| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| A Small Victory Against The Cult Of Safety |
| 2005-04-26 |
| Swimmers who use ponds in north London have won their battle for the "right to take risks" by using them in winter. Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club brought a High Court challenge against a ruling by the Corporation of London to ban self-regulated swimming. The corporation felt it would be liable under the Health and Safety Act if there was an accident. The pond is now for the exclusive use of experienced club members during the winter and not open to the public. The judge ruled the corporation's refusal to allow club swimmers to bathe when lifeguards were not present at the pond was based on a misapprehension of the law. 'Individual freedom' Mr Justice Burnton making his ruling, said the corporation had fallen into legal error and said swimmers should be able to swim at their own risk. He spoke out in favour of "individual freedom" and against "a grey and dull safety regime" being imposed on everyone... "Safety" is the ultimate totalitarian tool. Even Americans are trained from birth to obey *any* definition of "safety", no matter who makes it, or why, to the point of ridiculousness. It is a complex and insidious psychological regime, and represents an effort to "domesticate" people. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #7 We could only wish, eh Frank? :) |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2005-04-26 9:14:44 PM |
| #6 flame? Authorized by the state? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-04-26 7:43:08 PM |
| #5 Flaming infernos? Nope, sorry, those will be banned, along with campfires, fireplaces, and candles, unless utilized in the presence of an official from the local Fire Department. It's all in the name of safety. |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2005-04-26 7:29:20 PM |
| #4 Moose, Well put. "Safety" is becoming what "The Children" were 5-10 years ago. Wrap whatever agenda you have in mind in the fuzzy blanket of "safety" and watch as the MSM pummels your opponent for wanting to turn our highways/swimming pools/schools into flaming infernos because they opposed a plan to hike the sales tax by 14%. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-04-26 3:25:44 PM |
| #3 I just suggest that "safety" needs to be closely watched, just like any other effort to restrict what you can and cannot do. For example, mandatory trigger locks on guns. Many, if not all, drug laws. "Sin" taxes. Much of liability law. Zero tolerance rules for children. Content restrictions on comic books, music, video games, television, even radio. All and far more can be attributed to "safety", based on the assumption that you are either too ignorant, too indifferent, or that it would cost "society" too much if you were to somehow screw up and do something. And don't underestimate the "too indifferent" part, because your "lack of concern" is troubling to many people. You *should* care, because they say it is important. Your lack of caring is wrong. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-04-26 11:50:44 AM |
| #2 Last time I checked the Brits were the worlds safest drivers, although the Americans weren't that far behind. Both adhere to traffic laws compared to most other places. You can adhere to traffic laws and still take risks in other areas. It's about choosing the risks you take. Governments shouldn't prevent you taking any risk you want to as long as it doesn't increase the risks to others, which would preclude risky driving on public roads. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-04-26 10:20:28 AM |
| #1 Even Americans are trained from birth to obey *any* definition of "safety", no matter who makes it, or why, to the point of ridiculousness. Which is why we adhere so closely to traffic laws. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-04-26 9:55:37 AM |