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.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Break a Leg

Health and Safety
I am not the only person who believes that the Health and Safety Gestapo have gone too far in their campaign to wrap us in cotton wool, and thus exert control over us.

No less a person than Tom Mullarkey, head of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has said that health and safety "extremists" are preventing children from leading a healthy and robust lifestyle.

Mullarkey waded into the "small-minded bureaucrats" by saying that they were guilty of undermining genuine health and safety work.


"But people have this perception of 'elf and safety'

as something that restricts your life,

rather than helping you to live fully and successfully.

Our argument is that a skinned knee or a twisted ankle

in a challenging and exciting play environment

is not just acceptable, it is a positive necessity.

We need to prepare children for a complex,

dangerous world in which healthy, robust activity

is more a national need than ever before.

We think people should climb mountains,

and sail boats - we are trying to help them in a practical way


Unfortunately the small minded bureaucrats who run the health and safety Gestapo will not listen. They need to be dealt with with a firm hand, once and for all.


  1. Wildswimmer Pete12:07 PM

    And just who is it that has been in the vanguard of advising petty-minded bureaucrats of ever more things to ban and the best way of going about it?

    The words "pot, kettle, black" spring to mind.

    RoSPA's moneymaking "fear industry" has been rumbled and they are very eager to deflect public attention. And yes, their "expert" consultancy fees cost the taxpayer plenty. They also receive a huge annual multi-million pound grant from the Government, sorry, us.

    Take a look here:

    and here:

  2. The Gorse Fox would add that the other problem is money-grubbing lawyers trying to turn any trivial incident into a chance for litigation and another bonanza payout for themselves. GF believes that this is the biggest driver in this sorry affair - 'elf & safety would be far less obtrusive if people weren't suing for compensation at every opportunity.

  3. Gorse Fox:

    You are spot on. Some plank's short term gain(compensation payout) is everybody's long term loss. (Raised insurance premiums, over zealous 'elf'n'safety officers)
    I cringe everytime I see one of these adverts,"Had an accident at work or on the road? Let us make the other party's life a misery for you, we'll get you a couple of quid in compo(sic) and make ourselves a fortune."
    These are the modern equivalent of ambulance chasers.

  4. Anonymous5:43 PM

    I was thinking about this, ever since I heard the new HSC Chair, Judith Hackitt on Radio 4 she was equally scathing about the little Hitler’s who are using H & S excuses to prevent just about anything thing from firemen’s poles to children`s egg and spoon races.

    She said something very interesting, it is not health and safety rules that these people are following but their own rules made up, because the government have in their wisdom made those who are organising anything legally responsible but have failed to specify what they are legally responsible for, except in very general terms. So all of us who have anything to do with the public are forced to list every possible risk and then deal with that risk, failure to do so leaves us open to prosecution because we failed to foresee a possible danger.

    So people like Tom Mullarkey can hold their hands up and say it`s nothing to do with us guv, but his organisation will be the first in line calling for someone`s head if something goes wrong.

    It is the way the law is written, instead of the government saying what is dangerous is left to the individual to guess what might be considered dangerous at a later time by an inspector after the event. So we have a lot of seemingly stupid rules because anyone who has any dealings with the public must ensure that every eventuality is covered just in case.

    This is evidence of the effects of civil law which taking over our system of government, Tom Mullarkey, might well complain of extremists but he should direct his ire at the government for making such open unspecified laws in the first place.

  5. Grant8:46 PM

    Taking ken's comments (above) a step further I read the press reports of the bunch of judges suggesting that service companies should face mega fines of 10% of turnover for failing to protect their (indirect in many cases) customers.

    OK, so leaving a bolt out of a set of points is not a good idea BUT is it really worth 10% of the tax payer funded turnover (Note turnover not profit) in industries which often seem to struggle to break even - for whatever reason?

    Anyone see charges increasing and the cost of use escalating to a point where the companies concerned can afford the insurance policy charges?

    Can anyone take a guess at who ultimately wins and who loses?

    These massive fines that people talk about may have a place in our society but stripping cash out of service companies (in the broadest sense) to be used for unspecified purposes presumably seems only able to harm their clients. Or am I missing something?

    The mis-selling of endowment policies is a case in point. For every person who receives compensation, and I suspect there are many who have that did not deserve it, other who are unable to claim according to the rules miss out on the cash that is forfeit.

    Taking a huge sum out of, for example, Railtrack's (or whatever their current name is) budget and giving it to the Treasury can hardly be a way to improve the service.

    On the other hand if every judge who freed a criminal was deducted, say, a year's income for the mistake and every politician who supported a stupid law or policy lost their pension rights and was 'fined' a robust amount I suppose things might get better. Certainly they would be more equitable and I can safely predict that I, for one, would be much happier even in penury.


  6. Anonymous10:28 AM

    check this out Ken

  7. Amazing isn't ?
    children are totally wrapped up in bubble wrap elf and safety rules "unless"
    of course, it suits Nanny's true agenda..
    Consider this one, if you will dear folks...

    "Cashless" fingerprint catering systems in modern Nanny State schools:

    A thousand plus students, teachers and other school employees at a normal British secondary modern state High school. Every single person having to touch the very same fingerprint scanner (without cleansing) in order to obtain the "reward" of a hot school lunch. What an easy way to spread parasites and many other infectious diseases!

    Where are the elf n safety people
    when there is a true risk to human life, huh?
    Nowhere to be found !!!
    Meanwhile the school dinner ladies naturally, wear a pair of gloves to help prevent disease.
    total hypocrisy, but should we be surprised?