This is how not to do first aid in the office.

Having people trained in the office to undertake first aid is an important health and safety feature.

Organisations can send people to health and safety training or like the organisation in the video below, can get health and safety professionals to provide on site demonstrations.

Now, whilst most demos will be educational and very professional, as the video below shows, this particular demonstration was more like a slapstick comedy film.

A volunteer was asked to pretend that he was injured but unfortunately when the health and safety “professional” came into the demonstration he accidentally knocked over a shelf which then fell onto the “pretend victim” who suddenly became the “real victim”.

Luckily for all concerned nobody was seriously injured and if you want to see a fine slapstick comedy moment demonstration of health and safety then enjoy the video below.

Content not available.
Please allow cookies by clicking Accept on the banner

An awkward mistake.

Have you ever sent an email to the wrong person by mistake? What about posting something on social media which, with hindsight you’d wished you hadn’t?

We all make mistakes and it’s not the end of the world but I’ve got a feeling that Magnús Örn Hákonarson will be remembering his recent mistake for a while to come.

Magnús is in charge of his employer’s social media activities and recently what was supposed to be a private message was posted on his employer’s Facebook page.

Magnus works for The Landsbjargar’s Accident Investigation Company in Iceland and he accidentally posted an invite to a party to all the followers of the company. To add to the excitement, this wasn’t a normal party but was an invite to all the followers to take part in a bondage party with a fetish dress code.

The invitation highlighted the dress code as fetish or alternative and included information about safe words, leather masks and whips. Members of the BDSM society Magnus was a member of were able to buy the tickets for 1,000 ISK (£7) whilst non-members had to pay 3,000 ISK (£21).

As soon as he realised his mistake he removed the party invitation from the company’s Facebook page.

Whether or not his colleagues knew about his hobby is by the by. They certainly do now and the nice thing about it is that his employers realised it was a genuine mistake and have been very supportive.

Given his interest in BDSM he might have been slightly disappointed that he wasn’t punished but instead his employers issued a statement saying “There are many people with different backgrounds and interests within the volunteer group. People are engaged in all kinds of sports and hobbies and the rescue team’s board of directors will not distinguish these interests, as long as they are legal.”

All in all, nothing to beat yourself up about.

OMG – will these hit the shelves?

Procter & Gamble, or P&G as it’s commonly known, is one of the world’s largest companies and has an incredible portfolio of products including Gillette, Head & Shoulders shampoo and Pampers nappies.

The business was set up in 1837 by two gentlemen called, yes you guessed it, Mr Procter and Mr Gamble.

Since then it has grown to become a huge organisation and is now quoted on the New York stock exchange. It has annual sales in excess of $15bn.

A recent trademark application in the US though could indicate that there may well be some new brand names joining their portfolio.

They have made applications for trademarks on household and personal care products for certain “text speak”. Or to be more precise they have filed an application for terms including “LOL” (Laugh Out Loud) and “NBD” (No Big Deal).

The move seems to be an attempt to target the tech savvy millennial generation who have grown up with this tech speak.

It’s not certain yet whether we will see cleaning products called LOL and NBD as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has sought clarifications from P&G and they have until January to respond.

One other interesting term which has been included in the application is “WTF”.

Could we soon be seeing “WTF Cleaner” on supermarket shelves?

Explaining what “WTF” stands for is a bit rude to print here so if you don’t know what it means then one of the quickest ways to find out is to say “WTF” when your boss next asks you to do something.

Grant Thornton fined £4million.

Grant Thornton, the mid-tier accounting firm has been fined £4m and reprimanded by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC).

So, what did they do wrong?

It was all to do with a lack of independence during audits of Nichols plc (the company that makes the soft drink Vimto) and the University of Salford.

The background to the issue involves Eric Healey. Mr Healey was a former senior partner of Grant Thornton who was engaged by them to provide services under a consultancy agreement. This in itself wasn’t a problem but what was a problem was that he joined the audit committees of both Nichols plc and the University of Salford at the same time.

The FRC highlighted that this created serious familiarity and self-interest threats which resulted in the loss of independence during eight audits over a period of four years.

Putting it another way, Grant Thornton were paying a consultant who at the same time was in a senior position within the audit committee of two clients. There were clear independence issues.

The FRC said that “The standards were breached on a number of occasions over a long period and in a significant way; given the nature of the risks posed, the breaches required the resignation of Grant Thornton as auditors of both Nichols and the University but as set out in the particulars, they did not in fact so resign but signed off on all of the audits with unqualified opinions.

The firm obtained audit fees in respect of the audits totalling approximately £560,000 in circumstances where it has admitted it should not have undertaken the relevant audit engagements and that doing so constituted misconduct.”

Grant Thornton’s fine of £4m was discounted for settlement to £3m and Mr Healey was given a 5-year ban together with a fine of £200,000 which was discounted for settlement to £150,000 (discounted for settlement in effect means that they agreed with matters and paid the fine within a set time period of time).

Grant Thornton issued a statement which said “Grant Thornton has reached a settlement agreement with our regulators on this matter, which relates to audits dating up to eight years ago. Whilst the focus of the investigation was not on our technical competence in carrying out either of these audit assignments, the matter of ethical conduct and independence is equally of critical importance in ensuring the quality of our work and it is regrettable that we fell short of the standards expected of us on this occasion.

As we have since made significant investments in our people and processes and remain committed to continuous improvement in this regard, we are confident that such a situation should not arise in the future.”

Full details of the case can be found here.