This morning’s letters focus on previous knife crime deterrents, the likelihood of wheelie bins posing health and safety risks, suggested targets for spending cuts and ‘the wrong weather’.
Bring back ‘six years’ threat from the Fifties
Sir,-I feel the Scottish Government is going the wrong way in dealing with knife crime. They seem to think that giving longer sentences to offenders after they have committed the crime will deter others. The best answer is to prevent them carrying knives in the first place.
Back in the Fifties, neds in Glasgow were carrying and using cut-throat razors. It was announced that anyone caught carrying a razor would be sent to the High Court and receive a six-year mandatory sentence.
Razors disappeared like snow off a dyke and, as far as I recollect, no person was caught carrying a razor, nor did anyone receive a six-year sentence. If it worked then I am sure it would work now.
John Haliburton.21 Bolam Drive,Burntisland.
Duty of care to others, too
Sir,-The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 has, as its intention, the requirement that employers eliminate, or at least minimise, significant risks to safety and health within the workplace, and correctly so.
However, as a health and safety practitioner and consultant, I fail to see where there is a significant risk to the health or safety of a fit and trained operator, wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, required to manually move a wheeled-bin six yards along a gravel path so that it can be emptied.
It is something householders have to do three times every fortnight. I am not aware of anyone sustaining injury as a result of having to regularly undertake this low-level but nevertheless essential task.
Mrs Margaret Stuart (July 16) is justified in feeling aggrieved by the Perth and Kinross Council’s decision not to provide her with assistance to move her garden waste bin on the grounds that moving ‘wheelies’ along gravel paths breaks their health and safety rules.
Interestingly, from the point of view of safety, the two council officials who drove to Methven to advise her of this decision were almost certainly placing themselves at greater risk during their journey than those asked by Mrs Stuart to help with her bin.
Safe working systems (rules) are meant to be based on risk assessment; presumably the council has undertaken this and is prepared to publish its findings to justify its decision. But, as an employer, it must also be aware the act extends its duty of care to others who may be affected by its activities. So, can we now presume that as moving bins along gravel paths has been deemed a safety risk for employees, it is also a safety risk for householders?
Before the council issued bins to households, did it conduct a survey to identify the type of path at each household to confirm that wheeled bins are an appropriate method of waste collection and movement? Can the council confirm that the system of household waste collection is safe for householders who have gravel paths?
If not, when will they issue appropriate safety information, or withdraw the bins? And if it is fit for purpose and safe for householders who may not be fit, trained or have appropriate PPE, why is it not safe for employees?
I look forward to their reply.
M. Duncan.100 Craigie Road,Perth.
There are more obvious targets
Sir,-In its campaign to cut expenditure, our coalition government is incurring the wrath of the electorate by threatening vital services such as the NHS and the police.
Far more obvious and popular targets would be the civil service and local government. The numbers and salaries of civil servants and council officials have mushroomed alarmingly over the past 30 years and the process continues.
Non-jobs and promoted posts have proliferated and salaries and pensions gone through the roof. It is incredible that some heads of councils earn more than the Prime Minister.
The Westminster Government would have the majority of the electorate solidly behind it if it restructured the civil service numbers and salary scales, together with those of local councils, imposing limits on the numbers employed and on the salaries and pensions paid.
Taking the most efficient councils as their yardstick, guidelines could be drawn up for the whole country, with local councils obliged to keep within the limits.
There would be no reduction in efficiency, just an end to the jobs for the boys culture which has prevailed in our civil service and local councils for far too long.
Oh, and bonuses for civil servants and council officials should go as well. They should earn their salaries and expect no extra money for doing just that. Bonuses tend to become an old Chinese custom and are paid out almost automatically.
With the above measures in place — no enforced redundancies, just natural wastage — the savings would be enormous.
George K. McMillan.5 Mount Tabor Avenue,Perth.
Official: it’s not our fault
Sir,-How’s this for the most farcical excuse ever from that assortment of schoolkids and buffoons we refer to as ‘the Scottish Government’?
Apparently, they are asking us to accept that the reason for our wind farms producing only half the anticipated annual power is (wait for it!) we had the ‘wrong type of weather’ (The Courier, July 19).
So, there we have it: it’s nothing to do with us — it’s God’s fault!
Energy policy is far too important an issue to be at the mercy of our current crop of immature politicians, who have neither an interest in, nor any knowledge of the subject. This is something for grown-ups; and while we’re in the realms of the almighty, we can make a constructive start to the debate by asking a simple question: why did God give us all that coal if he didn’t want us to use it?
Jim Parker.(Scottish Mineworkers’ consortium)9 Banchory Green,Collydean,Glenrothes.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.