|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 5, 2022 22:35:48 GMT
Poor form to have such a lengthy copyright infringing C&P OP without crediting the source I'm sticking it to 'the man', Vicar. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 6, 2022 7:19:57 GMT
The government, any government, would be foolish to scrap asbestos regulations completely, there are still thousands of deaths, annually, and it's not the greatest way to die (or live with), whatever version of the disease you have. I'll let you know in a couple of weeks when my chest X-ray results come in.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 6, 2022 10:32:54 GMT
Why do you not just read that first page. There are several clues in there as in "In practice the changes are fairly limited. They mean that some types of non-licensed work with asbestos now have additional requirements, ie notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping. All other requirements remain unchanged." and the heading What has stayed the same? and the next heading What has changed? So if this 2012 regulation is repealed very little will change yet your belief is that there will be asbestos exposure and written records will be ditched. Sorry but you are being lied to with this one. Okay, we've moved from your saying that competent companies can be relied on to observe the spirit of the regulation even if they are not legally mandated to doing so, to saying that the removal of the regulation will make no difference in law. If the EU regs are the same as what went before, it makes you wonder why there was a need to introduce them into UK law at all (assuming they were introduced by a directive). The regulations from 2006, which I believe are a result of an EU directive still exist. All teh 2012 regs did was to make minor adjustments where the EU thought the UK had not gone far enough. It is all there in the link. The 2006( I think that is the date) regs are what defines the steps to be taken, teh records to be kept etc etc. There is not discarding of asbestos control rules and in that sense the list you gave is exaggerating and scaremongering. The same seems to be true for the child belt rules. I think the last is probably true in that it is removing some minor and largely incosnequential regs to make alignment more difficult. A necessary step in my view, bu there again you may disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2022 10:42:43 GMT
Okay, we've moved from your saying that competent companies can be relied on to observe the spirit of the regulation even if they are not legally mandated to doing so, to saying that the removal of the regulation will make no difference in law. If the EU regs are the same as what went before, it makes you wonder why there was a need to introduce them into UK law at all (assuming they were introduced by a directive). The regulations from 2006, which I believe are a result of an EU directive still exist. All teh 2012 regs did was to make minor adjustments where the EU thought the UK had not gone far enough. It is all there in the link. The 2006( I think that is the date) regs are what defines the steps to be taken, teh records to be kept etc etc. There is not discarding of asbestos control rules and in that sense the list you gave is exaggerating and scaremongering. The same seems to be true for the child belt rules. I think the last is probably true in that it is removing some minor and largely incosnequential regs to make alignment more difficult. A necessary step in my view, bu there again you may disagree. I've read the link. The link says that the 2012 regulations require persons working with asbestos to keep records of where the asbestos is situated.. It also requires medical supervision of workers by a doctor in some instances. The point of the OP was to demonstrate that the bonfire of these regulations was a step backwards. I don't see that you have demonstrated anything which counters that point. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 6, 2022 15:08:24 GMT
The regulations from 2006, which I believe are a result of an EU directive still exist. All teh 2012 regs did was to make minor adjustments where the EU thought the UK had not gone far enough. It is all there in the link. The 2006( I think that is the date) regs are what defines the steps to be taken, teh records to be kept etc etc. There is not discarding of asbestos control rules and in that sense the list you gave is exaggerating and scaremongering. The same seems to be true for the child belt rules. I think the last is probably true in that it is removing some minor and largely incosnequential regs to make alignment more difficult. A necessary step in my view, bu there again you may disagree. I've read the link. The link says that the 2012 regulations require persons working with asbestos to keep records of where the asbestos is situated.. It also requires medical supervision of workers by a doctor in some instances. The point of the OP was to demonstrate that the bonfire of these regulations was a step backwards. I don't see that you have demonstrated anything which counters that point. You have not read it properly. It refers to non licensed work which straight away puts it into a defined lower level category and still applicable and once asbestos is located the old regulations define what should happen. It boils partially down to how far do you go. We could suit everyone up with breathing apparatus and full records and photographs with doctors checking at every stage. We do not do that. why not it is a safety consideration? We do not do it because it is not necessary. What is necessary is always a matter of opinion. There is no change to risk assessment or to records. You are being disingenuous as the bit in your post said " requiring all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" Can you show me in the changes where that will not occur becasue of the revoking of the 2012 Regs. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2022 18:07:33 GMT
I've read the link. The link says that the 2012 regulations require persons working with asbestos to keep records of where the asbestos is situated.. It also requires medical supervision of workers by a doctor in some instances. The point of the OP was to demonstrate that the bonfire of these regulations was a step backwards. I don't see that you have demonstrated anything which counters that point. You have not read it properly. It refers to non licensed work which straight away puts it into a defined lower level category and still applicable and once asbestos is located the old regulations define what should happen. It boils partially down to how far do you go. We could suit everyone up with breathing apparatus and full records and photographs with doctors checking at every stage. We do not do that. why not it is a safety consideration? We do not do it because it is not necessary. What is necessary is always a matter of opinion. There is no change to risk assessment or to records. You are being disingenuous as the bit in your post said " requiring all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" Can you show me in the changes where that will not occur becasue of the revoking of the 2012 Regs. Hmmm. Quite a few laws that currently save lives are to be repealed, but you've decided to focus in on a single issue about asbestos. Even if your minor point were correct, there would still be all the other ways in this 'bonfire' is a step backwards. But you don't appear to be correct in this minor matter, either. The following is what the 2012 regs require: From 6 April 2012, some non-licensed work needs to be notified to the relevant enforcing authority. From 6 April 2012, brief written records should be kept of non-licensed work, which has to be notified eg copy of the notification with a list of workers on the job, plus the level of likely exposure of those workers to asbestos. This does not require air monitoring on every job, if an estimate of degree of exposure can be made based on experience of similar past tasks or published guidance. By April 2015, all workers/self employed doing notifiable non-licensed work with asbestos must be under health surveillance by a Doctor. Workers who are already under health surveillance for licensed work need not have another medical examination for non-licensed work. BUT medicals for notifiable non-licensed work are not acceptable for those doing licensed work. And this is before we begin to discuss other issues like choking hazards in toys and worksite dangers. At the very, very best, your position would appear to be that repeal of these measures is a step backwards, it's just not a step as far backwards as is being claimed. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 6, 2022 18:49:22 GMT
You have not read it properly. It refers to non licensed work which straight away puts it into a defined lower level category and still applicable and once asbestos is located the old regulations define what should happen. It boils partially down to how far do you go. We could suit everyone up with breathing apparatus and full records and photographs with doctors checking at every stage. We do not do that. why not it is a safety consideration? We do not do it because it is not necessary. What is necessary is always a matter of opinion. There is no change to risk assessment or to records. You are being disingenuous as the bit in your post said " requiring all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" Can you show me in the changes where that will not occur becasue of the revoking of the 2012 Regs. Hmmm. Quite a few laws that currently save lives are to be repealed, but you've decided to focus in on a single issue about asbestos. Even if your minor point were correct, there would still be all the other ways in this 'bonfire' is a step backwards. But you don't appear to be correct in this minor matter, either. The following is what the 2012 regs require: From 6 April 2012, some non-licensed work needs to be notified to the relevant enforcing authority. From 6 April 2012, brief written records should be kept of non-licensed work, which has to be notified eg copy of the notification with a list of workers on the job, plus the level of likely exposure of those workers to asbestos. This does not require air monitoring on every job, if an estimate of degree of exposure can be made based on experience of similar past tasks or published guidance. By April 2015, all workers/self employed doing notifiable non-licensed work with asbestos must be under health surveillance by a Doctor. Workers who are already under health surveillance for licensed work need not have another medical examination for non-licensed work. BUT medicals for notifiable non-licensed work are not acceptable for those doing licensed work. And this is before we begin to discuss other issues like choking hazards in toys and worksite dangers. At the very, very best, your position would appear to be that repeal of these measures is a step backwards, it's just not a step as far backwards as is being claimed. I selected the asbestos regs becasue they were easiest to find and something I have had similar experience with. I see that you could not point to the revoking of the requirement to " all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" which your list gives the strongest impression that that is what will happen. In terms of the front seat child regs what is the dramatic difference that will affect safety, I could not find it but I did not plough through the whole caboodle. It all seems to be scaremongering and indicating a wide damage to safety when it is just a little tweaking. As regards stepping back we used to have a man and red flag walking in front of motorised vehicles was that a step back or was that just an overreaction to safety concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2022 19:02:45 GMT
Hmmm. Quite a few laws that currently save lives are to be repealed, but you've decided to focus in on a single issue about asbestos. Even if your minor point were correct, there would still be all the other ways in this 'bonfire' is a step backwards. But you don't appear to be correct in this minor matter, either. The following is what the 2012 regs require: From 6 April 2012, some non-licensed work needs to be notified to the relevant enforcing authority. From 6 April 2012, brief written records should be kept of non-licensed work, which has to be notified eg copy of the notification with a list of workers on the job, plus the level of likely exposure of those workers to asbestos. This does not require air monitoring on every job, if an estimate of degree of exposure can be made based on experience of similar past tasks or published guidance. By April 2015, all workers/self employed doing notifiable non-licensed work with asbestos must be under health surveillance by a Doctor. Workers who are already under health surveillance for licensed work need not have another medical examination for non-licensed work. BUT medicals for notifiable non-licensed work are not acceptable for those doing licensed work. And this is before we begin to discuss other issues like choking hazards in toys and worksite dangers. At the very, very best, your position would appear to be that repeal of these measures is a step backwards, it's just not a step as far backwards as is being claimed. . I see that you could not point to the revoking of the requirement to " all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" which your list gives the strongest impression that that is what will happen. We will need to see the regulation itself to understand what 'all building owners' means. 'Building owners' will be defined at the beginning of the regulation. Without that definition, we have to guess. You have guessed in a way that suits your argument. My guess suits my argument. But my 'guess' is more than a guess insofar as it is based on a report from a credible newspaper. At the moment, non-licensed persons have to keep records of the position of asbestos. When the 2012 regs are repealed, this won't be the case. This is your argument re seatbelts: the Independent is wrong about seatbelts. I haven't read all the regulations around seatbelts, but I'm going to say it's wrong anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 6, 2022 19:45:49 GMT
. I see that you could not point to the revoking of the requirement to " all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" which your list gives the strongest impression that that is what will happen. We will need to see the regulation itself to understand what 'all building owners' means. 'Building owners' will be defined at the beginning of the regulation. Without that definition, we have to guess. You have guessed in a way that suits your argument. My guess suits my argument. But my 'guess' is more than a guess insofar as it is based on a report from a credible newspaper. At the moment, non-licensed persons have to keep records of the position of asbestos. When the 2012 regs are repealed, this won't be the case. This is your argument re seatbelts: the Independent is wrong about seatbelts. I haven't read all the regulations around seatbelts, but I'm going to say it's wrong anyway. Read the regulations, they are freely available. The 2012 regs keep almost everything the same as the previous regs except for the changes outlined above. No where is it said, implied or intimated that the need to keep accurate records will be revoked. Your list is scaremongering. It seems similar applies to child seat belts as what I have read does not indicate a major change. Perhaps you can say what that extremely dangerous child safety change will be? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2022 21:08:51 GMT
We will need to see the regulation itself to understand what 'all building owners' means. 'Building owners' will be defined at the beginning of the regulation. Without that definition, we have to guess. You have guessed in a way that suits your argument. My guess suits my argument. But my 'guess' is more than a guess insofar as it is based on a report from a credible newspaper. At the moment, non-licensed persons have to keep records of the position of asbestos. When the 2012 regs are repealed, this won't be the case. This is your argument re seatbelts: the Independent is wrong about seatbelts. I haven't read all the regulations around seatbelts, but I'm going to say it's wrong anyway. Read the regulations, they are freely available. The 2012 regs keep almost everything the same as the previous regs except for the changes outlined above. No where is it said, implied or intimated that the need to keep accurate records will be revoked. Your list is scaremongering. It seems similar applies to child seat belts as what I have read does not indicate a major change. Perhaps you can say what that extremely dangerous child safety change will be? Your own link says that 'non-licensed' persons are required to keep notes under the 2012 regs. If the 2012 regs are repealed, then these people won't have to keep records anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 6, 2022 22:00:21 GMT
Read the regulations, they are freely available. The 2012 regs keep almost everything the same as the previous regs except for the changes outlined above. No where is it said, implied or intimated that the need to keep accurate records will be revoked. Your list is scaremongering. It seems similar applies to child seat belts as what I have read does not indicate a major change. Perhaps you can say what that extremely dangerous child safety change will be? Your own link says that 'non-licensed' persons are required to keep notes under the 2012 regs. If the 2012 regs are repealed, then these people won't have to keep records anymore. That is a nice try but brief notes on work carried out in areas where existing asbestos hazard is identified and dealt with is not at all the same as removing the need " requiring all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" That is a blatant misinformation lie designed to mislead and worry the concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2022 22:10:21 GMT
Your own link says that 'non-licensed' persons are required to keep notes under the 2012 regs. If the 2012 regs are repealed, then these people won't have to keep records anymore. That is a nice try but brief notes on work carried out in areas where existing asbestos hazard is identified and dealt with is not at all the same as removing the need " requiring all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" That is a blatant misinformation lie designed to mislead and worry the concerned. That doesn't make any sense. Your own link says that the UK had to introduce these rules because they weren't required under previous legislation. So, the requirement that building owners keep a list of non-licensed workers and the requirement for these workers to be subject to medical examination and supervision can't have existed previously. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 6, 2022 22:27:23 GMT
That is a nice try but brief notes on work carried out in areas where existing asbestos hazard is identified and dealt with is not at all the same as removing the need " requiring all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" That is a blatant misinformation lie designed to mislead and worry the concerned. That doesn't make any sense. Your own link says that the UK had to introduce these rules because they weren't required under previous legislation. So, the requirement that building owners keep a list of non-licensed workers and the requirement for these workers to be subject to medical examination and supervision can't have existed previously. No my own link says that the EU did not think the UK had gone far enough with the regs and the new 2012regs met the areas where the EU said the shortfall was which are detailed in the link as 'what has changed'. Could you actually address the point as to where in the proposed revoking of the 2012 regs will the requirement that " all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" be deleted. Not 'brief notes of programmed work on existing asbestos locations'. Give it a try if you cannot fair enough but it does highlight your list as potentially scaremongering rubbish. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2022 22:51:44 GMT
That doesn't make any sense. Your own link says that the UK had to introduce these rules because they weren't required under previous legislation. So, the requirement that building owners keep a list of non-licensed workers and the requirement for these workers to be subject to medical examination and supervision can't have existed previously. No my own link says that the EU did not think the UK had gone far enough with the regs and the new 2012regs met the areas where the EU said the shortfall was which are detailed in the link as 'what has changed'. Yeah, that's what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2022 22:56:37 GMT
That doesn't make any sense. Your own link says that the UK had to introduce these rules because they weren't required under previous legislation. So, the requirement that building owners keep a list of non-licensed workers and the requirement for these workers to be subject to medical examination and supervision can't have existed previously. No my own link says that the EU did not think the UK had gone far enough with the regs and the new 2012regs met the areas where the EU said the shortfall was which are detailed in the link as 'what has changed'. Could you actually address the point as to where in the proposed revoking of the 2012 regs will the requirement that " all building owners to maintain accurate registers of where there is dangerous asbestos to avoid accidental exposure" be deleted. Not 'brief notes of programmed work on existing asbestos locations'. Give it a try if you cannot fair enough but it does highlight your list as potentially scaremongering rubbish. LOL!!! So, you accept that the regs require non-licensed workers to keep records and that they require medical examination for workers. You must also accept that removing these regulations endangers lives. But that's not the important point for you? As to the second point, how can either of us know without reading the regulations? I don't see anything in your link about building owners, but your link is a bare-minimum summary of the regulations. You're essentially saying: I haven't read the regulations, but I'm sure the Independent is lying here. |
|
