EEC bureaucrats strike again !

[Jeff]

According to my morning paper, fans of Fiona Pears and Kristyn Murphy will be disappointed to learn that their idols have fallen foul of new EEC Health and Safety legislation which comes into force today banning singers and musicians in the UK from performing in bare feet. Explaining directive HS/159628/08UK council member Dr Horst Wahnsinn commented: "We don't have an issue with new venues like O2 or MEN but many old municipal theatres particularly on the south coast of the UK have wooden stages and we are concerned that performers can sustain an injury to their toes from splinters." The move is being endorsed by Equity, the musicans' trade union: "The welfare of our members must always be uppermost in our minds." said a spokesman. It is likely such a ban will only be temporary until officials can visit the theatres concerned and undertake a risk assessment. Central government has promised funds will be made available for refurbishment although council tax bills may have to rise above inflation as a result. (Typical ! )

Earlier today I visited my local pavilion, a pre-war theatre to see how the new measures are being received. When I met the manager he was far from happy. "We get a lot of performers in bare feet and we don't need the EEC sticking its nose in!" he fumed. He had just returned from the local DIY superstore with a large pack of sandpaper. "We've got some rough patches at the back of the stage but I just put that down to the mice chewing the boards. We'll get it sanded down. You can't take any chances with these people in Brussels. A large fine would put us out of business."

It is understood Kiwi singer Hayley Westenra will remain unaffected by the ruling as long as she keeps her boots on while on stage but to be on the safe side, the H & S directorate has sent a set of tweezers to her London address, just in case. Neither Fiona Pears' management nor that of Miss Murphy were available for comment.

[graemek]

jeff said:

.....Dr Horst Wahnsinn....

Hayley Westenra will remain unaffected by the ruling as long as she keeps her boots on while on stage but to be on the safe side, the H & S directorate has sent a set of tweezers to her London address, just in case.

Hi Jeff, why did I become suspicious with your "article" as soon as I read the name of that Dr.

graeme

[postscript]

While I am vehemently anti almost all EU anything and all UK governments seem to agree I am right--which is why they have not given us successive votes over subsequent changes, because they would have to acknowledge that we had never agreed to anything that is there now, I am not so in angst as I might be over this directive (not having read it all). Perhaps it is my industrial background that gives me a different perspective but I have to confess that in many instances in the past we (as a collective national whole) have got away with murder (literally and figuratively) through being over-cavalier.

I recall one incident when we had closed a factory and the removers were taking stuff out. In fact the incident raised a complicated legal argument as to who actually was 'in charge' as the factory was no longer functioning as a factory and certain assumptions had been made as to the role of specialist removers (which was our let out), They were specialists but they had given some nonspecialist operations to a cowboy outfit.

All I'll say here is that a lift that had functioned without incident for 80 years was misused on the one occasion it decided to go wrong. An untrained operative had removed a safety device so that when it went wrong it failed to stop instantly.

Not only was an ambulance needed but a team of doctors asked to be on stand-by, in case they had to do an on-the-spot amputation because the fire-brigade were taking so long dismantling the lift from around the leg, jammed between the folding gate that had suddenly flung open and the lift shaft.

Okay, people had done something they should not have done but who was responsible? Arguably the guy injured contributed as he should have checked the lift's operational safety? The guy who by-passed the safety device? But why did he? It was to make an item fit in and he had forgotten (or could not be bothered) to replace the safety device. A lift has its own controls. To what level of expertise and expectation should anyone have if using a lift in the proper way? Who gave whom, what training? Where was the ultimate responsibility since several specialists in different fields had access and no technical personnel were in charge of the factory as a factory, it was in fact in the hands of an estate agent!

I can say the chap managed to keep his leg but I don't know for how long and to what extent he was crippled. This is an extreme case but raises the issue (as the real event did but afterwards, not with forethought) how much had been assumed by 'intelligent, businesslike' people who assumed everyone acted with common sense. Unfortunately, commonsense isn't as common as we take for granted.

I can recall (dealing with old hall stages as opposed to proper theatres) dance teachers being concerned about the state of the stage for young children wearing ballet shoes. Those soles are very thin. Even in open-air performances when they were bare-footed, we checked their pathway offstage into the woods to ensure there were not any odd sticks or stones to impede their feet since the previous night as they danced off stage into the darkness.

The same when handling horses. Is the rider sufficiently proficient? Are all stage exits obviously clear to the horse so that should a horse bolt the horse shoots offstage away from the audience not into it? Despite notices in the programme and elsewhere for those not buying programmes do we ensure a public statement at the start of the performance?

All this is a matter of commonsense. Unfortunately, as illustrated above, common sense is not that common and unless clear divisional lines are laid down as to who is responsible for what, that they have been properly trained and they in turn responsible to train those using the facility to ensure they are equipped.

Some humour. Who has seen the cartoon that may have appeared in the Sunday Times magazine at the celebration of Trafalgar? I'll post when I can find it if anyone is interested. A fullpage colour cartoon with Nelson (minus arm and eye) looking around him in bewilderment. The cartoon's purpose being to ask 'How would he have won Trafalgar if we had been in the EU then, coping with the right balance of disabled people?'

Doubtless some bright spark (Richard? :je would point out that if we had been in the EU then we would never have fought Trafalgar! I would reply, 'you mean Napoleon should have won?' Speech balloons showed 'You can't order me up the crow's nest in a battle, only when its calm.' 'Beware! This gun gets hot. Don't fire too often.;

Of course if we followed some of the EU's instigations, Nelson would never have been there. He would have been invalided out by the time he lost his arm with a fist full of gold (in the other hand) and an apology from the government of the day for having put him in mortal peril. Or would they have fought to have him on board as accommodating the disabled. Or would they be arguing that a disabled commander is a danger to all around him?

However, what I do get ragged at (if it is correct) that the EU suddenly issues a directive without allowing sufficient time for all checks to be made beforehand allowing theatres to make necessary cost provision in their theatre budgets--unless SMs were advised and didn't carry them out while they had time.

Peter S.

[Martin]

Now what about gymnasts and acrobats who walk on their hands? Will they now have to wear gloves?
Martin

[Richard]

Thank you Peter!

What day is it today?

Perhaps I should have asked "Who's day is it today?"

Richard

[grant]

Hello Richard

I couldn't work out whether or not Peter really had not twigged this one!

After all, he clarified the rules to me regarding Ryan whatshername and promptly fell completely for the second one.

Bless you Peter!!

Grant

[postscript]

grant said:

Hello Richard

I couldn't work out whether or not Peter really had not twigged this one!

After all, he clarified the rules to me regarding Ryan whatshername and promptly fell completely for the second one.

Bless you Peter!!

Grant

I think:
1. What a great bunch of guys are on this site
2. If you want chaos and confusion to abound, call Postscript!
3. Now the chorus please, 'Oh what a fool am I...
Peter S.

[graemek]

Peter,
I think you're wonderful,

What would HWI do without you?

Graeme

[Jeff]

There's always one........

[Richard]

Only one?

Richard

[postscript]

jeff said:

There's always one........

Indeed and my mum was the one to have him... she's so delighted!
Peter S.