Clive Betts responds in SAG / SCC. Write to your Councillor or MP

[baz9209]

You know what to do don’t you lads and lasses?

 

Get rid of the incompetent shitestate Labour council that has perpetuated Sheffield for to long

 

Crossbow preferably lol

 

but the vote will also work

[Costello 77]

6 minutes ago, baz9209 said:

You know what to do don’t you lads and lasses?

 

Get rid of the incompetent shitestate Labour council that has perpetuated Sheffield for to long

 

Crossbow preferably

 

but the vote will also work

Are you mad?

[Nero]

18 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

Are you mad?

True. Takes bloody ages to reload a crossbow.

[Lord Snooty]

 

On 03/09/2019 at 16:20, upperwinngardensowl said:

 

I hesitate to mention the following, as history shows that the reaction to a safety issue SAG/SYP has itself generated is to impose another restriction.

 

 Super letter , Winners. Especially the quoted line.

Nailed it in a nutshell.

 

[chrisf]

I sent Clive my letter to the Star about the restrictions and the nice man has thanked me. 

[Musn't Grumble]

The Pope's dead and all tha...t but I've done a bit of research which, of course, any fine and upstanding journalist would do in search of an honest story.

 

I must add that I am certainly not a legal expert and I am simply quoting extracts from what the Government says, via the Health and Safety Executive website, about Safety Advisory Groups (SAGs). Also, I am certainly not suggesting that the club should not engage, co-operate or work with the HSE, SAG or the local authority in this instance. I merely cut and paste what the law/advice says.

 

(Summary below if you don't want to read the detailed content in the bullet points or read the HSE-GOV website).

1) SAGs are non-statutory bodies and so do not have legal powers or responsibilities, and are not empowered to approve or prohibit events from taking place. Event organisers and others involved in the running of an event, retain the principal legal duties for ensuring public safety. (bold type highlights by me)

2) Event organisers should determine whether there is a SAG, or similar arrangements, in the relevant area and if appropriate, submit their event proposal for discussion and advice. Attendance of the event organiser at SAG meetings may be voluntary. There is however benefits to be gained from engagement in the SAG process from the outset. LAs may of course require events organiser’s attendance eg as a condition of using their land.

3) Discussions may extend beyond an organiser’s duty to comply with workplace health and safety law and even the boundaries of an event site, to include considering the impact on the local transport network and civil contingencies in the event of an emergency. The advice provided by the SAG and any decisions taken should be proportionate to the risk profile of the event. (my bold type)

4) Some event organisers will already have established effective liaison arrangements with external bodies or organisations like the LA and emergency services, because they will be involved in the wider management of the event eg crowd management to and from a venue and emergency arrangements. To facilitate this, some events establish a planning group/s. In these circumstances, it is often unnecessary to set-up a separate SAG. (my bold type again)

5) HSE does not routinely sit on or attend SAG meetings. It is not normally appropriate for HSE to take part in the decision-making process at the planning stage, particularly where the event is organised by an LA. HSE inspectors may, however, be asked by a SAG and/or event organiser to provide advice and guidance on occupational health and safety matters, particularly where HSE is the enforcing authority for the activity concerned eg fairgrounds, broadcasting and construction activities. In these circumstances HSE is normally able to provide such advice to regulators, duty holders and others without having to attend the SAG although a local decision may be made that attendance would be appropriate.

HSE inspectors are not in a position to authorise or approve an event organiser's safety plan, so their contribution shouldn't be inferred by the SAG or the event organiser as sanctioning their methods of controlling risk. (again, my bold type)

So, in summary:-

a) SAG have no authority or legal powers to approve or prohibit events from taking place.
b) Liability basically remains with the event organisers even where SAG or the HSE is has been engaged or "offered advice".
c) The advice given by SAG (and the actions taken thereafter) should be proptionate to the risk.

 

If it was the local authority making the decisions, The Local Government (Review of Decisions) Act 2015 requires LAs to put into place formal review procedures for any decision which stops or restricts a proposed event on the grounds of health and safety. This act states that once the review is completed, the person asked for the review has rights to to appeal against or otherwise challenge a decision that has been reviewed.

 

Further information from:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/safety-advisory-groups.htm

 

[Frazzlebeak]

12 minutes ago, Musn't Grumble said:

The Pope's dead and all tha...t but I've done a bit of research which, of course, any fine and upstanding journalist would do in search of an honest story.

 

I must add that I am certainly not a legal expert and I am simply quoting extracts from what the Government says, via the Health and Safety Executive website, about Safety Advisory Groups (SAGs). Also, I am certainly not suggesting that the club should not engage, co-operate or work with the HSE, SAG or the local authority in this instance. I merely cut and paste what the law/advice says.

 

(Summary below if you don't want to read the detailed content in the bullet points or read the HSE-GOV website).

1) SAGs are non-statutory bodies and so do not have legal powers or responsibilities, and are not empowered to approve or prohibit events from taking place. Event organisers and others involved in the running of an event, retain the principal legal duties for ensuring public safety. (bold type highlights by me)

2) Event organisers should determine whether there is a SAG, or similar arrangements, in the relevant area and if appropriate, submit their event proposal for discussion and advice. Attendance of the event organiser at SAG meetings may be voluntary. There is however benefits to be gained from engagement in the SAG process from the outset. LAs may of course require events organiser’s attendance eg as a condition of using their land.

3) Discussions may extend beyond an organiser’s duty to comply with workplace health and safety law and even the boundaries of an event site, to include considering the impact on the local transport network and civil contingencies in the event of an emergency. The advice provided by the SAG and any decisions taken should be proportionate to the risk profile of the event. (my bold type)

4) Some event organisers will already have established effective liaison arrangements with external bodies or organisations like the LA and emergency services, because they will be involved in the wider management of the event eg crowd management to and from a venue and emergency arrangements. To facilitate this, some events establish a planning group/s. In these circumstances, it is often unnecessary to set-up a separate SAG. (my bold type again)

5) HSE does not routinely sit on or attend SAG meetings. It is not normally appropriate for HSE to take part in the decision-making process at the planning stage, particularly where the event is organised by an LA. HSE inspectors may, however, be asked by a SAG and/or event organiser to provide advice and guidance on occupational health and safety matters, particularly where HSE is the enforcing authority for the activity concerned eg fairgrounds, broadcasting and construction activities. In these circumstances HSE is normally able to provide such advice to regulators, duty holders and others without having to attend the SAG although a local decision may be made that attendance would be appropriate.

HSE inspectors are not in a position to authorise or approve an event organiser's safety plan, so their contribution shouldn't be inferred by the SAG or the event organiser as sanctioning their methods of controlling risk. (again, my bold type)

So, in summary:-

a) SAG have no authority or legal powers to approve or prohibit events from taking place.
b) Liability basically remains with the event organisers even where SAG or the HSE is has been engaged or "offered advice".
c) The advice given by SAG (and the actions taken thereafter) should be proptionate to the risk.

 

If it was the local authority making the decisions, The Local Government (Review of Decisions) Act 2015 requires LAs to put into place formal review procedures for any decision which stops or restricts a proposed event on the grounds of health and safety. This act states that once the review is completed, the person asked for the review has rights to to appeal against or otherwise challenge a decision that has been reviewed.

 

Further information from:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/safety-advisory-groups.htm

 

Therein lies the conundrum. If SWFC take no notice and something untoward happens we will be crucified. If SAG and HSE says its ok we can say we liased with the appropriate bodies.

[upperwinngardensowl]

catch 22 I am afraid

Ignore them and summat remotely dodgy happens, irrespective of whos to blame, we cop it.

[Musn't Grumble]

3 hours ago, Frazzlebeak said:

Therein lies the conundrum. If SWFC take no notice and something untoward happens we will be crucified. If SAG and HSE says its ok we can say we liased with the appropriate bodies.

 

Not really.

 

It says that whatever action is taken, SWFC as event organisers are liable regardless of what HSE or SAG say. Presumably (although I don't know for certain) SAG are involved because of potential risks outside the ground and on the roads, pavements to and from the ground where SWFC cannot be held to liability.

 

Also (but again, don't take my word for it as I am not legally trained), in health and safety matters, people can be personally liable for risk. Technically, if someone spills coffee on the stairs in the office building and does nothing about it, if someone else slips on the spillage and gets injured, the person who has spilt the coffee could be liable personally for not doing anything about it.

 

I used to run a sports club with coaches, vounteers, supervision and management of a facility and the whole area is a minefield when it comes to making sure that you have taken appropriate action and have plans in place in the event of people getting injured, abused, etc.

[toppOwl]

United currently sit 5th in the table for most banning orders which again makes a mockery of why we are sanctioned and they are not.

 

Has Mothersole actually replied to anyone or just buried his head in the sand?

[ANDY]

At Hudds both sets of fans were in same stand. Exiting at the same time funnelling together on the car park/road 

 

i didnt  see any trouble

 

sag would have had a reyt hissy fit. 

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

On ‎04‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 18:45, Peacenocchio said:

@nevthelodgemoorowl @Andrew Robinson @upperwinngardensowl

All. Good stuff guys. Maybe however you are going down the wrong route. If you write a complaint to Sheffield Cc about what Motherarsole and SAG have done,  they have to respond AND investigate to all points accordingly. If not the can be referred to the ombusdsman. 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/your-city-council/make-complaint-council-service

They ought to be concentrating on the apprently catastrophic and dangerous shambles they've made taking over the DLO from Kier. 

I have good Idea. How about you have a try ? 

[York_Owl]

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 19:52, bash said:

One thing sums up the Sheffield Derby for me. In April 1993 I went down to the Wembley Semi on a minibus from Chapeltown, organised by a massive Wednesday fan. There was 9 or 10 Wednesdayites on it, and three Blades, two us were 15 years old. They let the kids have a free ride down, and we hadn't even reached Junction 35 before I had a can of Stones in my hand. Do they think that could happen nowadays?

That's very much looking back through rose tinted glasses.  Remember someone was killed that day.

[keepitsteel89]

I have a feeling SAG meetings regarding us start off with the words "How do we get them?"

[farlego]

Has anyone had a response to their letters?

[S36 OWL]

39 minutes ago, farlego said:

Has anyone had a response to their letters?

 

Not even a responce saying they had recieved my email.i sent one to Motherarseole , Billings , Julie Door and the head honcho at SY Plod. No responce from any of them.

 

Cant say im shocked though, not when you are dealing with people with a proven track record of sheer incompitence. 

[MAL]

You would have thought, that the Sheffield Star would have also been asking questions, you know like sending there own reporters (cough) to ask why they didn't receive a reply to any correspondence.

 

Then reporting back to the public of the answers they have received, or not.

 

Not holding my breath.

 

 

 

[Plonk]

Me neither. Emailed billings. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt. I’m afraid this is typical of the contempt our leaders hold us in. Just remember this poo when we next get the chance vote. Let’s get all these counts out. 

[lanzaroteowl]

21 minutes ago, MAL said:

You would have thought, that the Sheffield Star would have also been asking questions, you know like sending there own reporters (cough) to ask why they didn't receive a reply to any correspondence.

 

Then reporting back to the public of the answers they have received, or not.

 

Not holding my breath.

 

 

 

 

They're too busy trying to convince us that two dozen people with placards equals a huge demonstration. 

[York_Owl]

2 hours ago, sw1867 said:

 

Whilst nobody should lose their lives at a football match, the death was as a result of one punch and he banged his head on the floor. Not trying to justify it by any means but those who didn’t know the circumstances could read your comment as being the outcome of widespread serious disorder and it wasn’t.

Thanks @sw1867.  I was concerned at how this comment might be taken.  I was trying to make the point that going to football back in the 80s and early 90s had it's problems (as it does now) and, it was not a case of everyone getting on together as @bash seemed to be implying.