Sea Donkey urges saving of Guernsey bathing pools diving board
'Prohibitive' measures
It said the maximum depth of the water below the diving platform was 2.75m (9ft) which did not meet the 3.2m (10.5ft) minimum depth required by the World Aquatics and British Standards.The States of Guernsey said it considered increasing the depth of the pool, but the estimated £1m cost to do so was "prohibitive".It added: "Even if work was carried out to increase the depth of the pool, regulations from World Aquatics, the UK Health and Safety Executive and Swim England also state that users of any diving platform should be supervised at all times and that the diving area should be segregated from other swimmers. "Other options were considered including reducing its height, however, again this would still require continual supervision by lifeguards and segregation of the diving area, which was also considered to be prohibitive due to the cost of hiring the necessary staff."
'Lack of transparency'
Mr Sarchet said he understood the board would be removed on Tuesday 11 February.He said "there was a lack of transparency" around the decision after only being made aware of the plans on Thursday."I hope we can encourage HSE or at least the politicians they answer to, to postpone the planned removal of the diving board on Tuesday 11 February and to engage with the public on the perceived risks and potential solutions that do not involve the destruction of our shared heritage," Mr Sarchet said.HSE chief officer Robin Gonard said: "In light of the assessment we carried out, our decision was that immediate action needs to be taken to ensure compliance with modern safety standards to protect members of our community by avoiding the risk of serious injury or worse."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
12-08-2025
- Spectator
The case for not lowering the drink-driving limit
Labour is reported to be considering lowering the drink driving limit from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath to just 22 micrograms. This would bring England and Wales in line with Scotland. Does justice for potential victims of car crashes demand this? Although drawing the line on permissible risk is an incredibly difficult moral problem; empirical evidence shows lowering the drink-driving limit will make no difference, and motorists should probably not be required to give up yet more of their liberty either. In England and Wales today an average man is legally permitted to have around two pints of low-strength beer before driving, which will be cut down to just under one pint if Labour's proposal is made law. The government believes the proposed policy would increase road safety and help avert the 300 deaths caused by drunk driving annually, or about 17 per cent of all road traffic fatalities. The obvious reply is to say that lowering the speed limit to zero would eliminate all road traffic accidents, so, why not do that? It's the classic example used to show runaway train arguments have problems. In response, we are told the main reason speed limits cannot be zero is that the cost of this would outweigh the benefits. Now remember that a human life is not of infinite value, indeed the Health and Safety Executive puts it at £2.1 million. Using this figure, Labour's proposed policy doesn't stand up to a cost-benefit analysis. The three academic studies into whether Scotland's lower alcohol limit compared to England's helped found there to be 'no impact on either traffic accident or fatality rates'. One set of authors even found there to be no difference in accidents on those nights you'd most expect to see a change such as Fridays and Saturdays, and, even no difference among young males too. Lowering the drink driving limit is all costs and no benefits. Even if the number of fatalities did go up though, the cost of death would have to be weighed against the foregone surpluses of drinking more beer. Could additional pints win out? I must confess I wince at writing that because I am not a utilitarian. If putting on a motor race by a right of way had a 60 per cent chance of fatally knocking over a person, I'd take that to be a sufficient reason not to have the motor race, even if all of the benefits of it outweighed the cost of the person's death. As Robert Nozick once wrote in Anarchy, State and Utopia: 'No moral balancing act can take place among us; there is no moral outweighing of one of our lives by others'. Yet it could be argued that it is acceptable to expose people to risk provided said people also benefit enough. Getting absolutely smashed and driving then would not be allowed, as there would be a high chance of a car crash and a small benefit to driving while being that drunk. Many drinkers might accept a three-pint limit, if the benefits of being able to drive were balanced by the small chance of being hit by a young man three pints down. What about teetotal city dwelling pedestrians though, who get no benefit from any drink driving? Should the drink-driving limit be zero to accommodate them? Against this we could argue that teetotal city dwelling pedestrians are happy to purchase goods delivered by trucks, which also cause traffic accidents. If drivers who drink a relatively small amount are just as risky as normal truck drivers, then teetotal pedestrians should accept this risk. Drawing the exact line on the question of permissible risk imposition concerning drinking and driving is very difficult. Nevertheless, if you believe Scotland's drink driving law is fine, then you should also think England and Wales's current law is fine too – because the evidence overwhelmingly shows its fatality rate is the same as in Scotland. In sum, motorists should remain free to enjoy their two pints and a drive home from the country pub.
Times
09-08-2025
- Times
Times letters: Implementing the Supreme Court ruling
Write to letters@ Sir, We agree that it is 'time for ministers to impose their authority' (leading article, Aug 7) and that the public sector cannot be allowed to treat the law, clearly stated by the Supreme Court on April 16, as optional. No one can. The government has allowed a leadership vacuum to develop on complying with the law. It falls to the government to fill it. We disagree on one point, however. Far from being derelict in its duty, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is one of the few organisations that has come close to fulfilling its legal duty. The Health and Safety Executive, in particular, which has a remit to explain and enforce workplace regulations that mandate single-sex toilets and changing rooms, has by comparison been missing in action. There is no need for anyone, least of all the government, to wait to be told what to do by the EHRC. Every day women are subjected to harassment and discrimination because of this failure. The delay is Forstater chief executiveHelen Joyce directorFiona McAnena directorSex Matters Sir, Although I endorse your leading article, its opening sentence saying that the Supreme Court's ruling that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex 'ought to have been the final word' ignores two statutory provisions unaffected by the judgment. First is section 7 of the Equality Act itself, which makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic so that discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment is unlawful. Second, by section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a person with a gender recognition certificate has the acquired gender 'for all purposes' unless some other statutory provision provides to the contrary. It may be possible to reconcile these provisions, but in an ideal world we would have new legislation starting from first principles that did provide clarity and finality. In our far from ideal world, that is not going to happen and tensions and difficulties will therefore Graham Zellick KCWothorpe, Cambs Sir, I agree that the Supreme Court definition of sex, namely as meaning biological sex, ought to have been the final word in a particularly ugly chapter of public discourse. To achieve this result in practice, the nettle should be grasped by acknowledging that the Gender Recognition Act was a mistake, and repealing IwiLondon NW11 Sir, Your leading article says that the Equality and Human Rights Commission 'should state that trans women must not be allowed in single-sex spaces' and that trans people cannot take part in women's sport. If the EHRC were to publish such guidance, it would be wrong. Trans women are welcome in single-sex spaces, just not in those for women. Trans women can play sport, just not in the women's category. Activists claim that trans people are banned from various organisations and activities, that they have been taken out of the Equality Act and that their existence is under threat. Misinformation like this feeds that narrative, to the detriment of us all, and particularly to women who are arguing for safety and fairness across the DoyleLondon SW16 Sir, Chris Ponting says that medical misogyny has held back research in myalgic encephalomyelitis (News, Aug 8), but appropriate scepticism of scantily evidenced claims may also have contributed. Histopathology pre-dates genetic testing in medical research and remains a diagnostic linchpin. No study has shown microscopic evidence of diseased muscles (myalgic) or the central nervous system (encephalomyelitis). The finding of clusters of genes associated with ME does not prove they are part of a disease pathway, or what that pathway is. Professor Ponting is to be congratulated and encouraged but he has plenty more research to do to demonstrate the disease MillarWallingford, Oxon Sir, As someone who has been severely disabled by ME for more than 30 years, I was delighted to read about the results of DecodeME. However, Chris Ponting is right to express anger that this type of genetic analysis was not done 15 years ago. As you reported (News, Jul 22), after a three-year delay, the Department of Health and Social Care has published its dismal delivery plan for ME, but it included no commitment to funding and no pathway to providing adequate services. For decades, governments have told us they are committed to helping people with ME, but all the evidence suggests the has given me and millions of others hope. The time has long since passed for the government, funding bodies, medical institutions and individuals to acknowledge their mistakes, apologise to patients, and act to ensure that quality scientific research is sharply increased and patients are given access to appropriate physician-led SaundersBalcombe, W Sussex Sir, In response to Juliet Samuel ('Ignoring prison crisis won't make it go away', Aug 7), we will not be able to simply build our way out of the prisons crisis. Put simply, we should help people to come out of prison in a better position than they were in before they entered it. Working with people in prison to increase their chances of getting employment has been shown to reduce reoffending. Supporting people on the day of and after release also reduces risk factors. We train people in prison to become qualified advice workers, which has been shown to increase their chances of employment by 50 per cent. Our post-release projects help prison leavers access housing and support services, and ensure they comply with their licences. A stable income and somewhere to live are two of the most important factors in reducing reoffending. Prisons hold some of the most disadvantaged and excluded people in society. Most do not wish to return but are driven back into crime by circumstances and lack of support. Breaking this cycle will go a long way in easing pressures on the prison McNichollDevelopment manager, St Giles Trust Sir, I hope Sir Keir Starmer took heed of your article 'Nimby jibes alienating rural voters' (Aug 7). Labour has taken to using this term to describe 'the blockers'. As someone who is very much pro-development and backs much of the government's 'build build build' agenda, my experience of rural voters is that most would be more accurately described as Mimbys — maybe in my backyard. Developers and their industry must make better cases for their developments. If Labour wants to avoid eroding the goodwill they won in the last general election, they would do well to recognise that most people, the silent majority, are swing voters when it comes to development. It could start by adopting the new term offered here, Mimby instead of StollarRadlett, Herts Sir, Your article 'Work skills make degree of change' (Business, Aug 8) makes an excellent point about the importance of every young person building a 'skills CV'. One skill that employers are crying out for is oracy — the ability to speak, listen and communicate. Oracy education at school underpins children's academic performance, emotional wellbeing and relationships with others while supporting the development of critical thinking, teamwork, leadership and problem-solving. It helps young people succeed in the workplace, navigate digital life and engage constructively in an increasingly polarised world. The Curriculum and Assessment Review, chaired by Professor Becky Francis, offers a timely opportunity to make oracy more central in the national curriculum. This would go a long way to creating a new generation ready for the future and able to thrive in school, work and Kate ParadineChief executive, Voice21 Sir, Further to your leading article ('Second Sun', Aug 6), the US had been fighting in the war for three and a half years and more than a million of its people had been killed and wounded. An invasion of Japan, it was estimated, would cost the US at least as many casualties again, as well as killing and wounding millions of Japanese people. Harsh as it was, President Truman's decision was the right one. Nuclear weapons are not monstrosities; they arose from the advancement of science. Their use to end the Second World War can be justified by the millions of lives saved. As to the future, now that the genie is out of the bottle, one can only hope than sane minds can hold the W StanleyLeatherhead, Surrey Sir, The exciting developments in mRNA vaccine technology that show promise for treatment of cancers (News, Aug 8) confirm the stupidity of the US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr in cancelling $500 million research and development funding for mRNA vaccines (News, Aug 7), based on ignorance and prejudice about the Covid vaccine. Opportunity beckons for pharmaceutical companies in LethbridgeSherborne, Dorset Sir, I can attest to the truth of Richard Tomiak's letter (Aug 8). I have complained to HM Revenue & Customs that emails telling accountants they have a communication but not indicating the client involved make it necessary to log in many times with different logins, which is time-consuming. I suggested they give the last three digits of the taxpayer's ten-digit number and was told that this would endanger security. I replied that the chance of guessing a ten-digit number from three of its digits was one in ten million. I have not yet had a H White FCA London N6 Sir, Your discussion of ragwort (Matthew Parris, Notebook, Aug 6 and letter, Aug 7) brought back memories of being paid, as a very young child, half a penny in old money for pulling ragwort. 'Pulling' was the key word — any ragwort submitted without a root was disregarded for FitterSt Columb Major, Cornwall Sir, Also lost with the demise of JR Phillips of Bristol (letter, Aug 8) was the alcoholic cordial Shrub, popular in the West Country with rum. It was reputed to have been enjoyed by smugglers to mask the taste of HudsonChepstow Sir, Like my father before me, I made up silly rhymes and stories involving impossibly named characters when our children were younger. These names now serve as answers that can prove 'family authenticity' over the phone. Discussing the recent trend of scams (Magazine, Aug 7, and letter, Aug 8), our children passed with flying colours when I quizzed them recently at the dinner table. To our children's dismay, and despite being in the same room, my wife failed to prove who she WolfinLondon NW7
The Guardian
10-07-2025
- The Guardian
Lead ammunition to be banned for hunting and shooting in England, Scotland and Wales
Shotgun pellets and bullets that contain lead are to be banned for almost all uses, ministers have said, in a long-awaited announcement welcomed by wildlife groups. The restrictions will be phased in over three years from 2026, rather than the five set out in an official report last year, prompting some shooting organisations to say replacement ammunition may not be fully available in time. The change to the law, announced by the environment minister Emma Hardy, will outlaw shotgun pellets containing more than 1% lead, and bullets that have more than 3%. Ammunition using lead has long been identified as a significant pollutant and a particular risk to waterbirds. The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) estimates that about 100,000 waterbirds in the UK die every year from lead poisoning. The ban is 'a huge day for wildlife, particularly the migratory waterbirds who call our wetlands their home', said the WWT. Campaigners say birds often eat discarded lead pellets, confusing them for seeds or grit. A 2022 report found 99.5% of pheasants killed using shotgun pellets contained lead, showing that previous efforts to persuade shooters to voluntarily use different ammunition types had achieved little. The ban, which will apply in England, Scotland and Wales, follows recommendations in December last year by the Health and Safety Executive, which said lead ammunition should be phased out over five years. The HSE proposals followed a public consultation. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) said it backed the overall change, but disagreed with the recommended timetable being shortened by two years. The three-year transition was happening on the assumption that the ammunition was readily available, Terry Behan from the BASC said. 'That is not the case for commercial and supply reasons beyond our sector's control. We urge government to adhere to a five-year timescale proposed by the Health and Safety Executive.' Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said his organisation also backed the wider change, while saying the shorter transition period would be 'challenging for ammunition manufacturers'. He said: 'This is an important step for the future of shooting, which will benefit the countryside and rural economy. The alliance has long advocated a move away from lead ammunition, which is necessary and beneficial.' Hardy said: 'Britain is a proud nation of nature lovers, but our rivers are heavily polluted, and majestic birds are declining at an alarming rate. This new ban on lead in ammunition for most uses will help reverse this – rejuvenating pride in our countryside by protecting precious birdlife and cleaning up rivers. 'Non-lead alternatives are readily available, and we'll continue to work closely with the shooting sector throughout this transition.' James Robinson, the head of birdlife charity the RSPB, said: 'Long known to be a poison, we have campaigned for decades to have lead ammunition removed from use. This move, whilst long overdue and stopping short of a full ban, will mean that Britain will become a safer place for millions of birds and other wildlife.' There is an exemption for the outdoor shooting of permitted birds and animals using small-calibre bullets, because of a lack of suitable non-lead alternatives. Also exempt are airguns, and ammunition used by elite athletes, the military, police and in outdoor target shooting ranges with risk management measures.
