Banned By The State IX - Swimming In The Rain

It's been a while since I ran a story in my "Banned By The State" series, but that doesn't mean to say that the State hasn't been banning things. Far from it. And following on from mince pies, bouncy castles and football boots comes a new scourge of the Health and Safety Gestapo - swimming in wet weather.

Swimmers at the London Fields Lido in Hackney have been stopped from entering the pool during showers of rain, for Health and Safety reasons.

So, what's the problem ? Slippery pool edges ? Risk of someone getting a chill ? Acid rain ? Oooo, no, far more serious than that. Apparently heavy rain can make it more difficult to see through the water, so the lifegaurds might miss the fact that somebody's drowning. Because the nasty pitta-patta rain drops distort the water. No, really they do. Stop laughing at the back.

Stop what you're doing...it's clouding over !

OK, I know this isn't what one does with Health and Safety issues, but let's just look at this rationally, shall we ? For a start the chances of someone getting into such a level of difficulty are tiny - we all know that. The obessession with having numerous lifegaurds on duty at swimming pools adds little value except to the Council Tax. And the chances of someone getting into trouble when it's raining are even smaller. But just to humour the Gestapo let's just assume it happens, once every five years or so. All you need is:

• lifegaurds who can stay awake and watch the water a bit more closely;


• worst case, a fellow swimmer comes to the striken citizen's need.

Rocket science ? Well yes, seemingly so for Hackney Council.

As I promised a couple of months ago, when I find council-imposed lunacy like this, I'll identify the party in charge, so that we all know who's responsible.

Hackney council: Labour. As red as a London bus, in fact.

Tescos Thinks Balloons Are Dangerous

The thing that angers Womble On Tour most about the spread of Health and Safety fascism is the extent to its obsession with restricting life's simple pleasures has caught on in the previously liberal-leaning private sector. The private sector used to stand apart from the State in its attitude to ridiculous safety measures. Not any more it seems.

After all, as pleasures go, you can't get much simpler than a balloon. Or more harmless, you'd have thought. That is, unless, you're in charge of security at Tescos in Poole.

If you're in charge of security at Tescos in Poole a balloon, filled with helium, is potentially a highly dangerous object. and you have to ban it. Because once let go, a helium balloon rises to the ceiling, and can interfere with the sprinker system.



You can't bring that in here, love.

Really ? You wouldn't have thought that a balloon could prevent water spurting out from a fire prevention system, would you ? Still, Tescos know best.

Not surprisingly, the idea that a balloon could become akin to a weapon of mass destruction was beyond the understanding of the nine-year-old child in charge of it. Still, she did, in a way, have the last word in a way that Tescos might at least comprehend. She took her pocket money elsewhere.

Womble On Tour does not normally shout. He thinks he should be able to vent his feelings through normal use of the Englaish language. Occasionally though, someone deserves the hair-dryer treatment, and Tescos in Poole are a fine example. So, here goes:

GET A GRIP, YOU MORONS !

Catch A Load Of This Nonsense

Beautiful, isn't it ? It's Foremark Reservoir in Derbyshire. And if you were a fisherperson (which I'm not) and lived in the area, you might fancy a trip there to indulge in your pastime; to do some fishing.

Fishing ? That's banned, fishing is. It's dangerous, see ?

Why's that then ? Oooo, two very good reasons.

For a start, there are some rocks near the water's edge. And being near the water's edge, they get wet sometimes. And some of the poor fisherpeople have slipped on the nasty, horrible wet rocks, and hurt themselves.

And then there's the fear that a stray fishing line might hit a passer-by. Has it ever happened at the reservoir ? No, but it might.

Oh well, better ban it then.








You can't do that here, mate...

Three Promises Dave Should Make

Before I went away to see the family and the Boys in Blue (they won 3-0), the Wilted Rose asked what New Year's resolutions the Shadow Cabinet should make. I have three ideas.

1) To get onto the front foot on the economic crisis. Cameron and Osborne have been found wanting since September and it's allowed Brown to look (to some people, at least) as if he knows what he's doing. He's come up with some "initiatives" such as the ruinous fiscal stimulus and the equally crazy mortgage bail-out and, with the help of the Mandelsson / Campbell spinning machine, he's couched these as crafted measures which suggested he knows how to beat the recession. Which he doesn't, because he can't.
The Conservatives, for their part, have been seen (fairly in some ways) as carping from the sidelines and failing to come up with an alternative strategy. Cameron's analysis of why we're in this mess and how Brown is only making it worse will, I'm sure, prove correct in the medium term. But he has to offer a narrative for how we move forward. There are signs, today, that he's grasped this at last, with the tremendous pledge to abolish tax on savings for basic rate tax-payers; if he'd have done it for everyone it would have been even better. Taxing the interest on people's savings is one of the most immoral, insidious, indefensible taxes on earth and it would be wonderful to see the back of it. We need more announcements like this over the coming weeks, backing up with a well-constructed strategy, which we haven't yet seen.

2) To launch a wholesale attack on the erosion of our freedoms that has taken place over the last ten years, including the abolition of habeous corpus, the right to trial by jury and the freedom to demonstrate peacefully. The Conservatives say, David Davies style, that they abhor the whole ethos which has created 3,000-plus new criminal offences since 1997, but they are short on policy which actually supports that view. They need to thump the table and say "This must stop". And they need to keep saying it, even after they've all been arrested.

3) To promise a wholesale reversal of the utterly insane Health & Safety and litigation cultures which have been sweeping across our beleaguered nation - in fairness since well before 1997. We cannot go on insisting on CRB checks for all and sundry, having to fill in risk assessments before throwing a snowball (no, really), or having coaches risk being sued because little Johnny hurt his leg playing football. The amount of work ahead for any freedom-loving government here is phenomenal, and would take years, but the Conservatives need something that sets the tone. the abolition of the Health and Safety Executive would be a great start.

Anyone else got any more suggestions ?

Carry On Polluting...It's Safer

Many moons ago I blogged about it being illegal to have sex with one.

Now, it seems, you’re not even allowed to take one to school.

A bike, that is.

We’ve got a government that lectures us incessantly about keeping fit, getting plenty of exercise, using the car less, preventing childhood obesity etc etc etc.

And here’s a school that won’t let a pupil cycle to school. Because it’s too dangerous. It’s the nasty road outside the school, you see – it’s got cars on it.

And of course it doesn’t matter that the boy’s mother trusts him to ride safely, because you can’t expect a mother to know the capabilities of her child better than the school does. After all, the school is run by the State, and the State Knows Everything, and the Mother Knows Nothing.

Mind you, his mum’s pulling no punches in the battle with the Health and Safety Gestapo. “I am deeply offended that all the feedback from the school implies that by wanting my son to cycle to school I am putting the lives of children at risk." “Deeply offended”, eh ? Nice move. He (or she) who is deeply offended usually wins the day.

This Week's Health And Safety Madness

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency have banned costguard rescue teams from using flares during rescue operations on because they might be dangerous. This is despite the fact that there are no recorded incidents where flares have caused injury.

Children's toys have been banned from doctors' surgeries in Trafford because of the risk of infection.

Floats have been banned from some swimming pools in Northumberland for the same reason.

Is it me or is the world just going stark, raving bonkers ?

Banned By The State VIII - Bouncy Castles

Anyone who's had or seen kids at play knows how much they love flying round a bouncy castle for ten minutes. It's energetic, good exercise and fun. So, no one would want to put a stop to that, would they ?

Step forward, Bersted Parish Council in West Sussex, which has just voted to ban all inflatable play equipment from its playing fields. Frightened to death by a High Court ruling last month which found the organisers of a party liable for damages after a child had been injured on a bouncy castle, the council have decided that it's not worth the risk. They reckon it would take four adults to provide the required supervision. Four ? For a bouncy castle ?

This is another of those situations where I just want to shake the world by its shoulders and shout "Get a bloody grip on reality, will you ?" The risks of serious injury in a bouncy castle are tiny. Sure, it can happen. But it's very, very unlikely.

So another harmless, almost entirely risk-free avenue of pleasure is closed down on our children. Presumably the kids of Bersted will go and play in a river or a railway line instead, but that'll be OK because it's not on the Parish Council's watch.

The chairman of the council is quoted as saying "People are saying that we are in a nanny state but as responsible citizens we have to be seen to take what action is necessary." Well, he got one thing right, anyway.

Is This Some Kind Of Bloody Joke ?

Sorry, didn't mean to swear in the headline - will have to change my name to Devil's Kitchen. But God spare us, have you seen this ?

The British Standards Institution (BSI) want to force us to have our trees inspected in case they fall down on anyone. Let me just type that again, in case you didn't believe me the first time. The British Standards Institution (BSI) want to force us to have our trees inspected in case they fall down on anyone. Still don't believe me ? No, neither do I. But it's true. Lookee here and feel free to comment accordingly (you'll need to register if you're fortunate enough not to have come across these horrendous people before).

So, anyone who has trees within falling-down distance of a public place (and that includes us, at Womble On Tour Towers, I might add) will have to have inspections carried out as follows (cue deep breath):
....a "lay inspection", by ourselves, every year, and maybe after every storm;
...."a preliminary but systematic inspection" every three years" (possibly using binoculars, mallet and probe) by a person trained to observe obvious potential hazards (e.g. tree warden, park ranger, or highway safety inspector)"*;
....an "expert" inspection every five years, meaning a "systematic and diagnostic process of visual inspection by a competent person (e.g. an arboriculturist) from ground level using binoculars, mallet and probe as necessary in order to gain sufficient understanding of a tree’s structural condition, so as to inform, where appropriate, reinspection interval and management recommendations (risk control measures)" which may lead to a "detailed inspection", the details of which I won't bore you with.

Falling trees kill six people each year. The BSI does not speculate on how many of those lives (if any) might be saved by this nonsense, nor does it tell us how many tree inspections this will entail or what the total cost will be. Needless to say whatever astronomical sum is involved will be VAT-able. Nice little earner for the Treasury.

I'm going to have to keep a close eye on the BSI. On this evidence they appear to be a fundamentalist wing of the Health and Safety Gestapo. They will be up against the wall pretty quickly to the wall come the Revolution.

-----------------
* I've quoted directly from the BSI's draft, and it contains a classic example of poor English. Take this literally and you can infer that tree wardens, park rangers, or highway safety inspectors are "potential hazards". Which is about the only common sense in the whole document.

Plod Prohibit The Plonk

Welcome to another in my series of pointless interventions by the State that really leaves you with nothing to say other than "Oh, for God's sake !".

East Fife Football Club haven't exactly had a lot to celebrate in their 105-year history. Based in a town which (to my shame) I'd never heard of - Methil - and invariably in Scotland's bottom division, they have a pretty short honours list to their name; the Scottish FA Cup in 1938, the Division Two title a decade later, and three League Cup wins, all more than 50 years ago. So you might think that winning the Third Division title on Saturday might have kick-started something of a celebration. Enter the esteemed officers of Central Scotland Police to spoil the fun.

Apparently the Police saw an opportunity for some new-fangled Stalinism when they spotted a club official taking bottles of champagne off the team bus, and they made known their deep concerns. It is illegal, you see, to take glass containers into a football ground. So when total anarchy started breaking out and someone opened a bottle, spraying delighted fans, he was threatened with arrest. Stalin-in-Chief Inspector Audrey McLeod is quoted as saying "Officers again spoke to club officials, explaining the legislation again and highlighting the potential for glass bottles to present a health and safety issue, particularly with a number of families with children in the vicinity. I promise you, I am not making this up. Then again you couldn't, could you ?

To their credit, the club have turned this ridiculous chapter in State dictatorship into a commerical opportunity, and are now offering the champagne for sale on their web site (perhaps taking the advert on the same page for the Adam Smith College as their inspiration !) Sadly, mail order doesn't appear to be an option, but I'm going to drop them an email and see if I can take a bottle off their hands.

We are all victims of this kind of common-senseless lunacy, and victims have to stick together.

Health & Safety Tossers

I am indebted to a work colleague for bringing my attention to this lamentable tail, in which Health & Safety fascism and fear of litigation has brought an end a harmless tradition in North Yorkshire.

It's the (almost) age-old story bringing to an end to a (genuinely) age-old tradition; Health and Bloody Safety. The cost of insurance and the endless risk assessments.

Obviously the dangers of children and choristers taking part in Pancake Races are there for everyone to see. If it's a race, it might involve people running, and that would never do. And someone might even fall over whilst holding a frying pan, and then where would we be ? And I don't know if you''ve ever been hit in the face by a flying pancake, but, let me tell you, if it happens, Casualty 's your next stop, if not the local crematorium.

What really gets me about the raft of stories where risk aversion comes ahead of everything else is that it would be so easy to fix. All it takes is someone in government to stand up and say "You know all this Health and Safety stuff ? It's all bollocks. From now on we're going to tell our courts to apply some commons sense. And any law that prevents common sense from being applied, we'll repeal". In other words, all it needs is some will, some momentum, some spirit.

Why, oh why, is that so hard to come up with ?

Banned - Sweet throwing

I can't even blame the State for this. A theatre in Norfolk has banned its pantomime cast from throwing sweets into the audience in case someone gets hurt. They're not prepared to fork out the additional insurance premium needed to guard against the risk of someone's kid getting taken out be a low-flying coffee cream.

Actually, if I'd been blogging twelve months ago I could have had a dig at our beloved authorities, because last year Worthing Borough Council banned sweet throwing for fear of sparking food allergies.

I'm not going to descend into a common-sense-defending rage on this one, because I risk just repeating myself from previous articles.

Instead I'm just going to say "OH, FOR GOD'S SAKE !"

Banned By The State VII - Mince Pies

There's something so inevitable about schools banning food made by parents that I thought twice about relating this woeful tale. And then I decided that I would because it says a lot about the status of the individual in Britain today.

The piteous detail is that a school in South Wales has banned pupils from taking home-made mince pies, cakes and biscuits to its Christmas fair. The reason is that the school are worried that someone might get food-poisoning. The Head Teacher is quoted as saying "I don't know what the ingredients are, and there are allergies, and because of things like that we made a decision as a school."

I appreciate that most schools haven't taken this sort of step. Yet. Our children's school held its own Christmas Fair on Saturday, there was a cake stall selling parents' contributions (including, I might add, that of Mrs Womble On Tour, whose cooking is fantastic) and as far as I know everyone's still alive. But it's only a matter of time before this kind of lunacy spreads.

What this says to me is that: a) schools are worried about getting sued; b) parents are deemed as being incapable of making their own risk-based decisions about whether to buy from a cake-stall or not; c) there is a culture of risk elimination (instead of risk management) in many institutions - not just State-run ones, either; d) as a consequence individual responsibility (the fake-mantra of the Blair era that was oft-spoken but always ignored) is further reduced.

There's a ratchet effect in progress here, too. Power is taken out of the hands of individuals because individuals are deemed incapable of arriving at a decision. That means they have less responsibility and less freedom to make their own mistakes and learn their own lessons. So next time someone in authority comes to a view about where decisions lie, they have a further excuse not to grant decision-making powers to individuals. And so it goes on. A bit like growing up in reverse.

I believe that the biggest single thing that could change this is a realisation on the part of our legal system that it's time common sense was applied. If someone eats a mince pie from a school cake stall and then throws up for a couple of days, that's tough. It's not an excuse for a writ. Our legislature and those acting on its behalf has to realise that people are capable of taking their own decisions, and what's more they should be encouraged to do so.

Until that happens, the Nanny State is going to carry on expanding at a terrying rate.

Banned By The State V - Football Boots

Those who lie awake at night troubled by the danger to life and limb posed by football boots can now rest easily - the State is on the case.

Children on a football training course at Bedonwell Primary School in South London have been banned from wearing them on the grounds that they are dangerous. Intriguingly, trainers are banned as well, and children are ordered to wear plimsolls instead.

Plimsolls provide the instep with no protection at all, and you need studs if you're going to run around on a wet pitch.

Which probably means that kicking and running are next on Bedonwell's hit-list.

Banned By The State IV - Feeding The Ducks

The Oakley and Deane branch of the Nanny State appears to have got itself into a bit of a tizz over duck feeding.

Apparently, toxins in the ducks' droppings could harm children and pollute the pond, in addition to which the Parish Council chairman believes the mallards' digestive systems cannot cope with additives in bread.

Well that's it, then, isn't it ? Can't have ducks pooing in the pond, can we ? And it's perfectly obvious that duck droppings harm our kids; it's a wonder that anyone reaches adulthood at all, given the dangers involved in this killer practice. And the fact that feeding bread to ducks is bad for them is clearly demonstrated by the fact that you just hardly ever see a duck these days.

Sometimes when you hear these stories you have to take them with a pinch of salt (whilst taking care not to exceed 6 grammes a day, of course) not least of all because it's hard to credit that council officials really don't have anything more serious to worry about. But this one was on Radio 4 this morning, so it must be true.

But, please, did Parish Council clerk Sally Warner really say that the village of Oakley (in Hampshire) had been "overwhelmed with ducks" ? Overwhelmed ? An entire village ? With ducks ?

Which planet do these people live on ?

Banned By The State III - Fireworks

It's hardly worth blogging a "fireworks ban" story, because it is so obviously going to happen in a world run by Health and Safety Fascism. But seeing as I'm into the swing of it, I thought I would.

There will be no public display in the historic city of York this year because the costs of confirming to all the nonsensical safety rules.

In the old days they held a bonfire on the Knavesmire racecourse and no one ever got hurt as far as I know. That got the heave-ho on the grounds of (safety) costs. This year they were going to hold an event at York City football ground (known excruciatingly as "Kit Kat Crescent", but that's another story) but that's been refused a safety certificate.

You know where all this is leading, of course. Fewer and fewer public displays go ahead because of safety concerns. That means more family displays, in which more people get hurt. The statistics show an increase in firework-related injuries, and hey, presto, Our Beloved Rulers have an excuse to ban fireworks entirely.

Womble On Tour Prediction: fireworks will be banned (at least from private sale) within ten years.

Banned By The State II - Bunting, Christmas Lights, Ladders

You may be aware that our much-beloved leaders have found lots of reasons for banning Christmas lights because there's a danger that they might fall on somebody's head. But in Ampthill, Bedfordshire, they've gone one better. They're banning bunting too.

Or at least, they would have banned it, on the basis that it's too dangerous to put it up, were it not for the fact that it's up already, and is too dangerous to take down. And for whom does the State deem it too risky to climb ladders and take the bunting down ? The Fire Service ! Yes, folks, those people for whom it is absolutely OK to climb ladders to enter burning buildings, lift people out of top-floor windows and bring them back down to the ground cannot be trusted to nip up a ladder to take some bunting down. Or to put it up again next year to celebrate the town's annual gala day, or, doubtless, to put up the lights at Christmas.

Apparently Health and Safety regulations no longer allow the use of ladders to hang or remove decorations; it has to be done using hydraulic platforms. Specialist testing gear must be used to assess the safety of bolts anchoring decorations, and lampposts have been deeemed unsuitable for hanging decorations.

Thanks to Nanny Knows Best and Times Online for alerting us to this insane story.

Kirklees Busy-Bodies Are At It Again

Word reaches me that the Enemies of Enjoyment are on the march again in West Yorkshire. Kirklees Active Leisure (KAL), which is some irksome offshoot of Kirklees Council (itself well-known locally for many previous attempts to abolish fun in as many forms as possible) is at war with the excellent Holme Valley Amateur Swimming Club for the way it manages its junior swimming sessions. The upshot is that the club have been forced to abandon their children's "fun swim" on some ludicrous and doubtless trumped-up Health and Safety concerns.

Womble on Tour is still drilling down to get to the detail. When he has it, so will you.

UPDATE: Initial investigations underway and it doesn't get any better. KAL has issued the swimming club with a whole number of (undocumented) ultimata, which the club has continuously bent over backwards to meet. The Club is doing its best to manage the relationship but KAL appear hell-bent on confrontation. They seem especially vindictive and mean-minded about children's fun swims, and have even gone as far as physically removing children's equipment from the pool side.
Watch this space for more news about the way these government-sponsored cronies are bullying the very people in our communities that they should be supporting, but in the meantime Womble On Tour asks: Who the hell do these people think they are ?

Center Parcs - common sense on Health and Safety

Womble on Tour & family have just come back from a week at Center Parcs. What a fantastic example of a private sector company it is.

The customer service is always superb. The environment is peaceful. They’ve put a lot of thought into the layout of the campus so that each villa feels secluded and tranquil behind trees and yet when you reach the communal buildings you are surrounded by opportunities to take part in challenging, strenuous or stimulating activities.

Center Parcs pride themselves on their commitment to the environment and have planted much of the forest that gives the place its aura of calm. They attract and protect wildlife, and recycle as much as possible.

Cars are banned for most of the time so people get around on foot, by cycle or wheelchair – everywhere is disabled-friendly. When you’ve got to where you’re going you can swim, play all sorts of sports, have a work out, look at the abundant wildlife or sit and have a drink or a decent meal.

Center Parcs is a wonderful place for children; I’d have loved it when I was little because there is just so much to see, feel and do. But one of the things that makes it that little bit special is that the place is not crawling with Health & Safety fascists telling you what to do all the time.

In any place run by the government or a local council, there’s a whole army of people dedicated to making sure that risk is pretty much eliminated from whatever anyone is doing. Often this manifests itself to a quite ludicrous degree. When I took one of my children – five years old at the time - out of their depth at the learner pool of my local swimming baths, I was promptly rebuked by the life guard. That, despite the fact that both of my twins could swim perfectly well, and had all the certificates and badges to prove it. Other pools ban backstroke on the off-chance that someone bumps their head, some schools ban football or even games of tag from their playgrounds for fear that the poor children get hit by a ball or run into each other.

At Center Parcs, there is certainly no shortage of lifeguards within the fabulous swimming complex. One of them jumped in while we were there to perform a rescue, and was backed up within seconds by a whole phalanx of others in case they were needed. But the difference is that these guys are not in your face the whole time. You can throw balls around – a strict no-no at pretty much any council-run place. You can take pictures of your kids. And you can splash them too. In our council-run pools, the idea of a children’s “fun swim” is to stick a few floats in the water, but the moment anyone dares to splash someone else they’re immediately brought to book by some interfering intermeddler. At Center Pars, the lifeguards jump in, fully clothed, and splash the kids themselves.

On our last night we went out for a meal at one of the many restaurants. This one had a play area, which included a ball pool. It was somewhere the children could go while we waited for the food to arrive, allowing them to let off steam and the parents to have some adult time together. When the meal came I went to retrieve our offspring. I was greeted by the wonderful sight of a full-scale ball fight, with kids throwing the hollow plastic balls at each other with as much force as they could muster. They’d arranged their own “teams”. Anyone who didn’t want to join in didn’t have to. But those that did were having the time of their lives. It was a sight that would have brought about near apoplexy in any council-supervised play area. It struck me that this was one of the few opportunities our children get for mass, unsupervised play. And a fine job they were making of it. There was no danger to anyone of anything approaching serious injury. The children had their own, unspoken rules; don’t throw a ball from too short a distance, and if you do then don’t aim at the face. Anyone who had got hurt would have had arms put round their shoulders and would have been looked after by their playmates until they felt better. No one needed the State to tell them how to have a good time in perfect safety.

The national obsession with Health & Safety is reaching ridiculous proportions. Center Parcs is a little haven from it. Long may it continue.