Re: Adult Training


"GAGS" <gags.nw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1130371398.221128.258670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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.

What? I can think of dozens of rules that a great many people don't want but
we still get 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!

if it's worth doing it has to be done right, you can't have half measures.

> > 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.

I have no doubt that in due course it will - this government in particuar -
without even thinking as to how they will enforce such legislation. However,
once it is in place it will be another barrier to Camping, Bonfire Nights,
Gala Days and much more. Do we really need to precipitate such action. You
know how it works in Scouting, one Group establishes a local rule, it gates
adopted by the District, then the County, it becomes an urban myth that this
is what we have to do and the next thing it ends up enshrines in POR.

> 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'!

Well, one of the biggest examples of that is kayaking, and out of that came
the BCU.

> > 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.

We need to find a way of addresing hygiene and safety issues, yes, but hiow
we do it should be exceedingly careful or else we may well end up with a set
of prohibitive rules and regulations.

> 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.

It has happened with other "activities".


> >
> > 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'?

They can insist up to a point. Of course I opened the door by applying for a
license for an event. However, remember, that when your gropup next holds a
Gala day, or a Bonfire Party, or any event that invites the public to a
place of entertainment ( and that is quite clearly defined) they will either
need the permission of the Police (who will consult the local licensing
board, which also includes Environmental Health) of if your event is likely
to have more than 500 on site, you will need a license, in which case the EH
have jurisdiction too.

They did insist on hot and cold water at every food stand, and a separate
hot and cold supply for hand washing at every food stand.

> > 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.

No, Q: Does the campsite emply anyone. A: if yes, then the above could be
enforced. No ifs. no buts. You may get away without it, but when things go
pear shaped that's when it gets smelly. As you so often remind us.

> > 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.

That's rich.

> > 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'.

By default it would lead to prohibition. Let's just take it to the extreme.
We might, there's that word again, be required to supply for each cooking
facility sufficient separate wash and rinse sinks, with hot and cold water
supply, plus a separate hand wash facility. Food would have to be stored in
fridges and freezers in date stamped and time expiry marked containers (the
food not the fridges). We would need a minimum of separate chopping boards
for fish, fresh meat, raw meat, vegetables and dairy products. Staf to wear
gloves, to be changes every time you move from meat to veg etc. to avoid
cross contamination. White coats, hair nets, ... That either isn't going to
happen, or if it does we could end up with campsites having standing
kitchens, or perhaps full field kitchens being available. or we bring in
outside caterers. Ridiculous isn't it. But if Environmental Health
regulations are applied that is where we end up.

> > 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.

I didn't say don't, I advised caution lest we be drawn into a situation
where we find our activities prohibited by default.

> > 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. ... then full HSE regulations can be applied to the ... But again throughout this paragraph you keep on saying 'if'. ... > instruction of food hygiene and health and safety issues, ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: Like talking to a brick wall
    ... Better food costs more and he hasn't got it. ... than 7 as tight control. ... >I was trying to explain to him what a carb was and what food contains carbs. ... >off while here, he had socks on, and the toe of one sock was bloody. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Willy Warmer 200k
    ... Onwards West to an info at Pangbourne and the control at ... after it - however, others had ordered food, and we weren't quite last ... The German chap arrived about 20 minutes after us - I collapsed, ... Knees, bottom, wrists etc quite sore, of course, but nothing ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Obese at Disney World
    ... If you put too much of the wrong types of food in it, ... prevent it is to control the intake and the only person that control your ... to maintain your weight on Weight Watchers. ... you should be able to succeed on ANY diet. ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
  • Re: Nothing worked until
    ... view that they cannot control themselves. ... In contrast, we have people promoting "fat acceptance," or suing food ... In contrast, the military drill sergeant takes such recalcitrance, breaks ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)