Wednesday - March 03, 2010

govt. agency finds a brand new place and way to spend money they don’t work for.

BATS awarded to The Health and Safety Executive for make work projects spending other people’s money and being just plain schtupid if they believe farmers are dumb enough to buy this.  Jeesh.  I hope we haven’t sunk to this lunacy back home yet.  Notice. I said “yet” coz ya never do know.

Forget my knot

SIR – Yesterday, I received a letter from the Health and Safety Executive entreating me to tie a small piece of green rope (provided) prominently in my yard, as a reminder to “Come home safe” from the potential dangers on the farm. I can apply for up to five more (free) green knots.
I cannot imagine any farmer in the land applying for little green knots to tie on the farm gate. This appears to be just a small example of Government waste.
Caroline Appelbe
Malmesbury, Wiltshire

THE LETTERS PAGE

Posted by peiper     on 03/03/2010 at 12:10 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Government • Health and Safety • Nanny State • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 17, 2010

rights group says body scanners at airports might be illegal. they would say that. wouldn’t they?

Toward the end of this article is mentions hurting “community relations.” Uh huh.  We can read through that ok.
In a report I heard yesterday, it was clearly stated (by yman rights creeps of course) that muslim travellers wouldn’t know if they were being unfairly targeted by security people. No kidding. That’s what they’re saying.  I don’t understand that. Couldn’t they, if they wanted to and many obviously appear to, say that about any security check?

I have no idea how good these scanners are. It’s a sure bet somebody someplace will eventually find a way around it. But if that’s what we have and if it helps, why is it automatic that rights of ppl are being violated or might be violated?  I should think human rights do-gooders would be happy to see something in place that might protect ppl’s right to life. 

Airport body scanners ‘may be illegal’
Press Association

Using body scanners at UK airports, such as London Heathrow, may be illegal, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has warned.

Scanners at Heathrow and Manchester airports may be breaking discrimination law and breaching passengers’ rights to privacy, the commission said.

The EHRC has written to Transport Secretary Lord Adonis on the issue.

The commission said it recognised the threat posed by terrorism but criticised “the apparent absence of safeguards to ensure the body scanners are operated in a lawful, fair and non-discriminatory manner”.

It also has “serious doubts that the decision to roll (body scanning) out in all UK airports complies with the law”.

Commission chairman Trevor Phillips said: “The right to life is the ultimate human right and we support the Government’s review of security policies.

“State action like border checks, stop-and-search and full body scanning are undertaken for good reasons. But without proper care such policies can end up being applied in ways which do discriminate against vulnerable groups or harm good community relations.

“National security policies are intended to protect our lives and our freedoms but it would be the ultimate defeat if that protection destroyed our other liberties.”

SOURCE, PRESS ASSOC.

Posted by peiper     on 02/17/2010 at 12:46 PM   
Filed Under: • Health and Safety • Terrorists • UK •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - February 15, 2010

fireman saves doggy from icy lake.  fireman called on the carpet for violation of elf ‘n’ safety

Here they go again. Health and Safety .... Fireman safes doggy from icy death.  Bad fireman. Naughty says efl ‘n’ safety.

So it isn’t my favorite breed. I’m still glad he saved the pooch. This health and safety thing has gotten way outta hand.

Maybe I should give a moonbat to the Mail.
The headline they printed says “LAKE” but elsewhere it says “POND.” Wish they would make up my mind here. There is a difference. 

Fireman facing disciplinary action after he ‘breached health and safety rules’ while saving dog from frozen lake

By Mike Larkin

A fireman who saved a pet dog from a frozen pond is now facing disciplinary action for allegedly breaching healthy and safety rules.

Rescue mission: Stevie Logan, third on right, leads his fire crew to help save a dog which had fallen into a pond after running off on to the ice

The 42-year-old jumped into a nearby canoe and paddled out to the distressed animal, encouraging it to swim towards a ladder other firemen had laid across the ice.

After the successful rescue, Mr Logan was hailed a hero by Matt’s owner.

His bosses however have ordered an investigation into his conduct, saying that Mr Logan - who is commander at Kilmarnock Fire Station - broke force guidelines by putting himself unnecessarily at risk when he paddled out to the stranded pet.

Last night, Sheila Johnstone said the decision by Stathclyde Fire and Rescue chiefs to investigate the incident in which her dog was rescued beggared belief.

Miss Johnstone, 78, of Kilmarnock, said: ‘I have never heard such nonsense in all my life.

‘He went out to rescue my dog and I take my hat off to him.

‘Matt is fine now, but he wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the firemen saving his life and I am very grateful.

GO HERE FOR THE REST

Kudos Mr. Logan. An elderly lady had her companion saved.  What harm was done? 

Posted by peiper     on 02/15/2010 at 10:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Animals • Health and Safety • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - January 31, 2010

another sign of big brother as big govt. goes after soft and easy target. cigarettes, again.

I quit long ago but really, this is just another example of nanny state thinking and by ppl I bet who might have never been smokers themselves.

The health Nazis of course would love to ban fags altogether.  But then what?  Where next will they steal money and on what product that they will overtax in the name of protecting ppl.

I have no doubt, even with no medical background whatever except as a patient, that smoking is bad for folks.  I’m all in favor of doing the best we can to try and reach kids young and educate them.  And it does work, I’ve seen it.  But taking the logos off fag packets isn’t going to discourage any kid from lighting up that first deadly bomb. You know how it works. Remember?  Some kid offers you a fag, you accept and get sick.  Now then, some kids will never try it again. But some will, and it starts there.  Or at least that is one place it starts.

Another place is in the home, right?  If one or more parents smoke then the act becomes something quite natural to the kid(s) and at some point he or she will swipe one of mom’s.  I think it’s near impossible for a smoking parent to tell Jr. not to start smoking coz they’re bad for him.
So I guess at some point if they can get away with it, even tho they say they will not go this far, will be a total ban on fags in homes where there are children. 

Cigarettes could be sold in plain unbranded packets in latest bid to sweep away smoking from Britain

By Daily Mail Reporter

Cigarettes are set to be sold in plain packaging without logos in a bid to further strip smoking of its ‘glamourous’ image.

The Government will unveil the latest stage of its effort to half the number of smokers in Britain by 2020, which could result in a ban on people smoking in private places where children are present.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, will signal his support for the moves as he launches the government’s ‘tobacco control strategy’ tomorrow.

Ministers are also considering a ban of the sale of smoking products in vending machines which can help children to bypass strict laws banning their sale to under 18s.

While no final decision on a plain packaging rule have been taken, Mr Burnham, speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, said: ‘It’s something I will be looking at closely.’

However, the Government is not expected to go as far banning all smoking in homes and cars WHERE CHILDREN ARE NOT PRESENT.

The move could deter youngsters from copying celebrity smokers such Amy Winehouse and James Morrision.

I haven’t a clue who that Morrison is, but I have seen that goofball Amy Winehouse. Now then if kids are fans of hers then the authorities have more to worry about then her being a copyable pop icon. That very last line alone shows how stupid the govt. is on the issue.
Read that last line again.  Spot the obvious dumb error? 
These ppl aren’t thinking straight.  But they have the power to make others follow their dictates.  Now that makes me see red.

The rest of the article is at the link.

LINK FOR MORE

Posted by peiper     on 01/31/2010 at 03:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Health and Safety • Medical • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - January 29, 2010

I think I have invented a new position here at BMEWS.  An Anger Desk. Yeah. That’s me ok.

I may even enter a new category for it. 

I don’t know about you folks, but I just happen to like Kelloggs Corn Flakes.  I don’t give a tinkers damn how much salt or sugar they put in it.
I like it the way comes outta that box just fine.  Oh but no.  The freeken health nazis and other we’ll do your choosing for you health quangos have pressured Kelloggs to reduce the salt content by another 30 percent.  They also say some 14,000 ppl have died due to high blood pressure, strokes and heart attacks etc.  But they don’t say what else those folks had in their diets. Anyway, it’s 14,000 out of how many millions upon millions who have no trouble whatever. So I’m PO’d again coz I hate it when some unelected group of do-gooders insist I eat grass and bark instead of what I like.

Kelloggs says that over years it has already reduced sugar and salt by a lot but only gradually so ppl wouldn’t noticed a sudden change in taste. That way they say, ppl get used to the change without even knowing a change ha taken place and the product will still taste the same.  Pretty clever.

Recently, Nescafe altered a recipe for our own good. Right. All the things that gave it flavor were reduced.  The taste difference was immediate and very bland. So we stopped buying it. Even tho the label assured us that it was, “New and Improved.” Yeah. In a pigs ass it was.

I guess the thing that bothers me so darn much is that so many things these days seem to be decided for me. And nobody asked first.

Kellogg’s to cut the salt in its cereals by a third following pressure from health watchdogs

By Sean Poulter

Kellogg’s will cut the salt content of its Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies and other brands by up to a third following pressure from health watchdogs.

The company has previously delayed the reduction of salt levels, claiming customers enjoy the taste it offers.

However, it has now bowed to pressure from the Government’s Food Standards Agency and campaigning health groups to change its recipes.

The FSA says the nation is eating too much salt, which carries a serious health threat.

Average daily salt consumption is 8.6g, which is 43 per cent above the recommended limit of 6g.

The figure is linked to 14,200 premature deaths a year from conditions linked to high blood pressure, including strokes and heart attacks.

Kellogg’s said its decision will remove approximately 300 tons of salt a year from the nation’s diet.

The decision to cut the salt in Corn Flakes and Rice Krispies by 30 per cent will feed through to reductions in other big-selling brands such as Crunchy Nut, Frosties, Coco Pops and Rice Krispies Squares.

Here’s what two people commenting on the subject had to say.

I don’t recall ever voting for ‘Consensus Action on Salt and Health’. What consensus? I’m sure I’m far from alone in disagreeing with their ‘consensus’, which rather undermines the meaning of the word, doesn’t it? No doubt like the National Obesity Forum this lot will turn out to be 70% funded by Whitehall, making them essentially a Govt department in all but socially-responsibly Orwellian-sounding name.

Why not just provide an alternative version and leave the original alone? A sad day for democracy when I now don’t even have a choice over what I want to eat.
- Rich, Leeds, UK, 29/1/2010 12:48

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am fed up of being told what I can have and what not - I am an adult, I can read labels and I can make decision on my own!!

- Karolina, London, 29/1/2010 15:05

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 01/29/2010 at 11:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Health and Safety • Health-Medicine • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 13, 2010

Why does nobody clear the paths outside their homes?

Well now actually guys, ah. Yeah. It is H & S but at the rate ppl are suing and the reasons they’re suing for, I think I understand a lot of the decisions that made.  Even if I don’t happen to agree. But this does defy some logic.

This story has been well covered over here and in between everything else I have brewing, I forgot about it till the BMEWS TIGER emailed it to me and I was reminded.  That happens from time to time. 

BTW, The town mentioned, http://www.discovergosport.co.uk/ , is a neat place to visit. Or it was when I was there 25 yrs ago. It’s naval and in the olde days when ships were wood and men were iron, ships were built here.

Anyway, the weather has been on the bad side depending on what you mean by bad.  We had more snow overnight and it has continued on and off all day here. But not heavy. So far.  I think we’re on the edge of the storm.  I haven’t seen this much snow in many,many years so I think it’s fun and the natives here think I’m smoking funny weed.  It is not as cold as it has been. That is, it is not frigid again as it was yesterday. Thereby proving that gorebal warming is for real.

This photo has absolutly nothing at all to do with the article, but I put it here anyway cos I shot it thru the bedroom window early today.

Why does nobody clear the paths outside their homes?

Yup, it’s all down to health and safety

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:10 AM on 11th January 2010

Householders and businesses have been warned not to clear snowy pavements - as they could be sued if someone slips.

Icy paths mean hospitals have been inundated with patients who have broken bones in falls.

But the professional body that represents health-and-safety experts has warned businesses not to grit public paths.

In its guidance to members, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health warns that if people assume an area is clear and then slip and injure themselves, they could take legal action claiming damages.

And members of the public say they have been warned by councils about the legal risks.

Michael Pepper, 68, asked Cambridgeshire county council to deliver grit which he offered to spread.

But he claims he was told not to attempt to do so without public liability insurance as it could leave him open to being sued if someone became injured on the road.

The 68-year-old lives with wife Gloria, 65, in a cul-de-sac which is not normally gritted.

Retired secretary Gloria walks with a stick and has been unable to leave the house for days due to the poor conditions on the road.

The warnings did not stop more than 50 people who pulled together to dig snow and ice from around Elson Junior School in Gosport, Hampshire after an appeal for help was broadcast on BBC Radio Solent. The school hopes to re-open tomorrow.

Government whip Lord Davies of Oldham explained to fellow peers in a House of Lords debate: ‘If people totally clear away all snow and return the pavement to the situation it was in before the snow landed, they have done an excellent job.

‘If it is done in a less than complete manner and leaves ice, which is more dangerous than the original covering of snow, it may not be the local authority responsible but the householder for having dealt with the pavement.’

John McQuater, president of the National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, admitted: ‘If you do nothing you cannot be liable. If you do something, you could be liable to legal action.’

But to add to the confusion, home owners are responsible for clearing their own private paths and ensuring visiting postmen, milkmen and others are safe, warned Paul Kitson, of solicitors Russell, Jones and Walker.

The situation here contrasts with many parts of North America where householders face local authority fines if they don’t shovel snow off pavements facing their homes.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister and critic of Britain’s burgeoning ‘compensation culture’ told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘The idea you can be sued for being helpful is absolutely ludicrous.’

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents also expressed its disappointment that public safety was being neglected because of fears of possible litigation.

A spokesman said: ‘This is not showing a particularly good attitude. It would be much safer for the public to clear paths, even if it’s not on their property.’

And Clare Marx, past president of the British Orthopaedic Association and orthopaedic consultant at Ipswich Hospital, said: ‘If people want to clear pavements, they should just do it.

‘I would have thought it’s a public service and it is a shame we have ended up with a culture where if someone slips, they want to sue someone.

‘People need a bit of grit, in both senses.’

The organisation said its members expected to treat tens of thousands of fractures by the time the weather eventually improves.

Forecasters are predicting that freezing conditions continue until at least Wednesday, while local authorities edge closer to running out of grit.

The lack of salt means even few pavements will be cleared of ice and snow.

The Government has ordered extra supplies from the U.S. and Europe, but they are not expected to arrive for another fortnight.

SOURCE and H/T TIGER for the reminder.

A “fortnight?” 14 days?  Global warming will have melted all by then. 
We haven’t any sidewalks out front where we are so the only thing out there is our street, a short one, and believe it or not it’s about 900 years old. No kidding. It started out as no more then a herding track when people drove sheep through what was pasture, from Wales to London.

Posted by peiper     on 01/13/2010 at 09:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Climate-Weather • Health and Safety • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - January 04, 2010

USA LIFTS BAN ON HIV TRAVEL.  VISITORS AND IMMIGRANTS WELCOME.

I think it’s time for me to ask, anyone with some knowledge on the topic since I only know what I’ve read or heard on the news, does this put anyone at any extra risk?  Was the US justified in the ban?  Does the US have it correct now?

U.S. takes positive step of lifting entry ban on foreign nationals with HIV

By Daily Mail Reporter
04th January 2010

The US government has lifted an ban on foreign nationals with HIV entering the country.

For the past 22 years, people who are HIV positive have needed a special waiver to visit, or travel through, the US but the requirement will be dropped from Monday.

THT said some of its staff with HIV have, in the past, been refused entry to the US as a result of the policy.

Lisa Power, THT head of policy, said: ‘It’s ridiculous that for over 20 years people living with HIV have been banned from entering the US simply because of a medical condition.

Whoa .. that’s some kinda medical condition.  We already know from past experience that an awful lot of these folks take on new partners without saying a word about, their condition.
And further to the question, exactly from where are these new immigrants gonna come from?
Any guesses?

I know it’s perverse but, I hate making foreign libs happy even more then our home grown ones.  I always feel like they’re sticking their collective noses in our business.  So if they congratulate us for something, I always think whoops. We got things wrong again.
We shouldn’t be doing things that the left approves of.  Just on general principals.

‘Removing the ban is long overdue and we congratulate the US government on seeing economic and medical sense.

‘THT and many others have campaigned against the ban since it was introduced. Blanket entry bans have no justification on public health grounds and only increase stigma.

‘We hope other countries with similar bans in place will now remove them too.’

President Barack Obama announced in October last year that the ban would be lifted.

‘Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/Aids,’ he said.

‘Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease - yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat.’

The 2012 World Aids Conference will be held in the US in recognition of the lifting of the ban.

SOURCE

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Your diseased, perverted sodomists; your criminals; your ignorant, thieving, insane, moon god worshipping misogynists. Your Oh Lord I can’t go on.

Posted by sig94 United States

I just HAD to come back and do this. Couldn’t resist. Thanks Sig94

Posted by peiper     on 01/04/2010 at 01:05 PM   
Filed Under: • Health and Safety • Health-Medicine • USA •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 23, 2009

Harry Reid Saves Your Guns

Yes, you read that right. Harry Reid has set you free. Well, for today anyway.

Guns could no longer be considered a threat to health under health care reform if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s compromise passes.

Really.

In all the the deal making and tinkering to win support for the bill, Reid added a provision to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from collecting data on guns and ammunition in households, and using it in any relation to health care.

It also bars insurers from taking into account the risks guns might pose to people’s health in setting premiums or offering rebates to people with healthy lifestyles. For instance, if someone were to find people in houses with firearms were more likely to suffer gun injuries, that could not be used to set premiums, sort of like barring the use of pre-existing conditions.

This is, of course, to protect gun owners’ rights in health reform.

Here’s the provision:

”(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

”(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to— ”(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or ”(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

”(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to— ”(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; ”(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or ”(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

”(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

”(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon— ”(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ”(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

”(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to— ”(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or ”(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.”.

Read between the lines people. What this means is that such a concept - guns are a threat to your health - had ALREADY BEEN IN THE BILL. And was removed by Reid, as a small sop to the NRA or to Democratic Senators from pro-gun states. 

Do you really think this provision is going to stay removed? Look at the BS over the Public Option. In. Out. In. Out. Here again gone again. Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.

Search warrants are a thing of the past, thanks to the Patriot Act and other bits of “necessary” “emergency” legislation. You no longer have the right to private property thanks to the Kelo decision. What makes you think that you have the right to private possessions? Don’t forget that YOU are a suspected terrorist, you right wing gun owning zealot. The climate bill demands government inspectors to come to your home looking for bad insulation and leaky pipes. You think such an inspection isn’t part of the health bill? Only because we haven’t found it yet.

And notice how the language keeps referring to “lawful” ownership and possession. In other words, NONE OF THIS APPLIES to “unlawful” possession. And We The Government suspect YOU of unlawful guns (hey, we had an anonymous tip) ... therefore it’s Jackbooted Thugs At 3am Time.

The left never stops. They will use anything and everything to try and disarm the people. And they will never let up. Unlike the Republicans, who value getting home early for Christmas more than trying to stop this major train wreck of a bill.

[ funny thought - if this stays in, then the “lawful” concept could be extended. To also cover other lawful things like smoking, drinking lots of booze, and eating too many Twinkies. Which means no person could be hit with higher health insurance premiums due to their lawful behavior. ]

Posted by Drew458     on 12/23/2009 at 12:52 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control • Health and Safety • Jack Booted Thugs • Liberals •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 15, 2009

I understand the reasoning which isn’t bad.  Parents face ban on smoking in front of children.

Tricky subject here.  On the one hand, nobody wants a govt. sticking their nose into the private home. But, coming from a background and an age when smoking was the norm and smokers weren’t made to feel like outcasts, I have to say my early habit that lasted 21 years and ended in a tumor might have been avoided had things been a lot different back then.  Maybe if my mom weren’t a smoker. Or aunts and uncles and family gatherings where most adults happily lit up.

Maybe I wouldn’t have lost a brother to lung cancer.  Those thoughts do trot through my mind.  There have been a number of times over the years when something came up and my immediate thought has been, I have to share this with Dave. And suddenly realize I can’t.  Or, wish I could share this. He’d get a kick out of it.  Smoking was grown up, it was portrayed as somewhat glamorous and who didn’t want to be that.

So I understand the govt. watch dogs trying to step in and halt the process.  Sometimes education isn’t enough or it’s ignored altogether.  So I understand.
But at the same time, it makes me nervous.  It is intrusive.  Catch 22 for someone like me who has always believed that The End Justifies The Means.
Yeah well, now I have to stop and think about that.  Maybe it should be the end sometimes justifies the means.

How about booze?  Now there’s a topic for ya.  Kids see their parents drinking and some kids even see their parent a bit on the tight side, if the papers are to be believed.  Just where should the line be drawn to help ppl and especially a younger generation?  What other bad habits can a govt. find within a family?

(article shortened, see the link below for all)

A ban on parents smoking in front of their children is being considered by the Government.

By Andrew Porter, Political Editor

Stopping parents lighting up at home, or in cars, if they are with their children will form part of an aggressive new anti-smoking campaign to be launched by ministers this week.

The Government will also announce it plans to go ahead with a ban on all advertising on tobacco packaging. That measure would mean in future cigarettes could only be purchased under the counter in packets. They would be marked only with government health warnings.

At the heart of the drive is a new commitment to halve the number of adults who smoke by 2020. The current Department of Health target, which they claim to be on target to meet, is to reduce smoking prevalence to one in five people by next year.

To reduce that to one in 10 a series of measures designed to stop young people taking up the habit will be unveiled.

Central to it will be an aggressive marketing campaign that aims to persuade parents to stop smoking in front of impressionable young children.

Other measures will include:

- a commitment to continued real-terms increases in tobacco duty to keep the price of cigarettes rising;

- more stringent implementation of guidelines on smoking in films and television programmes;

- new controls on the marketing of tobacco accessories;

- further investment in accessible and effective NHS “stop smoking” services; and

- imposing a total ban on smoking and the sale of cigarettes within the London 2012 Olympic site.

A similar ban on parents smoking is in place in several American states and cities. Other US authorities have made smoke-free cars and homes a condition of allowing people to foster children.

In Britain, calls to ban parents smoking in cars have been led by Professor Terence Stephenson, President of the Royal College of Paediatric Health.

He said recently: “Why on earth would you light up in your car whilst your children are sitting quite happily in the back? On the assumption that you wouldn’t pass the packet round and invite the kids to light up, why make them breathe tobacco smoke at all?

“You can’t inflict this on your colleagues at work any more. Why should we treat our children’s health as a lower priority than our employees?”

Labour will be accused by some of introducing more “nanny state” rules.

Prof Stephenson added: “If you act to make people safer, you get accused of introducing the nanny state. If you let people make their own decisions, you get accused of neglect.

“It’s extremely sensible, common sense - but is seen by some as too draconian and the trickling of nanny state rules again.”

GO HERE FOR MORE ON THIS SUBJECT

Posted by peiper     on 12/15/2009 at 01:40 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Government • Health and Safety • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - November 30, 2009

Some bad bowling news for Drew.  Health and Safety deems it “dangerous.” Kid ya not.

So next time Drew posts info on his bowling night, be aware of the danger he faces.  Serious stuff here.

Elf & safety strikes again: £250,000 study to tell us ten-pin bowling is dangerous

By Steve Doughty
30th November 2009
DAILY MAIL

It’s a peril that only a crack team of health and safety experts could have uncovered.

After two years and £250,000, they found that ten-pin bowling alleys up and down the country could be a ‘very dangerous’ environment for families.

They concluded that it was too easy for children or teenagers to run down lanes and get trapped in machinery that sets up the pins - even though there was no record of any such accident having happened.

The bizarre Health and Safety Executive report found that members of the public would be at risk if they walked along the 60-foot lanes to knock over pins by hand.

Its authors even considered ordering every bowling alley to put barriers across lanes. But they were forced to admit defeat - after realising that bowlers must be able to see what they are aiming at.

Their report said: ‘ Because customers need to see the pins and bowling balls entering the machine, managing the risk of access into the machine from the lanes is more difficult.’

Instead they have told operators to fit photoelectric beams to lanes so that pin-setting machines will cut off automatically if anyone trespasses.

John Ashbridge, of The Ten-Pin Bowling Proprietors Association, said: ‘I have been in this industry for 40 years and I have never known any member of the public injured by a bowling pinsetter. I have never heard of anybody going near the pins.’

Mr Ashbridge said he had watched HSE inspectors examining a bowling centre and he found their attempts to detect possible dangers ‘hilarious’.

He added: ‘Some operators have now fitted photoelectric beams. They don’t cause any problems - they don’t stop the machines because nobody ever goes near the pins.’

The HSE inquiry was begun after a technician was crushed to death in 2006 in Barking, East London, when a pin-setting machine was mistakenly left plugged in.

The two-year investigation also concluded that staff must wear earmuffs to mask the noise of balls hitting pins.

An HSE spokesman said: ‘The investigation revealed that the machinery used nationally in bowling alleys did not have adequate safety features.’

Susie Squire, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The HSE has overreacted to a one-off tragedy by wasting a fortune of taxpayers’ money producing a pointless, naval-gazing report.’

THE MAIL

Posted by peiper     on 11/30/2009 at 01:34 PM   
Filed Under: • Bowling Blogging • Health and Safety • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - November 13, 2009

Let us see now. How an we help police and spend money. Got it. Publish book on how to ride a bike.

Ok I know things can get pretty stupid here, but I’m not certain if they can get more idiotic and waste more txpayer money then this.
On second thought, yeah. They have come up with stuff somewhat dumber.  But this really does rank very high in the DOH awards list.
And if the mayor (who hasn’t read it yet) thinks it may have value, then he’s smoking smoking funny or maybe having just one glass too much.

A 93-page guide on how to ride a bicycle – including advice on the need to carry out a risk assessment before removing one’s helmet - has been drawn up for Britain’s police forces.

By Matthew Moore
13 Nov 2009

The Police Cycle Training Doctrine was drawn up by biking enthusiasts in forces across England and Wales.
The two-volume tome offers lengthy guidance to constables on skills that most children have mastered by the age of 12, such as how to maintain balance at corners.

It even reminds officers that they must not attempt to detain suspects while in the saddle – or “engaged with the cycle” in the words of its authors.
The Police Cycle Training Doctrine was drawn up by biking enthusiasts in forces across England and Wales and submitted for the approval of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), but its officials yesterday distanced themselves from the contents.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London and a passionate cyclist, led the chorus of derision, saying that while the guide’s advice was “very, very sound”, it did not represent value for money. Thousands of pounds were reportedly spent putting the full colour publication together.

“I am sure it is of great value, I haven’t seen it, but I think you can do this kind of thing much, much more cheaply,” Mr Johnson said.

The mayor has already proved himself a master of mobile crime fighting, dismounting from his bike to save a filmmaker from attack by a hooded gang in the capital earlier this month.
Officers from the police’s national working group for cycling training, which wrote the book, declined to comment. But independent bike safety experts said there was no need for police to devise their own basic training guide.
“I would like to remind Acpo that the national standard for cycle training covers all the basics of cycling skills and road sense,” said Greg Woodford of CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation.

“I’d recommend all police cyclists pass their level three [cycling test] and encourage Acpo to work alongside what has already been developed.”
Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group added: “This guide is an absurd waste of police time and taxpayers’ money. Police officers are perfectly capable of riding a bike.”

An Acpo spokesman insisted that the doctrine was never intended to become official policy, and would not be issued to rank-and-file officers.
“This work was neither requested nor drawn up by Acpo and we do not endorse it,” she said.
“It was put forward by a group of well-meaning police officers with an interest in this area. Acpo will not be taking it forward.”

Rules from the police cycle “doctrine”

Always wear padded shorts to ensure “in-saddle comfort”

Consume sufficient food and “adequate liquids” before setting off

Listen to instructions when cycling in formation. If your leader shouts “Move to double file”, move to double file

Undercover officers should carry out a “risk assessment” before removing their helmets

Take care to avoid the kerb during “deployment into a junction” - or turning the corner

LINK TO SOURCE

So then.  Whatcha think BMEWS?  These folks on to something? Or maybe some spare cash was found in the public kitty and it had to be spent?

Posted by peiper     on 11/13/2009 at 07:39 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Health and Safety • Stoopid-People • UK • work and the workplace •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - November 12, 2009

THERE’S PATHETIC, AND THEN THERE’S PATHETICALLY SCHTUPID. THIS IS EVEN BEYOND THAT.

WHYADUCK.  (The Marx Bros.)

Well now this is so beyond the fringe that I will make no comment on it.  The story will, as you’ll see, speak for itself.

Here’s one comment however from the comments section to give you some idea of the article ahead.

How pathetically stupid can these council idiots get? The bread that was given to the ducks was eaten and therefore would not attract rats, only more ducks. Where was the evidence--sorry it was eaten by the ducks!

- John GROVES, Shropshire UK, 12/11/2009

Mother caught feeding ducks fined £75 for littering (but warden says her toddler son can as he’s too young for a ticket)

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:34 PM on 12th November 2009

A mother has been fined £75 for feeding ducks in a park with her toddler son.

Vanessa Kelly had taken 17-month-old Harry on his weekly visit to the to feed ducks when she was approached by a council warden.

She put away the bread as soon as the warden told her duck feeding was not allowed in the park, in Smethwick, Birmingham.
A mother has been fined £75 for littering after she was caught feeding the ducks with her toddler son

But the warden pulled out a hand-held computer and issued her with a fine for littering.

Miss Kelly, who was in Smethwick Hall Park at 4pm on Tuesday, claims she was then told by the warden that her son could carry on throwing the bread ‘as he is too young to prosecute’.

She said: ‘I had Harry on my hip and a bag of bread in my hand and we were both throwing crumbs to the ducks as the warden approached.

‘I didn¹t think anything of it and certainly didn’t think we were doing anything wrong, which is why I was surprised when she stopped me.

‘She explained that it was banned because it could attract vermin, and I said it was fair enough and fastened the bag. I couldn¹t believe my eyes when she then pulled out a little computer and started to issue a ticket.

‘To be fined £75 for taking your child to feed the ducks is an absolute disgrace. I will be fighting this fine all the way.’

The 26-year-old, from Oldbury, Birmingham, said that although there was a sign in the park warning of the dangers of ‘overfeeding’ the birds there were no signs warning that people could be fined.

Sandwell Council today defended handing out the fine to Miss Kelly for dropping bread, claiming it attracts rats.

Miss Kelly has now made an official complaint to the authority.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/12/2009 at 09:19 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Government • Health and Safety • Jack Booted Thugs • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - November 11, 2009

DAWN RAID ON GRANDAD NETS POLICE ONE BAD DUDE, CHARGED WITH USING A BAD WORD ONCE.

So what we have here is some damn stupid weeny who got frightened by a man using one bad word.  The infamous ‘F’ word.
And he’s arrested cos that word caused fear and stress?  Yup.  Seems so, according to this.

Hey .... if 1939 happened with this generation in charge of things, it would have been a cakewalk for the Germans. It would been all over by 1940 and the USA would perhaps only have been faced with Japan.  And the Italians would still have exported pasta and Pizza only a few years earlier.

Tell ya what bothers me a lot though.  I know a lot of very kind and decent people here who have shown me nothing but friendship and kindness.
I just mean to say there’s an awful lot of good folks here and they do not deserve what’s happening to their country.  Some of the ppl I know are quite old and of that generation.  How depressing for them. How depressing for all of us on both sides of the Atlantic.

Grandfather arrested at dawn and held in a police cell for six hours for swearing once at council official

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:49 AM on 11th November 2009

A grandfather was arrested at dawn and held in a police cell for six hours for using a single swear-word in front of a council official.

Thomas Catcheside, 67, had his fingerprints and DNA taken, before being issued with an £80 fixed-penalty notice.

His arrest followed a dispute with a council official about ‘dangerously slippery’ communal stairs in his block of flats in Cambridge.

Mr Catcheside, who is chairman of his residents’ group, has been campaigning for three years for safety improvements.

But when an official visiting the site prevented him from listening to a phone call to his supervisor on October 30, he finally lost his temper and said: ‘Don’t you tell me what I can and can’t do in my own ****ing place.’

The official complained of feeling ‘threatened’ and six days later Mr Catcheside was arrested at 5.35am on suspicion of ‘causing harassment, alarm or distress in a public place’.

The former lorry driver, still in his dressing gown, was marched into his bedroom, where his wife Deborah, 62, was asleep, and ordered to get changed before being driven away in a police van.

He was then held in a windowless-cell for six hours before being given the fixed-penalty notice and released.

Mr Catcheside, who has asthma and high blood pressure, was so distressed that he suffered a panic attack and had to be seen by a police doctor. 
He said: ‘My wife and I were asleep when the police arrived. I opened the door and they just barged in.

‘I told them to wait a minute but they followed me into my bedroom where my wife was in bed. She was so embarrassed she hid behind a cushion.

‘I was frightened and angry as I felt like I was being criminalised. It was so heavy handed.

‘The police seem to have trouble catching proper criminals and here they were dragging me down to the station for defending my rights.

‘I admit I swore, but I was frustrated because we have been fighting to get these stairs improved for years, writing letter after letter, and the council has taken no notice.’

A Cambridgeshire police spokesman said they had been following ‘national policy’ in their response.

She added: ‘We were responding to reports of an assault, which is a serious offence.

‘The suspect was arrested at the earliest possible opportunity, which happened to be at 5.35am.

‘There was not enough evidence to suggest he had committed an assault but he admitted to being abusive and was issued with a fine and words of advice about his behaviour.’

Robert Hollingsworth of City Homes, a housing association which runs council housing for Cambridge council, said they had reported the incident to the police because their representative had felt ‘threatened’.

‘My department has been dealing with Mr Catcheside’s complaint for a long time,’ he said.

‘Despite the fact the stairs are not a danger and no risk has been found, we are looking into covering them with a plastic-like surface which would improve their appearance.’

Mr Catcheside replied: ‘We don’t want the steps to look better, we want them to be safe.’

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/11/2009 at 08:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Health and Safety • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - September 21, 2009

Another one of those small stories that point to the ridiculous way of life in a nanny state.

It isn’t earth shattering and everyone will forget this post even before they finish reading it. But it strikes me as just another bit of proof as to how far people have gone here, to make certain they comply with the law. Even if it means going to ridiculous extremes.

It’s also btw, further proof that Brits for the most in spite of very bad news and coddling of criminals and a justice system that has little or none of that, many Brits do try and play by the rules and do try and obey laws. With this govt. in place tho it’s sometimes hard to figure out what new thing will become illegal today that may not have been yesterday.  It’s that old play by the rules attitude while the rest of Europe often plays by theirs when it comes to the EU. But I’m getting a bit off topic so here’s the story I want you to see.

David Hockney said he loathes the Labour Government for interfering in his life by introducing the smoking ban.

Published: 3:39AM BST 20 Sep 2009

The 72-year-old British artist, who is a lifelong smoker, is backing a cross-party group of MPs who want the ban to be relaxed to allow people to light up in designated rooms in pubs.

Hockney told the BBC’s Politics Show that he was appalled to find that his local cafe in east Yorkshire no longer even allowed people to smoke at tables outside because they were frightened that smoke would waft inside and breach the law.

He said that if ministers had told the late TV chef Keith Floyd to give up rich food, alcohol and cigarettes in order to live longer ‘’he would have said to them that’s not what I call living. Up yours!’’

I quit smoking about 22 yrs ago and from time to time I do still miss it. Especially when stressed.  But overall, I’m ok and have no plans to resume a very unhealthy addiction. However .... I confess I enjoy the waft when outdoors on the odd occasion.  That tiny “waft” the folks at that local cafe are so worried about.  I’m also against the ban on smoking in bars and pubs and restaurants.  Why the hell shouldn’t there be areas indoors where it’s okay?
Look, nobody is going to get the big ‘C’ from doses of second hand smoke in those circumstances. If that were the case, then I should have been history years ago as besides smoking myself, I was often in areas of close quarters with many other smokers. So I was not only breathing in mine but theirs as well.  True, I had a tumor removed. But I’m convinced it had nothing to do with other people’s smoke and more to do with me smoking two or packs of unfiltered Lucky Strikes from the age of 13 until the time I quit a few months after my surgery.

I think over here where I am, I’m more likely to be the victim of crime way before I fall victim to someone’s smoking habit. And that’s the truth!

I guess what I hate most is a govt. prodded by special interest groups deciding things best left to choice. Why not pubs that cater to smokers then?
No, can’t do that coz ppl will still get sick. Yeah but once they know, should that not be their choice?

READ THE REST HERE

Posted by peiper     on 09/21/2009 at 03:05 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Health and Safety • Nanny State • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner