Anyone who has read my other blogs or articles on the website will know me as a highly vociferous critic of what has become known as "health and safety gone mad". They will also know, therefore, that I have largely concluded that it's not the rules that are wrong, it's the way they are being interpreted by lazy, arse covering bureaucrats and church committees.
These people are bereft of intelligence or the ability to use creative options for safety. They shy away from what I believe is a duty to understand and constructively influence human behaviour, instead taking the lazy options to ban and prohibit. I also think for many of them, they experience cruel joy out of restricting others because it validates their empty little lives.
So my response to today's topic may surprise you. It's all about snow and ice, Whitehall and misplaced bluster.
You see, during the recent "Big Freeze" in the UK,
householders were warned by their local authorities that clearing the snow from the public footpath and not doing it well could land them in court if someone was injured as a result. For those of you from warmer climes, it's common for the cleared surface to freeze over, so instead of walking on a reasonably safe snow surface, suddenly, you're on something more akin to plate glass sprayed with CRC.
The result of the council warnings was the tabloids squawked and Westminster echoed to a collective "Harrrumph" as Lords and Ministers alike trumpetted the reliable old chestnuts about "safety gone mad" as they sprang to the defence of the poor downtrodden Mr and Mrs Average Battler In The Street.
Well, sorry, on this occasion, I just don't agree. It's not good enough to get hysterical and say that "They were just trying to help" and that they have no responsibility because they were "Doing their bit for the community".
First of all, who asked them to interfere? Probably nobody. They were acting out of their own need to feel altruistic. I don't want to labour this, because I will sound very, very churlish, but no one, absolutely no one does anything for anyone else unless they are self motivated. All so called "public spirited" people are motivated by the need to be seen as a willing part of a team or group, to be liked, remembered, to gain social standing, to be a long suffering martyr or similar selfish needs. Think about it. Do you ever do anything that you are not personally motivated to do? However much it may benefit others, you did it because, for what ever reason, YOU wanted to.
I don't know why as a society we still believe in the myth of the selfless pillar of the community. In all my life, I have never met one who wasn't a pain in the arse in some way. I'm not saying this for any other reason except to inject a bit of reality into this issue. I like all types of people, but give me a mischievous straight talking person conscious of their own shortcomings ANY time. I am uneasy around people who spend their time supposedly serving others because I'm sorry, I JUST DON'T TRUST THEM. Never turn your back on these types, because they will be setting you up to make them look good as soon as you look the other way. I'm sorry, but they deserve no pity whatsoever.
Look. If you want to make a difference to the world, you have to do it properly and with the full intent that whatever you do is truly useful to others, achieves something of value to others and that the value is lasting, not transient. Otherwise, all you're doing is holding up a mirror and gazing into it lovingly.
If I go out into a public place and adjust it, I have a responsibility to make sure I haven't introduced a result that the rest of the world finds undesirable. If I can't do that, then I should leave well alone. If I put people at risk, and it was a risk that any reasonable person could have foreseen, then I am a stupid halfwit and I should be held responsible.
If I decide to take pensioners out in my minibus to the beach and a run a red light and kill them, I should be punished severely. If I help a blind person across the road and under a bus, I really ought to do the decent thing and walk voluntarily under the next one. I'm a volunteer firefighter. People sometimes say nice things about me. But if I mess up, I don't deserve any pity or allowances because of that. I have accepted the responsibility and the public is entitled to expect a certain level of competence.
If I want the credit for doing good and I voluntarily take on the responsibility, I have implicitly indicated that I have the competence to do so, therefore, when it all turns to shit, I should take the rap.
So, call me a grumpy old man but I agree with the councils. Either leave well alone, thereby tolerating a known risk, or do the job properly and take the consequences if you get it wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a typical Aucklander, I find snow a pleasant novelty. One New Year's Eve I was in Switzerland when it snowed very picturesquely. I was frankly surprised that, while the roads were kept perfectly clear, the footpaths were not. My guess is that the Holidays meant that there were too few workers around to do the job. Two days later, it rained briefly, and the whole lot froze. CRC on glass? - no, much slipperier than that. And lumpy and bumpy.
ReplyDeleteParents literally couldn't walk down to the local school. The school kids were fine - they loved sliding around on it, and they don't care if they fall over. But for the mums who had to do the trip four times a day (all children come home for lunch) it was a total nightmare. Even I could understand what they were complaining about, without comprehending a single word.
Had the snow been swept while it was fresh and dry, the rain would still have frozen in any places where it lay in puddles. But wouldn't that have been preferable to tripping and tottering on a rutted and pock-marked frozen surface as rough as a pugged-up cow paddock? It lay around for well over a week.