing and can be taken indoors after use.

That might still strike the 'health and safety gone mad' brigade as needlessly officious, but at least they should be honest about what is actually being said.

Another example the Sun quoted was about a ban on toothpicks:

A restaurant in Cheshire banned toothpicks from being given to customers in case they hurt themselves and sued. The barmy call came after advice from a health and safety consultant without any qualifications.

In fact, one customer who wanted to pick his teeth in public (shudder) had been told he couldn't have one. The Mail blamed the 'Toothpick Taliban' and said:

it seems the toothpick has become the latest victim of the health and safety police.

But later in the article they acknowledged:

However, a Macdonald Hotels spokesman denied there was a toothpick ban, and suggested 'there were simply none available on the night'.

Indeed, the hotel's Regional General Manager explained:

- There is absolutely no directive from Head Office with regards toothpicks, and this was not noted to the guest by the senior manager on duty, as implied by the various articles

- There is no law against toothpicks, and this was certainly not reported to the guest concerned

- The hotel had genuinely run out of toothpicks, and we are at a complete loss as to why the waiter would have come up with the Health & Safety excuse, unfortunately being a casual staff member and University student, we haven't as yet seem him to ask

- The guest concerned had in fact ordered a bespoke meal for himself and his wife, and this was different to the rest of the visiting diners

- The guest was found a "toothpick" once the situation had been brought to the attention of the manager on duty that evening

So how has the Sun concluded a 'health and safety consultant without any qualifications' had 'banned' toothpicks?

One other example the Sun uses is about a pancake race:

People taking part in a Shrove Tuesday pancake race in St Albans, Herts, were told by a council official to walk rather than run - because recent rain made it dangerous.

Lord Young calls this 'the worst case I've come across.' Now this one is actually true. But was it a big deal? The St Albans Review reported:

Organisers and competitors alike have denied a national press report that yesterday's St Albans pancake race was ruined by excessive safety fears...

The Daily Mail reported that the event was booed, and some competitors complained the ban was pointless as the rain was very light.

But district councillor Melvyn Teare, the responsible cabinet member, said: "It was raining heavily so it was decided for safety reasons that people would have to walk rather than run...But despite the rain, it was a successful event and everybody seemed to enjoy themselves."

He was backed by competitor Louise Miller from a team representing the Grove House hospice, who said: "How sad that certain daily newspapers need to put a negative spin on such a fun, community event...It was raining, there was no booing - in fact as ever there was a great atmosphere and lots of laughter and cheering"...

Nicola O'Donnell, from the winning team Strutt and Parker, said: "We had a really good time. I thought it was a great event and we'll do it again next year. It was a shame it was raining, but the ban on running didn't affect us in any way."

The paper adds:

Just a stone's throw away in Rickmansworth, one pancake race competitor took a tumble on a slippery pavement, which perhaps could have been avoided if the same health and safety regulations had been applied.

Yes, the walking pancake race may have been over-cautious, but it didn't seem to have much effect on the event itself. So what's the problem?

There is a clear agenda behind these 'banned' stories - that people can't do what they want any more because of health and safety or political correctness or the EU or because it might offend some minority.

Certain newspapers treat every bit of guidance as a 'ban'. Safety concerns are seen as needless meddling. One-off incidents are considered to be part of nationwide diktats.

Very often the examples are exaggerated, if not completely wrong. For example, there have been other stories about bans on buying a dozen eggs, on England flags and football shirts and on milk jugs. None of them were true.

But newspapers know that readers (and, it seems, politicians) react to this stuff so, as Littlejohn warned, there's still plenty of mileage in it for them yet...

Links

As it's silly season, the Sun has been running far too many stories about an abseiling donkey. The paper claimed to have saved the animal by buying it from its owner. But MediaGuardian reports that the owner says the Sun bought the wrong donkey.

Could it be a re-run of the Sun's ludicrous Newquay shark hoax from 2007?

Meanwhile, the influence of the tabloids has been shown by several instances where stories have been repeated by people in positions of power. So:

• a government minister repeats the 'Winterval' myth;
  
• a government white paper repeats a 'PC gone mad' half-truth about a 92-page police manual on riding a bike;
• a government spokeswoman refers to housing benefit policy being based on stories from the Sun and Mail.

Following on from the Mail's misleading article about a path on Snowdon, Minority Thought looks at changes to some stepping stones in Derbyshire that the Mail calls an 'elf'n'safety step too far'.

Also from Minority Thought, posts about hymen repair operations and Richard Littlejohn complaining about swine flu scaremongering, conveniently forgetting the coverage in the paper he works for.

Exclarotive has looked at Littlejohn's claim about something being banned because of human rights - and finds there's no such ban.

And Jonathan looks at some of Littlejohn's word games, and also shows how the Mail changed a misleading, reader-baiting, headline about immigration, benefits and jobs.

Angry Mob shows that the Mail thinks that tombstoning is 'madness' and 'dangerous' unless the person doing it is a plucky 75-year-old ex-Army Major.

Blogger Fagburn wonders if pop singer Joe McElderry had come out in 'exclusive' interviews for the Sun and, er, Mirror because a kiss-and-tell story was about to out him anyway.

Finally, the News of the World have paid out damages to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie over claims they were divorcing.

'Now' Red Arrows are (not) banned by health and safety

On 13 July, Angry Mob highlighted the latest thing 'banned' by health and safety: the Red Arrows.

The Mail reported, under a headline which began with the word 'now...':

The Red Arrows have been banned from putting on a flying display over a seaside town – over health and safety fears.

The world famous RAF team were scheduled to top the bill at the annual regatta in Dartmouth, Devon.

But organisers decided to cancel the display – which has taken place every year since 1980 – amid fears that vibrations from the low-flying jets might damage buildings.

The story went on to reveal the thoughts of angry locals who said it was:

'just health and safety nonsense'.

In fact, it was just nonsense. Why?

Because one day after the Mail's story, the Red Arrows issued a press release with the headline 'Spurious show story':

There have been reports in the national news today that the Red Arrows will not be displaying at Dartmouth.

This is not true and the Team is still planning to display at the Town’s Royal Regatta event.

Squadron Leader Ben Murphy, Officer Commanding and Team Leader of the Red Arrows said:

“We are still planning to display at Dartmouth on August 27. We have not been contacted by the event organisers with any concerns about damage to buildings. In fact the Mayor of Dartmouth contacted the Team this morning to say that the town is still very much looking forward to the display and that reports in the national press about the town cancelling are simply not true.”

(Hat-tip IC Oliver)

It's health and safety ignored

On 15 June, Richard Littlejohn covered two of his favourite subjects in one dreadful article - wheelie bins and health and safety.

A week before, the Health and Safety Executive and the Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) forum had issued some guidance:

about preventing serious injury to people, including children, who may enter, play in or take shelter in commercial waste bins or communal domestic bins - typically four-wheeled bins of 660 litres plus capacity.

There have been many cases where people in bins have been injured and, in several cases, killed when they have been tipped into waste collection and compaction vehicles; sometimes they are only discovered at the waste transfer station.

Littlejohn, of course, thinks anything like this is ridiculous nonsense. If a drunk staggers into a commercial wheelie bin and is then crushed to death when the waste is collected - tough:

Elf 'n'safety exists in a parallel universe, a utopian fantasy island where nothing bad must be allowed to happen, even accidentally.

'Where nothing bad must be allowed to happen' or where the chances of needless deaths or injuries in preventable accidents is minimised?

But what he deliberately does for his weird little fantasy telling of this story is pretend that the bins in question are not commercial containers, but household wheelie bins:

In the context of an overall population of 60 million and rising, how many people are actually living in wheelie bins? Tell-tale signs include a washing line, a satellite dish and a rottweiler on a string tethered to the handle.

Hilarious, huh? And he exaggerates some more:

Dustmen clearly can't be expected to poke around in the contents of every bin on the off-chance that they might find a drunk taking a nap.

But that's exactly what they are going to have to do in future.

He can't really think that dustmen will 'have to' do that in future.

And, of course, they don't. The Chief Executive of the Health and Safety Executive, Geoffrey Podger, decided to challenge Littlejohn's take on the story:

I am disappointed that Mr Littlejohn misrepresents the scope of the guidance that has been issued to help reduce the likelihood of people being crushed horrifically after seeking shelter in bins.

The guidance was drawn up in direct response to requests from the waste management and recycling industry following three deaths in the last year alone. It is not new law as your article suggests, but simply a guide to help businesses comply with current law.

The guidance clearly applies to commercial waste bins and communal domestic bins only - not household wheelie bins. We do not expect refuse collectors "to poke around in the contents of every bin on the off-chance that they might find a drunk taking a nap". This would be neither proportionate nor sensible.

The guidance also outlines simple measures those who produce waste, such as shops and restaurants, can implement to discourage people from entering bins in the first place.

HSE fully appreciates that vulnerable people will not be reading Materials Recycling Week and that is why we are also working to make homeless charities and organisations aware of the issue so they can help warn the people they work with.

So that's that then? Well, no, not quite.

Because today, Littlejohn returns to the topic. And it's like the HSE letter never happened:

A couple of weeks ago I wondered who would want to live in a wheelie bin, following the issuing of new elf’n’safety guidelines to dustmen.

They now have to check before emptying that there’s no one lurking inside, after three people were crushed to death.

So that's another health and safety myth created. And no doubt he will repeat it in future columns, and in his next book, so other people start believing it too.

Recommended reading - links

Angry Mob looks at the Daily Mail's latest article on the 'exaggerated' and 'vastly over-stated' swine flu 'pandemic that never was' - conveniently forgetting their own headline such as 'How swine flu could be a bigger threat to humanity than nuclear warfare'.

Martin Moore from Media Standards Trust considers the backlash against the Mail on Sunday for its article about Lord Triesman. Last week, the News of the World's managing editor revealed that they turned down the story on the basis that it was 'too thin.' Too thin for the News of the World? Hard to imagine, isn't it?

Janet Street-Porter recently joined the lengthy list of Mail columnists who have written some ill-considered rubbish and suffered a backlash. Her 'Depression? It's just the trendy new illness!' was castigated by Musings of a phenomenologist, Andrew Brown in the Telegraph and three mental health charities, among many others.

Sian Norris and Dr Helen Mott were labelled 'hypocrites' by the Evening Post after they raised objections to a burlesque performance at Bristol Museum. After they complained the front-page story had completely misrepresented their views, the online article was removed and Norris and Mott were given a right of reply - a two-page spread on pages 16 and 17. It is good that the paper gave them the opportunity to give their side of the story over two pages.

The Media Blog has written (two posts) about the Mail on Sunday's latest attack on the interwebs and claims that firms are 'spying' on people through what they say on Twitter and Facebook. More from Martin Belam and Peter Kirwan, who was himself contacted by someone from the Mail via Twitter because of his comments - exactly what the Mail was complaining about...

In a longer post about the media and Cumbria, Matt Gardner looks at yet another feeble Georgina Littlejohn article on the Mail website about Lady Gaga and how she (apparently...) insulted the victims of Derrick Bird's rampage.

Five Chinese Crackers suggests a Sun front page headline beginning with the words 'Cannibal cops' may give the wrong impression.

Some other Mail-related fisking by Angry Mob:

• 'live' grenades at the Dad's Army play that weren't actually live
• shamelessly dragging 'health and safety' into the Cumbria shootings
• criticising a school for closing early for the World Cup
• a useless bit of churnalism about dating
• swallowing a story about a baby being stamped on
• a 'first look' at James McAvoy in the 'new X-Men' film which happens to be a still from a completely different film from two years ago

And finally, from Adam Bienkov, a picture taken back in April of two Sunday newspapers (both from the same stable) who couldn't quite decide which way Cheryl And Ashley Cole's marriage was going to go:

Littlejohn offers 'unqualified apology' for false 'elf'n'safety' story

On Friday, Richard Littlejohn exposed the latest absolutely true elf'n'safety madness to hit Britain - a primary school had banned football just before the World Cup. He wrote:

Just in time for the start of the World Cup in South Africa, a primary school in Essex has banned playground football. You guessed - elf 'n' safety.

Marion Smith, headmistress of Thomas Willingale primary, in Debden, said she was worried about young children getting hit in the face by heavy leather footballs.

There have also been complaints about balls bouncing into the road and hitting cars.

One parent said: 'It's appalling. How are we meant to have a World Cup-winning team in the future if they won't let kids play football?'

Debden is only a few miles from the school where David Beckham learned his skills.

Talk about an own goal.

Today, he returns to the same story. Why? Because he got it completely wrong:

On Friday, I reported that parents of children at a primary school in Essex were angry that playground football had been banned during the World Cup.

I've since heard from Marion Smith, the head of Thomas Willingale Primary, in Debden, who tells me she has only ever suspended playground football for a week to punish bad behaviour.

She has asked parents to give children lightweight balls to prevent injury, but was devastated by claims that she had banned it completely.

Ofsted has commended the school for its outstanding commitment to all sports, including football.

My comments were based on emails from parents and a report in the local newspaper, but the responsibility is all mine. I owe Mrs Smith and her staff an unqualified apology.

So, for once, well done to Littlejohn for publishing this correction so swiftly, and for offering an 'unqualified apology'.

But isn't that penultimate sentence rather telling? He wrote his original rant based on emails and newspaper reports. He didn't bother to phone the school and do even the slightest bit of fact-checking.

It's not the first time - remember the police chief apology or the thing with the dogs - and because he never seems to do any actual research, it won't be the last.

Recommended reading - links

A few links to other blogs with some excellent posts:

Five Chinese Crackers: The onward march of racism in the Express - The racist rag's disgraceful front page headline 'Strangers in our own country' pretends our schools are being over-run by foreigners.

Angry Mob: Richard Littlejohn's 'permanent opposition' - Littlejohn claims he has 'no party political affiliations' yet comes out for the Conservatives (shock!) for the General Election.

Five Chinese Crackers - A look at the PCC's ruling against Rod Liddle. Unlike Liddle, 5CC produces the evidence.

Angry Mob: Really bad journalism - the tabloids claim a boy was left up a tree by a school because of health and safety, forcing the headteacher to put out two statements saying it's 'untrue'.

Jon Slattery: Labour MP tells constituent: 'Life can only get better - if you stop reading the Daily Mail'.

Angry Mob: A catalogue of lies - Round-up of four nonsense articles from the Mail, including three health and safety lies.

One, with the headline 'Environmentalist fined £4,000 after catching the wrong kind of crayfish' only revealed later in the article that he had in fact illegally caught 40 crayfish, and cooked some of them. If he'd been an immigrant, it's unlikely they would have been so sympathetic.

And in 'Council bans dogs from parks leaving owners wondering where to go 'walkies'', there was no blanket ban, as implied. Instead, the truth was that:

The vast majority of the orders ban dogs from fenced-off children's play areas - they do not ban dogs from the council's four Green Flag Award-winning parks which are popular with dog walkers, or from the vast majority of open space in the district.

The handful of village playing fields which are now subject to exclusion orders were included at the request of the various parish councils who felt such action was needed as dog fouling had become a serious problem in those localities.