advertisement


Nanny State - what's your view?

Are adults are informed and responsible enough?

  • No, I think that most adults are not that different from children.

    Votes: 19 67.9%

  • Yes, we don't need anyone telling us what to do because we know better.

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • Total voters
    28
tuga

tuga

Legal Alien
I'd never heard the expression Nanny State before I came to live in the UK.
Now I hear it all the time.
Today it was being brandished on the radio by people who, when asked if snacks should be banned from public transports to tackle obesity (a less than brilliant idea), thought that adults should be free to make their own choices regarding food even if the knowledge that whatever they decided to eat was damaging to their health.

My question is - Should society accept that most adults are informed and responsible enough to make this and many other kinds of decisions which may affect their's or the lives of others, or have a cost to taxpayers?
 
Considering the amount of adults that do not get their kids immunised? This is just another version of that as far as I'm concerned.
If *nothing* is done, simply massive consequences are just ten years down the line.
Banning snacks on public transport for kids is just headline grabbing.
 
Is this just UK? Eating durian on public transport has been illegal for years in some countries.
Further, those sufficiently energised on the general issue such that they’re prepared to engage in the dialectic probably don’t need a ‘nanny state’ but many do or they get trodden on.
On the specific issue of snacking on our public transport I’m selfish enough to care more about my revulsion in seeing someone pour cheesy puffs into their maw than I do about their longer term health.
 
I think the Nanny State thing is just another manifestation of the Anglo Saxon/Common Law view of the world, which crudely speaking starts from the premise that everything is permitted unless it's forbidden, and the Continental European/Code Napoleon view where, again crudely speaking, everything is forbidden unless it's permitted.
 
MikeMA said:
I think the Nanny State thing is just another manifestation of the Anglo Saxon/Common Law view of the world, which crudely speaking starts from the premise that everything is permitted unless it's forbidden, and the Continental European/Code Napoleon view where, again crudely speaking, everything is forbidden unless it's permitted.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting and original take on it!
 
Urban public transport in Singapore and Malaysia does not allow food and drink at all. It saves on mess and avoids several religious sensitivities.
 
tuga said:
I'd never heard the expression Nanny State before I came to live in the UK.
Now I hear it all the time.
Today it was being brandished on the radio by people who, when asked if snacks should be banned from public transports to tackle obesity (a less than brilliant idea), thought that adults should be free to make their own choices regarding food even if the knowledge that whatever they decided to eat was damaging to their health.

My question is - Should society accept that most adults are informed and responsible enough to make this and many other kinds of decisions which may affect their's or the lives of others, or have a cost to taxpayers?
Click to expand...

Having spent a few decades giving health advice, to God knows how many patients/clients, you'd be surprised about how ill-informed certain sections of the population are. Some people take on-board the advice you're giving but some, quite frankly, are so stupid/pig-headed it's like banging your head against the proverbial brick one.

And, I hate to say this, it is, on the whole, poorly educated people who have the 'dont tell me what to do' mentality. I do generalise a little but I have had a large sample base covering a very wide section of society - hence the comment.

I'm also aware that the above makes me sound like a bit of a c***.

Health education needs to start at a very early age and folk should be given enough money to eat a healthy diet. And there should be a heavy sugar tax.
 
Tuga,

It's a decent question which gets asked from time to time.

I think we have more laws now than ever before but it could be argued that is an obvious consequence of the world being more complex. For example, a law preventing the use of hands held device whilst driving wasn't conceivable before the common ownership of mobile phones i.e. there wasn't many instances of people playing Bop It or Clackers at the wheel.

Ray
 
I voted NO, and I include myself in the under-informed category.

Medical science (hopefully) keeps developing. New information becomes available, and I'm quite happy to be informed about any new recommendations.

Very few things have ever been banned, and in retrospect, we wonder why we ever allowed them in the first place.

Lead water pipes ? Smoking in public spaces ? Banning these things seems logical now, but I imagine there were plenty of people moaning about new fangled steel pipes instead of lead.

Some people are under-informed and need a nudge in the right direction. Anything else is a dereliction of duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top