NANNY STATE

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
 

Traditional donkey rides have been banned from a town's beach because of fears the animals might injure a sunbather. Jayne Johns launched the rides at Clacton-on-Sea last year but has now given up after losing money because the local council insist it is too dangerous to walk the donkey on a busy beach. They told Mrs Johns that she would have to use a stretch of sand a mile away from the town's popular pier. Mrs Johns, from Rayleigh, Essex, admitted defeat and said her four donkeys won't be on Clacton beach this summer.

She said, "It is a great shame but it seems we have been beaten by health and safety rules. There was no way I could continue at the site the council chose for me, it was a good fifteen-minute walk away from the main beach and hardly anyone went there. It is so sad for the youngsters who come to Clacton, they loved the experience and there were always smiles on the faces of their parents and grandparents who could remember the donkey rides as a traditional part of the seaside just like Punch and Judy and candyfloss."

Spokesman for Tendring District Council Nigel Brown said,"The main beach was packed with people on many occasions last summer and if donkeys were allowed to operate there it could lead to a conflict with other users. We were happy to accommodate the donkeys but it had to be in the most appropriate location." Last month Tendring council caused a storm of protest when it announced a plan to fence off almost half a mile of the beach at Brightlingsea in case anyone fell from the promenade. The £100,000 scheme would mean the owners of more than beach 350 huts faced a long trek to get to the water's edge. (Source: Daily Telegraph, Mar/10)

A council has spent thousands of pounds on a scheme which teaches people aged from 50 how to wear their slippers safely. Warwickshire County Council offers a service allowing “older people” to bring in their old slippers and replace them with a pair, which it claims can cut the risk of falling over. For a fee of £5, participants receive a fitting session, a new pair of the Velcro fastening slippers, and advice on how to don them and avoid accidents around the home. The so-called Sloppy Slippers project is costing taxpayers £3,500. The council claims that the initiative, which has been adopted by other local authorites, will save money in the long run because it prevents costly injuries to elderly people.

It has also been disclosed that the firm which makes the special slippers charges local authorities £3 a pair, £2 less than the council demands of people taking up its scheme. Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said, “This is a patronising campaign that treats responsible adults like children. People in their 50s in particular will be surprised to learn that they are judged incapable of buying and putting on slippers without interference. Most people targeted by this scheme would far prefer to have lower council tax and money to pay the bills rather than lectures on slippers from the council."

Neil Duncan Jordan, of the National Pensioners’ Convention said, “Falls among the elderly are very serious, but for the vast majority of people in their 50s and 60s, this is patronising and a waste of money. It is astonishing that while the council claim they have your best interests at heart by providing these slippers, they then fleece you for more than the manufacturer is charging.” Dame Joan Bakewell, the Government-appointed adviser on old age, added, “Preventing falls among the elderly is very important because they can have devastating consequences, but starting this scheme at 50 seems premature.”

It is estimated that around 20 to 30% of falls among the elderly can be prevented. Badly fitting slippers are said to significantly increase the risk of suffering a fall which can lead to disability or death. The new slippers are safer because they have non-slip soles, better support and a Velcro fastening to ensure a snug and tailored fit, makers Natureform claim. The firm said they provide the slippers to local authorities at a no-profit price, charging a flat rate of £3 per pair, plus VAT. A special offer means all customers can currently buy them for the same price, regardless of how many they order, a spokesman said.

However, advertising the scheme on its website, Warwickshire County Council states, “The slipper service aims to replace old slippers with new footwear for only £5 a pair (less than half the retail price), and to provide falls prevention advice.” A council spokeswoman insisted that it was not ripping off elderly customers saying, “The costs of the slipper service that we offer includes the footwear, distribution, falls prevention advice and the follow up support.” She said the council had been offered a reduced price of £3 per pair for the Natureform slippers but usually pays £5 a pair.

She added that the council also charges participants the same £5 fee for more expensive wider fitting versions. Responding to claims that people in their 50s would be patronised, the spokeswoman said: “It's really about prevention and intervention where people are targeted earlier to prevent problems later in life. "It's entirely optional and the majority of people who are taking up the scheme are 65 plus, however for those who may have health needs at an earlier age the service is here.” (Source: Daily Telegraph, Dec/09)

A train steward refused to sell a passenger an egg sandwich . . . because he might choke on it. Chris Haynes had gone to the buffet car after the crew announced that everyone on board would get a free soft drink as compensation for the train breaking down. After suffering the long delay and a lengthy queue to be served, Mr Haynes was understandably hungry. He saw some egg sandwiches on sale behind the bar that looked appetising, but when he came to order he was astonished to be told he couldn't buy one.

Mr Haynes explained that he was not trying to get a free meal and was happy to pay, but the steward again told him that he could not sell him a sandwich. Recalling the bizarre exchange, Mr Haynes said, "When I asked the man why not he said it was for health and safety reasons. I told him I didn't understand how health and safety came into selling a hungry stranded passenger an egg sandwich on a broken-down train."

Mr Haynes said that when he asked for an explanation a second time, the steward replied, "Don't you see? If the train has to be evacuated you could choke to death on the sandwich." Mr Haynes, a bar manager himself, said, "I've never, ever heard anything so ludicrous in my life. There was a queue of people behind me and they all looked shocked. First Great Western were quite happy to give out free drinks but weren't prepared to sell egg sandwiches for health and safety reasons." (Source: Daily Mail, Dec/09)

The country is drowning in a sea of debt, industrial output continues to decline, unemployment is on the up, taxes are set to rise, public services are due to be cut, standards in education continue to fall, we are plagued by crime; yet, despite all these real problems the Government sets its sights on countering what it considers an issue of national importance, the calorific content of fish and chips. Welcome to Labour’s insane Nanny State, where ever-expanding government seeks out new and novel ways to interfere in and legislate for, every aspect of the human condition.

It’s not as though we live in some wondrous utopia where the only issue of concern remaining to be resolved by our Westminster tax-eaters is whether fish and chips are bad for our waistlines; most of us are aware that “he who overindulges, bulges.” Indeed, since when has our diet been a legitimate extension of government interest; is this the precursor for even more restrictive legislation leading, perhaps, to the introduction of a fish ‘n chips tax?

Perhaps not so far-fetched; we only recently reported on how they intend to impose a tax on the public playing of recorded music, so gratifying to know that air is free, for the time being that is. As though the Government doesn’t squander enough of our tax money already, we now learn that they have appointed a “watchdog” to “target” Britain’s favourite fast food snack, fish and chips; urging chip shop owners to produce thicker versions that contain fewer calories and less fat.

At unspecified but, no doubt, ponderous cost, Labour’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) has launched a project in no fewer than 80 fish and chip shops across the country aimed at making fish and chips healthier. Government officials are reported as wanting fryers to increase the size and thickness of their chips, presumably on the basis that in-depth research and “sound science” proves chunkier chips absorb less fat than their traditional leaner British brethren.

The same, unnamed, highly paid Government officials also inform us that making individual chips bigger will significantly reduce the calorie content of an average portion of fish and chips; you could, of course, opt to eat less if you were that concerned, but that would credit us with some intelligence, wouldn’t it? According to one media report:

“The pilot scheme was launched in November 2009 and will be extended across Cambridgeshire, Greater Manchester and Northern Ireland this month. Local authorities will visit chip shops to examine how much fat is in a portion of chips and if the scheme is successful it will be rolled out across the country. It will run for the next two years and will extend to other small catering businesses including Indian and Chinese takeaways within the next 12 months.”

Meanwhile unemployment, illiteracy, taxes, delinquency, homelessness, crime, bankruptcies, national debt, MPs expenses and pensioner “excess winter deaths” continue to rise. Have these Government officials nothing better to do with their time and our money? The Government would be well advised to consider its own size, it’s far too big for the health of the nation. What this useless interfering Government forgets is that we are adults, meaning we are capable of forming our own opinions and making our own decisions without their taxpayer funded “advice.” (Source: BNP, Mar/10)