Off Topic, but funny!

The message <[email hidden]>
from Mike Thompson <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were
kids in the 60's, 70's and early 80's probably shouldn't have
survived, because our baby cots were covered with brightly coloured
lead-based paint which was promptly chewed and licked.

ISTM that this and much of what followed doesn't really apply to the
youngsters who were kids in the 60s, let alone the 70s or the early 80s.
The Nanny State arrived with Harold Wilson as PM if not before.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 53 summits
New - 27 (Marilyns 13, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 26 (Marilyns 10, Nuttalls 17, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

In article <[email hidden]>, Roger
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Mike Thompson <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were
kids in the 60's, 70's and early 80's probably shouldn't have
survived, because our baby cots were covered with brightly coloured
lead-based paint which was promptly chewed and licked.

ISTM that this and much of what followed doesn't really apply to the
youngsters who were kids in the 60s, let alone the 70s or the early 80s.
The Nanny State arrived with Harold Wilson as PM if not before.

Fact - I didn't see a banana or street lights until I was 10, never mind
TV Black/White or ay other colour.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or airbags -
riding in the passenger seat was a treat.

We would spend hours building go-carts out of scraps and then went top
speed down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.

We fell out of trees, got cut, and broke bones but there were no law
suits.

<snip>

In 1941 there was approx 2 million cars on the road and 9,169 people killed
in road accidents. In 1998 there was over 25 million cars and 3,559 killed.
This is why MOT's and seatbelts were made compulsory.

When I was at junior school in 1959 one of my classmates was killed when she
went down a steep hill on a go kart without brakes and was crushed to death
by a bus. A few weeks later another classmate was killed when he was playing
on a building site and was crushed to death when a cement mixer fell on him.
This accident and others like it are the reason why building sites have to
be fenced off these days.

In 1964 a good friend of mine was killed with head injuries when she was in
an accident on the back of a motor bike. This is why there is a law about
wearing helmets.

I agree that life seems stricter now, but there are reasons for a lot of
this.

--
Geoff Jackson, Nottingham, UK.
[email hidden]
www.gjphotographic.co.uk
(Remove the obvious to reply)

Geoff Jackson said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or airbags -
riding in the passenger seat was a treat.

We would spend hours building go-carts out of scraps and then went top
speed down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.

We fell out of trees, got cut, and broke bones but there were no law
suits.

<snip>

In 1941 there was approx 2 million cars on the road and 9,169 people killed
in road accidents. In 1998 there was over 25 million cars and 3,559 killed.
This is why MOT's and seatbelts were made compulsory.

When I was at junior school in 1959 one of my classmates was killed when she
went down a steep hill on a go kart without brakes and was crushed to death
by a bus. A few weeks later another classmate was killed when he was playing
on a building site and was crushed to death when a cement mixer fell on him.
This accident and others like it are the reason why building sites have to
be fenced off these days.

In 1964 a good friend of mine was killed with head injuries when she was in
an accident on the back of a motor bike. This is why there is a law about
wearing helmets.

I agree that life seems stricter now, but there are reasons for a lot of
this.

Absolutely, and another reason why we have the impression that things
are worse now than they were then is the media circus that surrounds
such events these days. Years ago these things happened but they
didn't make national news, they were local tragedies, few people other
than those involved knew much about them.

We are much better informed these days.
--
Regards

Nick

Geoff Jackson said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or airbags -
riding in the passenger seat was a treat.

We would spend hours building go-carts out of scraps and then went top
speed down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.

We fell out of trees, got cut, and broke bones but there were no law
suits.

<snip>

In 1941 there was approx 2 million cars on the road and 9,169 people killed
in road accidents. In 1998 there was over 25 million cars and 3,559 killed.
This is why MOT's and seatbelts were made compulsory.

When I was at junior school in 1959 one of my classmates was killed when she
went down a steep hill on a go kart without brakes and was crushed to death
by a bus. A few weeks later another classmate was killed when he was playing
on a building site and was crushed to death when a cement mixer fell on him.
This accident and others like it are the reason why building sites have to
be fenced off these days.

In 1964 a good friend of mine was killed with head injuries when she was in
an accident on the back of a motor bike. This is why there is a law about
wearing helmets.

I agree that life seems stricter now, but there are reasons for a lot of
this.

Absolutely, and another reason why we have the impression that things
are worse now than they were then is the media circus that surrounds
such events these days. Years ago these things happened but they
didn't make national news, they were local tragedies, few people other
than those involved knew much about them.

We are much better informed these days.
--
Regards

Nick

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree that life seems stricter now, but there are reasons for a lot of
this.

Absolutely, and another reason why we have the impression that things
are worse now than they were then is the media circus that surrounds
such events these days. Years ago these things happened but they
didn't make national news, they were local tragedies, few people other
than those involved knew much about them.

We are much better informed these days.

I, however, question whether this is necessarily a good thing. My
children are unusual in that I have brought them up not to fear
'strangers' and to be polite and to talk to whomsoever they please. It
seems to me that in 99% of cases wherein a child is abducted, regardless
of the consequences, the perpetrator is someone known to that child, and
known well at that. I reckon that we are trying to wrap our children up
in far too much cotton wool these days. One small local story makes the
headline news nationally, and all of a sudden we start a witch hunt for
similar cases. One school caretaker goes off the rails, and suddenly no
one is safe from anyone any more and we all have to have police checks
in order to help out at the local primary school. And because of the
severity of the caretaker's crime all such checks are held up and even
teachers can't get their CRB check done in time for the start of the
school year. Think of all the perfectly safe people around; people with
whom you'd trust your youngest children any time. Suddenly we're being
encouraged to be suspicious of everyone, regardless. Think of the
harmless old man who likes to watch children at play. He's reliving his
own childhood and remembering when his grandchildren were small - but
sooner or later a mother will over react and the man will be escorted
away in the back of a police car. Think of the playgrounds in public
parks that have been denuded of their climbing frames and other exciting
equipment lest some poor child should fall and graze a knee. Is that
how we want to see our future?
--
To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @
where common sense dictates.

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree that life seems stricter now, but there are reasons for a lot of
this.

Absolutely, and another reason why we have the impression that things
are worse now than they were then is the media circus that surrounds
such events these days. Years ago these things happened but they
didn't make national news, they were local tragedies, few people other
than those involved knew much about them.

We are much better informed these days.

I, however, question whether this is necessarily a good thing. My
children are unusual in that I have brought them up not to fear
'strangers' and to be polite and to talk to whomsoever they please. It
seems to me that in 99% of cases wherein a child is abducted, regardless
of the consequences, the perpetrator is someone known to that child, and
known well at that. I reckon that we are trying to wrap our children up
in far too much cotton wool these days. One small local story makes the
headline news nationally, and all of a sudden we start a witch hunt for
similar cases. One school caretaker goes off the rails, and suddenly no
one is safe from anyone any more and we all have to have police checks
in order to help out at the local primary school. And because of the
severity of the caretaker's crime all such checks are held up and even
teachers can't get their CRB check done in time for the start of the
school year. Think of all the perfectly safe people around; people with
whom you'd trust your youngest children any time. Suddenly we're being
encouraged to be suspicious of everyone, regardless. Think of the
harmless old man who likes to watch children at play. He's reliving his
own childhood and remembering when his grandchildren were small - but
sooner or later a mother will over react and the man will be escorted
away in the back of a police car. Think of the playgrounds in public
parks that have been denuded of their climbing frames and other exciting
equipment lest some poor child should fall and graze a knee. Is that
how we want to see our future?
--
To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @
where common sense dictates.

"Geoff Jackson" <g.j.photo@REMOVE_THISntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or airbags -
riding in the passenger seat was a treat.

We would spend hours building go-carts out of scraps and then went top
speed down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.

We fell out of trees, got cut, and broke bones but there were no law
suits.

<snip>

In 1941 there was approx 2 million cars on the road and 9,169 people
killed in road accidents. In 1998 there was over 25 million cars and 3,559
killed. This is why MOT's and seatbelts were made compulsory.

I appreciate the point you are trying to make but did the blackout during
1941 have anything to with the high numbers? And how did compulsory driving
tests as introduced postwar affect the numbers?

Nick

">> > I agree that life seems stricter now, but there are reasons for a lot
of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this.

Absolutely, and another reason why we have the impression that things
are worse now than they were then is the media circus that surrounds
such events these days. Years ago these things happened but they
didn't make national news, they were local tragedies, few people other
than those involved knew much about them.

We are much better informed these days.

I, however, question whether this is necessarily a good thing. My
children are unusual in that I have brought them up not to fear
'strangers' and to be polite and to talk to whomsoever they please. It
seems to me that in 99% of cases wherein a child is abducted, regardless
of the consequences, the perpetrator is someone known to that child, and
known well at that. I reckon that we are trying to wrap our children up
in far too much cotton wool these days. One small local story makes the
headline news nationally, and all of a sudden we start a witch hunt for
similar cases. One school caretaker goes off the rails, and suddenly no
one is safe from anyone any more and we all have to have police checks
in order to help out at the local primary school. And because of the
severity of the caretaker's crime all such checks are held up and even
teachers can't get their CRB check done in time for the start of the
school year. Think of all the perfectly safe people around; people with
whom you'd trust your youngest children any time. Suddenly we're being
encouraged to be suspicious of everyone, regardless. Think of the
harmless old man who likes to watch children at play. He's reliving his
own childhood and remembering when his grandchildren were small - but
sooner or later a mother will over react and the man will be escorted
away in the back of a police car. Think of the playgrounds in public
parks that have been denuded of their climbing frames and other exciting
equipment lest some poor child should fall and graze a knee. Is that
how we want to see our future?

I agree with Nick that incidents are widely reported these days. Up to the
70's, most newspapers would be careful about reporting child murders as they
thought that this would be too graphic for their readers. For instance, in
the 60's near to where I live, a man abducted 2 little girls, raped them
then murdered them in a slow and painful horrific manner. He was sentenced
to life, but the story was not even in the local paper as the newspaper
editor thought that it was too shocking for his readers. The only people
that knew about this were the relatives of the two girls and the people who
lived in that area. Today it would be broadcast across the world within 10
minutes of it happening and newspapers would have shocking headlines in
order to try and sell more copies.
Fran says that "One school caretaker goes off the rails, and suddenly no one
is safe from anyone any more". The person she refers to had a history of sex
abuse of young girls. Does it not occur to Fran that he got a job as a
school caretaker so that he would be near to his target? Fran is wrong in
assuming that 99% of abducted children know their abductor, a lot is child
abuse is carried out by people known to the child but abduction is normally
carried out by men who do not know the child so can not be identified after
committing their crimes.
Geoff.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or airbags -
riding in the passenger seat was a treat.

We would spend hours building go-carts out of scraps and then went top
speed down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.

We fell out of trees, got cut, and broke bones but there were no law
suits.

<snip>

In 1941 there was approx 2 million cars on the road and 9,169 people
killed in road accidents. In 1998 there was over 25 million cars and
3,559 killed. This is why MOT's and seatbelts were made compulsory.

I appreciate the point you are trying to make but did the blackout during
1941 have anything to with the high numbers? And how did compulsory
driving tests as introduced postwar affect the numbers?

Nick

More figures: In 1930 there were 1 million cars on the road but 7,300 deaths
which were nothing to do with any blackout, In 1998 the cars had increased
by 25 times but the deaths had halved. In 1930 there was no MOT's, no
driving tests, no breathalysers, no safety glass in windscreens, no speed
limit for vehicles carrying less than 7 passengers, no minimum driving age,
no seat belt laws, no fog lights, and so on. Driving has been made safer by
governments collecting statistics about accidents then making laws that help
to cut down deaths and serious injury to motorists and pedestrians. I
complained when the breathalyser law came in, I moaned at having to wear a
seat belt, but I was glad that I had a seat belt on when a drunken driver
drove in to me 2 years ago. That seat belt stopped me from going through the
windscreen and possible saved my life, which means that I can now say that I
was wrong to moan about the seatbelt laws.
Some more figures for Nick: In 1941 there was half as many cars on the road
as there was pre-war but 38% more deaths.
What has this to do with uk.rec.walking?
Geoff.

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Geoff Jackson" <g.j.photo@REMOVE_THISntlworld.com> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

What has this to do with uk.rec.walking?

About as much as most posts to this ng. Funnily enough (given your
posting history) we used to have a lot of photography gossip that had
precious little to with walking.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 53 summits
New - 27 (Marilyns 13, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 26 (Marilyns 10, Nuttalls 17, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

"Nick Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Geoff Jackson said:

<snip>

<<snip>>

Quoted message said:

Absolutely, and another reason why we have the impression that things are
worse now than they were then is the media circus that surrounds such
events these days. Years ago these things happened but they didn't make
national news, they were local tragedies, few people other than those
involved knew much about them.

We are much better informed these days.
--
Regards

Nick

I don't think we are better informed. The tabloid press carries precious
little news other than the doings of so-called celebrities, last night's
soap operas, the story lines for tomorrow's soap operas and interminable ads
for mobile phones and finance.

The broadsheets give more news coverage to be fair.

Our press is a disgrace at informing us.

Television news is little better being governed to a large extent by the
most exciting footage available - hence yesterdays item on several hundred
Californians having to move out because they had exciting footage of a
forest fire.

Roger C

Radio 4's news tends to be better, covering a wide range of items.

Geoff Jackson g.j.photo@REMOVE_THISntlworld.com said:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

In 1964 a good friend of mine was killed with head injuries when she was in
an accident on the back of a motor bike. This is why there is a law about
wearing helmets.

I agree that life seems stricter now, but there are reasons for a lot of
this.

I am sorry to read of the losses you have experienced. I also agree with
you that accidents such as those mentioned are the reasons the law has
changed. The point that seems to have been missed is the liberty lost.

Seatbelts were in cars long before they were compulsory. Motor-cycle
helmets were available long before they were compulsory. Speed limiting
devices are available for motor-cars, how long before they are
compulsory? How long before free-climbing is thought too dangerous and
is out-lawed? After that, how long before hill-walking is banned? Ooh,
yes, go and look at those wonderful peaks, just do it from the valleys.

In years gone by, before legislation for our safety, we were able to
make decisions for ourselves whether to wear a helmet or seat-belt;
whether to climb a tree or skinny-dip in the reservoir; or any one of a
thousand other things that are now legislated for. By all means
legislate to make people aware of the dangers of certain activities, but
to dis-allow any activity is a step too far, for who is it to say to me,
a free man, that "you shall not"? Where is my freedom when "I am not
permitted to..."?

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" -
Sir Isaac Newton. How are we going to see further if so many risks are
no longer permitted that we can no longer stand on the shoulders of
giants? "I'm sorry, sub-division of atomic particles is illegal, you may
set off a chain reaction that ends the world"

"They that give up liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety." (to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin)

The nanny state started much earlier than another poster stated, it
wasn't Harold Wilson, it started with the introduction of the welfare
state. Other than to save NHS or benefit costs, what reason has the
government to restrict our activities? I can give you another reason,
tax-revenue protection; if I fall and break my neck I am no longer
contributing. Is there any reason, that does not link back the the
government protecting it's take of our income, for our freedoms to be
taken away; any reason that is acceptable enough reason to you or I to
be willing to give up that freedom?

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Geoff Jackson g.j.photo@REMOVE_THISntlworld.com said:

I moaned at having to wear a
seat belt, but I was glad that I had a seat belt on when a drunken driver
drove in to me 2 years ago.

You miss the point that it was the seat-belt that saved your life, not
the change in the law. Had you chosen to ignore that law you may or may
not have been with us today. You would, however, have had the freedom to
choose, a freedom now denied[1].

Justin.

[1] I advocate the wearing of seat-belts. They often save lives in the
case of an accident. If you choose not to wear one I advise you to think
again about the possible implications of your action. I will not,
however, require the law be changed to punish you for exercising your
freedom.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Justin C <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Seatbelts were in cars long before they were compulsory.

They were uncomfortable, inconvenient, inadequately anchored, and not
very effective until legislation and standards were introduced.

Quoted message said:

Motor-cycle
helmets were available long before they were compulsory.

I know, I had one, and they were very basic, as the bikers in out RAF
hut found out when we tried some physical tests on each other. Ouch!
Again, as they became compulsory, with a larger market, more money was
spent on developing them to give better protection, and to look less
silly.

Quoted message said:

Speed limiting
devices are available for motor-cars, how long before they are
compulsory?

Never, I expect, because common sense says that they would make
overtaking slower and more dangerous.

Quoted message said:

How long before free-climbing is thought too dangerous and
is out-lawed? After that, how long before hill-walking is banned? Ooh,
yes, go and look at those wonderful peaks, just do it from the valleys.

Wonderful piece of extrapolation, but nonsense.

Quoted message said:

In years gone by, before legislation for our safety, we were able to
make decisions for ourselves whether to wear a helmet or seat-belt;
whether to climb a tree or skinny-dip in the reservoir; or any one of a
thousand other things that are now legislated for.

You can still climb trees and swim in reservoirs, as witness the number
of teenagers who lose their lives in bitterly cold inland waters during
every hot spell of weather.
Darwin, I suppose, but it doesn't cost as much as a road accident.

Quoted message said:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" -
Sir Isaac Newton. How are we going to see further if so many risks are
no longer permitted that we can no longer stand on the shoulders of
giants? "I'm sorry, sub-division of atomic particles is illegal, you may
set off a chain reaction that ends the world"

Now there's a stretch too far, from wearing seat belts to standing on
the shoulders of giants!
--
Gordon Harris

Bitstring <72d7.433e8d6d.4f6ef@stigmata>, from the wonderful person
Justin C <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Geoff Jackson g.j.photo@REMOVE_THISntlworld.com said:

I moaned at having to wear a
seat belt, but I was glad that I had a seat belt on when a drunken driver
drove in to me 2 years ago.

You miss the point that it was the seat-belt that saved your life, not
the change in the law. Had you chosen to ignore that law you may or may
not have been with us today. You would, however, have had the freedom to
choose, a freedom now denied[1].

[1] I advocate the wearing of seat-belts. They often save lives in the
case of an accident. If you choose not to wear one I advise you to think
again about the possible implications of your action. I will not,
however, require the law be changed to punish you for exercising your
freedom.

Ah, an 'evolution in action' advocate. 8>.

The only justification I can see is that the law may avoid me feeling
bad because I killed someone (by accident) who could have saved me that
guilt by wearing a belt. Plus it avoids some of the trauma for
witnesses, and emergency services, and reduces NHS costs. Whether that's
worth (yet more) infringement of liberty is debatable.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

In article <72c2.433e8acf.b0f4a@stigmata>, Justin C
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

By all means
legislate to make people aware of the dangers of certain activities, but
to dis-allow any activity is a step too far, for who is it to say to me,
a free man, that "you shall not"? Where is my freedom when "I am not
permitted to..."?

There are those laws which are designed to prevent you making the unsafe
decision, such as not wearing a seat belt (eg) and then here are those
laws which are designed to prevent others making the wrong decision -
e.g shall not drink and drive. The latter is meant to save you from the
actions of others, the first is to save you from your own actions.

I agree that there is some loss of freedom of choice, but you know very
well that the circumstances under which these laws prevail usually mean
that you may come under the influence of someone else's actions.

Free climbing which I believe you mentioned is an action entirely under
you control.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful
person W. D. Grey <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

In article <72c2.433e8acf.b0f4a@stigmata>, Justin C
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

By all means
legislate to make people aware of the dangers of certain activities, but
to dis-allow any activity is a step too far, for who is it to say to me,
a free man, that "you shall not"? Where is my freedom when "I am not
permitted to..."?

There are those laws which are designed to prevent you making the
unsafe decision, such as not wearing a seat belt (eg) and then here are
those laws which are designed to prevent others making the wrong
decision - e.g shall not drink and drive. The latter is meant to save
you from the actions of others, the first is to save you from your own
actions.

I agree that there is some loss of freedom of choice, but you know very
well that the circumstances under which these laws prevail usually mean
that you may come under the influence of someone else's actions.

Free climbing which I believe you mentioned is an action entirely under
you control.

Just to play devil's advocate, even free climbing can damage other (you
can fall on them, for a start), and if you have an accident 'society'
(whoever that is) seems to have awarded itself a moral obligation to
pick up your pieces and look after you (assuming you survive).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Just to play devil's advocate, even free climbing can damage other (you
can fall on them, for a start), and if you have an accident 'society'
(whoever that is) seems to have awarded itself a moral obligation to
pick up your pieces and look after you (assuming you survive).

'Awarded'?

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/