Donald lived in a bizarre fantasy world where we had to concern ourselves with random blokes, who are nothing to do with the Corps, illegally certifying inflatable equipment; wash our hands after using a compass; and predict lightning strikes… His ‘War & Peace’ paper on the dangers and dose rates of radium poisoning were, I’m sure, thoroughly interesting to chemists, but of little relevance to CFAVs wanting to do some Nav lessons.
Nobody took Donald seriously because he always spouted such utter nonsense. I’d long predicted that sooner or later we’d miss something important because people just began to ignore him.
This latest approach doesn’t exactly lend itself to credibility either.
The whole point of a GRA is that it should properly address the most commonly applicable hazards, so that it can be used as a starting point for a specific RA. If Chuckles McGee only wants to catch people out by including this sort of absolute toss, then there really isn’t any point in providing the GRA at all.
I haven’t read the Fire RA yet, but if this is actually included (even as a joke), i will be forwarding this onto the HSE, James Heappey MP & My local fire brigade for there comment.
It has thoroughly angered me that someone thinks its actually acceptable to put this in a risk assessment as a joke just to make sure someone reads it, regardless of anything else in this farce of a release, fire kills hundreds of people a year, lets make a joke of it why dont we
I think that the jokes are pretty poor… But we definitely shouldn’t forget that someone out there thinks that it is “fairly likely” that someone will get electrocuted at a Sqn; but that is a perfectly acceptable situation because ‘electrocution is not serious enough to kill someone’…
That really niggles me because it’s a clear indication that whoever created that RA does not know what they are on about.
It’s not wrapped up in a joke so many people will accept that as-is.
I started the conversion process for one Risk assessment on my lunchbreak today so it doesn’t impact on delivering activities to cadets on squadron. I regret this.
OOOOhhhh!! Goodie. I’ve found that I’ve been included in a GRA…
Who or what might be harmed and how
Stress of activity organisation or administration having an adverse effect on the persons mental well-being.
Existing control measures
Staff should be encouraged to speak openly if they wish and are comfortable to do so (Thanks ACC!)
Adjustments to Volunteering time patterns, to include reducing time if necessary (Hahaha - you’re funny HQAC!)
Consideration of colleagues to attend a Mental Health Awareness First Aid Course (#passingthebuck)
Required actions
The advantages of volunteering in a rewarding role may in itself be beneficial to the volunteers mental well-being if managed correctly (don’t give us deadlines in 3 months time and expect us to turn around all our risk assessments by then!!!).
As I’ve said previously, this is a POLICY decision. A review of a risk assessment I wrote in February 2021 should be sufficient until February 2022 OR we note significant changes to the practice, the risks, the environment etc. But this policy decision means if I run the activity after a nominal date in June a review will, be insufficient and I will need to transfer the risk assessment into the new format??
Even in our easing back into squadron life processes, i can see us having to churn out quite a lot of risk assessments between now and June!!! And these aren’t simply “rewrites” and scoring, these are reviews, edits, reformating, and “colouring in” to content with.
It’s made me quite sad about just how much work there is to do over the next few months - just this one lunchtime session has sucked the fun out of the return to service!
Thanks Health and Safety Branch. Excellent timing.
Where has the June thing come from? The Safety Centre IBN (or whatever they’re calling it) doesn’t mention June, only we have until April 2022 to do them all…
