SHP Online is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
The second episode in a new, monthly video series, listing the biggest health and safety in court news stories over the past month.
This month’s video highlights the 6 biggest stories on SHP in January 2018. It includes fines for Poundstretcher and an HGV driver who killed two people on the road after checking his sat nav.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today![/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height="15px"][vc_btn title="Listen here!" color="success" link="url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.shponline.co.uk%2Fthe-safety-and-health-podcast%2F|target:_blank"][/vc_column][vc_column width="1/3"][vc_single_image image="91215" img_size="medium"][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Health and safety in court: January 2018 round-up videoThe second episode in a new, monthly video series, listing the biggest health and safety in court news stories over
Charlotte Geoghegan
SHP - Health and Safety News, Legislation, PPE, CPD and Resources
Related Topics
Health and safety in court: February 2018 round-up video
£1.1 million fine following Red Arrows pilot death
-re Red Arrows case. The charge was based on MoD’s claim NEVER to have had information that the drogue shackle nut should not be over-tightened. This was never verified by prosecution or court. There is an RAF training video clearly showing the instructor, twice, reiterating the need to check that the shackles can disengage, which is what pulls out the main parachute. It follows that the charge was based on a false premise. A reasonable person might think that the judge should be informed of this, and that she should throw out the case. At the very least an Inquiry is required as to how this evidence was apparently missed.
-re Red Arrows case. The charge was based on MoD’s claim NEVER to have had information that the drogue shackle nut should not be over-tightened. This was never verified by prosecution or court. There is an RAF training video clearly showing the instructor, twice, reiterating the need to check that the shackles can disengage, which is what pulls out the main parachute. It follows that the charge was based on a false premise. A reasonable person might think that the judge should be informed of this, and that she should throw out the case. At the very least an Inquiry is required as to how this evidence was apparently missed.