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
You must be logged in to post a comment.
HSE are the workplace police – not the Daily Mail end of story!
Their business is the persecution of transgressors of the law!
They have no business sticking their nose into the affairs of private business who are operating well within the law.
I am getting so sick of celebrity hunting government officials grabbing headlines and trotting out their politically correct statements; especially when they do not check their facts first. .
Both sides have a point. Many public events are stopped on grounds of health and safety when really it is a fear of being sued from a liability claim, good for Judith Hackitt to question this. However if the heavy rain on the Murray Mount on the 20th June was posing a significant risk of injury, Wimbledon officials got it right.
The whole point of risk assessment is to look at the significant risks and put in place the correct control measures.
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!
Judith Hackitt is right to raise concerns about this being based on insurance liability rather than safety at work, however since the people being protected were not at work but instead involved in a leisure pursuit her comments seem a little off the mark.
Public safety was the issue, and preventing slips and trips is high on the HSE’s agenda because of the level of injuries.
The lawn tennis association are best placed to make decisions about their own liability and PR.
I am assuming that the LTA staff carried out a risk assessment as they are required to do when conditions governing the original risk assessment changed drastically. In order to mitigate or remove the identified risk, they decided to turn the screens off, thus removing the reason for the public to be within the area of identified risk. I applaud the action that they took – and I am an avid tennis fan!
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.
If the banking was treacherous and it is only those on site who would know this, then fine, but Judith Hackett is basically right, I would say it was more to do with litigation rather than H&S; as she says adults and children play on grassy banks all the time in dry and wet weather.
It would be interesting to see the risk assessment, and how they assessed the risk; or for the event safety officer to provide comment. Taking the opinion of a senior police officer shows it is more about being sued
What next? restricted access to people wearing appropriate footware? grass by definition is a natural fibre, any inclined surface increases grip?????????
Bloody lawyers, forget coomon sence, lets all hide indoors watching it in poorly postured sofas, oh no another potential litigation me thinks. Should we close all the parks unless dry weather permitting??
Judith gets my vote based on the article above. Ian Ritchie does claim the decision was based on safety, however he does not let us know what the actual risk was that led to the decision, (guess the hazard was the slippery surface and the risk was people slipping over) so I guess Judith is on the right track. More then once in my social life have I slipped on a slippery surface on a hill and I certainly would have been dissappointed if I had been excluded from this event due to those reasons
For once I tend to agree with the ‘other side’
As a youth leader I have been affected by the ‘elf n safety’ excuse several times, but I do feel in this case the LTA was right that their own safety professionals had made a decision, and should be allowed to do what they are paid to do, and the HSE shouldn’t get involved, unless they were blamed direcly. The problems is councils, etc. without proper training using the HSE as a scapegoat, without the HSE alienating those who do have the training
While I agree with the intentions of Judith Hackett & the HSE there should have been some formal vist to check out the situation before firing off an open letter; so this is a classic case of being reactive rather than pro-active.
Good for Judith…….
Good for Wimbledon – there guys will have much more practical experience on safety in sportsgrounds than Judith Hackett. Slipping over on a wet grassy slope maybe no big deal in the wider world, but when you factor in a largish crowd, no barriers like a football terrace etc then slips could have more serious consequences of knocking other spectators over or causing a dangerous surge. Don’t know what the crowd numbers were at the time but regard this decision to be sensible health and safety!
Advantage Wimbledon. The kind of unofficial terrace here with no barriers would be banned in football grounds. Yes slipping over on a grassy slope is no big deal in the wider world but factor a large dense crowd into your risk assessment then one slip could could cause a serious crush or surge. Well done Wimbledon right to lambast Hackett back and right to use Health and Safety as a real reason in this case
I agree that ‘for Health & Safety reasons’ should be challenged and responsible persons such as Ian Ritchie should consider rewording this to ‘after our risk assessment of this’. That moves to limelight from H&S legislation to the risks assessed by the persons responsible which is where it should be!!
Media need to understand it is the risk assessment that may be too cautious rather than the H&S legislation which is not so prescriptive!!
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.
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.
If the LTA at Wimbledon asserts that the closure was in fact due as a consequence of “health and safety assessment by relevant professionals with substantial experience”, then, to afford itself any credibility, the LTA would have helped its own response if in fact the alleged reasons had been adduced, failing which, the response does smack of defensive bluffing in the face of embarrassing but appropriate criticism?
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’
I agree with Judith Hackitt. There are so many instances now with all sorts of organisations when we are not allowed to take care of ourselves. I believe Judith can make an interpretation of the circumstances without being at the location. Will Glastobury be closed because of rain? has it ever been?
Judith Hackitt was correct to fight back. In reality if the hill had been slippy the pull together of the Brit Spirit is that everybody would look after everybody in a joyous helpful way. Pity the LTA and police have so little knowledge and experience of being human.
We need to stop using negative situations to drag H&S into the lime light. There has to be a ‘real risk ‘ relating to the use of the grass bank. It will not kill anyone, yes wet weather presents hazards but persons looking to access such an incline should take their own responsibility to assess footwear, known abilities rather than use H&S to restrict the facility. H&S needs to take the lead from HR, Insurance etc and stand on its own with H&S professionals comming to the forefront.
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!!
I applaud Judith Hackett for her comments as I am sure that most of us are fed up with the health and safety brigade making very silly decisions by using risk assessments in a way that was never intended by the HSE. In this case however it might have been better if she had first discussed this with the tennis officials before sending an open letter.
Ian Ritchie is quite right to be annoyed and let down. Judith Hackett’s formulaic responses and the repetitive phraseology are in danger of becoming hackneyed and meaningless knee jerk reactions to any and all ‘health and safety’ news articles. The HSE’s current position seems to have moved from one of measured comment and thoughtful response to specific ‘elf and safety’ mythologies to supine and spineless peddling of the Government’s ‘common sense’ mantra regardless of circumstances.
H&S legislation or LTA approach to safety? c/f another recent externeal event stopped on H&S grounds coz orgainser was using standard extension lead externally but plugged into a kitchen socket in the rain. H&S yes-but stupidity not legislation. Wimbledon rains. Murray Mount is popular. If the LTA had waterproof equipment and simple matting on the hill then no problems. I do this all the time. H&S yes but don’t blame regulations blame LTA event planners! Real reason they didn’t think!
Give that Lady a medal – I think I love her!. Its about time someone stood up for common sense. I left the Health & Safety Industry because of the petty mindedness of people using “Health & Safety” as a tool to stop what ever they can. How about re naming Murray Mount “Dangerous slippy area -Please can I see your Risk assessment and Method statement before even considering trying to enjoy yourself.
I think both parties have overlooked once again the fact that the media have blown the story out of proportion creating this disagreement between the HSE Chief Exec and senior Wimbledon officials. I’m sure there was good reason for the safety officer and a senior police officer to take action at the time, but I’m annoyed how something as simple as this turns into a childish debate of blame when yet again the cause was the media not stating the facts!
For a health & safety professional of such high status to publicly comment without being suitably informed of all the factors why a decision is made is not good for H&S. A phone call would have helped in this case. However table tennis e-mails and public announcement to the media of this type do nothing to help the safety profession at the coal face. Another joke for the comedy road show.
The comments posted so far are interesting but some are, as was Ms Hackitt, uninformed. I have worked with the All England Club for a number of years and although not part of the group which jointly decided to take action regarding the screen on that particular day, would have agreed AND not shied away from associating that action with safety. The Club has a very knowledgeable team which I am proud to be part of and we base decisions on our experience, being there and looking, not supposition!
To continue my previous post – the Club did NOT stop people walking or sitting on ‘the hill’. People were free to go there if they wished. The screen was switched off to reduce the numbers who may venture there, a well known method of risk reduction? The hill is steeper in places than appear on TV, the grass was totally sodden with evidence of surface slippage, people on the ‘hill’ have footwear ranging from trainers, through flipflops to high heels – anyone still think we were wrong?
Finally, as many people do not know me: I am a chartered fellow, have 35 years experience, was a HSE inspector and take a very practical approach to safety. Myself and the rest of the Club safety team do not make decisions lightly and, like Ms Hackitt, deplore the use of health and safety as an excuse where there is no foundation for such decisions. If she had bothered to talk to someone I doubt she would have written the letter once she had the facts on which the decision was based.
To respond to Dave Shepherds comment. This was an All England Lawn Tennis Club decision, not the LTA. The decision was based on risk including previous experience. Yes people walk on grassy slopes but I could give you a number of examples of very serious injuries received from doing just that, on wet, sloping grass. Also remember we did not close the hil just did something to reduce the number of people going on it. Oh and the correct name is Aorangi Terrace, nothing to do Henman or Murray
To respond to Les Nettleton: We have used signs in the past to warn people but tell me this – we have spectators from all over the world and many may not be English readers, and safety signs are not standard despite what some people may think, what do we put on the sign? Yes everyone has personal responsibility BUT have a look at the Occupiers Liability Acts for example. We built an artificial hill, we put it there for people to go onto. If we think it a hazard at some times should we not act?
Hello Nick, I think the information passing could have been better handled but I believe the vsenior management group that took the decision which included the Chief Exec, Senior Police Officer, Event Safety Officer and others thought it was a simple and truthful way of doing it. They put a message on the creen to say it would not show the match. With hindsight should they have told a porky and said ‘technical difficulties’. I think the message could have been better but did its job on the day
For the latest posts: Was Ms hackitt using a high profile event to try to score major points? Yes, she could have investigated before going public. Have we had people slip on the hill when dry – yes, have we had people slip on the hill wet – yes, have we had injuries – yes, have we had serious injuries – yes. Basically, as ex-HSE inspector I find her lack of professionalism disgraceful and intended only to score points in the media. If you haven’t read all the posts I’m consultant to the Club
I would love to know which planet David R Smith hails from, it must be such a wonderous place to live. We do indeed have many visitors who would help out – after someone has slipped and possibly hurt themselves. I absolutely agree with Mick, a decision was made on the day and by professionals. How many of the people making the negative comments here actually have any experience of running public outdoor events with 40,000 plus daily attendance? I’m guessing not many
Had anything happened to bring the hazard to the relevent authority? had there being a near miss?
this just sounds like a*se covering!
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.
Berated if you do and berated if you don’t. On the understanding thjat the decision was made following a review of the actual risks involved, then the decision to suspend was correct, although as noted by Ms Hackitt, the risks from slipping on does not seem catastrophic. Perhaps we should all remember that risk assessment is only one or a number of persons views at the time of the event – this meets legislation and the control measures are what they are.
No doubt many people feel that the cancellation of the coverage was unfair but, as an insurance broker, I see many claims against, for eaxample, golf courses when a player slips on the course in bad weather and is injured.
Such cases often go to court and, in many cases, judgement is awarded in the favour of the injured party. A broken leg can cost up to £20,ooo with almost as much again in legal costs.
Ms Hackitt is wide of the mark blaming the insurers – the issue is UK Civil Law decisions
Perhaps this could be a new form of HSE notice – a nasty letter from the HSE Boss, brrrr.
Ian Ritchie took advice from an ‘on the spot’ events safety manager and….wait for it – the POLICE. So perhaps Judith should calm down, take a deep breath and consider counselling the HSE inspector she no doubt had advice from…
I’ll informed public slatings such as this by someone who should know better just denegrate further the credibility of the HSE. Not good Judith.
Well Done Judith!! If we cancel everything because of a bit of slippy grass nothing would occur. Will the Glastonbury organisers be cancelling this years festival because the grass is wet? I think and hope not.
People must grow up and take responsibility for their own actions, If they are happy to sit on a wet slope and take care climbing up and down it then fine. If they are not, then stear clear. The wet grassy slope would have been obvious and no surprise to anyone.
I do think Judith Hackitt was right to make comment, us safety professionals have not said enough to prevent the misunderstanding of managing risk rather than eradicating it.
A grassy hill in the rain is likely to get wet and if walked on could be slippery, if the hill was so wet all would slip, then it must have been soft enough to land on. I recall grass is a suitable ‘safe surface’ from some fall heights, so surely from standing it was safe. People have their own responsibility as well.
I feel the same as Judith but then she is as bad as others suggesting it is the Insurer’s fault. Commentators here should get an understanding of the occupiers liability act and read up on case law as to what is reasonable control. It’s then quite easy to defend public slip and trip claims. Strange how Glastonbury doesn’t come to a halt for Insurance reasons when it rains!
I think this brouhaha overlooks the actual nature of HSE’s complant, which is the implication that it banned the screening.
It didn’t, the event organisers did.
Granted as the creators of the hazard, the organisers took advice and did a risk assessment, prior to their decision to eliminate the problem. I would have done as much myself.
But to then blame it on “health & safety” rather than “inclement weather” in the current political climate was just silly!
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
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)
I agree with Ian Ritchie but of course he does does not know of the HSE campaign to attack every story that accuses health and safety as being the reason for things being stopped. I was at Wimbledon on the day and agree that on safety gorunds their decision was correct. The “mistake” they made was to say that they did it for “health and safety” reasons.
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!
As an events specialist, this is basic stuff. If an attraction is placed to ‘entertain’ visitors and the standing surface becomes unsafe, a (common) grass slip in a crowd could result in a domino effect and a number of people may suffer harm. In terms of liability and duties of care, it seems to me to be really clear who would will be held liable and potentially be prosecuted or sued for damages. Well said Mr R. A sensible example of a dynamic risk assessment.
Quite clearly they need to control the risks – how about levelling the hill and leaving a small mound? Or would this be construed as making a molehill out of a mountain.
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!
Good on you Judith! It’s about time someone with ‘gravitas’ challenged public statements. The only thing missing is to point out that the spectators have a duty of care for their own safety. If spectators are daft enough to ignore common sense then they must accept the outcome under the principle of volenti non fit injuria. A signpost should be sufficient .
The ‘common sense’ duty to protect oneself seems to have largely disappeared in modern times.
Judith Hackitl may have based response on tabloid article without finding out the facts. If the duty holder carried out a competent risk assessment and then acted accordingly to protect people, this is to be applauded not castigated. The HSE woulld do well not to respond in ‘knee jerk’ way as they are playing into the hand of the tabloid populist mob which says all H&S precautions are unecessary.
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
Murray Mount ‘wet and safety’
Risk analysis would have to judge the incline of the mount, what type of people (age, infirmaty,etc)were residing on it, the state of the ground, was it capable of taking heavy rain? I have been on a wet Welsh hillside in summer and my tent literally slid down a small hillside – it was funny at the time and I was not in it.
On balance I reckon the HSE were right and the tennis pros are being ‘risk averse’.
Reviewing the comments seems to show where we are in this country – people inexperienced in making judgements on personal safety (due to continual over-protection to risk exposure from birth) running scared of lawyers & insurers!
Also:
1) Personal responsibility for safety has almost been forgotten – should I go up this slippy slope or not?
3) How can Judith make comment without doing the first action in a risk assessment i.e. walk the site?
The problem with producing media sound bites is that the reader only gets a partial story. Yes, Ms Hackett should, in my view, have contacted the LTA Safety Adviser first. If only out of professional courtesy. The LTA could, perhaps, have taken action short of closure. this was clearly not the Safety Adviser’s decision alone though. The LTA might also have worded the announcement in a way that would not attract the obvious media response. lessons learnt. Move on.
Judith why bother? Blaming H&S Killjoys is far too easy & makes for better headlines than “risks analysed & sensible yet unpopular decision made”. As H&S profs we know we make traffic wardens look popular. Risk aversion is never going to have mass market appeal, due to the subconcious connection that Safety = Boring. Its hard enough putting this accross at work. Complaining people have the wrong opinion in their own time seems pointless to me, as the connection is too deep seated….
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.
Ms Hackitt is quiet correct in that no health and safety at work legislation would be involved in the closure of Murray mount.
Mr Richie was quiet correct in shutting down the screen on safety grounds, but it does appear that he failed to corden off the unsafe area.
with regard to to his comments I imagine he is risk adverse, not wanting to be sued, pity he did not do the job properly.
Judith Hackitt was absolutely right to make her comments, all too often people want to speak out and blame health & safety when in actual fact they are hiding behind health & safety instead of saying the real reason. We then as haelth & safety practitioners spend more of our time convincing people within our workplaces that health & safety is a good thing and there to protect them, than is actually neccessary all because they have read some comment by someone hiding behind health & safety.
Absolutely right! I can’t see any explanation by the tennis chief about the reason[s] for this apparently dumb decision.
What experience does Judith Hackitt need other than the evidence of her eyes about Henman hill-oops sorry-Murray Mount. Yes, be alive to the possibility of slipping on wet grass
Dear Sirs
If true it is regrettable that the HSE did not discuss the decision with the LTA etc. before writing, however it is refreshing to see the HSE fighting back over seemingly ridiculous instructions that only help to give Health & Safety a worse reputation than it already has.
It is about time that the public understood that a great deal of these decisions are insurance based and not H & S.
To be fair, in Health & safety it seems that you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I ,for one applaud Ms Hackett for trying to put the HSE’s point accross, as an industry we have a rather elf ‘n’ safety you can’t do that image which is totally unfair. Our main piece of legislation is “The Health And Safety at Work ETC act 1974” . In my mind the main words there are “at work”. Not someone wandering up a grassy hill to watch a large TV screen. Which is outside anyones workplace!
Well done to Mr. Ritchie. There are far too many people out there who have a “professional” opinion on things they don’t have a full understanding of. Saying that, I would expect Ms. Hackitt is probably numb from the unwarrented critism H&S professionals constantly receive through the media, thus causing her to jump to the defence of said personnel.
I also agree with Mr. Ritchie that her first port of call should have been to him to discuss the problem, thus gaining full understanding of it.
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.
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?
What hope do we have as a profession if we cannot even agree between ourselves? Out of over 100 comments on here it is clear that H&S professionals themselves are still not singing from the same song sheet. It is no wonder we are ridiculed. Sensible risk assessment is what it is about, and reading from our desks about something miles away will not enable us to make a sound judgement. The LTA had to make a decision based on what they had in front of them. TV+hill+rain+elderly, kids etc = H risk.
Close down Glatonbury in that case. Health and Safety and media story seeking are the issues here, They were scared of getting sued, simple.
Whilst i fully agree with challenging the many instances in which H&S is used as an excuse i am always in favour of getting all the facts before challenging especially in an open media environment.
Perhaps Judith could have asked to speak to the relevant safety adviser who made this recommendation and challenge them. The results can then be publicised without fear of contradiction.
I’d second Kevin’s statement.
The problem isn’t so much the fact that the statement was issued but the lack of reason as to why the decision was reached.
There’s been a number of times when I’ve been at a public event and told to do, or not do something because ‘of health and safety’ is countless. Better still, when I’ve asked what health and safety grounds require me to obey the instruction very rarely has there been an answer that is based in good H&S practice (the common answer? “umm?”)
Geoffrey, it’s great to have someone here who has a 1st person perspective on things. I think it would be interesting to know what info was given to the public/press on the ground for making this decision. What was briefed/announced to the public & press to inform them of the decision?
I think Ms Hackett would have been well advised to have contacted the powers that be at Wimbledon and got some information on the reasoning behind the decision before writing such a strong open letter. Given the number of years Wimbledon has been run in the rain I would have wanted to check out some facts before I blasted both barrels and possibly shot myself in the foot.
Judith Hackitt is right to challenge this decision, for too long people have used H&S as an excuse. Blowing things out of proportion like this; for fear of compensation claims does nothing to improve the reputation of H&S. As someone who’s daily role it is to promote a good, sensible Health & Safety Culture at work, events like this only enforce the public attitude of Health & Safety Gone Mad.
“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.
If they were that concerned about safety then surely they would look into ways of eliminating the need to have the screen angled towards a grassy slope. From my experience dry grass can also be slippery if you have the incorrrect footwear.
Switching the screen off would not have prevented people accessing the slope.
Perhaps the LTA could have said “Henman Hill has been closed for safety reasons” – there are no health reasons are there?
Or they could have said “Henman Hill has been closed because it is dangerously slippy”.
Both are correct, both are nothing to do with HSE.
Well done. H&S does get blamed for many things – unfairly.
Congratulations Ms Hackitt, I fully support you.
We encounter stupid reasons not to do something under the title of ‘Health and Safety, nearly every day. This is usually from people who haven’t a clue about risk management.
Ian Richie is upset because he has been made to look foolish and he looks even more foolish by accusing the regulatory chief of talking of things she knows nothing about.
You cannot elimate risk, but you can control it. Mr Richie is the one who hasn’t a clue.
“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.”
I have no doubt that this statement is true until something goes wrong – the organisation in question is then subject to an indepth forensic investigation that can take several years to complete. The HSE cannot have it both ways
Yawn Tennis – Is anyone else like me, fed up of all this public bickering – If I responded to every snipe at Occupational Health and Safety I come across, I’d have little time for anything else. Judith surely you’ve realised by know, that everyone’s an expert when it comes to Health and Safety!
Advantage Ritchie!
They are both right – to a degree!
Judith Hackitt is right in making it clear that the HSE weren’t the instigators of the ban, something which many people might have assumed from the way that the media reported it.
Ian Ritchie is right in stating that the safety of spectators is of concern and that the ban was made on expert advice.
I do feel however that Wimbledon maybe could have made it clearer to the media initially that it was their own decision to impose the ban. Or maybe they did!
Dear Editor, there has been a discussion on this subject on the IOSH Forum.
My original view was that if due inclement weather the mound is unsafe, then it would be advisable to close it to the public. My view still stands. The LTC has a duty of care to the public as per OLA. I believe Hackitt has over reacted and I find it a bit rich that she on behalf of the HSE are accusing the LTC of risk averseness – pot and black springs to mind!
Whilst I do not Support Hackitts’ letter, I don’t adopt the premise she is wrong either. The problems which we see today are socio-economic issues. For instance, to what extent we do manage risk, is someone’s ill health or safety more important than making a profit or causing inconvenience? There are no simples answers.
The problem is further compounded with the involvement of regulation, insurance companies, personal injury lawyers, courts and job’s worths who know nowt – what a mess!
Can’t we all just get along….?
I get frustrated by “H and S reasons” when people don’t really explain themselves, but to fuel a media fire, i think the HSE should be careful what they challenge.
As stated many times, its the media that course the issue – not the HSE and often not the persons responsible….
Even my nan thinks the HSE stopped kids playing with conkers at school – since explaining to her the real facts, i have been cut out of her will and she no longer talks to me……pfft.
should they wait until there is a near miss/injury?
Arse covering – why not, when half the worlds media is on you, shouldn’t these events run smoothly as possible?
Whilst I understand her frustration on hearing countless stories of thing being banned under health and safety grounds……I think that she should have taken it up with the insurance company in question, or the paper(s) that ran the story blaming “elf & safety” – or maybe stopped to get the AELTC’s view on the story, and their reason’s for making their decision.
To assume that they did close it, blaming health and safety surely made her as bad as the paper’s reporting the story?
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
Judith Hackett was perfectly correct to challenge the excuse. Too often ‘Elf and Safety’ is used as a bludgeon with no justification. We have the example of the Young Report as a prime illustration. If the LTA had bone fide safety concerns, then they should have specified what they were. Too often health and safety has been used without any underlying knowledge of what it means. The media carries the major portion of blame for this.
I totally agree with Judith. I think her open letter shows that there is common sense within HSE. Judith is trying to make people outside HSE understand that the industry is not stopping people from enjoyment.
My opinion is similar to Judith’s. It just defies belief sometimes that people are quick to judge the safety industry and it’s professionals.
What will we do next?.. blame the HSE industry for footballers getting injured when playing in wet conditions?!
So Glastonbury is off as well now, not only wet grass but deep mud!
I have some sympathy for Mr Ritchie here. I have seen people slip in similar circumstances and fortunately none were injured. A few years ago I travelled to watch Aldershot FC play and behind the away stand in order to exit the ground you have to walk up a slight hill, which had a graveled path with grass either side. As the rain poured and people rushed up the grassy part of the hill many slipped over. Now this was nowhere near the size of Henman hill but people still slipped.
H&S killjoys I was looking forward to standing aloft on the hill top and shouting “Come on Tim” at Andy Murray!
Judith Hackitt did the right thing, but in the wrong way. Rather than seeking another blaze of publicity, she would have been better advised to directly approach Wimbledon and have a private discussion. After all, this is what most of us safety professionals would do – quietly resolve an issue instead of making political capital out of it. In this instance, it has back-fired on her.
Who would have believed that such a health and safety issue (or, should it be litigation issue) would have raised so many responses!
They could have compromised and made Henman Hill available to Daily mail employees only.
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.
Of course Judith Hackitt was correct to challenge the decision, and Mr Ritchie was absolutely right to appraise her of the full story. Of course the real villain in this story escapes again without censure. The misreporting of the story in a “Littlejohn Stylee” Giant TV’s turned off over fears of people slipping on “wet grass”. I can hear the howls now. After nigh on 20 years of “Elfansafetygawnmad” campaigning, it’s just surprising that it only took two stories for the “truth” to emerge.
Is this all a storm on a hill top?
How many people have slipped when the grass was wet?
How many people have slipped when the grass was dry?
Have people been seen to to fall at all during the tounament?
Slips, trips and fall do come under legislation and indeed the HSE are very proactive in this area of H & S at the moment. Wimbledon realised that wet grass is dangerous and having no control over precautions such as suitable footwear decided it was an unacceptable risk – in case they were sued. Back to the Judith standpoint that it was the consequence of the risk driving the Wimbledon decision. Bet it would have been left on if we did not have a compensation culture.
It is refreshing to hear anyone from from the HSE having the courage to speak out in favour of sensible H&S management. Conversely, Ian Ritchie’s actions to deprive tennis fans of an opportunity to watch the match on ‘Henman Hill’ was broadcast by the BBC and does plenty to bring H&S into disrepute and encourage the negative public cynicism of which we are all only too aware. Yes of course someone can get injured, but life’s a risk. Get real Ian Ritchie.
Hackitt is wrong: it is health and safety law which has created the compensation culture which leaves the LTA in fear of unaffordable claims against its insurance.
Perhaps however, instead of loudly denouncing each other Hackitt and Ritchie should gang up on the real culprits: the ambulance chasing lawyers who have driven premiums to ever greater heights.
If one of the events workers had slipped and been injured, would the lawyers of the injured person sue the AELTC under a H&S at Work act breach? Everyone, including the event staff have to be considered.
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?
I have to agree a hill crowded with lots of poorly shod people, in the rain and potentially under the effects of alcohol, would constitute a fairly significant risk. I don’t have the experience of any of you professionals but think that just maybe Ms Hackitt’s risk assessment prior to the writing of the letter would have been better after consultation with the people involved in order to get thorough understanding and reduce subjectivity. I’ll try and remember this as I approach my NGC