A recent letter by Ray Hurst of The Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to several newspapers has made an interesting, albeit only partially valid, point.He wants us to believe that the regulations are fundamentally sound - which is hard to believe - BUT he claims that Health and Safety regulations are not the cause of all that bureaucratic nonsense and namby pamby attitudes to everything from slides to playing conkers.
No. He points out that the litigious culture inherited from the USA is to blame and there is much truth in this.
It appears that in a modern world, there is never any such thing as an accident; people will always try to 'milk' any situation to the very maximum for personal gain.
The NHS lives in a permanent state of nervous panic. Ambulance-chaser lawyers are proliferating along with no win-no fee solicitors who help some genuine cases but pave the way for much of this culture by representing the wrong people equally.
If there has been a clear wrong done to somebody - they should be allowed compensation - accidents, often of your own making should not qualify you for a bumper payout, nor should hurt feelings, nor should signing a contract then later griping about the provisions as did Navy Wrens some years ago.
But what of the recent report of Muslim jailbirds suing for £10,000 apiece because they had been mistakenly offered a ham sandwich?
How could £50 compensation be justified? How can any?
A mistake was made and rectified. How can there be any monetary value placed on this?
I think of my friend whose life was totally wrecked by wickedly irresponsible prescribing by his doctors over more than 15 years and he received a miserly £40k instead of the £2.5 million he should have realised for the loss of an entire career.
Where is the perspective?
