dmg24 there is a question on my thread

celinepatricia

dmg you have been asked a question on my thread leagle eagle. I have been expecting an answer from you but I dont think you must have gone on my thread again.

dmg24

Sorry, I'm flitting today whilst working - what is the question?

celinepatricia

It is from dpassmore wondering why you have said that his or her knowledge of h&s law is vague. I was wondering the answer to this question myself. If you would like to go onto the thread you could reply.

dickydonkin

celinepatricia wrote: »

It is from dpassmore wondering why you have said that his or her knowledge of h&s law is vague. I was wondering the answer to this question myself. If you would like to go onto the thread you could reply.

Thank you celinepatricia

From someone who has posted their views and opinions on anything and everything on over 28,000 posts - yes over 28,000, I have also wondered as to why dmg24 has not responded to the questioning of my competence.

Is that an unreasonable request? I honestly don't think so.

I note that dmg 24 has quoted that s/he has been 'working', but since my request to respond to the questioning of my competence, some 37 posts have been made on this forum by dmg24 whilst 'flitting'- none of which referred to the question in hand. dmg24 is actually logged on as I write this.

I can accept constructive criticism - I have no problem with that whatsoever - constructive being the key word - but when someone makes a blanket critical statement (something which I have observed is a common denominator with the poster in question) there needs to be some evidence or reasonable argument to justify those comments - none of which has been forthcoming.

Some could suggest that such a serial poster believes they are beyond reproach or just plain arrogant, but I have politely requested that dmg24 provides a valid reason to suggest as to why the OP should 'be careful following my advice' as my knowledge of H&S law is vague. I am awaiting an example to be provided by dmg24 of any aspect of H&S legislation quoted by me as being incorrect.

It is like the Churchill insurance advert - 'Oh don't believe anything he says' - but the old dog turn out to be right in the end! - Oh yes!

Many posters can draw their own conclusions as to why no response has been forthcoming - despite the poster in question being logged on to the forum on numerous occasions since the request.

If any of my past comments or advice have been perceived to be ambiguous or incorrect (I don't believe that it has) I will hold up my hand and attempt to rectify - but please let me know what aspect is doubted so I can be given the opportunity to explain.

I could be vindictive and state 'do not trust anything dmg24 posts - s/he has limited competence and knowledge of anything - and I am certain such a comment would prompt a response, however,
I would not do that because the majority of dmg24's posts seem valid and sound - but I do tend to stick within my expertise rather than comment on topics I am unsure about - jack of all trades and all that!

I would rather question a post rather than tarnish the poster with a derogatory comment.

Come on dmg24 - please give me at least one example which gave you reason to post a warning about me as it appears there is now an audience.


Lets not hope that the author of over 28,000 posts loses credibility.

dickydonkin

dmg24 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm flitting today whilst working - what is the question?

You know damn well what it is - celinepatricia has alluded to it so answer it.

Clues:

All I have asked is to what aspect of my posting(s) has caused dmg24 to doubt my competence and to provide at least one example to allow me the opportunity to respond. For someone who seems to be on these forums on a regular basis - (over 28,000 posts confirms that point) the silence is deafening.

dmg you have been asked a question on my thread leagle eagle. I have been expecting an answer from you

dmg24

celinepatricia wrote: »

It is from dpassmore wondering why you have said that his or her knowledge of h&s law is vague. I was wondering the answer to this question myself. If you would like to go onto the thread you could reply.

H&S law is quite complex, the legislation is overly burdensome, and so has been greatly clarified by case law. This is where dpassmore's knowledge fails, they don't appear to know anything beyond the basics.

Hope that answers your question. I have no wish to get into a debate over it, merely adding a caveat that their advice should not be relied upon.

Person_one

:rotfl:

I thought this was going to be a reference to dmg24's persistent habit of asking "Do you have a question relating to your benefit entitlement?" as the second post on so many threads in the benefits forum!

dickydonkin

dmg24 wrote: »

H&S law is quite complex, the legislation is overly burdensome, and so has been greatly clarified by case law. This is where dpassmore's knowledge fails, they don't appear to know anything beyond the basics.

Hope that answers your question. I have no wish to get into a debate over it, merely adding a caveat that their advice should not be relied upon.

A very sweeping statement indeed - patronising and a cop out - and you have not answered my request as to why you doubt my competence.

Any law can be 'complex' and 'overly burdensome' whether it is employment, family or traffic legislation but in the context of health and safety, are you suggesting that advice issued by Health & Safety personnel is pointless beacause they 'dont appear to know anything beyond the basics'?

dmg24 - So all of your advice is all sound then? - all 28,000 pieces of advice on everything and anything? Let's debate - you certainly have the time - 28,000 posts is testament to that"

I think we can all agree that employment and health & safety legislation can be complicated and that is why (arguably) Barristers have intelligence immeasurably superior to many, however, that being the case, should we request that forums (such as these) which allude to employment and safety legislation be accessible only to Barristers?

If that happened, many would question what you would do with the spare time you would then have on your hands!

Incidentally, you have still failed to provide an example of where any of my quotes has justified you to be critical of my posts.

Give me ONE example on any post which leads you to believe that my 'knowledge fails' or is 'vague' One - only one.

I am not so naive to believe that ANY law is so simplistic - that is why Barristers are rich - interpretation can be problematic however, by conforming to guidance and approved codes of practice, training and experience will generally keep you within the law and at least provides some form of defence should the worst happen.

The OP was referring to a risk assessment on someone returning to work after an illness - not a case of corporate manslaughter, not a Buncefield or Flixborough - very basic stuff actually, so even in the context of the OP's post, please enlighten as to where I have provided information that is incorrect or indeed 'lacking'. - one example please - just one so at least I have to opportunity to 'redeem' myself!

I have never suggested that I have the expertise of a Barrister but I hope I have the knowledge and experience to ensure my employer avoids an encounter with one - and that what counts.

What I endeavour to achieve is (hopefully) keep an employer on the side of the law - but more importantly - stop people getting hurt - whether a Barrister or lawyer can do that is open to debate - although a pain in the wallet is not uncommon!

dickydonkin

Person_one wrote: »

:rotfl:

I thought this was going to be a reference to dmg24's persistent habit of asking "Do you have a question relating to your benefit entitlement?" as the second post on so many threads in the benefits forum!

Don't worry about it - dmg24 will put the world to right.

Emmzi

dpassmore, this has really rattled your cage, hasn't it?

It's the internet. Let your record of useful advice and being thanked speak for itself, and let it go! Otherwise it'll drive you crazy...

dickydonkin

Emmzi wrote: »

dpassmore, this has really rattled your cage, hasn't it?

It's the internet. Let your record of useful advice and being thanked speak for itself, and let it go! Otherwise it'll drive you crazy...

I don't mind being criticised, but the fact that the poster in question cannot justify or offer proof has indeed annoyed me.

You are right Emmzi - I have taken some deep breaths and realised there are more serious issues in life than to get annoyed over a poster who seemingly lives her life for this forum.

It is time to let go and move on. Thanks!