Need Help to get some information in to solving this problem!!!

[Midland Retty]

Do you think that may be embarrassing for the hearing impaired person sat on the toilet?

Yes i do very much so, my point exactly.

[wee brian]

well we've managed perefectly well for years without these beacons - being hearing impaired is not a new phenomenon.

As I have said (several times but you are mostly all missing the point!) -
in a new building - yes,
when upgrading or refurbing the alarm - yes,
If you cant get your act together - yes
Any other time just use an evac sweep.

Another alternative is not to bother providing loos for your customers. that way all the health and safety fascists will leave you alone to run your shop in peace.

That would be a great step forward wouldnt it?!!!!!!!!!

[Midland Retty]

well we've managed perefectly well for years without these beacons - being hearing impaired is not a new phenomenon.

As I have said (several times but you are mostly all missing the point!) -
in a new building - yes,
when upgrading or refurbing the alarm - yes,
If you cant get your act together - yes
Any other time just use an evac sweep.

Another alternative is not to bother providing loos for your customers. that way all the health and safety fascists will leave you alone to run your shop in peace.

That would be a great step forward wouldnt it?!!!!!!!!!

Now come on Wee Brian... what would happen if I was caught short in Tescos after my usual saturday lunchtime liquid lunch - it could get messy and no one should have to see that when doing their shopping

[wee brian]

Why what has Messy done to you?

[Wiz]

Now come on Wee Brian. At this rate you'll cause a reduction in shop prices and council taxes. More importantly it will reduce my profits in supplying quite a few products that are, too often, superflous!

As Clevelandfire says 'What would be the cost implication for a few beacons in strategic areas? As long as we don't also factor in the cost of the wheelchair ramps, automatic opening doors, disabled toilet alarms, assistive hearing induction loop systems, DDA 'compliant' door entry systems etc. etc. If we did that we might then all see just how much it is costing shops (actually costing their customers!) in total and, even more so, the council tax payers of local authorities who are meeting their interpretation (or most likely the superflous equipment manufacturer's and the 'rule enforcers' intepretation) of the DDA recommendations.

Is it any wonder council tax is continually rising? Is it any wonder that prices for goods are continually rising? 20 years ago my relatives living in Sweden would come to the UK to buy toiletries because they were 25% cheaper. Now it's the other way around. We now come back laden with cheap day-to-day necessities from our regular visits to Stockholm!

I could give you a number of examples of products that are being manufactured and being specified by architects and local authorities to meet the Disability Discrimination Act  that are, quite frankly, largely useless. Can you blame me for supplying them if they are being made and being asked for? At least I'm earning a bit more to cover the increases in council tax and shop prices! I don't know what everyone else can do about it - pay up with a smile, I suppose!

[messy]

Why what has Messy done to you?

Oi! - keep me out of this!

For the record, I tend to side with WB's view that the risk is so small that management procedures would be sufficient until a refurb or changes are planned.

I have this theory when I am determining risk (likelihood) of an event, I look at a statement and count the 'ifs'. When there are 3 or more, then you have to start doubting how likely this event would be.


For instance, in this example: IF there's a fire in this M&S, and IF the store is occupied, and IF the fire involves the toilet (or escape route from) and IF at that time there is a deaf person who happens to need the toilet, and IF the fire warden (or other management system) fails to evacuate this person, they will die.

When you analyse that statement you'll find 5 'IFs'. So it is possible, but I would argue, unlikely. And it's this 'low risk' that allows the RP to wait until a refurb before amending the AFD system and not to rush into unreasonable changes.

[kurnal]

Hi Messy

I get the idea. You mean like IF there was a wooden football stand and IF they didnt have regular cleaning procedures and IF people dropped litter beneath and IF someone happened to drop a lighted cigarette end and IF it happened to set fire to the accumulated litter and IF the stewards did not see the fire to tackle it and IF the exits at the rear of the stand were locked people may die.

Hindsight has a habit of  generating more ifs than foresight. I see where you are coming from though but I think a liklihoodxconsequence approach may be more reliable

[PhilB]

I'm totally with Wee Brian on this...new build yes...otherwise what else can we identify that should be fitted retrospectively...common sense chaps and chapesses...please!

[messy]

Hi Messy

I get the idea. You mean like IF there was a wooden football stand and IF they didnt have regular cleaning procedures and IF people dropped litter beneath and IF someone happened to drop a lighted cigarette end and IF it happened to set fire to the accumulated litter and IF the stewards did not see the fire to tackle it and IF the exits at the rear of the stand were locked people may die.

Hindsight has a habit of  generating more ifs than foresight. I see where you are coming from though but I think a liklihoodxconsequence approach may be more reliable

Fair comment Kurnal, but I wasn't suggesting this rule of thumb method should be used in isolation!!!

But you are referring to an event which occured where seemingly no assessment of risk or suitable control measures were in place. (and I am sure we could all list many similar events)

My example is a tool to check that, when assessing risk, unreasonable demands (as an IO) are not made on a punter, and of course  other 'measurements' such as liklihood x consequence approach would have to be  considered

[kurnal]

Question for Wee B and PhilB

If you have an employee with a particular special need - in this case someone who has a hearing impairment- you really have a duty to ensure that they are not placed at risk as a result of this. Yes you can create a buddy system and make sure they are accompanied at all times but isnt that a bit demeaning?

Is it not reasonable to forsee that they may have to visit the loo from time to time and they may feel intimidated if they have to ask their buddy to look out for them, or never know whether a well meaning fire warden may burst in on them?  

A strobe in the loo and in the mess room is surely not unreasonable- say £8 for the strobe and £50 to connect it up to the alarm. When employers are paying a fortune for corporate identities and uniforms, think nothing of paying for PPE which only protects one person then I would say in this case it sounds absolutely reasonable to expect them to upgrade the alarms, if only in key areas and to meet the actual known needs of existing employees.

[Paul2886]

Boys and girls. With regard to the above debate I think you all need to get out a bit more. Talk about making a science out of a pretty simplistic problem. Yes its great to gather different opinions but please some of you remind yourselves of the meanings of the terms 'hazard' and 'risk'.

[PhilB]

Question for Wee B and PhilB

If you have an employee with a particular special need - in this case someone who has a hearing impairment- you really have a duty to ensure that they are not placed at risk as a result of this. Yes you can create a buddy system and make sure they are accompanied at all times but isnt that a bit demeaning?

Is it not reasonable to forsee that they may have to visit the loo from time to time and they may feel intimidated if they have to ask their buddy to look out for them, or never know whether a well meaning fire warden may burst in on them?  

A strobe in the loo and in the mess room is surely not unreasonable- say £8 for the strobe and £50 to connect it up to the alarm. When employers are paying a fortune for corporate identities and uniforms, think nothing of paying for PPE which only protects one person then I would say in this case it sounds absolutely reasonable to expect them to upgrade the alarms, if only in key areas and to meet the actual known needs of existing employees.

So do all shops now retro fit beacons in all their stores? Where do we draw the line? During the next refurbishment perhaps in this case it would be reasonably practicable to upgrade the alarm. But common sense must prevail.

[tonenee50]

If I was a women and a man came in to check toilets I would think...........life saver.  If I was a man and a women came in to check toilets I would think life saver.  Come on this is safety lets not go down that road!!

[kurnal]

I agree with all of the above - its all about a proportional and reasonable response. I dont support the wholesale upgrade of alarm systems in all shops just in case a customer enters who is not able to hear the alarm. In these cases a sweep search by staff is appropriate and I also agree that in an emergency we cant get too fussy about gender. Thats a measured response to a possible fire safety issue.  But this is different. This is an employee who we know has a hearing problem and is working for us for a number of hours per week. The duty of care is more direct, the liklihood higher and the risk of an affront to dignity also higher. I would urge the manager to set up a personal emergency evacuation plan for this individual and to consider installing strobes/ vibrating pagers or similar to the extent that it is appropriate. It will probably cost less than the uniform.

[fuzzy]

I'm going to agree with both wee brian and PhilB. It's not just a case of simply fitting a couple of cheap beacons and/or a pager system. Obviously all these things would have to be done out of hours (extra cost), an employee will have to stay behind to supervise (extra cost), if you recognise the issue in one store possibly all the others will need to be retrofitted too (extra cost), also you will have to consider any areas of lone working (extra cost), so what seems to be a simple upgrade can easily turn into a logistical nightmare.

If a pager system or beacon is installed, will that guarentee the person in the toilet is going to evacuate any sooner or will they leave the toilet when they've finished and evacuate as per normal anyway?