Elf and Safety? Literally so in this case, as it affects their boss, Santa Claus. He must now be "strapped into a full body harness in case he falls out of his sleigh as it is towed by a Land Rover at the gentle speed of five miles an hour."

Absolutely fucking absurd.

Christmas is one of the times when the health and safety police should fuck right off and let us actually enjoy ourselves. I have no problem with the intelligent "as safe as necessary" position, but this sort of thing is just completely and utterly absurd. Reason and common sense should be used to make reduce risk where possible.

After all, the idea of Santa riding in a sleigh at five miles and hour without a full body harness is hardly shocking. It's hardly like holding up a huge Christmas light display with a couple of drawing pins is it! Instead of coming out with this kind of bonkers conkers ideas, any who has any claim on being a "health and safety professional" or has any intention on making any health and safety decisions of giving any related advice should sit back any apply common sense before anything else. Then, hopefully, there wouldn't be this sort of story for the media to produce.

Source: The Telegraph

Says - rather surprisingly - the head of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. And Tom Mullarky is absolutely right. Especially with this line:

Humans learn through pain. If it hurts, you soon learn not to do it again. Those who are wrapped in cotton wool as children have no idea about looking after themselves, and have less understanding of the real world and how dangerous it can be.

Children are reckless because they haven't learn about pain and how they can hurt themselves. If they get the chance to hurt themselves, they learn through their experiences, by doing. They learn that it hurts if they fall of their bike, for example. They learn how to look after themselves.

If we wrap children in cotton wool and bubble wrap, they - and we - suffer in the long term. Like Tom Mullarky, I think that it is a "positive necessity" that children have the chance to play and hurt themselves.

For further reading on Health and Safety, try reading the posts from Wardman Wire's Health and Safety Month.

Source: The Telegraph

Does this warrant the accusation of being a "zero"?

In my opinion, no. Rather than obeying what is claimed to be "health and safety rules", the paramedic was obeying simple common sense.

What is the first rule of first aid? Look out for danger and protect yourself. What would have happened if the paramedic has run? She could have fallen over and hurt herself, and thus be in no condition to help anyone, and actually need medical attention herself. Also, if she ran and arrived at the patient out of breath, what good could she be until she had regained her equilibrium? How much help could she be out of breath? None.

Paramedics carry a lot of heavy equipment. She could not have run with that much equipment safely, or have been much use to the patient after having carried it. So whilst the paramedic can't really be called a "hero", to call her a "zero" is just as wrong.

Source: Daily Mail

What this shows is that whilst speed cameras do have a purpose and a benefit, it isn't as much of one as the government claim. Yes, you can say that "injury is better than death" etc. and that "you only get caught if you're breaking the speed limit" but the extent to which speed cameras are used - and the amount which they generate in revenue - is excessive, and has led to the accusation that they are greed - rather than speed - cameras.

This undermining of the justification for the excessive use of speed cameras just strengthens that argument.

Speed cameras certainly shouldn't be got rid of, but more thought and optimisation needs to be put into where they are positioned.

Source: The Telegraph

Since the smoking ban came into force in England on 1 July, more than a month ago now, smoking has been illegal in all pubs in the UK. But it appears that the ending of smoking in pubs have had at least undesirable, though obviously foreseeable, effect - now pubs stink. With no more tobacco smoke smell to mask that of sweaty bodies, stale beer, etc. pubs are beginning to stink. Despite the claims of pro-ban people that pubs would smell sweeter without tobacco smoke, that was obvious bollocks, and has been proven so.

I noticed this the first time I visited a pub after the ban came into force, and it was especially bad a week or so ago when I went out in the town centre with some friends. As much as I disliked smoking, and coming home smelling of smoke, the odour that many pubs and bars have, especially on crowded Friday and Saturday nights, is really quite nauseating.

But it seems that some pubs have thought of a solution - they plan to pump perfumes into the air in order to disguise the other smells that have risen to the fore. I'm not sure how effective this could be, really, and there is almost certainly some Health and Safety directive dictating something about particles in the air or some such rubbish.

Source: The Times

Is life without risk worth living? Should children go around wrapped up in bubble-wrap? This man obviously thinks so, as he took a chainsaw to a school climbing frame on which children had been hurt and last term a girl had broken her arm.

"A man wearing a hooded top took a chainsaw to a school climbing frame that parents had claimed was dangerous...
The man was seen attacking the wooden frame at 8.20pm last Wednesday. He produced the chainsaw from the back of his Rover and began chopping the frame into pieces...
The climbing frame stood on a raised rubber safety mat and was inspected every three months by a safety officer from Somerset County Council." (The Times)

So the climbing frame was on a safety mat and regularly inspected by a safety officer. I am sure that if this climbing frame had been dangerous, it's removal would have been ordered by the local council.

The headmistress of the school said that the children were upset at the wanton destruction of part of their playground, and I understand why. I remember even when I was young, when "Health and Safety" was really beginning to take off and roundabouts were removed from almost all of the local playgrounds, which annoyed me immensely as I enjoyed them. We cannot and must not wrap up the next generation in cotton wool. They need to experience risk, although it should be kept small.

Be a "bad" parents and let your children out to play. They are no more likely to hurt themselves outside than inside, and they will be healthier and have more fun for it. Bumps, bruises, grazes etc. are all part of childhood, growing up, playing and having fun! Everything can be dangerous. Walking, running, skipping, dancing, riding a bike, playing sports - all have their dangers and can, and have, caused broken bones and the like. I always enjoyed climbing trees. Removing children's playground apparatus in the name of "safety" is stupid and counter-productive. People learn from their mistakes.

Youth movements such as Scouts are perfect for this because they get children outside and doing things - and it is all as safe as it can get. I immensely enjoyed my time as a Scout, with the sort of things we used to do - making fires, tying knots, building things. I once spent a weekend on a platform in a tree [that we built ourselves] as a part of a competition. But even the Scouts are getting affected by this attitude, and they don't even do as much of the sort of things they did less than a decade ago, because they have been deemed "too dangerous".

Don't wrap children up in cotton wool and bubble-wrap. Let them go out and play. They might get hurt, but they'll have more than enough fun to make up for it. And I'm glad that I'm not alone in thinking this.

Sources: The Times, The Telegraph