Showing posts with label health and safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health and safety. Show all posts

Sunday, 29 July 2012

Today's Nannying Fussbucket - Councillor Thelma Broom

****

The worst kind of councillor says this sort of thing:

“They just don’t see that it is for their own safety. We need to be very strong about what is right and wrong, not what they want."

 It's enough to make you weep, Really it is...

...and Councillor Mandy Meakin runs Thelma close:

“I know it is a very good policy to teach children horticulture – grow cress in a jar.”

....

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

It seems protesting is bad for your health - and must be banned

****

The Mayor of New York has form. He is a high priest of the Church of Public Health, a fan of the ban, an obsessor about health risks. And he has deemed protesting to be unhealthy:


Police wearing helmets and carrying shields evicted protesters with the Occupy Wall Street movement early on Tuesday from the park in New York City’s financial district where they have camped since September, dismantling their tent city and arresting about 70 people.

Authorities declared that the continued occupation of Zuccotti Park - which had become a sea of tents, tarps and protest signs with hundreds of demonstrators sleeping there - posed a health and safety threat. 

Another triumph for the health fascists!

....

Friday, 22 July 2011

Your chance to put some facts straight about drinking

Dick Puddlecote has spotted that the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee is opening an inquiry into "...the evidence base for alcohol guidelines provided by Government to the public."

The Committee seeks submissions on the following matters:

1. What evidence are Government’s guidelines on alcohol intake based on, and how regularly is the evidence base reviewed?
2. Could the evidence base and sources of scientific advice to Government on alcohol be improved?
3. How well does the Government communicate its guidelines and the risks of alcohol intake to the public?
4. How do the UK Government’s guidelines compare to those provided in other countries?

Submitting written evidence

The Committee invites written submissions on these issues by noon on Wednesday 14 September 2011.

Each submission should:
a) be no more than 3,000 words in length
b) be in Word format with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c) have numbered paragraphs
d) include a declaration of interests.

A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked "Alcohol guidelines". An additional paper copy should be sent to:

The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA

This seems like something worth responding too. The Committee is chaired by Andrew Miller, MP for Ellesmere Port and the full membership is here. It is also worth lobbying your own member of parliament regarding this enquiry as they will also be able to influence the process.

...

Sunday, 30 January 2011

Turning off the street lights?

****


This morning, the Sunday Telegraph kindly provided – following yesterday’s garden birds guide – a CD of the ‘dawn chorus’. Half an hour of ‘uplifting birdsong’. Wonderful stuff!

But not when the entertainment is a one in the morning under the street lights. There’s growing evidence that the prevalence of street lights disrupts the behaviour of song birds – with the dawn chorus starting earlier. Not a truly terrible thing – unless of course the song is right outside your window when you’re trying to sleep.

Birds aside, the matter of street lights presents an interesting dilemma – a contest between the desire to make places safe and the need to reduce our consumption of energy. At present, it seems to me that the question of safety tends to trump the matter of cost savings and resource use although plenty of local councils have looked at and, in some cases, acted to reduce the number and intensity of street lighting. And, as usual, it’s the Liberal Democrats – clutching their green credentials only lightly – who lead the charge against reducing lighting:

Jason Zadrozny, a Liberal Democrat Councillor for the area, has collected signatures from more than 2,000 people protesting against street lighting reductions:

"I'm not in opposition to cuts, we know that money's got to be saved after years of Labour mismanagement, but I'm raising my concerns in county hall and in national government," he told Newsnight reporter Matt Prodger.


And the reason for Jason’s opposition is concerns about safety – people being more vulnerable to assault and attack while they go about their innocent business. Yet the proposals aren’t to get rid of lighting but to do one of two things – dim the lights or turn them off during the early hours of the morning (when not that much ‘innocent business’ is taking place on Ashfield’s suburban streets).

A further concern relates to road safety – reduced lighting on busy roads will make them less safe. Yet in Buckinghamshire where some lights have been switched off there has been no increase in accidents:

A controversial scheme to switch off street lights to save cash has not led to an increase in accidents, a council boss said today. A Buckinghamshire County Council chief said there was “some evidence” that extra street furniture was in fact bringing accidents down.


We can expect plenty of local councils to follow Buckinghamshire’s lead – after all it’s a pretty obvious saving in a substantial budget and one that doesn’t involve closing services. And we can also expect to see opposition along the lines of that in Ashfield and Buckinghamshire – the cry of “people will be too frightened to go out at night” will be heard up and down the land. Even when the lights aren’t turned off until one in the morning!

However, there’s another prospect – turning off lights on motorways. At a time when motor vehicles have better lights than ever, it seems odd that our motorways are lit up like a 1970s rock concert. Stark, bright white light bangs down on the three and four lane highways – illuminating half-a-dozen cars speeding by at 95mph. It seems a gross indulgence – unneeded and excessive. This isn’t to say that we need no lighting but that we could get by with quite a lot less. And for sure it’s pretty daft that we’re spending millions each year lighting largely empty roads for hours at a time – in the interests of safety!

I’ve supported turning lights off, dimming them and spacing them out for some years – without much support from colleagues (as witnessed in the idea’s absence from Bradford’s service efficiency proposals). However, such an action would not only be ‘green’ but would realise a sustainable saving with little or no impact on the public. And it would stop pissing off astronomers and screwing up the body clocks of song birds!

....

Sunday, 31 October 2010

You'd be grumpy too....

There you are innocently resting your head - perhaps catching up with a little sleep and dreaming about the hoard (or is it horde) - and what do the health an safety buffoons do? Build a fence round your head. I mean, what's that about then? Do they think that pathetic little chain is going to stop obnoxious little kids climbing on me - or for that matter me making a nice little hors d'oeuvres of them?

They'll be putting up warning signs next - "keep off the dragon" or "don't poke the dragon or he'll breath fire on you and then eat you for tea - perhaps with scrambled eggs and a cup of tea." Or worse still plonking some uniformed numpty there to "guard" - as if a dragon needs bloody guarding.

You'd be grumpy...you would!

...

...