Deuce! Tennis chief returns HSE’s backhand - news-content | SHP - Safety and Health Practitioner

Deuce! Tennis chief returns HSE’s backhand

23 June 2011

A senior figure in the Wimbledon championships has hit back at the HSE for suggesting that safety is being used as a scapegoat for stopping people enjoying the tournament.

Ian Ritchie, chief executive of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (AELTC), which jointly manages the Wimbledon championships with the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA), was said to be “really cross” about a letter he received on Tuesday (21 June) from HSE chief executive, Judith Hackitt.

Ms Hackitt sent the open letter in response to media reports earlier this week that tennis fans on ‘Murray Mount’ – a grassy incline overlooking number-one court – were denied the opportunity to watch the action because the giant TV screens were switched off in the rain “for health and safety reasons”. Reports said that officials at the south-west London venue feared people would slip and injure themselves on the wet grass.

Incensed at what she saw as another attempt to use health and safety as an excuse, Ms Hackitt wrote to Ritchie, and his counterpart at the LTA, Roger Draper, saying: “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.”

She continued: “People have been walking up and down wet grassy slopes for years without catastrophic consequences. If [you were] concerned about people slipping and suing for their injuries the message should have made clear the decision was ‘on insurance grounds’.”

But Ian Ritchie responded with his own open letter, accusing the regulatory chief of talking of things she knows nothing about. He said: “It must be entirely inappropriate for the chair of the HSE to make such public comments on specific decisions reached at an event when you have absolutely no knowledge of the circumstances, or the reason for any decision made at the championships.”

He continued: "It is further regrettable that you made no effort at all to discuss the facts with the Club prior to your letter being publicly distributed. To use your own phrase I could not let your ill-informed comments ‘pass unchallenged’.”

Ritchie said he had taken the decision to shut down transmission on Murray Mount in collaboration with the event safety officer and a senior police officer, based on the heavy rain falling on the evening of 20 June. He explained: “The decision was indeed based on the grounds of the safety of those present and was made by relevant professionals who have a substantial experience of the terrace and the event.

“As you might expect, and as befits the status of the championships, we take an extremely serious approach to the safety of our visitors and to pay due regard to the legislation and regulations under which we operate.”

SHP would like to hear what readers think – was Judith Hackitt right to challenge this decision, or is it the case that seemingly “killjoy” decisions are sometimes actually rooted in sensible health and safety?

Please leave your comments below.

Photo of Andy Murray in action at Wimbledon – © AELTC
 


     
Tell A Colleague RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

Chris Ward
Good for Judith.......

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Mark
Having attended my mother's broken and completely rotated ankle after a slip on a wet grass slope I can tell you that several years of pain and inconvenience suffered afterwards FAR outweighs any enjoyment gained by watching a tennis broadcast in a particular location as opposed another location.
Had I been there on professional duty I would also have seriously considered the same action and the same statement.
Avoiding misrepresentation does not mean that "health and safety" may never be said

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
martyn gower
The driving force here looks like fear of our compensation culture. Most of us would identify the risks as fairly low and might suggest people could use the area at their own risk, but being a semi-official viewing area by tradition, lawyers might be able to uphold a complaint if an injury occurred.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Lee James
How can Ritchie claim that Judith Hackett knows nothing about the subject to which she is talking about...? It’s a wet hill, something you see on a daily basis - hardly a specialist area like the chemical industry! Of course the safety officer and Police would agree with the decision, they don’t’ want to be seen as accomplices to the personal injury claims that would almost certainly go in…. Another example of ‘low risks’ being blown out of proportion for fear or litigation!

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
DeepnGreen
I think it should still be called 'Henman Hill'. You can't keep changing its name every time a half-decent British player comes through the ranks.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Graham Horsewood
The letter should have been addressed to the media source(s) who are in fact the culprits in the belittling of the health and safety management carried out by professionals on a daily basis, in an attempt to prevent real harm to workers.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Dave Wilson
"Killjoy decisions" are frequently rooted in common sense and come to the publics attention as a consequence of ill informed media hype and a need for a headline to sell papers. Judith did make a good point though don't blame H&S blame the public for their propensity to sue and insurers who might assist them, having seen the pictures of youths sliding down the mound in their rain macs I also believe it has something to do with preserving the integrity of the grass.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Stephen Elliott
The obsession the safety establishment has with hitting back at those who blame 'health and safety' has gone on now for far too long. We have become paranoid about critisism and the need to challenge anyone to a debate.
I think Judith Hackett's remarks need to be questioned in this instance as clearly she has not done her research. Maybe her press officers are to blame, searching out every media story to use as a battlecry. For me, we should stick to what we are good at - raising awareness.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Douglas Porter
Judit Hackitt was right to point out that the term "for health and safety reasons" was being misused. I believe that those advising AELTC would not have said that the large tv screen should be switched off for health and safety reasons.
No one likes to be criticised and it seems like Ian Ritchie was being over sensitive in his reaction. Does he honestly believe that those advising him (if they did) are better equipped to interpret legislation than the real professionals? He cannot be serious!!

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
S Roberts
Judith Hackitt is quite right to challenge the decision made, especially in its choice of phrasing. The phrase appears all too often as an easy excuse used to try and deflect blame from the decision maker, who may well be making a rational decision.
People in positions of authority are accountable and should take ownership of their own decisions with out trying to pass the buck. Especialy when it is an easy feed for media hysteria.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Kevin Bailey
I believe we should all challange such statements, ' as on the grounds of health and safety we have' ....I often say exactly the same thing the reason is people fear being sued!

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
mick
What happened to Henman Hill? And I do hope the demolition project was notified and conducted under CDM........
In all seriousness I think it could be a little over-zealous of Ms Hackitt to have jumped into the public arena with an accusational public statement without first having looked into the situation. Mr Ritchie's reply seems pretty fair: A grass slope in heavy rain will become slippery on its own. Add many hundreds of feet tramping it into mud and it hardly makes for a safe surface?

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
keith r
Having read the article I think both parties are correct. The Wimbledon authorites should be concerned about the safety of spectators and if there is a risk to reduce it should be reduced, and Ms Hackitt is correct this is probably more insurance driven than legislative. Equally the HSE are obviously touchy about the 'kill-joy' factor so maybe a little more explanation(clarity) by Wimbledon as to exactly why they made the decision would be useful

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Dave Donkin
Judith Hackitt and Ian Ritchie are both right,

Regretable to have such a public debate, It does a dis-service to both organisations they serve.

The root cause is a risk adverse insurance industry and a claims culture in the UK.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Vernon Watson
Judith Hackett was right - health and safety is too often the 'scapegoat' for decisions made to cancel, whereas the real reason is probably fear of PI claims.
I have just seen the pictures of the Glastonbury 'Mud Festival' venue - will they cancel that?

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Dave Sparkes
I fully concur with Ms Hackitt's concerns . The issue here is the interpretation of:

safe access & egress combined with an individuals responsibility to take reasonable care for their own safety (whether at work or not).

I can only surmise the thought process of the Police officer and H&S officer as being an instant 'what if' scenario e.g. what if someone injures themselves by slipping? Why not a sign 'please take care'

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Andrew Kurdziel
I think that the HSE may have jumped the gun on this one. Based on their risk assesment the LTA and All England tenns were probably right. Perhaps the HSE has gotten too close to the Daily Mail!

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Dick Morrison
Basically she was right to respond.
At anevent such as Wimbledon is it not fair to say continual asssessments will be made and often somewhat "dynamic". If nothing else she did get a quantitative response from the event hierarchy.

Posted on 23/06/11 01:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
K Carr
The whole Health and Safety thing is getting out of control. Its taking the common sense right out of everyones hands and unfortunately everyone is scared to step over the line.

My company has bits of paperwork for just about everything that move, all in the name of H&S (allegedly)

Posted on 23/06/11 01:42.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
R Dickinson
Ms Hackitt was entirely correct in her comments. The risk of walking on a wet grassy slope is well known and should be the decision of the individual. Yet another misguided slur on H&S when the real excuse is the insurance premium

Posted on 23/06/11 01:42.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 1 - 20 of 105 results.
Items per Page
Page of 6

 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

United Business Media