Re: Adult Training


Ewan Scott wrote:

> >
> > Why are you seemingly seeking to expand what was said way beyond what
> > was (I believe) intended?
> >
> I'd be very careful about going down the road of offering specific courses
> that are not yet required.

....under the rules. Whether they are required depends on whether people
want them.

If we see a need we should aim to meet that need. Saying that we
shouldn't meet that need because it might trigger something else is
very negative thinking. If it's worth doing then it's worth doing!

> That sets precedents and opens the doors to
> outside control.

There are a lot of 'ifs' between setting a precedent and outside
control.

If the Government wishes to enact legislation to effect outside control
then it will do so. It does not necessarily follow that it will do so
because of some prior action taken elsewhere.

The OP was talking about offering local skills-based courses to
complement adult training in response to (possible) local demand. That
might stimulate others in their locale to do likewise. That might
stimulate the SA to do so likewise nationally. That might stimulate
Government and its agencies to enact legislation to effect some measure
of 'control'.

That's an awful lot of 'mights'!

> Having had conversations with Environmental Health Officers
> I know that if they could they would insist on food hygiene regulations
> being imposed in full on anyone preparing food for anyone outside their own
> family group.

If they could! At the moment they can't. What they might do should not
stop us at least thinking about meeting a possible need.

If it's going to happen it's going to happen and it won't happen as a
result of someone locally trying to meet a need.

>
> As a small example, we now have to have thermometers to prove that our
> fridges and freezers are working properly, despite the fact that they
> already have thermometers as standard. The fact that none of the
> thermometers are calibrated is irrelevant. We also have meat
> thermometers - different ones for different products, for meat to be cooked
> the interior has to reach 80 degrees (which rules out rare or medium stakes
> and medium cooked lamb), plus a selection different chopping boards etc.
> They wanted to insist on all cooking staff wearing whites, gloves, hairnets
> etc, even for a BBQ!

Why are they insisting on this when you've already said 'if they
could...insist'?
>
> The Health and Safety side. Well it doesn't matter what you did or where you
> did it. Here is a fact, if a campsite is a place of employment, as most
> County sites are becoming, then full HSE regulations can be applied to the
> site and everything that happens there, and will be in the event of an
> accident. So, by the book, if you are working on a full scale pioneering
> structure, you will need Hi-Vis jackets, safety boots, gloves, hard hats, a
> clearly defined work area, anti-climb fencing. Every item if lifting
> equipment has to be certified and supervised by a competent person. In fact,
> overloading lifting equipment is an offence. So next time you have 12 adults
> hauling on a 5:1 pulley rig to tension a hawser, better hope that nothing
> gives way because there is a good chance that you will have overloaded the
> block and tackle.

But again throughout this paragraph you keep on saying 'if'. This does
not apply everywhere. It applies if your RA says it needs to be
applied. A RA is required under SA H&S policy.
>
> I'm not expanding anything, all I am saying is be very careful about opening
> those particular Pandora's boxes.

Oh I know what you're saying! However, it's all after if, may, might,
could, etc. If we stopped doing things based on 'ifs' we'd soon end up
doing nothing.

> Yes, it seems perfectly logical to give
> instruction of food hygiene and health and safety issues, but where it all
> leads to is prohibition.

No, where it might lead to is more control, not necessarily
prohibition. And it's still an awfully big 'might'.

> We're damned lucky that we don't have to date stamp
> all food items stored in our freezer. Damn it, the last thing we need is
> more restricting rules and regulations.

Of course we don't! This Government particularly likes to effect
control in many matters. No one (except the Government it seems) wants
more restricting rules and regulations just for restricting rules and
regulations sake. To say that they will necessarily follow because of
some action taken in scouting - and we're not talking about something
nationally here - and thus we shouldn't do them is rather silly.

> How about no-one within 2 metres of
> a hot surface.

Oh come on now! You know that's not strictly correct. I don't have 2m
long arms! :-)

>
> Now you go and get on your high horse, attack me if you like,


I'm having a go at your negativity!

> but I've been
> lectured by alleged experts on food hygiene at Scouts, and they were so out
> of date and had such bad practices that they ought to have been locked up
> for perpetuating the myths and poor ideas they forwarded. The alternative is
> to get an real expert in, and any expert worth his salt will be forced to
> advise to the letter of the law for to do otherwise would be unprofessional,
> and could render him liable if his expert advice were found to be wanting.
> You of all people must know that.

Of course I do!

We do things so far as is reasonably practicable.

> After all, if we play by the book we are
> protected.

And in the main that book is POR and the law too where it is
applicable.

> Let's not write that particular book yet.

It does not necessarily follow that if we choose to do something we
automatically write a book on it.

> That's all I am saying.

I know what you're saying!

> It will come in its own good time anyway.

It MIGHT come in its....

If we keep on saying we can't do this because this might happen we'll
quickly end up doing nothing. If it's the Government's intention to
stop us doing anything, then that's going to happen, isn't it? I'm
sorry but I don't see that intention. Yes, maybe I should qualify that
with a concluding 'yet', but I'm not going to hang around wating for
'yet' to happen!
>
> Oh, and yes, I am qualified to comment on food hygiene.

I don't doubt that you are more than qualified and extremely capable!
What I don't want to see is people with these types of skills and
capabilities saying that they can't share them with others or pass
them on to others because to do so would be setting a precedent, which
will stimulate a response, which will lead to those originally with the
skills being restricted.

We might as well just lock ourselves up in our HQs and whisper! :-)

GAGS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Adult Training
    ... >> outside control. ... >> I know that if they could they would insist on food hygiene regulations ... of prohibitive rules and regulations. ... > But again throughout this paragraph you keep on saying 'if'. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Gammon steaks frozen
    ... And there is *never* any excuse for that. ... Food Hygiene & regulations & thought that saying ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)
  • Re: Report: More than 3,400 airspace violations since 9/11
    ... >> Are you saying that ATC has never been responsible for airspace ... I'm saying they are probably broken down by aircraft and ignoring ... that the military was on the verge of blasting Fletcher's King Air ... aircraft on the monitors in the National Capital Region Control ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: OT--Rasmussen: Bush at 43% approval
    ... You are saying that without taking control of the National Guard, President Bush does not have enough resources to commit to any rescue and relief effort. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: MTDesk is down again!
    ... We can only control our ... >> Do you feel, as a practicing Christian, that you have the right to pray ... Would you want to hear what they're saying? ... > something snide about some people's kids with no home training or cough ...
    (sci.med.transcription)