Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat

Another triumph for bureaucracy

<< < (2/3) > >>

crazymac:

--- Quote from: waveydavey on September 12, 2008, 06:48:03 ---I work with the MCA a lot and know some of their very senior people - they are good guys and their interest is only to look after people.

--- End quote ---

Sorry waveydavey but I really must disagree! (I can feel myself about to go off topic, so for that I apologise)

1. The Marines (and the forces in general) are used by the government in many situations including disaster relief, flood relief and massive evacuations, so to say that they are not able to evacute one of their craft is nonsense!

2. The MCA and in particular the senior bods are only interested in one thing, protecting their own backsides and salaries!! Trust me when I say this, because I come from personal experience! There has been a case lately on the Isle of Lewis where one of the rescue team got injured, he has lost his job, walks with a stick and his smashed up foot is not repairable! what do the MCA do? they leave him with NO FINANCIAL HELP AT ALL and when it all kicks off in a dispute last year he was threatened and bullied into accepting an out of court settlement for £20,000 of which he got £10,000 while the lawyers argued about who was paying for the MCA lawyers!! The Station officer for that team was sacked because he stood up in support of his injured team mate! Although the senior management claimed it was because of a H&S breach. The entire team have resigned because of this treatment!

I myself was injured on service 6 years ago, I was left with no financial assistance for 18 months until I kicked up a massive media stink last year and they have now established loss off earnings for me. I am recovering at the moment from the twelfth operation on my knee with another one due in 5 months, I have lost my career, nearly had my house reposessed and racked up huge debts, due to my pain and inability to sleep properly I have to sleep separate to my wife and I have an 8 yearold daughter that I can't play with properly because of all this! I will in the future need a total knee replacement and all this is before they look at my other knee which took the same impact!

So please don't try and tell me that the senior management want to look after people!!

waveydavey:
Crazymac
I sympathise but I stick by what I said; by stopping people going on an uncertified boat they are trying to prevent people getting hurt - I don't know the details of either accident so can't comment but can you honestly say that everybody involved was following their guidelines? That is why they put the guidelines - just to stop people getting hurt - that was why they stopped use of an unlicenced boat.

That said I work more with the Marine side, by the sound of t you are on the Coastguard side; despite the wonderful idea of the government to combine them they really are very differnet.

Basically though you seem to be comparing the guys on the ground who have to make a call, often unpopular, for the best of reasons with a bunch of lawyers in an office.

mike142sl:
This is just another case of people thinking they are doing a risk assessment and all along just identifying a hazard. The two are very different and unfortunately the easy route is just to stop it - whatever IT might be. Partly because there are so many individuals keen on taking anything that moves to court when they stub their little toe.

Just because a boat isn't licenced doesn't mean it is dangerous. The fact it was a Navy boat would suggest it was probably more sea worthy than the fishing boat they eventually used. If someone had looked at the situation and assesed the risk then in all probability the ferrying could have continued as the RISK would have been suitably LOW enough.

We don't seem to have risk assessors anymore - just Hazard Identifiers.

waveydavey:

--- Quote from: mike142sl on September 12, 2008, 13:50:06 ---This is just another case of people thinking they are doing a risk assessment and all along just identifying a hazard. The two are very different and unfortunately the easy route is just to stop it - whatever IT might be. Partly because there are so many individuals keen on taking anything that moves to court when they stub their little toe.

Just because a boat isn't licenced doesn't mean it is dangerous. The fact it was a Navy boat would suggest it was probably more sea worthy than the fishing boat they eventually used. If someone had looked at the situation and assesed the risk then in all probability the ferrying could have continued as the RISK would have been suitably LOW enough.

We don't seem to have risk assessors anymore - just Hazard Identifiers.

--- End quote ---

Very true - the problem as you hinted at is that until the legal profession get a serious dose of common sense that is what people need to do in order to keep out of court.
I don't agree with it but it is the reality now, mainly thanks to our freinds from across the pond.

crazymac:
Waveydavey, I think mike142sl has hit the nail on the head, they identify hazards and stop it rather than risk assess it!

Yes, I am (or was ) on the cliff rescue side of things and I can catagorically state that everyone did what they were trained to do, the fact that the MCA has changed proceedures and equipment since my accident speaks volumes!

The lawyers that the MCA have access to are treasury soliciters, not maritime experts, the inherant problem wih the MCA is they hire people for the high up positions that have very little (if any) maritime experience. When it was HM Coastguard the majority of personnel were ex Royal and Merchant navy, now they have degrees from colleges etc, very little life experience and absolutely sod all experience or knowledge about the marine environment! they know about business models, computers, etc, not how to survey a vessel or conduct a rescue!

I have talked to a marine surveyer lately who said that his seior manager believed it took an hour to survey a ship regardless of the size or role it has to undertake! Interestingly they have brought in new coding for vessels that has meant that they have had to take a lot of their own boats off the water as they don't conform to their own code!
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page