Nanny State

  spuds 11:43 22 Oct 2008

We keep hearing about the Nanny State, but what is your definition of the Nanny State, and how would you justify your comment or views on this issue?.

  GRIDD 12:57 22 Oct 2008

My definition is rules that stop you from putting other people at risk eg, wearing seatbelts & the smoking ban are all perfectly fine.

The Nanny State is where they police what you can have for breakfast (marmite anyone?) at school (even providing breakfast at school is Nanny State!!!) and so on....

  Si_L 13:32 22 Oct 2008

Taking Health and Safety a bit too far.

  newman35 13:42 22 Oct 2008

Shhh... "Don't mention ze smoking ban, on this forum."
Can have disastrous consequences!! (;-)

  peter99co 14:53 22 Oct 2008

The states protects you from cradle to grave

  lofty29 15:08 22 Oct 2008

I would have rephrased that to:
"The state that attempts to control you from cradle to grave"

  peter99co 15:17 22 Oct 2008

Same thing. They control all the things you do to protect you from yourself and charge you through a tax system.

It is only free if you do not work or save money
You then have handouts from the state which others pay for.

  Barnacarry 15:56 22 Oct 2008

Children not allowed to play 'Conkers' without a hard hat and goggles.

  Condom 16:02 22 Oct 2008

Sorry but my mum & dad were too poor to afford a nanny.

  interzone55 21:02 22 Oct 2008

I think you'll find that case was an urban myth, probably created by one of the newspapers that generates sales by making people too scared to go outside and live a real life.

The Health & Safety executive actually sponsored this years World Conker Championships...

click here

  Forum Editor 23:45 22 Oct 2008

for a State to want to protect members of its society from harm, or to ensure that everyone has access to public services, or to safeguard minority interests. It's not the ethos which is so often wrong, it's the execution.

Most of us would like to think that we're sensible enough not to stick our hands in fires, and we don't want the State to tell us we shouldn't be doing it, or - even worse - to ban it altogether. There's an element of finger-wagging about such interference that irritates the hell out of us, and almost makes us want to stick a hand in the fire, just to spite 'them'. We see that kind of thinking being displayed here, in the forum, quite often, with people saying 'it's my hand, and if I want to stick it in the fire I shall do so, I didn't fight in the last war so that some petty official could tell me I can't inflict third degree burns on myself'.

Balance is the key - most of us instinctively recognise the need for some degree of State interest in the affairs of society, but we want it (the control) to be balanced, and slightly weighted in favour of personal discretion. We need advice that says 'some of you may tend to think that hands in fires are OK, but it's a pretty dangerous practice, and we suggest that you think long and hard before doing it. If you burn yourself seriously enough to warrant hospitalisation you'll impose a financial penalty on your fellow citizens, and you may find yourself wishing you hadn't done it'.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

These brilliant Lego posters show just what children's imaginations are capable of

Mac power user tips and hidden tricks

Comment réinitialiser votre PC, ordinateur portable ou tablette Windows ?