Category: News

Common Hazards in the Workplace Guide

A hazard is something with the potential to cause harm. Harm means physical or mental damage or injury, as well as reduced quality of life and performance. Hazards in the workplace are potentially everywhere, and they most certainly should not be ignored or taken lightly.

Some industries naturally carry more risks but hazards can occur in workplaces of all types. As part of managing the health and safety of your business, you must control the risks in your workplace. To do this you need to think about what might cause harm to people and decide whether you are taking reasonable steps to prevent that harm.

The guide takes you through the main hazards found in the workplace and control measures to manage them.

How is harm gauged?

Harm can be gauged in the following ways:

  • How much? (Quantity)
  • How often? (Frequency)
  • How long? (Duration)
  • How susceptible is a person to the type of harm? (Condition)

The harm arising from a great many common hazards can be understood in these terms.

One way of classifying hazards is to group them by the general category of harm they cause, such as:

  • Mechanical
  • Physical
  • Chemical
  • Biological
  • Environmental
  • Organisational

Mechanical hazards

A mechanical hazard is any hazard involving a machine or process. Mechanical hazards are created by the powered operation of apparatus or tools, which may be machine-generated or human.

Mechanical hazards can be categorised according to the type of injury caused:

  • Crushing – when part of the body is caught between a moving part of a machine and a fixed object.
  • Shearing – when part of the body is subjected to a scissor action from equipment.
  • Cutting and severing – when part of the body comes into contact with a saw or knife.
  • Entanglement – when clothing or hair comes into contact with rotating objects or catches.
  • Drawing-in or trapping – when part of the body is caught between two counter-rotating parts.
  • Impact – when a moving object strikes part of the body.
  • Stabbing and puncture – when flying or ejected objects penetrate the body.

Physical hazards

Physical hazards are those substances or conditions that may harm a person’s physical safety. A physical hazard is a naturally-occurring process that has the potential to cause injury, illness and death, including:

  • Tripping;
  • Slipping;
  • Falling from a height or on a level; and/or
  • Being struck by a falling object.

Physical hazards are usually overlooked because of familiarity, or a resistance to spend time and money on improvements. However, slips and trips are the most common cause of major injuries at work.

Physical hazards also include ergonomic hazards – a physical factor within the environment that harms the musculoskeletal system. Working conditions or body positions often put strain on the body when a worker’s capacity for work is restricted by the type of work. Ergonomic hazards include repetitive movement, manual handling, workplace / job / task design, uncomfortable workstation height and poor body positioning.

Fire is included amongst physical hazards, as is noise, pressure and vibration.

Chemical hazards

Chemicals are considered a hazard due to their intrinsic properties to cause harm to humans, property or the environment. Chemical hazards can be presented by substances that are:

  • Used directly in work activities (for example, adhesives, paints, cleaning materials).
  • Generated during work activities (for example, fumes from soldering and welding).

Chemicals can harm a person’s health when entering the body by absorption through the skin, ingestion through the mouth, and inhalation through the lungs.

Most people associate chemicals with certain professions and workplaces such as laboratories; however, chemicals are found in many common workplace products. While these chemicals have a variety of beneficial uses, they can also be extremely harmful if they are misused.

Biological hazards

Biological hazards are organic substances or microorganisms that pose a threat to the health of humans and other living organisms. Biological hazards also include toxins that are produced by organisms.

Biological hazards pose risks for many workers in a variety of ways. People working with microorganisms (such as in laboratories) are at a high risk of exposure, but other examples of work activities that may bring people into contact with biological hazards include:

  • Working with animals – for example, farming.
  • Working with people who might be infectious – for example, healthcare professionals.
  • Handling waste materials – for example, refuse disposal.
  • Working in an environment or with equipment that could be contaminated – for example, sewer maintenance.

Environmental hazards

Environmental hazards have the potential to affect the environment and adversely impact people’s health. These hazards come in various forms and are often unnoticed until an accident occurs. Environmental hazards can include poor lighting, unreasonable temperatures and dust.

Understanding the various environmental hazards that exist and taking precautions can help prevent accidents. Balancing work activities and work rates with the right temperature, humidity, air movement, clothing, food and drink intake, body build and psychosocial factors is important for workers’ efficiency, comfort and safety.

Organisational hazards

Organisational hazards are associated with behaviour, workload, time constraints and deadlines. Studies have shown that the following have the potential to be stressful:

Temporal aspects of work – for example, shift work, overtime.
Work content – for example, nature of tasks and level of autonomy.
Interpersonal issues within a team – for example, interaction with co-workers, equality of workload.
Interpersonal issues with supervisors – for example, provision and receipt of feedback.
Organisational structures.

The ideal workload should be organised and balanced, to avoid fatigue on the one hand, and on the other, to ensure employees are engaged and being productive.

Conclusion

When classifying hazards like this there is potential for some ambiguity. For example, a toxin produced by a micro-organism that is present in inhalable dust could easily be classified in more than one category: there are environmental, biological and chemical components. Almost every hazard situation is going to have an organisational component.

However, the main benefit of the six categories is that it is hard to think of any hazard that does not fit into one of the categories. So, on examining a workplace to find several examples in each category of hazard, it will result in a very thorough risk assessment.

Then the hierarchy of Control measures can be implemented

“Eliminate” “Reduce” “Prevent”

London To End Congestion Charge Exemption For Electric Vehicles

Transport for London (TfL) is pressing ahead with plans to stop exempting electric vehicles (EVs) from the capital’s Congestion Charging schemes from January 2026. Instead, a discount will apply from an increased standard price.

                          London to end congestion charge exemption for electric vehicles

Launched in 2003, the congestion charge was the first scheme requiring drivers in Central London to pay a daily charge. As the name implies, it exists to incentivise a reduction in traffic by nudging motorists towards public transport, walking and cycling.

The charge is currently £15 per day, per vehicle – a rate that has applied to individual motorists and to fleet vehicles alike since 2020.

TfL is proposing to increase the charge to £18 per day, per vehicle, from 2 January 2026. The aim is to switch even more journeys to public transport and active transport.

Discounts for Electric Vehicles

TfL has also provided clarity on the future of congestion charging discounts for EVs. At present, they benefit from a 100% discount, which is expiring at the end of 2025. Mindful of the ongoing electrification of London’s vehicle stock, changes to the scheme are needed to meaningfully address congestion.

From 2 January 2026, TfL is proposing, electric cars registered for Auto Pay will benefit from a 25% discount, to £13.50. Meanwhile, electric vans, electric heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and electric quadricycles registered for Auto Pay will receive a 50% discount to £9.

TfL estimates that these changes will result in 2,200 fewer vehicles on Central London’s roads on an average weekday, compared to a scenario in which the scheme remains as it is.

The discount schemes are intended to benefit fleet managers and individual drivers completing trips which are the most challenging to shift to public transport.

TfL is also consulting in further reductions to EV-related congestion charging discounts from 2030. It is proposing that, from this point, electric cars registered for Auto Pay will only get a 12.5% discount. The discount for electric vans, electric HGVs and electric quadricycles will decrease to 25% at this point.

Residents’ Discount

Those living within the congestion charge zone benefit from a 90% discount, provided that they have registered their vehicles.

TfL is proposing that eligible new applicants, from 1 March 2027, only receive the discount for EVs.

The Dangers Of Lithium-Ion Batteries In The Workplace

Lithium-ion batteries are widely used across multiple industries due to their efficiency, portability and sustainability. They are integral to modern workplaces, powering everything from consumer electronics to industrial equipment. However, despite their advantages, they pose significant safety risks, primarily due to thermal runaway, fire hazards and toxic gas emissions.

Lithium-ion batteries can be found in:

  • Consumer electronics, such as smartphones, laptops, tablets and cameras.
  • Electric vehicles (EVs) – cars, bikes and scooters.
  • Renewable energy systems – solar battery storage units.
  • Industrial equipment – including power tools, drones and robotics.
  • Medical devices such as portable monitors and ventilators.
  • Household appliances, including cordless vacuums and electric toothbrushes.

Despite their potential hazards, lithium-ion batteries offer numerous benefits:

  • Low maintenance: No need for constant water refilling.
  • Long lifespan: Lasts for at least eight years with proper care.
  • Safety: No immediate health hazards under normal operation.
  • Quick charging: Technological advances allow for rapid charging.
  • Superior depth of discharge: Efficient energy use.
  • Eco-friendly: Reduced environmental impact compared to traditional batteries.
  • Operates in extreme temperatures: Functions in diverse environments.
  • Unlimited cycle life: Enhances longevity and cost-effectiveness.

There has been a lot of negative press about the dangers of lithium-ion batteries. Lithium-ion battery fires are primarily caused by thermal runaway, an uncontrollable rise in temperature. Contributing factors include:

  • Overcharging – excessive voltage can overheat the battery.
  • Physical damage – punctures or impacts may cause internal short circuits.
  • Exposure to high temperatures – proximity to heat sources accelerates degradation.
  • Electrolyte breakdown – leads to gas emissions, increasing fire risks.
  • Inadequate battery management systems (BMS) – f ailure to regulate charging/discharging.
  • Ageing batteries – degraded cells are more prone to failure.

Thermal runaway is a self-sustaining chain reaction leading to fires and explosions. It occurs when the battery temperature exceeds 60°C, triggering an internal reaction. Toxic and flammable gases are released, leading to swelling and rupturing. Once the gases ignite, a fire ensues, often difficult to extinguish.

Obligations and best practice

Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO), the Responsible Person (RP) must:

  • Conduct fire risk assessments, including lithium-ion battery risks.
  • Implement fire safety measures, such as proper storage and fire suppression systems.
  • Ensure staff training on fire response and battery handling.
  • Maintain fire safety equipment and comply with legal standards.

HSBC weakens 2030 emissions targets

HSBC will no longer strive to achieve net-zero emissions across its operations and supply chains by 2030. The bank has blamed the slow pace of decarbonisation globally for scaling back its climate ambitions.

The business first set the 2030 emissions target in 2020 and opted for a 2019 baseline.

Announcing its annual results this week, HSBC noted “good” progress on decarbonising its own operations but said that change was “proving slower” across the supply chain. It pointed the finger at factors outside of its control.

“As a bank, our ability to finance our customers’ transition and, in turn, progress toward and meet our targets, relies on decarbonisation solutions scaling across sectors, alongside growing demand from our customers for capital to transition their business models,”

HSBC’s annual report states.

“We are limited by, and cannot on our own overcome, the present lag in policy measures and the overall slower pace of the transition… These factors put our customers’, and our own, net-zero ambitions at risk.”

With this in mind, HSBC said it would need to rely on carbon offsetting to a significantly greater extent than anticipated to meet its original 2030 target.

HSBC is therefore delaying its net-zero emissions target for operations, travel and supply chains to 2050. For 2030, it will strive for a 40% reduction against a 2019 baseline.

HSBC will also review its targets for reducing financed emissions – those generated by the businesses and projects which it financially supports. It has sector-specific 2030 emissions targets for financed emissions in oil and gas; power and utilities; cement; iron, steel and aluminium; aviation; automotive and thermal coal mining.

It is disappointing to see that HSBC has chosen to further weaken its climate target. If it cannot even strive to reduce emissions from its own operations and supply chain, there is little hope that it will trigger meaningful change through its investments.

“HSBC claims the transition is moving too slowly, yet it forgets that its own financial services are locking the world into fossil fuel dependence, exacerbating climate change.”

Waitrose to help more than 2,000 British farmers assess nature on their land

Waitrose has partnered with a digital mapping tool provider to help more than 2,000 farmers across the UK assess the state of nature on their land and develop plans for improvements. British farmers are the backbone of our food system, and this partnership with Land App is about supporting them to secure a sustainable future for their farms.

The supermarket has forged a partnership with Land App as it strives to assess the state of nature on all UK farms supplying for its own-brand product ranges by 2026.

Waitrose’s parent company the John Lewis Partnership first launched a sweeping ‘plan for nature’ in October 2022.

Under the partnership with Land App, farmers in Waitrose’s supply chain will gain free access to advanced mapping tools. Land App enables farmers to gather real-time data on the environmental health of their land, with information measured in relation to dozens of sustainability metrics (more than 60), evaluate and act on to support the adoption of nature-friendly farming.

This then enables reporting & Waitrose will monitor progress year-on-year.

On the following:

Once farmers have baseline information about the environmental health of their land, they will be supported to identify areas for improvement and implement impactful changes. Beyond receiving advice in the app, they will be supported to connect with ‘accredited professionals’ from organisations including the Wildlife Trusts and the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group.

Farm resilience

Building resilience and sustainability on farms is more crucial now than ever. It not only supports nature, reduces flooding and mitigates the effects of climate change but also secures food production for future generations.”

A 2024 survey from the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) confirmed that eight in ten farmers have seen either ‘fairly negative’ or ‘very negative’ impacts to their land and infrastructure from flooding recently. 65% of respondents confirmed a year-on-year fall in profits.

The period between October 2022 and March 2024 was officially the wettest 18-month stint on record for the UK. Nature-based solutions can help farmers cope with wet weather by enhancing water absorption, slowing runoff and reducing erosion.

These pressures, compounded by other issues including low farm-gate prices, export challenges post-Brexit, and changes to inheritance tax, have prompted farmers to protest in Westminster in recent weeks.

Farmers need to see a coherent and signposted plan for change with details of the risks posed and the support available to farmers.

 

HSE publishes annual work-related ill health and injury statistics for 2023/2024

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published its annual statistics on work-related ill health and workplace injuries. The figures also show that 138 workers were killed in work-related accidents in 2023/24, while 61,663 workers sustained a self-reported non-fatal injury in the workplace during the same period.

The statistics reveal that 1.7million workers reported they were suffering from work-related ill health in 2023/24, an estimated 0.8 milliondown to stress, depression or anxiety.

An estimated 33.75 million working days were lost in 2023/24 due to self-reported work-related ill health or injury.

HSE’s statistics also reveal the impact that the work-related ill health and workplace injuries are having on Britain’s economic performance. Preventing or tackling work-related stress can provide significant benefits to employees, improving their experience of work and their overall health; and also to employers including increased productivity, decreased absenteeism and reduced staff turnover

In 2022/23, the estimated annual costs of workplace injury and new cases of work-related ill health reached £21.6 billion.

Extreme weather and biodiversity loss still seen as biggest risks over next decade

Extreme weather events and ecosystem collapse have, for the second year running, been confirmed as the risks which experts across the world are most concerned about over the next ten years.

The 2025 edition of the Global Risks Report from the Word Economic Forum (WEF).

Drawing on surveys of more than 900 risk experts, policymakers and industry leaders, the report provides a snapshot of the risks perceived to be the most likely and most severe over a two-year and ten-year horizon.

The top two risks for the next two years remain the same year-on-year, with misinformation and disinformation taking the top spot and extreme weather events in at second. Indeed, Christian Aid recently estimated that extreme weather events resulted in at least $200bn of costs and damages in 2024.

Storm damage in St Petersburg, Florida, in autumn 2024.

More than half of the respondents expect instability over the next two years.

And for a ten-year horizon, extreme weather continues to be classed as the top risk. Moreover, as was the case last year, experts believe a range of interlinked and cascading environmental risks will crystallise within a decade.

The top ten list for the next ten years includes biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, natural resource shortages, critical change to Earth systems (i.e. climate tipping points) and pollution.

Yet the WEF found that many large businesses are not prioritising environmental risk management in their strategies. When businesses were asked which challenges they expect the highest benefits from addressing in terms of resilience, nothing related to climate and nature was in the top ten.

Corporations are far more likely to be preparing to address talent and labour shortages. Most are concerned about supply chain disruptions and more than one-quarter are preparing for disruptions to critical infrastructure, which can be caused by climate risks, but are not using environmental framing.

UK Fears Over-Burdening Airlines With Offsetting and Carbon Pricing Costs

The UK Government has set out measures to prevent airlines from both paying for carbon offsetting under a new mandatory international scheme, and paying carbon pricing under the UK’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The Government has this week published its response to the advisory body’s most recent annual progress report to Parliament on the delivery of net-zero by 2050 – the nation’s long-term, legally binding climate commitment.

Airport expansion

Nonetheless, the Government’s official response to the CCC’s report shows that it is not prepared to take all of its recommendations on board.

The CCC urged the government to halt all airport expansion projects until a UK-wide passenger capacity management framework is in place to assess the aviation sector’s climate impact. Its report stated: “There should be no net airport expansion unless the carbon intensity of aviation is outperforming the Government’s emissions reduction pathway and can accommodate the additional demand”.

The Government has stated that it “recognises a role for airport expansion where it provides economic growth and is compatible with our legally binding net-zero target and strict environmental standards”. No pause will be implemented.

Shortly after the election, the green economy by approving expansion plans for London City Airport that will increase passenger capacity by up to 40%.

Expansion plans are also in the works for airports including Bristol, Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton.

Is age a factor in Health and Safety in the workplace?

Age discrimination in the workplace is a pervasive issue that affects many aspects of employment, including hiring decisions. From a health and safety perspective, age can be a significant factor, with employers often making assumptions about older workers’ abilities and risks. How age might influence hiring decisions from a health and safety viewpoint, highlighting the legal, ethical and practical considerations involved.

The intersection of age and workplace safety Workplace safety is paramount in any organisation, and employers have a duty to ensure a safe working environment for all employees. This responsibility often leads to careful consideration of potential employees’ physical and mental capabilities, which can be influenced by age. While it is illegal to discriminate based on age under laws such as the Equality Act, age-related concerns about health and safety still play a role in hiring decisions.

Common assumptions and stereotypes

  • Physical ability. Employers might assume that older workers are more prone to physical limitations, such as reduced strength, stamina or agility. This can be particularly relevant in industries that require manual labour, heavy lifting or prolonged physical exertion.
  • Cognitive decline. There is a stereotype that cognitive abilities decline with age, affecting memory, reaction times and the ability to learn new skills. In safety-critical roles, this assumption can lead employers to favour younger candidates who are perceived as more mentally sharp.
  • Health risks. Older individuals are often viewed as being at higher risk for chronic health conditions, which could potentially lead to more frequent absences or a higher likelihood of medical emergencies on the job. Employers might be concerned about the impact of these health issues on overall workplace safety.

The HSE has recently released detailed annual statistics on work-related fatalities, which show that the rate of fatalities increases with age. Workers aged 60 or over accounted for 42% of those killed at work, and workers aged 60-64 are twice as likely to be killed. These figures are four times higher for workers aged 65 and over, despite comprising only 11% of the workforce. The cost-of-living crisis is increasing the amount of people working beyond retirement, which could be the cause of the increase in fatality levels amongst these age groups.

Legal and ethical considerations

Discriminating against older workers based on these assumptions is not only ethically questionable but also legally precarious. Employers must ensure that their hiring practices do not violate these protections by unjustly favouring younger candidates.
Ethically, it is important to recognise the value that older workers bring to the table. Experience, knowledge and a strong work ethic are qualities that can enhance workplace safety rather than compromise it. Employers should focus on individual capabilities rather than making broad assumptions based on age.

Best practices for employers

  • Objective assessments. Use objective, job-related criteria to assess all candidates. This can include physical fitness tests, cognitive assessments and health screenings, provided they are relevant to the job and applied equally to all applicants.
  • Reasonable accommodations. Be willing to make reasonable accommodations for older workers. This might include ergonomic adjustments, modified work schedules or assistive technologies that can help mitigate any age-related limitations.
  • Training and development. Invest in ongoing training and development for all employees, regardless of age. This ensures that older workers remain competent and confident in their roles, thereby maintaining high safety standards.
  • Inclusive culture. Foster an inclusive workplace culture that values diversity, including age diversity. Encourage intergenerational collaboration and mentorship, which can enhance safety practices and create a more cohesive work environment.

Conclusion

Age should not be a barrier to employment, especially when it comes to health and safety considerations. While it is natural for employers to be concerned about the physical and cognitive abilities of their workforce, it is crucial to base hiring decisions on objective criteria and individual assessments rather than age-based stereotypes. By doing so, employers can ensure a fair, inclusive, and safe workplace for employees of all ages.

HSE requests cases of AI impact on health and safety in regulated industries

The HSE is launching a new research project to map AI’s impact on health and safety across its regulated industries. This will help it to consider the risks and opportunities of AI use in industrial settings.   

The HSE is asking industry to help by providing information about AI that is being trialled or used in the workplace. It says it is keen to gather a wide a range of AI uses to ensure the information collected is representative.   

HSE’s role in regulating AI includes:

Regulating the use of AI where it impacts on health and safety in workplaces where HSE is the enforcing authority.

Regulating the use of AI in design, manufacture and supply of workplace machinery, equipment and products for use in the workplace as a Market Surveillance Authority under the Product Safety regulatory framework.

Where AI impacts on HSE’s role to protect people and places, including building safety, chemicals and pesticides regulation.

The central principle of health and safety law is that those who create risks are best placed to manage and control that risk in a sensible, proportionate and pragmatic way. As benchmarks develop for the use of AI, the HSE wants to reach a point where AI risk is no longer novel and is managed in the same way as any other risk.

HSE expects a risk assessment to be undertaken for uses of AI which impact on health and safety and appropriate controls put in place to reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable, including to address cyber security threats.

The focus of the work the HSE is doing to continue to develop its regulatory approach to AI includes:

Coordinating work on AI, sharing knowledge and identifying key issues through an internal AI common interest group, bringing together colleagues from across HSE.

Working with government departments to shape the approach to AI regulation.

Supporting the standards making process, to establish benchmarks for AI interaction with machinery and functional safety by engaging with international standards organisations (BSI, IEC and ISO).

Establishing relationships with industry and academic stakeholders, to share knowledge and learning on AI use cases and the impact on health and safety.

Collaborating with other regulators, though forums including the AI Standards Forum for UK Regulators, Information Commissioners Office AI Regulators Forum and the United Kingdom Health and Safety Regulators Network Innovation Sub-Group, to encourage a consistent regulatory approach.

Identifying AI developments of interest to HSE through horizon scanning activities and monitoring AI developments in Great Britain and around the world, from a practical and regulatory perspective.

Building its capability and experience in AI across specialist and scientific areas of HSE and working with partners as appropriate.

Supporting research bids that align with HSE’s areas of research interest (on GOV.UK) and help develop safe use of AI and the ability to regulate AI use.

Setting up and trialling of an Industrial Safetytech Regulatory Sandbox (on discoveringsafety.com) to explore practical barriers to adoption of Industrial Safetytech in construction and how to break them down.

HSE brought ten key prosecution cases throughout June and July 2024

1)           TATA CHEMICALS

On 5 June, Tata Chemicals Europe Limited was fined more than £1 million at Chester Crown Court.

The case was brought against the firm following the death of a young father who died while erecting a scaffold tower in a chemical plant in Northwich.

2)           OPENREACH

Telecommunications giant Openreach was given a £1.34 million fine after an engineer died while trying to repair a telephone line in Wales. Alun Owen died after he slipped and fell into the River Aber in Abergwyngregyn and was swept away on 6 October 2020.

3)           BAM NUTTALL Ltd

Construction company BAM Nuttall Ltd was fined £2.345m following the death of worker Gary Webster, who lost his life from drowning in the river Aire on 30th October 2017. He had been on a boat removing debris at the bottom of the weir gates at Knostop weir when it capsized.

4)           HOUSING COMPANY

On 19th June, Avant Homes (Scotland) Ltd were fined more than £300,000 after a driver was crushed to death by falling concrete blocks at a construction site in South Lanarkshire.

5)           CHARITABLE TRUST

Wilts & Berks Canal Trust were fined £30,000 after a male volunteer was fatally crushed while carrying out restoration work as part of its project to preserve, conserve & improve the route of the Wilts & Berks Canal at Pewsham Locks.

6)           EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURER

On 27th June, Chemring Countermeasures Limited were fined £670,000 after a male worker was killed in a explosion at the factory in Salisbury, whilst cleaning a vessel used in the production of MTV – an explosive substance in military flares.

7)           ENGINEERING COMPANY

On 15th July, EMC Elite Engineering Services Ltd was fined after a worker sustained multiply injuries while working at a HS2 construction site in Hertfordshire, as he fell more than 30 feet & landed on a concrete floor below.

8)           ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION COMPANY

A Cheshire based electrical transmission company was fined £240,000 after a worker was left paralysed following a fall from height, whilst demolishing and replacing electricity pylons in East Staffordshire.

9)           RECYCLING COMPANY

The national recycling company Veolia ES (UK) ltd was fined £3m after a worker was killed as he fell about 12m to the ground, whilst decommissioning an old North Sea rig, at an onshore facility in Great Yarmouth.

10)LIVESTOCK AUCTIONEERS

Operators of livestock market in the Welsh town of Whitland were fined after a man was  knocked down, trampled on & killed by a cow being auctioned that had managed to escape.