http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/strategiesandplans/sector-plans/mines.htm 

I recommend a look at this page.

---

It's a bit light on detail of what they mean by 'adventure' use?

a single line!

"ensuring risks to members of the public are being properly controlled at tourist and leisure sites"

---

I note they identify the need to address the 'decline in core skills and ageing workforce'

I wonder how they intend to do that?

I understand that they are presently considering their approach to the Leisure Use of Mines.

---

I understand that they are presently considering their approach to the Leisure Use of Mines.

meeting them shortly where they have said they want to present what their approach is going to be

---

a single line!

"ensuring risks to members of the public are being properly controlled at tourist and leisure sites"

Notice how all new H&S legislation is always non-prescriptive?

You must always make sure that you are "ensuring risks to members of the public are being properly controlled at tourist and leisure sites" but it is up to you to decide how you ensure that you are doing this. Under older legislation, Factories Act, Mines & Quarries Act etc, you were told how often you must do certain things, what was acceptable, what was not etc.

So now you carry out a risk assessment and apply "reasonably practicable" control measures to reduce the risks to "acceptable" levels. There is no one to approve your risk assessment, it just has to be carried out by a "competent" person.

This way, when the wheel comes off, the HSE can always say "Well done, you have a risk assessment and control measures in place, but you missed hazards X, Y and Z and therefore failed in your duty to prevent the resulting outcome. See you in court."

I'm simplifying it but that is the bones of it.

Thoughts?

---

...... then get back to people taking responsibility for their actions

They already are.

Tomlinson V Congleton

"The ruling was considered landmark as it stated that individuals must take responsibility for their own actions."

---

put all of the no-win no-fee lawyers in a pile and set fire to them,

This comment is appalling!
You give no methodology statement, e.g. would you use 4 star or unleaded, and what about environmental impact?

---

Diesel should obviously be the fuel of choice, much safer than petrol.

Diesel should obviously be the fuel of choice, much safer than petrol.

HSE would probably go with that OK.

---

Diesel should obviously be the fuel of choice, much safer than petrol.

HSE would probably go with that OK.

No! Not diesel!

Not unless your human bonfire has a DPF filter fitted!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter 


....and is Euro 6 compliant!

---

This clearly demonstrates the importance of careful study and the value of properly qualified consultants.

It could well be a good idea to dispense with accelerants altogether as there is an informed body of opinion that lawyers should burn quite well on their own.

The project needs to be put on hold for further study.
:(

EDIT
On the other hand the lawyers could all change jobs to something more lucrative such as plumbing?
;D

---

Only one thing for it, Ship B.

"These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships. Into the A ship would go all the leaders, scientists and other high achievers. The C ship would contain all the people who made things and did things, and the B ark would hold everyone else, such as hairdressers and telephone sanitisers. They sent the B ship off first, but of course the other two-thirds of the population stayed on the planet and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone."