Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Let's Get Dirty II

Let's Get Dirty IIOh dear, following on from my recent article about dirt and the alleged increase in "allergies", it seems that Nanny is taking her crusade for "cleanliness" another step further...except that is in the one place that it actually matters; namely hospitals!

Leisure centres in some parts of the country have now stopped providing armbands and rubber rings.

For why?

It seems that there is a clear and present danger (in Nanny's mind) of people catching germs while blowing them up.


Swimming pool managers in Bournemouth have introduced the measure, because they say that a full-time member of staff would be needed to ensure stringent guidelines were obeyed. These include a new cleansing programme, a daily inspection for punctures and the drawing up of instructions for staff on how to deal with inflatable-related issues.

A policy to ensure armbands of the right size were issued would also be needed, staff say, because of the rules laid down by the Institute of Sport and Recreation Management. Parents will be able to bring inflatables, but staff can not hand them out. The decision came after an auditor noticed the institute's rules were not being followed.

What complete and utter bollocks!

Geoff Messenger, the leisure marketing manager for Bournemouth Borough Council's swimming pools, said:

"It was just about being nice to the customers

who had forgotten to bring armbands for their children.

We wanted to help them out,

rather than make them buy a new pair,

but the regulations make it too difficult
."

A spokesman for the institute said:

"If you are lending out armbands you have

got a duty of care and you have to

make sure they are fit for purpose.

Our guidelines are not binding at all.

People have to measure their own

policy against our guidance
."

Little men enjoying their little power!

The fact that these rings etc, especially for children, provide a rather useful means of minimising the risks of people drowning seems to have escaped Nanny.

How risky is it that people will catch bugs from blowing up rings?

Are we in the middle of a plague outbreak?

Can't people simply rinse the mouthpieces in the chlorinated water?

As to the bugs and contents of swimming pools, that is best left undiscussed.

Children eat and live in utter filth of their own making, that's what builds their strength, a few bugs on mouthpieces will do them no harm whatsoever.

In short this ban is utter bollocks!

5 comments:

  1. Grant2:33 PM

    In the general scheme of our population reduction influenced masters this does seem to be merely a case of swapping on form of death (and disease) creation for another. So the benefits would be marginal.

    However, by allowing youngsters to die rather than the older already existing tax payers, there may be a marginal advance.

    For a start the youngsters are likely not going to be paying tax for some years and in the meantime will be a cost burden to society.

    Secondly their carbon footprint will have more paces to take than the footprints of the older people and, indeed, their uncontrolled demands for more and more 'stuff' in their formative years cannot be good for landfill sites and waste disposal in general.

    Finally the loss of their tax payments from their mature years might be thogh of as a negative aspect but, in fact, provides an excellent excuse for not assisting older people in the future thus justify enforced or maybe just State encouraged euthenasia as a way out of the horrors of old age AND the concomitant reduction in carbon footprints (Which would occur at the time of greatest need of course.)

    So the net results might not seem to add up to much at first sight BUT there is some further potential to the idea that woudl not be available in the future without taking action now.

    One assumes that this is a change that will rolled out across the country with all due haste.

    Grant

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. john rimmer4:37 PM

    I think a while ago I said that one of the surest indications that a public spokesrobot was talking bollocks was if they used the word "paramount". Another good indicator is "duty of care".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Grant5:45 PM

    Hmm, I forgot to mention before that the your suggestion of using Chlorinated Water is an ENORMOUS no-no in the modern world. In many places Chlorinated water seems to be second only to smoking as the Devil's creator of cancer.

    If you have a few years to spare try Google searching for "Chlorinated Water" and you will see what I mean.

    As for putting Chlorine in swimming pools - good god man, what are you thinking? You might kill some of the blighters ... er. .. oh! Well, that might be in line with policy actually, hmm.

    No, come to think of it they tried the removal of chlorine from drinking water in South America somewhere - Chile I think it was, or maybe Peru - and killed thousands. Good advice from the US EPA. So removal AND no arm bands is in fact an additive effect (Pun half intended).

    :-|


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually the little men are afraid of exercising their little power; they would rather spend their time and energy only appearing to do anything.
    All the noise, none of the traceability.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lord of Atlantis3:55 PM

    I really do wonder about the sanity of some of the morons running this country, and ours for putting up with these tossers! It is high time that they remembered that they are in these positions to actually help people, not crap on them and enforce this kind of nonsense. Personally speaking (and with apologies to any shellfish reading this, to whom no offence is intended) I wouldn't trust them to run a whelk stall!

    ReplyDelete