View Full Version : Fighting the nanny state
With the recent ramblings concerning DO permission, the linked article from the Telegraph is refreshing and welcome proof positive that the Nanny state is not a forgone conclusion.
One amateur club at least was not prepared to, as I so eloquently put it in an earlier thread, take it up the backside when the Health and Saftey cult threatened their chosen passtime. In this case the right to swim in a pond during winter.
Some of the highlights
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton:
"If an adult swimmer, with knowledge of the risks of swimming, chooses to swim unsupervised, the risks he incurs are the result of his decision and not of the permission to swim,"
Lord Scott:
"joie de vivre of the young" (is) "no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone".
Mary Cane, the chairman of the winter swimming club:
"This represents another successful attack by ordinary citizens on the 'nanny state' and the government-sponsored cult of 'health and safety'."
Perhaps those high court judges are not as mad as they are made out to be ;-)
Does this change a BSAC DOs duty of care, or perhaps the freedom of adult BSAC members to consider SDPs as a guide-book rather than a rule-book? Personally I think there is a clear lesson - we do not have to bend over and submit to the HSEs obsession with paperwork.
Thanks Bren T for posting the article on YD.
With the recent ramblings concerning DO permission, the linked article from the Telegraph is refreshing and welcome proof positive that the Nanny state is not a forgone conclusion.
Depends what you mean by nanny.
If you mean pro-schools who teach stick now hypothermic students
in ill-fitting wetsuits, work to a ratio of 1:12, have no
surface cover, have first names written on a fag packet and
no working O2 kit, then yes welcome to the HSE and the nanny
state.
If every effort HAS been made and you have as safe as an enviroment as you can make it then no it's not.
Trouble is that without an authoritive body pointing out what is/isnt acceptable who makes that decision? You? Me?
Isnt that where we came in with cart blanche to do whatever we
like?
Bottom line here is that if your trip etc. wouldnt work under
HSE safety guidlines, then why should it work just because we
are amateur. Awnser it shouldnt and the same considerations
should be applied to both.
Nanny state? Well no not to that extreme.
Equivilent of a "concerned parent" state. Well yes please.
TerryH
Thanks for the highlight, it was also brought up previously in my message a bit earlier.
See: Hampstead Heath swimming and Health and Safety Regs
john williams
28-04-2005, 15:59
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton:
"If an adult swimmer, with knowledge of the risks of swimming, chooses to swim unsupervised, the risks he incurs are the result of his decision and not of the permission to swim,"
And who decides if he has "knowledge of the risks"?
In the case of SCUBA diving ...the person who assesses that qualification is the Branch DO. Show him/her that you understand & I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Justice Stanley Burton on this matter.
Lord Scott:
"joie de vivre of the young" (is) "no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone".
Lord Scott seems to be telling DOs not to over do it ...but also to provide a colourful and exciting safety regime (something I seem to recall the BSAC doing too!)
Mary Cane, the chairman of the winter swimming club:
"This represents another successful attack by ordinary citizens on the 'nanny state' and the government-sponsored cult of 'health and safety'."
And so we should celebrate avoiding the grey and dull nanny state - we should be providing what our members need and enabling them to do whatever they want to do safely. That does not mean allowing them to do things that would be silly for them early on ion their careers. Proper training and extensive experience within a bright, colourful and supportive branch will quickly make them safe to do the more extreme stuff.
Perhaps those high court judges are not as mad as they are made out to be ;-)
Perhaps
;-)))
Does this change a BSAC DOs duty of care, or perhaps the freedom of adult BSAC members to consider SDPs as a guide-book rather than a rule-book? Personally I think there is a clear lesson - we do not have to bend over and submit to the HSEs obsession with paperwork.
Unless we all toe the voluntary line - and branches provide the bright and colourful and supportive amateur environment that people will submit to willingly - we run the risk of the HSE taking an interest and regulating all the fun out of it. Their function after all is to make it feel like work! (My hobby needs to feel like fun and not feel like work!)
No-one wants a nanny state ....but neither do we really want anarchy!
What's wrong with a middle-of-the-road compromise position?
John
Mike Halligan
28-04-2005, 16:22
John,
I've yet to resuscitate a possum, in order to ask that very question. Seen thousands, never managed it yet though.
I agree with every word you've written, but don't believe it is either compromise or middle-of-the-road. I should prefer that Branches accept a consensus that the DO be a trusted, experienced and dutiful friend to be accorded due respect - which must include by default notification of every planned dive (or diving scenario) in sufficient time for her/his dispassionate and constructive comment to be absorbed and accommodated.
But then, I have had very good Diving Officers. So, in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "I would say that, wouldn't I?"
Regards,
Mike ;-)
> And who decides if he has "knowledge of the risks"?
The person taking the risk. It's his decision, and his responsibility.
Others may attempt to "protect" him from himself, but IME that's really rather counter-productive; telling someone thay aren't allowed to do something just builds a desire to do it.
> In the case of SCUBA diving ...the person who assesses that
> qualification is the Branch DO.
No it isn't. The DO manages Branch Diving. Deciding whether or not someone understands the risks he's taking is entirely outside that remit.
Here's a good example - when I started diving a CCR, my DO didn't even have a Nitrox qualification. His only real source of information about my kit was - me. I explained to him why I did things as I did - and, specifically, why I would not do things as BSAC were telling me to. How exactly was he supposed to determine whether or not I understood the risks?
> What's wrong with a middle-of-the-road compromise position?
It can't exist.
You either try to prevent people doing what they want to do, or you don't. But remember that diving without BSAC is perfectly possible - how effective is it going to be to try to prevent anyone from doing anything? How many members have we lost in recent years?
All we can do is to educate. Provide information and guidance. To attempt to make decisions for our divers is to invite them to take their own decisions elsewhere - i.e. outside the environment we consider safe. Do any of us consider that a good idea?
Vic.
Heres an interesting one for you.
As a result of pandering to the nanny state and to make diving training safer -
The training of novice divers was taken away from dive leaders who were normally very experienced (cos the DO wouldnt let them out otherwise and if I remember correctly it took a minimum 45 dives to get the DL level in those days)
And passed to sports divers, which can be done with only the basic requisite of 15? dives - who have had a 2 day course in a swimming pool. (Oh yeah, as long as a more qualified diver is standing on the quayside)
Believe me, as with everything in life, somewhere out there this is happening - simply because it can.
Yup, its a bit extreme, but it does illustrate that sometimes in an attempt to please everbody you can forget what it is you were actually trying to achieve in the first place.
john williams
29-04-2005, 12:33
> And who decides if he has "knowledge of the risks"?
The person taking the risk. It's his decision, and his responsibility.
Others may attempt to "protect" him from himself, but IME that's really rather counter-productive; telling someone thay aren't allowed to do something just builds a desire to do it.
Here we agree!...but in my case I would go the extra distance in helping them to gain the necessary training and experience to enable them to do it safely.
It seems you would just tell them to "get on with it" for fear that they would go away and do just that anyway.
> In the case of SCUBA diving ...the person who assesses that
> qualification is the Branch DO.
No it isn't. The DO manages Branch Diving. Deciding whether or not someone understands the risks he's taking is entirely outside that remit.
Yes it is! - the DO is responsible for safety and training (and for the organisation of a full and varied programme to meet the needs of same - as well as enjoyment and development of experience)
Here's a good example - when I started diving a CCR, my DO didn't even have a Nitrox qualification. His only real source of information about my kit was - me. I explained to him why I did things as I did - and, specifically, why I would not do things as BSAC were telling me to. How exactly was he supposed to determine whether or not I understood the risks?
He saw your qualifications, and he had a rationale discussion with you - during which he recognised your superior knowledge of the subject, sought to enhance his own understanding of the subject by asking pertinent questions and deciding with you what information he needed to pass on to other Marshalls who might have to manage dives with you and your new kit.
He doesn't need to have done the course to assess your ability to conduct safe diving. He DOES need your help to keep the rest of the branch informed and to encourage them to take an interest in expanding their minds to the same level that you have.
> What's wrong with a middle-of-the-road compromise position?
It can't exist.
You either try to prevent people doing what they want to do, or you don't. But remember that diving without BSAC is perfectly possible - how effective is it going to be to try to prevent anyone from doing anything? How many members have we lost in recent years?
All we can do is to educate. Provide information and guidance.
How can you do that if they fail to discuss plans with you?
To attempt to make decisions for our divers is to invite them to take their own decisions elsewhere - i.e. outside the environment we consider safe. Do any of us consider that a good idea?
No...which is why you should elect a supportive and persuasive DO to diplomatically encourage people to see their own limits clearly and to work to extend them safely BEFORE they attempt something beyond their current ability.
What is worse than inviting these people to make their own decisions elsewhere - is to allow them to make them within the BSAC! We need to be seen as an organisation that provides a safe, nurturing environment where people can extend their horizons and abilities with the support and encouragement of an establishment dedicated to that goal.
We do NOT need to be seen as an organisation which ignores risk in favour of an outmoded principal of personal freedom to put yourself and others at risk.
John
The training of novice divers was taken away from dive leaders who were normally very experienced (cos the DO wouldnt let them out otherwise and if I remember correctly it took a minimum 45 dives to get the DL level in those days)
And passed to sports divers, which can be done with only the basic requisite of 15? dives - who have had a 2 day course in a swimming pool. (Oh yeah, as long as a more qualified diver is standing on the quayside)
Sorry that dog don't bite.
If the DO sancions training by DL's, he also sancions same for
Sport/ADI's etc.
TerryH
:=:=Trouble is that without an authoritive body pointing out what is/isnt acceptable who makes that decision? You? Me?
Yes.
It was not meant like that.
I was just pointing out that sometimes when we are trying to cover ourselves legally and also trying to allow things to carry on smoothly we move the goalposts in the wrong direction.
I agree that any training would be sanctioned by the DO. But I have also seen at least 2 clubs, that were desparate to get training done, using at least one newly qualified sports diver, and I mean very newly, who had attended the ITC for training.
There is nothing in the rules that say that they couldnt.
In fact, at my ITC(sorry if the name has changed) 2 of the attendees were sports divers with less than 25 dives and one was, to be honest, worse than most club divers I have met(his instruction for the CBL involved pumping air into the jacket at full tilt until you break the surface). I am hoping that he didnt pass LOL
You should remember, in the early days of the instructor training and new training rules BSAC originally stated that open water training could ONLY be undertaken by a NQI (OWI?). ACI's and, I think CI's even, were restricted to sheltered water. It was quickly pointed out there werent any so the rules were relaxed to allow lower grades to train (under supervision).
(and of course there was the big "What is sheltered water debate)
Strangely 3 years on and somehow there seems to be a sort of blank space where the phasing in of the origonal intention should have happened. Meaning that it has become accepted practice for ACI's to do most of the open water training. And it would seem that "under supervision" has become "with an NQI on the same site"
Nigel Hewitt
29-04-2005, 14:21
I was just pointing out that sometimes when we are trying to cover ourselves legally and also trying to allow things to carry on smoothly we move the goalposts in the wrong direction.
You can't win by just pushing it off onto a higher authority. The Nuremberg Commission ruled that "I vas just obeying orders" is not a valid defence. 8-)
I am a SD with IFC so in theory I can do all sorts of training but the DO and his instructors will only use me where I will be safe and useful. OK, since I'm a crossover, I have a few more dives than 25 but I would start getting bitchy if I was given a training job I didn't feel prepared for.
I agree that any training would be sanctioned by the DO. But I have also seen at least 2 clubs, that were desparate to get training done, using at least one newly qualified sports diver, and I mean very newly, who had attended the ITC for training.
Yep, but I've seen people who are Club divers training others
open water and even seen PADI AOW doing pro-guided dives.
So sorry again just dont go with that argument.
You can always find some example which makes a nonsense of
the regs. That's not who is a fault, it's the ones flouting
them, not the system.
Mind you if we had a little more proactive vetting Mr.BSAC then
maybe things would get tightened up a little :-)
TerryH
David Walker
29-04-2005, 22:15
Meaning that it has become accepted practice for ACI's to do most of the open water training. And it would seem that "under supervision" has become "with an NQI on the same site"
A Sports Diver ADI shouldn't be unsupervised with a trainee in open water. Only for Dive Leader does supervision become "on site" - for SDs its most definitely "in water" for open water stuff.
Dive Leader is intended to teach people how to effectively look after someone else in the water to make you able to safely lead the inexperienced. The IFC shows people how to teach - the positioning in the water etc are mostly related to how to most effectively get your message across with no distractions.
Obviously there are some Sports Divers who have been diving years who are perfectly capable of looking after someone else in the water, and probably get used for training in some branches. Equally, some Dive Leaders who haven't done an IFC will be perfectly good at teaching, whether through natural ability, teaching in other circumstances, or even being an instructor from another agency. Again, some branches might use them for training. Although against the rules, if a DO wants to do that there's not much anyone else is going to do about it. I'd love to be able to use some of our PADI instructors to help teach Ocean Diver, of some Dive Leaders who have been teaching in other branches previously - both would be very good at teaching OD/SD.
Personally, if it was down to me i'd have them teach one dive with an OWI, and if they were fine then send them off to do a bit of teaching on their own! Whats the worst that can happen? Both are just as well trained at looking after people in open water, just lack the BSAC way of teaching which really isn't all that revolutionary and nothing you couldn't get from reading the book and doing a couple of practice lessons. In essence, thats what the IFC is! If it turns out that they can't teach very well, then we'll notice when the trainee can't do the skills and corrective teaching could be done - but thats unlikely to be needed anyway. Anyway, its not down to me so i'll be doing two weeks solid teaching at the end of term, while others who really would want to help can't! :O(
David
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.