I can imagine which doctor it was from this "regulating body" it was you reported - the same one who letches after the ring girls and has been reported for that as well - the smell of the distillery venting its chimneys precedes his arrival. I don't really bother with the BBBC work although been doing it for 21 years or so in its various guises on and off - last fight I did was more than a year ago. When you need a doctor, there is never one (or a sober one) there, and if there is one, you risk getting stabbed with a used venflon needle by the supposed doctor, who has be known for ramming the same needles into ringcraft's canvass flooring. Those are the standards you can come to expect from a supposed regulating body. Stuff em! White collar boxing fights are far better - no kowtowing to thugs with their tattooed barbies on the arm on the ringside tables with complementary beer and onion bhajis being fed to them by girls in miniskirts. Its all just a whole bunch of showing off.

Dave

Not sure if you haven't undermined your own argument.

We don't do "bums on seats" courses, only "corporate" usually on customer premises. So for a block of 12, it's not a £5 increase, it is £60 plus VAT on total course cost. So a larger organisation can usually claim that back, but certain organisations cannot, so for them the increase is £72. And £5 is only a suggested figure that has been bandied around. What if the AO decides to charge more than that (which will inevitably happen once it gets off the ground)?

Our biggest customer is our Local Authority, who are trying to cut costs where they can and making staff redundant. Hence we haven't increased ours, we just absorb our price increases in books costs, dressings costs, etc. Another customer is a household name company, and I reckon I could walk into your house and find one of their products, but they are in severe financial difficulties. We have had to work hard to convince their H&S Manager that his risk level is too high to switch to all EFAW staff. Again, we haven't hit them with a price increase.

So yes, customers ARE very price-sensitive and yes, it will be hard for us to hold onto their business in the face of competition from the hobbyists with a regular Fire Service or similar income, or the desperate who, I see from their latest brochure, are offering 15% Austerity Discount off their already ridiculously unrealistic pricing structure. Hitting them with an increase will only encourage customers to make these economies. As I said before, FA training has little scope for upselling or added value. It's about (those customers that bother) trying to meet FA regs in the cheapest possible way with the least hassle. They won't want to pay a premium because someone has inspected and "passed" my Equal Opportunities Policy.

Dave, it may well be beneficial to balance what you are doing and your view of the world with the HSE's own website;

"Professor Löfstedt's report sets out a number of risk and evidence-based recommendations that will:

reduce regulatory requirements on business where they do not lead to improved health and safety outcomes, and
remove pressures on business to go beyond what the regulations require, enabling them to reclaim ownership of the management of health and safety"

From the HSE Approved code of practice and guidance ;

"This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the guidance is not compulsory and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance as illustrating good practice."

There is no requirement to have workplace first aiders. There is no law that says that they should be there, or have a certain number per capita of employees. That has always been a myth, just like the Purple Guide. It is guidance, that is all. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for not having first aiders, ever. There is an Approved (by the HSE) Code of Practice and Guidance, but it is not compulsary. At the moment, FAW courses have to be HSE approved. Very shortly, the HSE will no longer be involved because of the Lofsted approach to unecessary regulation. Therefore, employers will not be breaching any law by using none AO organisations. Any training organisation or company who trades using this as a lever to gain business risks prosecution by the Trading Standards (and I for one will be happy to report anyone who tries to scare clients into purchasing their services) and if money exchanges hands, there are both the civil tort of misrepresentation and the criminal offence of obtaining money by deception to consider.

The actual position is found here; http://www.hse.gov.uk/fi...-first-aid-lofstedt.htm

In actual fact, some organisations will be going down the approval route to appear credible because they will be competing with the likes of us and similar where the training is being delivered by people who have done it rather than just read about it. I can guarantee that those organisations will begin to struggle as the market becomes flooded by, as JA says, hobbyists with a fire service income or similar. If put to proof, all the none AO companies need to do is to show their CV's to the prospective client and suggest that they ask to see the CV's of the AO trainer. It will be a done deal!