This is kind of sparked by the gun debate in the thread about Cumbria, but I didn't want to derail and it's a more general discussion.

It strikes me that so many people seem to expect that we can live in a perfect world, or that it might even be theoretically obtainable. It strikes me that human nature is such that this will never happen, but at what point do we draw the line and say "we won't try any further in this regard". In terms of the HSE stuff, that probably should have happened a long time ago, and there are plenty of ridiculous stories knocking around about unneccessary restrictions, and a lot of it strikes me as being stifling for the sake of stopping maybe one or two bad things a year happenning.

I guess I'm wondering if it's worth it?

I think that tied in with that is the "grass is greener" effect. The number of people I hear moaning about the UK and saying they'd rather be in country xyz (which, a lot of the time they've never even visited!!) kind of annoys me.

We have things so good here - a lot of people just don't seen to realise it.

I say let nature take it's course - a while ago there was a story about some fool who was cutting a branch off a tree - the same branch against which he'd placed his ladder. Now to me, people like that should be excluded from the gene pool.

Follow the French Example. They don't even have a Health & Safety Executive let alone waste over a hundred million a year on it.

I agree with everything said, I think maybe that the councils or governments exploit stories like this and claim that there is an obvious need to create more jobs. "Officials make work for each other" Cyril Parkinson

The worst thing that happens is that the public are misled to believe the world is stable and risk-free and therefore creates a loopback in which risk is then seen everywhere that has to be eliminated in order to keep us 'risk-free'.

It's a nonsense, even as a planet it's constantly at risk let alone on the level of the neurobiology of us little humans.

Part of this risk free world is down to over protective parents that end up giving their kids allergies and conditions from excessive cleanliness, and kids that do not experience risk because of their paranoid parents.

There was a fascinating article on the news a few months back showing an area around a home which the grandparents were allowed to wander freely in, this was about 10sq miles, then inside it was the circle the parents were allowed to wander about 3 sq miles and most scarily of all the kids of today circle was so tiny it basically was there own house!!

I don't really think it's fair to point the finger of blame at the HSE.
It would be far more appropriate to point it at lawyers and in particular the sort of lawyering imported from the states.
We have gone from a position where one had a responsibility to be sensible about things and take responsibility for our own stupidity to one where, almost regardless of circumstance, someone else is always to blame and what's more they should pay for it.

I'm confident there would be a damn sight greater responsibility floating around if the courts were willing to throw out pointless cases.
I fell over. Well, you should have been looking where you were going.

Hand in hand with the rise of the blame culture has been the increase in availability of 24 hour news and ever more hysterical newspapers who have to fill the time by blowing the most insignificant thing out of all proportion. Faced with the apparent tide of public opinion our spineless politicians have chosen to legislate rather than tell people to suck it up and take responsibility (and let's face it, why should Joe public do so when the politicians won't either).

The HSE and H&S legislation in and of itself isn't normally evil. It's the over zealous interpretation and reporting of it that's the problem more often than not.

+1
last august I slipped coming down the stairs at work and broke my ankle. It was a simple accident, the stairs weren't wet or slippery. It was a simple case of not enough friction between me and the step. No one to blame. Yet I was amazed at the amount of people who on hearing it ask "so are you suing them?"

^^^this blame culture is heavily embedded into the British psyche. So many people see suing as a way of either punishig someone or getting a payout. Usually the latter.

Despite people "rebelling" against a nanny state, they are unwittingly making the way for it. Accident? Sue someone. Don't wanna work? We'll give you some money. Car not working right? Must've been faulty from thenfactory. The fact that you didn't service it regularly doesn't matter.

The more I look, the more I see it: The Govt isn't creating the nanny state. We are.

no such thing as a perfect world. never was, never will be, some people need to wake the hell up and realise this.

im just sayin'

There are accidents and "accidents". There are some caused by bad luck, and others caused by bad maintenance of pavements etc. or pot holes. Why shouldn't motorists claim against councils for vehicle damage for an old pothole, Though they should have a seven day period from first reports to fill during which they are exempt.

Because it's pathetic for one, we spend way too much on our roads, and lawyers, money that could go towards generally making the world a better place, use your eyes more, avoid the potholes. Other countries hardly have tarmac, and we complain about small holes in our otherwise immaculate road infrastructure, we're pampered.

I'm sorry, but if I've tripped and hurt myself because of an uneven pavement, I am going to sue the council. They have a statutory duty to maintain roads *and* pathways, and if my injury is down to their negligence and not my own, I have every right to be compensated.