The term 'Nanny State' seems to be being used more and more these days. It appears to be a critical term used by people who object to various/particular laws and protections.

Yet, does anybody ever stop and think if the thing(s) they are objecting to are actually beneficial. Surley, if you look back in history there are many examples of reforms which would, at the time, have been critisised in similar ways, (although the term itself appears to be a modern one).

What do other people think?

It does seem to me that we are being "nannied" too much these days. I think this can most clearly be seen in some of the absurdly "nannying" health warnings seen on various products now. It's sad that companies/governments feel that they have to "nanny" us so much or we'll sue them...

There's also a fair bit of "let's treat the public as complete idiots who can't read roadsigns" that goes on on our highways - filter-lanes where the green arrow for the filter lane would be lit if only it hadn't previously confused some simpleton or other.

As a particular example of where "nannying" has gone out of control is the fact that peanuts have warnings on specifically pointing out they may cause a choking hazard. I mean seriously, do I need to be warned that by eating something I may choke? Sometimes I think that all safety warnings should be removed from all products (especially the "mind the gap" at the train station) and we'll let a bit of natural selection sort it all out...

Too much Bureaucracy or strangulation by an 'in your face' government and on the make politicians.

To present the opposing view, if the peanut seller didn't warn buyers they would have no defence when a litigious 'chokee' visited a law shark for compensation.

There's a fine line, but many people cross it. SOmeone (yes, ok, I'll admit it - I was watching 'Loose Women' today) earlier used the phrase in referral to a ban on public smoking. I think people who are rude and destructive enough to do this are the reason such laws are put there, it's personal choice to smoke, but when there's other people involved in such a lethal activity, it needs some kind of law.

Already banned include:

Citizens thinking for themselves.

Correcting wayward children by time honoured processes.

Common sense (by Lord Falconer)

Bringing to book those not able to pay fines.

Protecting ones property and posessions.

Apprehending those who trespass with intent to rob.

Physically restraining those in the process of vandalism.

Going to the assistance of those in distress (assault)

Checking children's hair for livestock (assault)

The list goes on and on and on...

Originally posted by Lickszz
Already banned include:

Citizens thinking for themselves. So what's all this University education about?
Originally posted by Lickszz
Correcting wayward children by time honoured processes. Do you mean beating?Originally posted by Lickszz
Common sense (by Lord Falconer) Maybe he would like that, but it hasn't stopped me... or you ;)
Originally posted by Lickszz
Bringing to book those not able to pay fines. B] The courts are full of 'em and the prisons are just full. What would you suggest? Gulags?
Originally posted by Lickszz
[B]Protecting ones property and posessions. Well, maybe a sign of the times, but I hope you don't mean shooting burgulars?
Originally posted by Lickszz
Apprehending those who trespass with intent to rob. Citizens arrest provides for reasonable force.
Originally posted by Lickszz
Physically restraining those in the process of vandalism. The same again.
Originally posted by Lickszz
Going to the assistance of those in distress (assault) B] Eh?Originally posted by Lickszz
[B]Checking children's hair for livestock (assault) Eh again?


For a second I thought it was the Daily Mail :P

I think Lickszz with those last two is referring to the fact that in some areas of work, you are not allowed to help people up if they have fallen, in case they decide that you, by helping them, are admitting that it was your fault they fell.

For the same reason, a large department store int his country, advises it;s staff not to even ask the customer 'are you alright?' is this also can be used as an admission of blame. :loopy:

As for the last one, i think that is referring to the fact that schools no longer can check children's head for nits, or so i believe ( don't have proof on this).

i think that in a world where common sense seems to mean nothing (not to some of the legal profession) all these are a tad excessive, yet sadly necessary to stop some fools trying to exploit the system.

Wilf

Please excuse my editing your post.

Originally posted by Tony
So what's all this University education about?

I gave you an example of this with the skin type. It would seem that certain people were prevented from thinking for themselves.

Originally posted by Tony
Do you mean beating?

What is needed is to return to parents and teachers the FULL authority to use corporal punishment as the backbone to underpin a proper disciplinary regime

Originally posted by Tony
Maybe he would like that, but it hasn't stopped me... or you ;)

I'll save Falconer for another thread.

Originally posted by Tony
The courts are full of 'em and the prisons are just full. What would you suggest? Gulags?

So, what generally happens if you are unable to pay, bearing in mind the discouragement of prison.

Originally posted by Tony
Well, maybe a sign of the times, but I hope you don't mean shooting burgulars?

Sign of the times? Why would that be and who's fault is it?

Originally posted by Tony
Citizens arrest provides for reasonable force.
The same again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1249603.stm

Is this your idea of what should happen after making a citizens arrest?

[i]Originally posted by Tony [/
Eh?

Seen any Nit Nurses in school lately? They were abolished because apparently it was thought there was a link with bullying and subjected kids to been embarrassed and humiliated. It's been argued that head lice are worse than ever in schools.

Originally posted by Tony
For a second I thought it was the Daily Mail :P

Perhaps if you got up early enough on Sundays you could ask a good pensioner to fetch you a copy of the Mail on Sunday from the shops before they sold out and then you could read the news. ;)

Originally posted by noseyrosie
I was watching 'Loose Women' today) earlier used the phrase in referral to a ban on public smoking. I think people who are rude and destructive enough to do this are the reason such laws are put there, it's personal choice to smoke, but when there's other people involved in such a lethal activity, it needs some kind of law.

Yep. To put it bluntly, we need the nanny state because some people need saving from their own stupidity. In fact, we all need saving from their stupdity.

I just wonder how many reforms from the past, such as the Factory Acts in Victorian times, the creation of the NHS, the Clean Air Act, loads of road traffic acts etc, etc, would have been critisised in similar way that such current things as banning public smoking or smacking children are critisised.

I sometimes think we need to take a wider perspective on things and think what future generations will think. To give just one example, I believe that in years to come people will wonder why smoking in public was tolerated for so long and why politicians were so timid about tackeling the issue.

Perhaps when people start taking responsibility for their own actions and blaming someone or something for what is really the outcome of what they have done then we wont need the nanny state.

People being rude, dirty, obnoxiously antisocial is seen as something that is tolerated. Why shouldnt there have to be rules to make us behave properly and reasonably because we obviously cannot do it ourselves.

I have recently got a job in an A & E dept. and it is treated like a GP surgery rather than people coping with ordinary ailments at home. They grumble because they have to wait 2 or 3 hours when it is busy then suddenly the emergency becomes "oh well perhaps we will go home now. We dont want to bother you."

People have unrealistic expectations. The people I see expect to be fetched and carried for to an unrealistic level.

Let's have personal responsibility for the ablebodied and mentally capable and save the caring for those who really need it. Dont moan about the nanny state if you are ablebodied.

:loopy: :loopy:

I'm not sure what the term "nanny state" really means.

People seem to use the term whenever there is talk of a new law to stop them doing what they want to do... irrespective of whether or not it is a good law. It often seems to be used by people who are worried about laws that might ban cruelty to children or cruelty to animals.

Personally I don't have any problem with food packets having warnings on, and I don't have any problem with the government encouraging people to take more exercise and eat more healthy food.

Well said Patchy. In the current times nobody wants to take responsibility for their own health, behaviour, children you name it. I am not an old fogey just someone who wants people to behave nicely to each other. Is that unreasonable. If it takes a nanny state to make us do that then that is the price we have to pay.

You get the Government you deserve.

Going to the assistance of those in distress (assault)

The list goes on and on and on... [/B]

When i did my 1st aid training, we were told about the risk of being sued, either for laying hands on them in the first place or for the results of the first aid. Never mind the fact that you may have saved their life, but you may have worsened an injury.
eg, someone has an accident, they're unconcious, you've done the necessary and then put them in the recovery position. What you don't realise is they have broken or dislocated something and you unwittingly compound the injury by moving them.
you can't win sometimes.