Health and Safety - An Excuse for Bad Service?

Surely not. But that seems to be the main thrust of a recent report on the many complaints about 'Health and Safety' decisions, or perhaps excuses, offered as reasons for not providing something or refusing to allow something. I must say that some of the things mentioned I have heard or encountered along the way myself, so it is refreshing to have the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission condemn it. Some of the things cited are just plain nonsense whichever way you look at them. Like the restaurant that removed toothpicks from their tables because they were a 'safety' risk according to whoever did the assessment.

As the report identifies, some of the decisions have been driven by a fear of being sued, others have arisen as a cover for not providing a decent service and even as a means of avoiding doing something 'extra.' Into that category falls the hotel that told guests they could have a baby crib in the room, but that the Chamber Maid was not allowed to 'make it up' for them as it was a 'Health and Safety' hazard for her. I confess I did a double take when I read that. What exactly was the risk supposed to be? Health? Baby's are notoriously toxic according to the movie Monsters Inc., but I shouldn't have thought they were THAT toxic. Or perhaps it was the fact she might get a finger caught in the drop side locks? If so, was it safe to supply it to the guests for use by their baby? Frankly, as the report identified, it had nothing to do with either, it was all about covering the provision of poor and substandard services.

In my own experience, health and safety 'concerns' have been used to stop training, to stop certain activities and to cover a failure to take action in some instances. I would not dispute the fact that there were many activities in my chosen profession which were not safe, and certainly fall into a high risk category, but I would also argue that I was trained to deal with that, and I had taken on the career knowing I might be required to deal with them. Those who now look at certain fire service activities and wave the Health and Safety flags proclaiming whatever to be 'too dangerous' and demanding it be stopped do themselves and the service no credit at all. There certainly are 'safer' ways to achieve many outcomes, but standing back and saying 'too dangerous; too difficult; too risky" isn't an option. As they say; if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and stay out.

One of the biggest problems now is the insistence on "written" risk assessments. Once something is written down, it has a tendency top become a stone tablet, never to be revised or revisited. What many forget is that even small changes to the daily routine, or an operation, even a change of equipment can completely change the risk or the hazard that gives rise to it. Rearranging the furniture in a room can reduce the risk, but I have come across situations where the focus has been on things that were completely inconsequential and major hazards have gone unnoticed. The reason for this is that many people simply do not have the knowledge to correctly identify the real problems they should address, so to look as if they are doing 'something' they focus on small things they think will show their dedication. Like the teachers banning games of 'conkers' and insisting on children wearing goggles or helmets when they do allow it.

The second, and possibly largest part of the problem is the lawyers now actively chasing business. "Have you had an accident? Let us sue the ..." ads are all to common. Thankfully my spam filter catches most of them. Sadly, until someone addresses that, all appeals to reason are likely to fail, and 'elf an' saf'ey will continue to get the blame.

Playing a very dangerous game ...

The new North Korean "Beloved Leader" seems to be trying to push the South or the Americans into giving an excuse to attack. Perhaps he hopes the Chinese or the Russians - who helped set up this Stalinist Gulag of a country in 1951 - 1953 - will once again be drawn into 'defending Socialism' if the US does decide to retaliate if, or when, one of his more trigger happy generals fires on a US or South Korean aircraft.

Do they have an atomic bomb? No one is certain, but it seems likely they possess at least one. Will they use it? There is a strong possibility that they are just stupid enough to do so.

Kim seems to be betting on being able to rattle his missiles, and make sweeping threats without having to face the consequences. It appears that he thinks the US will avoid upsetting China and will simply meekly let him invade South Korea if he wishes. But we can't be certain of what he is really thinking, or if there is some other player at work here. There is no doubt that he has the manpower under arms to inflict heavy casualties if he does invade, but I should think he'll take very heavy casualties as well as I'm pretty sure the retaliation will be swift and it will be deadly. He won't get away with the sort of overwhelming surprise they managed in 1951 and I doubt the Russians will wish to have any direct involvement. As for the Chinese, they are, as ever, playing their own game, but I doubt they want to see a war on their border either.

Technically, of course, having publicly announced that he has 'torn up' the 1953 Cease-fire, North Korea is at war with the South and the allies. I suppose he is now at war with the UN as well, since the UN was the original organiser of the defence of the South. That this is over the North's ambition to have nuclear arms and to be a 'World Power' - with apparently the ambition of wreaking 'revenge' on the Japanese among others - is apparently worrying the Chinese among others. It does play into the hands of the Ahmadinejad's of this world though, who wish to humiliate the US.

How will this eventually play out? I think the best we can hope for is that the Chinese pull the rug out from under the North Koreans before they have a chance to do something we will all regret. Hopefully, the Chinese will do it soon, and do it efficiently.

He is Risen ...

Our day started this morning at 04.00 as we had to be at our church in Wiesbaden at 05.30 to prepare the Paschal Fire. The service commenced at 06.00 with the blessing and lighting, from the fire, of the Paschal Candle which will now burn through the coming year at our services. The Eucharist that followed celebrates the empty tomb and the hope it brings to all of us that death is but a gate, a transition to our own resurrection in due time.

As always the Eucharist ends with the great Easter Proclamation. "Christ is Risen!" and answered with the congregational response, "He is Risen indeed."

In our community we enjoy a shared breakfast at tables set along the central aisle, and enjoy the fellowship of a shared meal, each member contributing something. It is a great way to celebrate the central part of our faith.

Happy Easter to all my readers.

The Church and Relevance ...

I found a very good article on Bishop Nicholas Baines' blog on Good Friday. His comments on the manner in which the UK media choose to attack the Church at Easter are, in my view, very 'relevant.' I therefore commend to my readers the Bishop's post.

In our present times, 'relevance' seems to mean whatever the latest pressure group, or the latest fashion in political correctness may be. There is seldom any consideration of the deeper issues involved or of the consequences. The media claim to be 'following' 'public opion' in much of thise, yet, at the same time, also claim to 'form' it.

The question therefore is not 'is the Church relevant,' but who is making that determination of 'relevance?' I would suggest that it is not the 'public' but a rather smaller group whose opinions are written and promoted in the 'media' and which the 'public' take as being 'fact.'

For me the question when any change is suggested to my understanding of doctrine, scripture or practice is this. What would Christ say? That is all that is 'relevant.' I may not like the answer either ...

Karfreitag ...

That's Good Friday to the English speaking world. We've just come home from our Good Friday Devotion at the Friedenskirch in Wiesbaden, and, as ever, it is moving and thought provoking. Last night's Maundy Thursday Eucharist was celebrated with the congregation seated round a table with the Host being passed from one to another with the words "Christi; Brot des lebens" and the wine was passed in jugs so that each person poured a small cupful for themselves. Again, the passing of the wine is accompanied by the words, "Christi; Kelch des Heiles."

Today's service, in complete contrast, took us through an abridged 'Stations of the Cross' with hymns and prayers between each. At the conclusion of the Stations each member of the congregation laid a small stone at the foot of the crucifix and spent a few moments in prayer and reflection at the foot of the Cross. Once again, the service is very moving and very reflective.

Harry accompanies us to church, unusual in Germany, but quite common in the UK and certainly in the Abbey. It has fascinated the congregation that he makes himself comfortable at our feet and watches the people arive, then settles to sleep as soon as the service starts. He seems to enjoy the organ and the singing and as long as he is with us and can see us, he's happy. The children in the congregation think it's great and make a fuss of him as soon as the service ends.

Somehow his presence adds, for me at least, a little touch of the real world and all God's creatures being present in worship. I find that comforting and humbling.

Maundy Thursday ...

As I sit to write this post, my former colleagues in ministry will be assembling in Gloucester Cathedral for the annual rededication of clergy and the Blessing and Consecration of the Chrism and Holy Oils. It used to be something I looked forward to every year, but it was also a bittersweet event for me. Traditionally the day marks the start of Easter, with the commemoration of the Last Supper of Christ, his retiring to the Garden of Gethsemane and betrayal by Judas Iscariot.

In the Anglican tradition the Eucharist is held in the evening and is, in fact, the starting point of a three day liturgy. At the end of the evening's service, the Ciborium is carried to a chapel, decorated as a garden, and left there for the Vigil which will last through the night until the start of the Good Friday Solemn Liturgy. Once the consecrated elements have been removed to the chapel, the High Altar (and any other chapels) are stripped of all decoration and the clergy, servers and other ministers leave quietly and without fuss, leaving the sanctuary bare of all adornment. It is an incredibly moving moment and one I have been a part of for many years, in different Parishes and in many roles.

I no longer have a 'ministery' role, my current spiritual home is a much smaller congregation, and a different liturgical tradition, and there is no role for 'Readers.' That is the Ministry I exercised sometimes with encouragement, and sometimes under tolerance, for a little over 30 years in the Anglican Church in South Africa and then in England. It is a somewhat strange ministry, since the role you are permitted depends very much on the Incumbent of the Parish.

Reflecting on that I realised why the Maundy Thursday Rededication was so 'bittersweet' for me. As a Reader one is always a second class minister. In English Law you are regarded as 'clergy' and even under some of the Canon Law of the Church of England you may be treated as 'clergy,' but in ministry you are most definitely not. While one Parish Incumbent may welcome a Reader and treat them as a de facto Deacon, another will not and may even insist on allowing the Reader only to preach, and then only if the sermon and the subject have been vetted and approved. The Maundy Thursday service tended to reinforce that for me, especially in the latter years of my service to a small village church and then the Abbey, as I had to stand by and watch as other Readers were eased into ordination. Yet, whenever I raised the possibility of exploring it, there always seemed to be a stumbling block. At first it was my wife's desire not to be a 'vicar's wife' and then it was the fact I was divorced.

It was often painful to watch others being joyfully ordained, or welcomed at the Maundy Service, while I remained in a limited ministry excluded by the difference between a 'licence' to minister, and being 'ordained' to do almost the same things. I expect, to some reading this, it will sound like 'sour grapes' and to an extent I suppose it is. It has certainly been spiritually very painful, since, from the very first, I have felt 'called' and three Bishops in South Africa certainly felt it was a genuine call. Sadly family problems prevented me following that path before my marriage, and later, it would not have been acceptable to my wife. The eventual divorce placed an automatic 'bar' on it - until the Canon Law was changed as a result of the ordination of women for whom the 'bar' did not apply.

At every parish I served, I was lucky enough to be treated, by the incumbent, as their liturgical Deacon and it was a huge privilege to serve in that role. I was encouraged to widen the ministry as far I could, given that I had a fulltime job and family. When I moved to Tewkesbury, however, it was different. At first I was allowed to preach, and not much more. I joined the Server Team as a result and tried to build a ministry through that office, but then came a 'Vacancy in Cure'. Suddenly the Readers were much in demand. Suddenly I was being 'trusted' with Reservation of the Sacrament as the Sub Deacon of the Mass and the role widened as I was called upon to 'Deacon' the Parish Eucharist and even allowed to lead Evensong, all functions previously 'reserved' for ordained clergy only.

With the appointment of the new incumbent, the role of the Readers remained as it had become in the Vacancy, but here there was a new twist. Some members of the congregation campaigned tirelessly to have Readers excluded from Administration of the Sacraments, some even refused to receive the elements from a "Layman" as they termed us. The new incumbent certainly resisted that, but it blighted any widening of our liturgical ministry. We were 'good enough' to be 'deacon' for the Parish Eucharist, but not for the Sung Eucharist. With one of our number now being ordained, another exploring it and one, in training, converted directly to 'ordained' status, I found myself once again being sidelined. Yes, I was exercising a 'new' ministry as Church Warden, but it was not, and is not, a role I either wanted or enjoyed. It did give me the opportunity to once again raise the issue of going forward for ordination myself (another Reader had already been approved for it) and so began a long drawn out process toward getting to attend a Selection Conference.

They say the mills of God grind slowly, I think the Church of England can probably do it even slower. In the time it took for the various 'background checks,' references and numerous discussions, meetings and reviews, I had retired, set up my own business and eventually 'retired' as Church Warden. A spell abroad (a man has to pay the bills even if he's retired), took me off the Ministry Roster long enough to become someone who 'may be called upon in emergency only' and essentially I found myself more or less a 'ghost at the feast.' All the focus was now on training several former Readers to be priests - and I certainly wasn't among the 'select.' Yes, I do say this with some bitterness, for most of my ministry I have taken out communion to the sick and to the remote where no priest could be sent. I have filled the gaps when there were no clergy available and I have ministered to the troubled, to children in need, to mourners and the dying. But, for the last year of my Reader Ministry, I actually felt as if I was being a nuisance just being there. I was clearly no longer part of the team, and apparently causing a problem somewhere in the system by trying to explore ordination selection.

Yes, at the eleventh hour, I got an interview with the Bishop, and approval to go forward to a Selection Conference, but I couldn't escape the feeling that it was a reluctant approval at best. In the end, I withdrew my application as I had, after a great deal of prayer, decided that I could not give up the opportunity to marry the woman for whom I feel nothing but love. So I will not, in this life, fulfill the Call to ordination.

It saddens me that I will never have the opportunity to serve my God as a priest. It saddens me even more that I can feel that the ministry I did offer and give for almost 30 years, 11 at the Abbey, should have just quietly 'run into the sands' as it did. So, while I wish it could be different, I have to accept yet another 'changing season' and move on. I hope though, that any friends at the Abbey who read this (or from any other parish in which I have had the privilege of ministry) will remain in touch and remain friends. They more than anything else, made it all worth doing, and I will be thinking of them as I celebrate "Gruendonnerstag, Karfreitag and Ostern among my new friends here in Germany.

A Question of Resources and Moral Values ...

I note with considerable interest the decision by the "BRICS" countries to establish their own "Development Bank" as an alternative source of financial support to the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank - both controlled by "western" economic blocs. BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and they class themselves as 'Emerging Economies' rather than 'established' ones or even 'developed' ones.

Listening to the 'spokesperson' at the Durban conference where the Presidents, Prime Ministers and presumably the financial advisers are meeting, one statement leapt out. She stated, in all seriousness, that the 'leaders' of the five nations, were looking to establish a bank which focused on the economic matters and did not attach endless social and moral conditions to the loan. She then went on to say there was no reason this 'bank' could not, in the fullness of time, replace the World Bank. She didn't say, or I didn't hear, the obvious addition which would be "and take control of economic development away from the US and Europe."

Sadly there is a large element of truth in the statement that any loan from the World Bank or the IMF comes with lots of 'moral' strings attached. We in the West have become used to the idea that anything and everything we desire for ourselves is absolutely and unquestionably right for everyone and everywhere else. There is an arrogant assumption that we are morally superior in the way we do things and have a right to demand that everyone else obeys those standards. All too often we fail to meet our own standards, so the Chinese, Russians, Indians and Brazilians have a point there. Our form of society is not theirs, and theirs is not ours - but that doesn't make either 'right' or 'wrong.'

From the current reports each of the five nations has to put up a large amount of money to get the 'bank' started. While I have little doubt the first four can find the cash, South Africa, with massive unemployment, a weak currency and massive corruption in the government is going, I think, to struggle. That said, I suspect the real reason behind this move is to free the money supply from the current US/Europe dominated World Bank and the IMF. I have no doubt at all that China and Russia have long planned this, and India and Brazil are well placed to support it and reap the benefits.

Sadly, the penchant among current US and European political classes for 'preaching' to the developing world - the vast majority of whom share nothing of our values or ideologies - and insisting on a wide range of meddling mechanisms was bound, sooner or later, to lead to this position. I think there are some interesting times ahead - and there will be some painful lessons for the West in it as well.