Health and Safety
This is the sort of news I welcome - the government apparently preparing to give some responsibility for the lives of its citizens back to those citizens. This is the sort of thing that should be celebrated - particularly after 13 years of grinding, illiberal, controlling politics from Nu Labour.
Now, I'm not the sort of person who gets worked up about individual examples of what is termed "the nanny state". I cannot get excited about the banning of a cheese-rolling event in Gloucestershire. Both the event and the banning of it seem pretty idiotic to me, but that's it. But what does bother me is the impact that all these little bans and controls have on us. They make us unwilling to take responsibility for ourselves. They make us dependent on the state. We end up not being able to think for ourselves. And that is a very dangerous state of affairs, because then we cease to be a nation of adults capable of making decisions for ourselves and without government guidance.
Of course, when installing health and safety guidelines and laws, the government can appear benign. They are making rules, they are restricting freedom, in order to stop people being hurt or worse. What better thing could a government do? Except this notion - the idea that the right combination of regulations and laws will eliminate risk from society - is just not possible. Part of being alive is being at risk - and also essential to live is making calculated risks.
Then we get the claims that the government is trying to make children safer - the age old cry, now hackneyed beyond belief, of "won't someone think of the children?" Well, yes, someone should. Their parents. Seriously, if you are going to have kids, then take some responsibility for them. You're their parent, not the government. So if you don't want your kids, for example, to play conkers, then don't let them. If you're actually going to be a parent, then you should do some parenting, rather than expecting the government to do it for you.
Because can you really blame the government when they say you shouldn't smoke, or drink, or be anything other than an optimum weight given the culture of abdication of responsibility in this country? Can you really blame the government when they decide that your children should only hear certain words in their school, or when they decide you're not fit to be a parent when the government has been allowed to control so much of what constitutes parenting in this country? Every meaningless or pointless restriction that appears, by itself, not to matter actually does matter - it is a sign to the state saying we want them to take responsibility for us.
As a nation, we should welcome the idea of restricting government intervention on the grounds of health and safety. And we should push it to do far more in order to give us our freedom - and therefore our lives - back. And we should also grow the fuck up and remember we are adults. Everyone in this country needs to take responsibility for ourselves and any offspring we bring into this world.
Health and safety? Your health, your safety. Act accordingly.
Labels: Civil Liberties (the Death of), Freedom, Health, Safety
4 Comments:
The whole 'Health and Safety' thing is a tad misleading - what they're going on about is actually down to insurance - if people want insurance so that they're covered if someone is injured/killed working for them or taking part in some event organised by them then they have to do risk assessments to prove they've mitigated risks as best they can - otherwise they'll either not get insurance cover or the insurance company will reject the claim.
So the example about playing conkers on the bbc page: if a kid got hit in the eye by a piece of flying conker it's likely, these days, that the parents would sue the school, so the school needs to have insurance to cover this eventuality & the associated risk assessment probably suggested risk can be limited by wearing safety glasses...
The head->desk bit in the article is: "Lawyers say the legal right to claim damages should remain protected." - THIS is what caused the mess in the first place.
"Lawyers say the legal right to claim damages should remain protected."
Only to line their own pockets.
The head->desk bit in the article is: "Lawyers say the legal right to claim damages should remain protected." - THIS is what caused the mess in the first place.
No, that has always been there. Common law allows one to sue for damages in the event of negligence and quite right, too.
What has happened, unfortunately, is as you rightly point out, the risk averse nature of insurers and the willingness of people - encouraged by the legal profession and no win no fee brigade - to bring frivolous suits.
The bigger story here, I think, is the Libertarian argument put forward by Lord Young and, unfortunately, his inability to apply that argument properly across the board.
http://libertarianbulldog.blogspot.com/2010/10/argument-blindness.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home