Nanny State

I had posted about an incident of what appeared to be nanny state nuisance in central England. It was one of a seemingly continuous stream of stories the internet loves, from both the US and England and occasionally the colonies. The last one was in Sundae's new neighborhood and the decorations for the upcoming bicycle race so I posted it in her "West Yorkshire thread". Stories like this are usually blamed, in the articles, on "Health & Safety" over there.

Dana, Sundae, and Carruthers, explained many of the stories are bullshit, others are mistakenly blamed on Health & Safety, as it's become a catch all phrase for nanny state intervention. Carruthers pointed to this newspaper article praising the Health & Safety law for saving thousands of lives.

Forty years on, the Act has achieved what it set out to do, which is to insist upon high standards of health and safety in places of work. All we need do now is to apply the law with the common sense that inspired it in the first place.

Bingo, apply the common sense!
For a US example, the no weapons near a school laws that have led to a first/second grader being expelled for pointing a finger at a classmate, or drawing a picture of a gun. The school officials always claim they are enforcing the law and their hands are tied. I don't know if these teachers are playing Principal's pet, are brainwashed cyborgs, or afraid someone else saw it and will rat them out, rather than using common sense in the first place.

All Righty then, that long winded introduction was to let you know I started this thread for a place to park the stories of stupid shit the nanny state gets blamed for, guilty or not. Innocence shouldn't stand in the way of a good torch & pitchfork party. :D

I don't worry about it anymore because I joined the masses. I sponge off the government.

Government and common sense...

...are you seeing the problem, yet?

Turn off a Cobalt, Sunfire, etc ignition. Then the car's steering and brakes stop working while the car flies down and off the road. Clearly that is government failure because GM ignored the problem and resulting murders for 13 years. Blame the nanny state because GM products are designed by bean counters. Lack of common sense is routine. Ie Three Mile Island, Challenger, Columbia, Fukishima, Sandusky, Mission Accomplished.

xoB, what a great thread topic. I am reading a book, The Rule of Nobody, by Philip Howard, which discusses at length the causes for such dysfunction and suggests solutions to the problems. His key observation points to mistrust as the root cause of such rules and that the solution must include human judgement. I am thoroughly enjoying this book.

Mr Howard says there is a political factor involved, succinctly put by the Economist:

“The Rule of Nobody is even-handed in its politics, noting that right and left have saddled America with overly detailed regulations, under pressure from special-interest lobbies (among them incumbents who see regulation as a useful barrier to new competition). One root of the problem is mistrust, Mr Howard suggests. Conservatives distrust public employees and so seek to limit their powers of discretion. The left thinks that business bosses will run amok unless bound.”

I highly recommend the book. It's a great discussion of the problem and what can be done to make things better. Of course, that's not quite as fun as pointing out stupendously ridiculous results of people following these rules. That's what this thread's for!

xoxoxoBruce;902609 wrote:

Bingo, apply the common sense!

The trouble is Common Sense is the least common of all senses.

I've had more than one customer say something like, "Ohoho, more than your job's worth?" especially about the rotisserie chickens.

Well, yes, in fact it is not worth me losing my job to give you a chicken for free rather than putting it in the bin.
And yes it's a crazy screwed up world and I've always hated waste.
But I would geniunely lose my job for gross misconduct if I gave it to you, or sold it at a nominal amount after the four hour holding time mandated in law.
The paper record is there to protect customers (it's the same in every supermarket) and can trace every batch of chickens sold from farm to fork.
(It was also used as evidence for a prosecution quite recently - falsifying documents to commit fraud, as in selling discounted items to family)

You are not starving.
You are not hiding from the Nazis in an attic.
You are shopping in a high-end supermarket.
How about I come to your workplace and ask for a minor favour that saves me about £3 and lost you your job?
Ohohohoho, who's the jobsworth now?

[YOUTUBE]8kwXpqGEyaE&start=93[/YOUTUBE]

Hahaha!



[YOUTUBE]Um9yLFYGTfc[/YOUTUBE]

One more:

'Nobody banned Christmas!'

[YOUTUBE]hUOGrtj2iRU[/YOUTUBE]

OMG, V!
What happened to Roseanne Barr? She went all... airbrushed.
I liked her as she was. Still, I spose it would be evil to comment if she went from thin to fat (political correctness of course) so I respect her life choices.

Also, I snickered when the final judge asked whether the comedian would top herself.
Because that would be dead funny.

Dana. You know I have trouble with names. And faces. Although rarely voices.
I so often confuse Stewart Lee of the dry Northern wit with Iain Lee, the onetime overexposed talentless Southern git who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

In all fairness I haven't seen or heard of him in years and maybe we've both matured.

Carruthers;902822 wrote:

The trouble is Common Sense is the least common of all senses.

Common sense proved power cycling an incandescent bulb causes bulb failure. After all, everyone has seen a bulb fail when powered on. Common sense.

And also called junk science. Observation without learning the underlying reasons why means common sense jumps to junk science conclusions. A concept even taught in junior high science.

A majority knew smoking increased health. It was common sense. Everyone saw proof in TV advertising. So the Surgeon General was clearly lying in 1964 when he said smoking kills.

Common sense, properly applied, means we all saw Geroge Jr was lying when he said Saddam had WMDs. Underlying hard facts and numbers said so. But most used common sense without first learning facts. Junk science, almost $3 trillion, and nearly 5000 dead Americans resulted.

Common sense can be your own worst enemy if not tempered by knowledge.

xoxoxoBruce;902609 wrote:

...
For a US example, the no weapons near a school laws that have led to a first/second grader being expelled for pointing a finger at a classmate, or drawing a picture of a gun. The school officials always claim they are enforcing the law and their hands are tied. I don't know if these teachers are playing Principal's pet, are brainwashed cyborgs, or afraid someone else saw it and will rat them out, rather than using common sense in the first place.
...

Here's why that happens. Let's say first grader Johnny drew a picture of a gun, and received a less harsh punishment than was required. Weeks later, Johnny shot up his class or another student brought in a gun, because "Johnny didn't get in trouble" and the gun "went off" killing another student. Whoever did not follow procedure to the letter will have their lives ruined by criminal and civil litigation. And the laws that enable that to happen will be contrary to common sense, as will the laws that prohibit the parents of the victims from getting everything they want.

I believe that laws, to a great extent, have good intentions behind them. There are always unintended consequences.

Nevermind what will happen if Johnny himself shoots a classmate, and it's revealed that he usually spent art class drawing nothing but guns, but nobody did anything.


The other important thing to remember is that the "our hands are tied" argument can be used to one's advantage, as well. School funding is based on actual butts in the seats on any given day. It's usually in their best interest to keep the classrooms full, and to not have to expel or suspend anyone, because you can't fire that teacher mid-year, so every child kicked out equals less money. The only reason to do it at the elementary level is if the kid is a genuine pain in the ass and using more resources than their presence affords. So say Johnny is a royal little shit, a future gang-banger with an entitled mother who shows up at the school on a weekly basis to berate the teacher for not letting Johnny get away with whatever he wants... and one day the principal sees a convenient way to get him expelled, all while claiming "our hands are tied."

Spexxvet;902902 wrote:

Here's why that happens. Let's say first grader Johnny drew a picture of a gun, and received a less harsh punishment than was required.

Required? By whom the law or the local school board who have been empowered by the law? In trying to foretell worst case scenarios they take discretion away from principals and teachers?

I believe that laws, to a great extent, have good intentions behind them. There are always unintended consequences.

Yes and yes, that's why flexibility, common sense, is needed.

Clodfobble;902916 wrote:

...It's usually in their best interest to keep the classrooms full, and to not have to expel or suspend anyone, because you can't fire that teacher mid-year, so every child kicked out equals less money. The only reason to do it at the elementary level is if the kid is a genuine pain in the ass and using more resources than their presence affords.

So you're saying schools, education, is all about the bottom line. Each student judged on whether they are using more resources than they bring in?

Really, has it gotten that fucked up?:(

Yup. This is what happens when we de-fund all the schools. You can't blame them for caring about the bottom line, they have to.

One of the worst things a district can end up with is a blind kid in the neighborhood, because it's generally accepted that they get to go to a blind school, there's no way the school can hire a part time flunky at $10 an hour to cover it. The public school pays the tuition for the blind kid to go to the $30,000 per year school.

I know all this because I have a friend with a kid who is autistic and blind, and the school was arguing that she wouldn't get anything out of the blind school because of her other impairments, therefore they shouldn't have to pay for it. It's always, always about the money.

Man, that's depressing. :(

Earlier this week an elderly acquaintance told me that she took her small dog for a walk in the local woods when she encountered a group of primary school children and their teachers on an educational outing of some sort.
One of the kids came up to her and made a fuss of the dog which is a benign creature, and was instantly screamed at by a teacher. The reason behind her outburst wasn't that she feared the dog might attack, but that she had no means of cleaning the child's hands.
No doubt that eventuality wasn't included in the multi page risk assessment document that had to be completed prior to the expedition.
Ideally, you wash your hands before eating if you've had contact with the great outdoors, and if you are involved in food preparation of any description, especially in commercial operations, it is of paramount importance, but there doesn't seem to be any sense of proportion in these matters.
I get the distinct impression that kids are being brought up in a sterile bubble and probably won't develop the resistance to every day infections that they should.***

I spent twenty years up to my knees in horse... 'doings'.... and occasionally helped with lambing and was exposed to its attendant blood and gore. I've never suffered any ill effects as a result. (As far as I am aware!)

Rant over. Just going to prepare lunch and yes, I will wash my hands.



***Orthodoc, can you help out here? Is that a reasonable supposition?

For all the good that supposition did me I might as well have, wait. What?

From this morning's edition of The Times:

Parents of Britain, Chris Packham has an important child-rearing tip for you. If you should find yourself in close proximity to a giraffe, it is essential that you let it lick your offspring’s face. And if that friendly giraffe is actually a wolf — even better.

The natural history broadcaster is deeply concerned about the poor level of engagement between young people and wildlife and believes one of the problems is that attitudes have changed since he was a boy. “I remember being licked by a giraffe in Southampton Zoo and my mum taking me by the hand to the toilets and saying ‘go in there and wash’. I stood looking in the mirror and I didn’t wash my hands and I didn’t wash my face. I had been licked by a giraffe! I didn’t want to wash it off. What would happen nowadays? 1) you wouldn’t get any where near a giraffe to get licked by it and 2) it would be first aid ,wouldn’t it, if you got licked by a giraffe? You’d have to be bathed in hand gel. It’s absurd.”

“This whole process is alien to children because they want to pick it up and touch it. The feel of worms, the feel of a caterpillar inching up their finger, the marvel of a ladybird gyrating round that finger and getting to the top of it turning this way and that and then taking flight; that’s the stuff of magic. What are you going to do? Wash their hands with hand gel?”

He really doesn’t like antiseptic hand gels. “When you ask a child to open their hands and you squirt that liquid and say ‘rub that in’ you are saying ‘you are in a dirty and dangerous place’. And when you say to them not to climb the tree because you might fall out and hurt yourself, you are instigating fear in that child.”

He sees a decline in the way children interact with the wild and he knows who he thinks is culpable. “Parents are to blame. Clearly we can’t blame kids. They are born with the same innate curiosity that all of us were, but parents have pulled back from allowing their kids to engage with it.

“When I was a kid I would get home, dump my bag before my mother realised I was back from school and I was over the fence and gone until it was dark. I happened to go looking for grass snakes and birds’ nests but the other kids were playing football down the park. They were doing their thing, independently of adults. Now they are taken to football, taken here and there.”

His golden rules for children and wildlife: “You have got to let them pick up those newts. They have got to be stung, slimed, slithered on and scratched.”

The article is behind Uncle Rupert's pay wall and I'm not sure if the usual 'measures' will allow you to access it, however, the above extracts are representative of the work.

The Times

I love Packham.

I had such a crush on him when I was a young teen and he was presenting The Really Wild Show - and I'm pretty sure every lad in my year had a similar crush on Michaela Strachan lol.

[YOUTUBE]1VIn_RUS0is[/YOUTUBE]

DanaC;904384 wrote:

...and I'm pretty sure every lad in my year had a similar crush on Michaela Strachan lol.

I still do! :blush:

Understandable :P

footfootfoot;904284 wrote:

For all the good that supposition did me I might as well have, wait. What?

*chuckle*

@ Carruthers:

I add my hearty applause to xoB's for both of your recent posts here. I'm not able to offer double-blind, peer-reviewed, repeatable evidence of your conclusions, but in my own empirical experience, too much washing is as bad or worse than too little. Maybe I should say it this way, it's far easier to do too much washing than to do too little.

BigV;904545 wrote:

@ Carruthers:

Maybe I should say it this way, it's far easier to do too much washing than to do too little.

Spot on! The charitable side of me says that there is nothing wrong with the 'can't be too careful, err on the side of caution' approach, but the World weary side says it's just another cynical arse covering exercise.

From the British Medical Journal:

A large outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 at a farm in Surrey has resulted in 12 children needing hospital treatment. Three of them remain seriously ill.

The Health Protection Agency said that 36 cases of E coli O157 have been linked to Godstone farm, near Redhill in Surrey. The farm, which lets children pet and feed animals, receives up to 2000 visitors a day during school holidays

As briefly alluded to earlier I was, for years, in close proximity to equine, ovine and bovine waste matter, the latter known to harbour E-coli 157, without suffering ill effects. I know that, as an adult, my resistance to infection would be greater than that of a child, but I just wonder if these children had been brought up in an anti-septic wiped, disinfected, sterile bubble and consequently suffered more as a result.

Maybe the bacteria strains are stronger/more prevalent with modern farming methods?

Or maybe there were always some kids who got ill from that stuff but it was just called a tummy bug - and not reported/recorded the way it is now.

From wiki:

The prophage responsible seems to have infected the strain's ancestors fairly recently, as viral particles have been observed to replicate in the host if it is stressed in some way (e.g. antibiotics).

Given the modern practice of using preventative antibiotics in farm animals this might account for a greater prevalence than when you were a kid.

Carruthers: Concur.

If I'd been licked my a giraffe ('70s childhood) I would have scrubbed myself until my skin nearly came off. Eurgh! Gross!
Although to be fair it would more likely be Mum cleaning me up with spit and a tissue, which was equally squirmy because that was for babies.

Licked by a tiger cub however, I'd be with Packham all the way.

DanaC;904616 wrote:

Maybe the bacteria strains are stronger/more prevalent with modern farming methods?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Dani. It's common knowledge that overcrowding, be it animal or human, brings with it the danger of all manner of infections. Unfortunately, what you or I call overcrowding, the agricultural fraternity calls 'intensive farming' and the whole thing descends into a pharmaceutical arms race.
The only people to benefit, and the livestock certainly doesn't, are the likes of Bayer, Roche, Pfizer et al.