Safety Nannyism Run Amok

[David2012]

Safety Nannyism Run Amok
August 7, 2012
By Don Zaidle

http://www.fishgame.com/newsblog.php?p=11010

British health and safety officials have banned paper clips as “too dangerous.”


[Photo in original article] NOTICE: This photograph is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of or encouragement to use this dangerous item.

Manchester NHS Trust officials made the decision to stop the use of the metal stationary item after a member of staff cut their finger using one.

In a memo to staff, it was warned that the use of metal fasteners was ‘prohibited’ and the offending clips must be ‘carefully disposed of immediately’.‘

Due to recent incidents, NHS Manchester has decided to immediately withdraw the use of metal paper fasteners,’ explained the memo featuring an accompanying picture of a paper clip – just to avoid any confusion.

‘Please ensure any that remain in use be replaced by similar plastic fasteners.

‘The use of metal fasteners is prohibited and must be carefully disposed of immediately. Thank you for your co-operation.’

More here…

Editor’s Note: Although not an outdoors/hunting/fishing/firearms story, I felt this so perfectly illustrates the absurdity of many “safety initiatives” that plague those interests, I would be remiss to not include it. –Don Zaidle, Editor-in-Chief

 

[okietool]

Are British subjects still considered property of "The Crown"?

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Are British subjects still considered property of "The Crown"?

If you are asking seriously, I think they are both. Subjects of the crown, yet citizens of the government. The monarchy is really just a figure-head anymore. The Prime Minister would be the most equivalent to our US President, although he holds more power over the country than our President. The Royals (Queen acting as Head of State) are more of a counter balance to the PM's power. From what I understand, the Royals are not really allowed to have political affiliation. They are more-so required to remain neutral, which makes sense. The army is property of the Royals (in this case, the queen).

The British Prime minister controls the House of Commons (which is similar to our House), there is a House of Lords (roughly the same as our senate) although the House of Lords does not have near enough power. That is why I said British PM has more power over his country than our President does over ours. Where our fairly (I know thats a stretch) balanced Senate and House keeps our President under check, the Queen keeps her PM under check via controlling the army and the power to dissolve Parliament. The Queen is kept in check by the fact if she tries to completely rule, there would be revolution. So the balance of power between the Royals and the PM is more about forced compromise. If either side gets to uppity, it could have dire results.

I've always found the monarchy fascinating. I'd still rather be a citizen of a democratic republic than a subject or a "hybrid", but there is just something fascinating about how their government works.

With my family history, I could never live under the crown. (Revolutionary American, Native Savage, Irish Republican and Scottish Nationals)