British Nanny Culture Watch

MatchDancer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
Why is Britain so 'Nannyish'?

Is it a good thing, that we are careful?

Or is it killing our sense of personal individuality and responsibility?


It annoys me because if you're not left to learn, for example if you're not thought to be able to walk across a road and always have crossing, then you won't be taught how to look out for the cars and learn, then you will grow up not knowing how to cross a road. You may then be in a situation when you don't have a crossing and you have no idea how to do it. This is a bit of an extreme example, but you get where I'm coming from. However, if we're not careful, people will probably be injured more. I think the situation in other countries, such as many European countries is better.
0
reply
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
Yeah! That's why I CHOOSE to lower my cholesterol with Kelloggs Optivita!
0
reply
A is for Awesome
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 years ago
#3
Examples of 'Nanny culture' please?
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 years ago
#4
(Original post by ducky_72)
Examples of 'Nanny culture' please?
Smoking Ban.
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 years ago
#5
(Original post by ducky_72)
Examples of 'Nanny culture' please?
Well, for example - ridiculous laws stopping people from drinking and driving. How sad is that? Jeeeez.
0
reply
naivesincerity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 years ago
#6
(Original post by Howard)
Well, for example - ridiculous laws stopping people from drinking and driving. How sad is that? Jeeeez.
HAHAHAHA. :rolleyes:
0
reply
A is for Awesome
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
(Original post by DanGrover)
Smoking Ban.
What's wrong with it?

(Original post by Howard)
Well, for example - ridiculous laws stopping people from drinking and driving. How sad is that? Jeeeez.
Ahh I know, not if the Daily Mail have their way though:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1787

9th paragraph down...
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 years ago
#8
(Original post by ducky_72)
What's wrong with it?



Ahh I know, not if the Daily Mail have their way though:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1787

9th paragraph down...
Ah. Can Howard stand on the hands of a clock and turn back time?


It sings the praises of an era when real men with hairy sideburns could still drive their souped-up Ford Cortinas at speed, sink five pints and a pack of Embassy down the boozer at lunchtime without worrying about safe drink-driving limits or passive smoking, and stagger back to deliver a few fruity one-liners to the birds in the office with no fear of being had up for sexual harassment.

It recalls the long-lost, innocent time when an evening's home entertainment comprised a couple of cans of Watney's Party Sevens; when everyone, but everyone, watched Morecambe and Wise; when an IRA pub blast, not an Al Qaeda dirty bomb, was the worst terrorist atrocity anyone could imagine; when Wagon Wheels and Curly Wurlies were twice the size they are today; when the charts were filled with proper music such as David Bowie and Roxy Music, and none of that cacophonous stuff like house and garage and death metal music.


If only.
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 years ago
#9
(Original post by ducky_72)
What's wrong with it?
You asked for an example of nanny culture. That's an example.
0
reply
A is for Awesome
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 years ago
#10
(Original post by DanGrover)
You asked for an example of nanny culture. That's an example.
Good point, but as 'nanny culture' is usually used in a negative way, I was asking what you thought was unnecessary about the smoking ban.

I do think 'nanny culture' can be silly, especially concerning schools and children and things, but it's no where near as bad as the silly tabloids make out.

(Original post by Howard)
If only.
You know there come times when I get convinced that the Mail is an elaborate practical joke, a hoax leading people on by spouting the most ridiculous crap ever and getting people to believe they're serious. But alas, it isn't.
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 years ago
#11
(Original post by ducky_72)
Good point, but as 'nanny culture' is usually used in a negative way, I was asking what you thought was unnecessary about the smoking ban.
It assumes people are too foolish to make up their own minds. In many cases, this is true. However, measures should only be taken to stop these fools infringing upon the rights of others - such as drink driving. Smoking is damaging only if you chose it to be.

Waits for the inevitable point about 2nd hand smoke
0
reply
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 years ago
#12
Smoking ban isn't my idea of nanny state, because instead of telling people 'you can't do that cos its bad for you', it's telling you 'if you want to damage yourself, go do it somewhere you won't harm or annoy others'. Which is fair enough.
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 years ago
#13
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
Smoking ban isn't my idea of nanny state, because instead of telling people 'you can't do that cos its bad for you', it's telling you 'if you want to damage yourself, go do it somewhere you won't harm or annoy others'. Which is fair enough.
good old john stuart mill.


banning shisha bars is just ****ing stupid though.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 years ago
#14
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
Smoking ban isn't my idea of nanny state, because instead of telling people 'you can't do that cos its bad for you', it's telling you 'if you want to damage yourself, go do it somewhere you won't harm or annoy others'. Which is fair enough.
It's the difference between individual bars deciding that their ethos would benefit from a ban, or even that the owner is exercising his right to ban smoking on his property simply because he feels like it, and the State stepping in and saying that you MUST implement a ban - it does seem that the aim is eventually to give smokers "nowhere to hide", and although the end of a smoke-free Britain may be one we should all be striving for I'm not sure it morals such, well, draconian means. It's not as though there's a War on Cancer being waged here.
0
reply
A is for Awesome
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 years ago
#15
(Original post by DanGrover)
It assumes people are too foolish to make up their own minds. In many cases, this is true. However, measures should only be taken to stop these fools infringing upon the rights of others - such as drink driving. Smoking is damaging only if you chose it to be.

Waits for the inevitable point about 2nd hand smoke
Whilst I won't remark about the health dangers of second hand smoke (almost didn't see that haha), as there is a lot of scientific debate in that area, I will remark simply that it is annoying, especially since I have asthma, and I believe I have a right to go out and have fun without ending up smelling bad/wheezy/watery-eyed.

If I could go to a smoke-free pub/club, I would, but there are none that I know of where I live. However, I do think that a better controlled smokers' area would be better to both parties than an all out ban.
0
reply
kingsholmmad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 years ago
#16
I'm not sure that the smoking ban is the best example of nannyism. Perhaps better might be the banning of red noses as a fire hazard and chopping down chestnut trees because conkers are "dangerous". Though that might be blurring the line a bit between nannyism, pc and the litigation culture.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 11 years ago
#17
If anyone else has FTN, take a look at the Crystal Maze reruns and, if you can get past the all-embracing awesomeness of Richard O'Brien (which is, admittedly, doubtful), consider how much of the show would be permitted by the various safety regulations we have today. It strikes me that the answer is: not a lot. I use this an extreme example, because of the nature of its content. Fort Boyard might be another case in point, too, because of its conceptual reliance on midgets, but you get the general idea.
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 years ago
#18
(Original post by ducky_72)
Whilst I won't remark about the health dangers of second hand smoke (almost didn't see that haha), as there is a lot of scientific debate in that area, I will remark simply that it is annoying, especially since I have asthma, and I believe I have a right to go out and have fun without ending up smelling bad/wheezy/watery-eyed.

If I could go to a smoke-free pub/club, I would, but there are none that I know of where I live. However, I do think that a better controlled smokers' area would be better to both parties than an all out ban.
The reason 2nd hand smoke isn't an issue isn't because it isn't dangerous - it might not be, it probably is, but it doesn't matter - smoking is legal. It should be up to the owner of the property and no one else what legal activities can occur. It's not about the smoker's right to smoke being more important than non-smokers right to go out and not smell of smoke - they both get trumped by the land owners right ot chose what happens on their property. If they deem smoking undesirable, they can ban it and the smokers can adapt or move. Likewise, if they wish to keep it, it remains the choice of non-smokers whether or not to still go.

The way it is now, there isn't this choice anymore. For non smokers it's great, for smokers it's bad but the main victim here is the land owners, who have had the sovreignty over their own land defiled because the public is too stupid to think for itself. When you go out and get all smelly and stuffy-eyed, that's because you chose to do so. You went into the pub/club/bar knowing what would happen, but to you, this was deemed a reasonable price to pay for a good night out - else you wouldn't have done it.
0
reply
A is for Awesome
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 11 years ago
#19
(Original post by Agent Smith)
If anyone else has FTN, take a look at the Crystal Maze reruns and, if you can get past the all-embracing awesomeness of Richard O'Brien (which is, admittedly, doubtful), consider how much of the show would be permitted by the various safety regulations we have today. It strikes me that the answer is: not a lot. I use this an extreme example, because of the nature of its content. Fort Boyard might be another case in point, too, because of its conceptual reliance on midgets, but you get the general idea.
Haha, imagine if they tried to make a British version of Takeshi's Castle.

(Original post by DanGrover)

The way it is now, there isn't this choice anymore. For non smokers it's great, for smokers it's bad but the main victim here is the land owners, who have had the sovreignty over their own land defiled because the public is too stupid to think for itself. When you go out and get all smelly and stuffy-eyed, that's because you chose to do so. You went into the pub/club/bar knowing what would happen, but to you, this was deemed a reasonable price to pay for a good night out - else you wouldn't have done it.
Indeed, I see what you mean, I was just remarking that my main support for the smoking ban was not on ideological grounds, as your opposition is, but rather more selfish; whilst I am prepared to put up with smoke on a night out, I am looking forward to not having to in the future.

My belief is that when smoking is allowed in pubs etc, smokers go and smoke, non-smokers still go, breathe the smoke, and its bad for them.
When smoking is not allowed in pubs, smokers go, smoke outside instead, non-smokers still go, don't have to breathe the smoke, and it's ok for them. I don't think the smoking ban is going to affect the numbers of people who patronise bars/pubs/clubs enough to reduce profits for the owners.
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 years ago
#20
(Original post by ducky_72)
Haha, imagine if they tried to make a British version of Takeshi's Castle.
that could be so awesome.



on the smelly issue, has no one ever heard of deodorant? spray it all over you, you'll be fine.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (44)
9.15%
I used to but I don't now (13)
2.7%
No, but I want to start (173)
35.97%
No, I am unable to (112)
23.28%
No, I chose not to (139)
28.9%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed