Deadly fire sweeps Ecuador club

To view the original article Click Here

Title – Deadly fire sweeps Ecuador club
Source – www.bbc.co.uk
Date – 20th April 2008

The stronger our health & safety laws and enforcement gets in the UK the less likely this sort of tragedy will occur on our shores, but complacency is probably as great a threat as fire itself. The less fatal fires we have in the UK, the less the topic remains at the forefront of our activities and that it precisely where it should be.

Although tragic fires with high death tolls are more common in the developing world, they are certainly not a thing of the past here in the UK. The alarming factor is that almost every time we see a report of a fatal fire in a premises such as a night club or other entertainment venue the causes of the high fatality rates almost identical. The number of fire reports that incidentally remark that the ‘fire exits were locked’ is almost unbelievable and the reason often given for them being locked is to prevent people from getting in without paying.

Analyse these reasons and excuses and the fact is simple, people lock their fire exits to protect income and because it is cheaper or ‘easier’ then providing other effective solutions such as manning the exit or installing technology (alarms, CCTV etc.). This most short sighted approach is literally criminal.

Fire is a killer, it has been since time began and always will be; but it doesn’t need to be inevitable. Many serious fires occur every year without a single injury being sustained, we have excellent safety regulations in the UK supported by an exceptional and professional fire service. So why is it that public venues are still so naïve to fire safety regulations and so complacent to the risks of fire?

The general public take for granted and trust owners and managers of public venues with their safety and do so blindly; therefore owners and managers have to accept the responsibility and take it extremely seriously. Fire safety in its basic form is not a complicated subject and very simple measures can be extremely effective. It astonishes me that in this enlightened age I can still find venues, offices, public buildings and any host of places where fire safety measures which should comply with The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 either are completely ignorant as to their responsibilities or criminally negligent

All public premises and places of work need to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment on their premises and reassess the risk on a regular basis. This is a very effective measure, not only to set up systems and equipment to reduce the risk from fire but it educates those responsible for fire safety and others within the organisation of the best practice.

Risk Assessments are often seen as a bureaucratic necessity, at Beyond The Blue, we make them a practical resource. A resource that makes the process easy to complete and easy to pass on to all those using your facilities. Many people will contract out their risk assessment, and file the resulting document, a process that is a waste of time and money. We work with organisations to provide a working document that explains the reasons we for our recommendations and the way that the organisation and individuals within it, can resolve any failings and implement change organisation wide.

Our fire safety courses compliment this process, not only providing candidates with effective fire safety advice, but also covering venue specific emergency evacuation training.
Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

Punish all drinkers for crimes of drunks, say health chiefs

To view the original article Click Here

Title – Punish all drinkers for crimes of drunks, say health chiefs
Source – The Metro
Date – 17th April 2008

That alcohol is harmful is hardly in doubt, but only in the hands of people that abuse it; the question is do we give up our fundamental democratic freedoms because a minority (all be it a very evident and disruptive minority) abuse it and consume to excess? At its core democracy is about the will of the majority prevailing. Ok we can accept that this is an argument that has flaws, but compared with the argument that passive drinking is the same as passive smoking the flaws are in perspective.

I think it does the campaign to curb excessive drinking and the negative effects of alcohol no favours to compare it to passive smoking and in turn it does no favours to the smoking ban for this comparison to be made either. With the exception on the financial cost of the smoking ban on the licensed retail sector there were few coherent or reasonable arguments against the ban. The formula was a relatively simple one. It is generally accepted that smoking is bad for your health. It is the smoke itself that is bad for you, therefore if you inhale someone else’s smoke it is also detrimental to your health. Therefore the activity of smoking was bad for the individual smoking and as a consequence those working in environments where people smoked. The same can not be said for alcohol.

One of the consequences of drinking excessive alcohol is the damage to the liver, but there is no such health risk to other people sharing the room who choose not to drink. This is a very simplistic argument and out thinking a study published in the most respected ‘New Scientist’ would take a lot of money time and data, neither of which I have access to at this time. My concern is that introduction of arguments and policies like the one (suggested by the well respected WHO) is dangerous for our basic freedoms. Punishing everyone for the sins of the minority is a fundamentally floored concept.

That alcohol is a factor in domestic violence, unprotected sexual activity and a danger to unborn children is a tragedy of that there is no question. Is my consumption of alcohol in a social and responsible manner a factor in that in any way? The answer is a resounding no. Should I be punished because of irresponsible people, aggressive people and those who simply choose to be ignorant? Again a resounding NO!

For another crass and simple argument we could look at other products that cause harm. Speeding in cars causes thousands of deaths every year, on top of that it causes tens of thousands of injuries some very serious. Should we all be punished for persistent offenders who are ultimately much more likely to cause accidents injuring or killing innocent people driving according to the rules? I think you will find it difficult to find anyone who blames BMW for building a car that can drive at 100mph in a 30mph zone, rather than the driver driving. Should that person face the full sanction of the law to protect the innocent? Absolutely; just as the person committing the appalling act of domestic violence should face the full sanction of the law, if alcohol is involved or not and maybe that law in itself should be strengthened and the sanctions increased. We are ultimately all accountable for our own actions and the consequence of those actions. If I decided to buy a BMW, should I be taxed to the hilt to compensate for the idiots that speed through built up areas or who tailgate at 100mph on the motorway?

Most people accept that there has to be some sensible restriction on the sale of alcohol for the general good of our society and most people are reasonably happy with the status quo, if the change in licensing hours proved anything it is that there is actually not the demand for 24 hour drinking or even much very late night drinking, but rather that most of us would like the opportunity and choice even if we rarely take it up. Alcohol retailers need to take their responsibility more seriously and they need a level playing field to do so, something that is currently not the case between big retailers in the off-trade and the on-trade.

We believe that the answer is education not taxation and we believe that there needs to be a sensible balance between the two. A joined up process that balances out the problems of excess alcohol consumption with the sensible consumption of the vast majority. We also believe that within a democratic society we all agree on the rules and we punish those that break them and not the innocent.

Beyond The Blue offers training to the licensed retail sector in courses ranging from the National Certificate for Personal License Holders (NCPLH) to the Award in Responsible Alcohol Retailing (ARAR) we accept and champion the responsibilities of alcohol retailers and we believe strongly that training and education as well as sensible control measures and individual responsibility of retailers and consumers is the solution to alcohol related problems.



Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

Doctors attack ‘supersize’ drinks

To view the original article Click Here

Title – Doctors attack ‘supersize’ drinks
Source – www.bbc.co.uk
Date – 12th April 2008

Pubs, bars and clubs are part of the service industry, they provide a service that customers want and they compete on the basis of the service they offer. In this way they are the same as many industries and those that don’t provide exactly what the customer wants, will fall by the wayside.

But it is an industry that has to accept that due to the nature of the product they sell, they also have a social responsibility. So are these two aspects incompatible?

20 years ago most pubs you went into had a bottle of red on the back bar and a bottle of white wine in the back of a fridge. Often this wine was dubious in quality and landlords up and down the country were wary of opening a bottle as selling the rest of it before it went off, was sometimes a challenge. But things change; sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse and just sometimes, a little of both. The way to deal with change is to embrace the positive and resolve the negative; we should learn from history, but not repeat the mistakes of history. The great thing about hindsight is we can pick and choose the bits that work and discard or change those that don’t.

So what have we learned in this case? Wine when it is of a good quality is a very popular drink and the vast majority of people enjoy it sensibly. We have learned that quality in wine is a key factor and we have learned that consumed sensibly it can be a very sociable drink; in fact one of the great qualities of wine is that a bottle can be shared between friends and family. From some reports you would think that people go to the bar and order a bottle each, that is simply not the case.

The fact that we started to enjoy wine in the UK stemmed from better quality imports, venues that were more female friendly and the sociable aspect of the drink. We learned from our European neighbours about quality and we learned from the emerging markets of Australia, South Africa and other ‘New World Wine’ countries that good wine no longer needed to be an elitist product and was available and affordable to all. With this came the introduction of the larger wine glass and most people would now find it odd to drink out of a tiny glass filled to the brim, does that make them all binge drinkers?

The simple answer is no, glass size is inevitably going to lead to people drinking slightly more, but it doesn’t make them binge drinkers. My wine glasses at home are almost big enough to contain a whole bottle of wine, yet even at home I probably never fill them with more than 150ml at any time, because that is simply the way most responsible people, who have even the slightest appreciation for wine, will drink it.

That there should be choice is not of the question, we live in a society based on freedoms and the freedom to choose is one of those fundamentals. There is an argument that selling only 250ml glasses of wine as ‘standard’ does not provide this choice and encourages excessive drinking, but by the same argument customers should be allowed to choose a 250ml glass if they want it and they should be allowed to by the bottle. There is a case for responsible retailers offering a variety of standard sizes. One of the problems of course is when (as most people do) you buy a bottle, does that mean when you share it out amongst your group you have to measure it out in units? We have to be sensible and actually address the problem; it really is not all in the size of the glass, but in the education of the people drinking.

The system of ‘units’ of alcohol used to be roughly convenient; 1 glass (125ml) of wine = 1 Unit. 1 Half Pint of Beer =1 Unit. 1 Shot (25ml) spirits = 1 Unit. But how many of these really apply any more with ‘beer’ varying from 3%abv. To 8% abv.; spirits ranging from 20% abv. to 45% abv.; it is hardly full proof. The best way to address these problems is to increase awareness, educate customers and staff alike and make people aware of safe and sensible drinking limits, not to punish the sensible majority for the offences of the minority. We all have a duty to address the problems in our society caused by alcohol, but we favour progress over prohibition.

We offer the portfolio of BIIAB courses to help retailers train their staff to a suitable standard to maximise the potential of their business at the same time as acting both within the law and promoting responsible alcohol retailing. This includes the Award in Responsible Alcohol Retailing (ARAR) and the National Certificate for Personal Licence Holders (NCPLH).

Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

Drug Use - Cannabis

Title – Drug Use - Cannabis
Source – The Times
Date – 4th April 2008

Cannabis is in all the headlines again, with re-classification a hot political issue. There seems to be a disparity in messages politicians are sending out, depending on which particular voters they are trying to attract.

At times we seem to go through a period of confessionals, politicians from all sides come out and say how the ‘dabbled’, stories of how they ‘were present while others in a room smoked’ or matters as seemingly trivial of whether or not they ‘inhaled’. What is the message they are trying to send out? Are they trying to purge themselves before the press get hold of a story and a scandal follows, or are they trying (in that odd way some politicians do) to ‘identify with the young voters’. Whatever it may be, the message young people get, is that it is alright to try.

Then there is the hard line approach, the approach (often form the very same people) that condones any drug use and demands reclassification whatever the ‘expert panel’ suggests is the right approach. ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) recommend that the reclassification from a Class C drug to a Class B drug should be a priority, thus allowing the courts to impose longer sentences on those caught dealing or producing Cannabis.

The problem with this whole situation is that mixed messages are being sent out and the problem with mixed messages is that people hear only what they want to hear. Cannabis users hear the message loud and clear that a drug that was recently downgraded to a Class C, which politicians have ‘dabbled’ in and which carries a ‘slap on the wrist’ for those caught in possession, really can’t be that dangerous. These are the same people that can always be heard saying ‘Cannabis use is much less harmful then alcohol’. Those that want reclassification of Cannabis to a Class B drug see all users as addicted to ‘super skunk’, people who wake up first thing in the morning have a smoke and waste the rest of the day, these people who are shown scientifically to be more prone to psychotic episodes and other mental health problems.

The reality is probably something half way between the two, but when it comes to drugs there is really no half way house and that fundamentally is the problem with Cannabis. Cannabis comes in many different forms and the concern of groups like ACPO is that more and more the variants the police are coming across is at the stronger end of the scale, the ‘skunk’ or ‘super skunk’ as it is commonly referred to. In this stronger variety lie their concerns, because these stronger variants have effects that have more in common with those of other Class B drugs and even some Class A drugs. If more evidence is needed, the one variant of Cannabis that is identified separately, Cannabis Oil, is already a Class A drug.

You would be hard pushed to find a coherent argument against the fact that the stronger variants of Cannabis make the jump from them to other Class B or Class A drugs easier for users to justify to themselves and therefore makes users more susceptible to trying and becoming addicted to these ‘stronger’ drugs. In that lies one of the other very strong arguments for reclassifying Cannabis as a Class B drug. But where all these arguments and this political ping-pong falls down is that they cloud what should be the clear message. Cannabis is illegal. Be it Class C, Class B or even Class A it is illegal and it is illegal for a reason and that is, that it is harmful.

For people working in the security industry, the licensed retail sector and in workplaces where aggression and violence are a real concern, although they should be aware of drug classifications, the overwhelming message is that Cannabis is illegal. Being aware of its effects and the potential consequences of its use, as well as the signs and symptoms of use and dealing is the important factor.

Our courses provide up to date information and guidance on illegal drugs. These courses include the National Certificate for Licensees – Drug Awareness (NCLDA) for those working in the licensed retail sector. The National Certificate for Door Supervisors (NCDS) and In-House Security Induction Courses (IHSI) for those working in the Security Industry, as well as bespoke Drugs Awareness courses for specific clients from various different sectors.

Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk