Ooh err missus, a new week starts and tis time methinks to award another of my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Awards.This week it goes to Oldham Council.
For why?
Just ask Alex Crossland-Robins (10), who goes to St Anne's Primary School in Royton. Alex, who has been a member of a local swimming club since he was 4 and has won more than 50 medals and trophies, has been told that he must not wear goggles when swimming because of health and safety guidelines.
Now as my loyal readers may recall, I have written articles on this site before about goggles being banned. The normal reason for the ban being the risk that they might shatter.
Oldham have taken a whole new "spin" on the goggle safety issue. They have banned them because they believe that swimmers' eyes must get used to the water.
A few points here:
1 Alex is an experienced swimmer, I would imagine that his eyes are used to the water.
2 He wear goggles to protect his eyes from the chlorine (an irritant, is it not, if you swim regularly?).
3 What possible business is it of Nanny as to whether a swimmer's eyes are "used to the water", or not? Surely it is better that an individual is taught to swim (even if they prefer to wear goggles)?
4 Oh yes, and one more "minor" point, there is a farking sign in the swimming pool that Alex's school uses that says:
"Goggles and swim caps are always a good idea to protect your eyes and hair from chlorine."
Alex's parents, having had their complaints ignored by the council, have stopped him from having swimming lessons at his school.
Oldham Council (coalition run), well deserving Prats of The Week!
Epilogue: By the way, re Halloween, I managed to remove the battery from my doorbell and replace it safely later, without the aid of a Nanny certificate of electrical engineering or qualified electrician.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
"Oh yes, and one more 'minor' point, there is a farking sign in the swimming pool that Alex's school uses that says:
ReplyDelete"Goggles and swim caps are always a good idea to protect your eyes and hair from chlorine.""
It strikes me that they are not even following their own advice, assuming they are actually aware of said advice, and what it states! A classic case of not knowing their a*** from their elbow?
Speaking personally, I very much enjoy swimming regularly, Ken, but do not wear goggles. This is through my own choice. However, most swimmers do use goggles and, as far as I am concerned, they are perfectly entitled to do so. The decision to wear goggles or not should be down to the individual swimmer or their parents or trainer, NOT some council jobsworth!
One dark and misty Halloween night some years ago at a former residence, I heard the doorbell ring along with the sound of children's voices outside. I thought: 'Ah! Trick or treat. I'll treat them to a doorstep rendition of one of my most amazing party tricks, whereby the speed of the hand will deceive the eye, and a pound coin will disappear before their very eyes and then reappear again as if by magic'.
ReplyDeleteI thought: 'Wow! They're really going to be impressed by this. What could possibly go wrong?'. Anyway, it didn't work (I think I got the age group wrong). They looked at me like I was some kind of abuser of banned substances, only interested in when I was going to splash the cash. So I splashed a pound and that was that. They left and never came back.
It makes the point, however, that removing the battery from the doorbell isn't the only way to keep people away at Halloween.
Anyway. Happy 'Officially Most Miserable Day of the Year Day' everyone!
My Lord,
ReplyDeleteI thought of you today when I read the piece on South Today's local news page; There are plans brewing to ban cross channal swims because, the swimmers have to cross a busy shipping lane and this is dangerous.....So they say.
Nanny loves the one size fits all rulings.
People should be able to make up their own minds about things such as swimming goggles and whether they want their eyes to get used to the water or not. When I was a teen, I used to swim a lot and I found that, serious swimming in a pool, bashing out length after length of front ceawl, the chlorine made ones eyes very red and sore.....Nanny...MIND YOUR OWN BLOODY BUSINESS YOU CONTROL FREAK!!!!
Tonk said: "....I thought of you today when I read the piece on South Today's local news page; There are plans brewing to ban cross channal swims because, the swimmers have to cross a busy shipping lane and this is dangerous.....So they say."
ReplyDeleteI have only just read your comment, and wondered whether I had gone through a time warp and it was April 1st, when I read the above. I do not recall there being many fatalities or even injuries over the years from people swimming the channel? Indeed, I can only think of one, offhand. I suggest that one is much more likely to be injured on the roads getting to the channel! I certainly agree with your last statement, the one in block capitals --- and the sooner the better!
Tonk said: "....I thought of you today when I read the piece on South Today's local news page; There are plans brewing to ban cross channal swims because, the swimmers have to cross a busy shipping lane and this is dangerous.....So they say."
ReplyDeleteI have only just read your comment, and wondered whether I had gone through a time warp and it was April 1st, when I read the above. I do not recall there being many fatalities or even injuries over the years from people swimming the channel? Indeed, I can only think of one, offhand. I suggest that one is much more likely to be injured on the roads getting to the channel! I certainly agree with your last statement, the one in block capitals --- and the sooner the better!
I don't know why my post has appeared twice: computer at my local library seems to have a mind of its own!
ReplyDeletePedantic point. It's not the Chlorine that irritates the eyes. It's an imbalance in the pH and total alkalinity in the pool and other stuff like urine. So the reason you end up with red eyes is down to the pool owners not monitoring their equipment properly.
ReplyDeleteSo they are effectively telling you to use goggles because they can't do their job.
"They have banned them because they believe that swimmers' eyes must get used to the water"
ReplyDeleteWhat sort of water? River, lake or sea which contain no harsh irritants contact with which does not irritate and potentially damage the eyes? Where goggles genuinely aren't necessary except to perhaps protect from splashing - the swimmer's right to choose.
For what it's worth should the levels of chlorine and other chemicals in pool water be found in "natural" water bodies it would be declared a major pollution incident.
And they say you don't need to wear goggles to protect your eyes from it?
My flabber is gasted.
BTW I don't wear goggles in open "natural" water nor in indoor pools.
The no goggles thing was probably settled on because the pool attendants and the committee realised they could leer at other swimmers underwater. Logically, thinking about their own urges and thoughts, they decided that everybody else is just as perverted as themselves and hey presto - ban on goggles. Simples!
ReplyDelete