The first lie started when my flight was changed due to ‘traffic control concerns’, hmmm, my travel partner (Matt) was on the same flight??? We were going to meet in Sydney and travel together to Vienna. Strange, his flight was not changed?

So, I contacted Qantas and asked why his flight (the same itinerary) was not changed. My itinerary had been changed now travelling through Melbourne.

I was put on hold for quite a wait and was then told, you guessed it – I was moved for safety and security concerns.

Hmmm so is my travel partner (Matt) unsafe and insecure? No, all is fine for him, just you had to be moved??? Hmmm, so I asked what are these ‘safety and security concerns’? You guess it again, that’s confidential for security and safety reasons.

This is the kind of fraudulence that is common in safety and security. If you want to be fraudulent just cover your tracks just invoking the gods of safety and security. Then, all questioning has to stop, the gods command it. This is how safety and security mythology works (https://safetyrisk.net/creating-myths-and-rituals-in-safety/ ), once the gods have been invoked, all questioning ceases.

Yesterday I was asked for comment on a motivation system, developed by a mathematician and statistician. It was clear this marketing of this motivation system was being sold for a fortune. The trouble is, none of it is about motivation. It’s just more primitive behaviourism, mechanistic goop, obviously selling like hot cakes in safety in the USA.

This is no different than chemical engineers selling culture, habit safety and neuroscience that is just more fraudulence.

Why is it that people in safety don’t interrogate the source of this stuff and question the source? Why is it in safety you can state fraudulence so openly and sell it for hot cakes? Why no discernment or deconstruction? Why is it that Safety listens to noise with no expertise that speaks about what it doesn’t know? Reminds me so much of the creed of the Mandalorian: ‘This is the way’

Then with fraudulence well packaged and marketed to what it knows Safety wants to hear, sells it in slick marketing to the gullible in Safety with little skills in discernment (https://safetyrisk.net/the-need-for-discernment-in-risk-and-safety/ ). If Ned Kelly was alive today, I’m sure he’d be making a fortune in safety.

There is no doubt about it, safety is a hotbed for opportunism, fraudulence and con-merchants due to an appalling safety curriculum and a lack of critical thinking, ethics and critical thinking.

I was once engaged by a company to help with safety and discovered they had been running a psychometric system marketed as safety ‘DNA’ written by a chemical engineer. They had been running this rubbish for 3 years and had concocted scores for each employee and much ‘sunk cost’ (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-and-the-sunk-cost-fallacy/) was factored in this system. The trouble is, it had nothing to do with psychometrics or safety.

When I pointed out the sheer fraudulence of it all, do you think they got rid of it? No, sunk cost is a very powerful bias and would require a confession that they had invested thousands of dollars in a fraudulent scheme. This is how Cognitive Dissonance works (https://safetyrisk.net/cognitive-dissonance-and-safety-beliefs/). Once you have committed to a fraudulent belief eg. zero, it is nearly impossible to move away from it. I was retained by the company and it took 3 years to get it out of the system.

When I point out fraudulence associated with safety I am most often met with the criticism, why are you so anti-safety?

This is how sunk cost and Cognitive Dissonance work. This is what helps maintain Safety mythology and the religious creed of zero – This is the way! This is how the hero myth is sustained (https://safetyrisk.net/indiana-jones-and-the-hero-myth-in-safety/).

Why is it that criticism of safety is perceived as being anti-safety? This is the way!

The opposite is the case.

All of what SPoR does is for the betterment of safety. Everything about SPoR is: Positive, Constructive, Practical, Rational, Visual, Verbal, Social, Relational, Person-Centric, Respectful, Ethical and Real (https://safetyrisk.net/spor-positive-constructive-practical-rational-visual-verbal-social-relational-person-centric-respectful-ethical-and-real/).

So, where do you start? Questioning using some basic social-critical questions: https://safetyrisk.net/the-need-for-discernment-in-risk-and-safety/

The trouble is, if you ask any question of safety, you will probably be shown the door. Questioning the sacred god of safety is NOT the way. Questioning the creed, is NOT the way.

Why is it that safety is so connected to a fake system of ratios concocted by an insurance salesman 90 years ago? (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-the-myth-of-heinrich/) Why is there so much ‘sunk cost’ in this nonsense? Why are people listening to chemical engineers give lectures on psychology, sociology, neuropsychology, habits, motivation, learning, anthropology and culture, with no expertise in any of it?

All of this simply leads people away from safety to a deeper connection to mythology. And, none of this helps anyone better tackle risk – this is the way.