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
Something a friend of mine comes to mind.

"You don't know how lucky you are in the UK, being nannied, until you've lived here".

She moved to the USA 5 years ago. This is where you make up your own mind about how many Aspirins you want to buy. And that's just for starters. There are many aspects of American life and consumption that seem like a free for all which I find a little disturbing.

I was quite surprised she missed the nanny aspect but she won't be returning any time soon. It's obviously not the be all and end all.
 
Of course we are well informed and responsible. It's all the others who need a shove in the right direction.
 
Everyone likes the idea of personal freedom, until someone else's negatively impacts them. Whether that's directly (lights up cigarette in next seat on a train) or by requiring additional funding (avoidable self induced health problems taking disproportionate slice of the NHS funding).

There obviously has to be a balance. To govern is to decide.
 
"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?"

No. Some adults are uninformed and irresponsible. In local language, thick as pigshiz. (speaking as a retired health professional)

Charley the Cat and even the shite Rolf gave useful advice through public information films. Green Cross Code man (Darth Vader) won't be there when we cross the road... Clunk Click, every trip (ffs, is that saville in my memory?)

It depends what kind of society (a good society?) one wishes to live in.
 
There are many good dog owners out there who have trained their pets and clean up behind them. That still leaves quite a lot who don't clean up, therefore society makes it an offence with a fine, which seems pretty reasonable to me. Now if only they would fine people who don't train or can't control their dogs in public, wouldn't that be so much better? It'll never happen in Britain due to the huge cost in lost votes, so definitely no "nanny state" on that one. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Something a friend of mine comes to mind.

"You don't know how lucky you are in the UK, being nannied, until you've lived here".

She moved to the USA 5 years ago. This is where you make up your own mind about how many Aspirins you want to buy. And that's just for starters. There are many aspects of American life and consumption that seem like a free for all which I find a little disturbing.

I was quite surprised she missed the nanny aspect but she won't be returning any time soon. It's obviously not the be all and end all.
Tell her to try France. The starting point is nearly always you cannot do that. But often they do it anyway.
 
I've just had a holiday in Italy. Every station has big signs saying "you may not cross the tracks, penalty Eu200" and everyone ignored it and strolls across the tracks. Every bloody time.
 
In Virginia a hospital that had a reputation for bankrupting families over unpaid bills was pointed out to me.

My friend was bitten by a deadly spider but advised by a doctor neighbour not to go to the emergency department as the cost would be extortionate.

It makes you realise how lucky we are to be looked after without fear of cost.
 
Rees-Mogg approves of Nanny.

50167AC200000578-0-image-a-8_1536772564941.jpg




Stephen
 
I voted Yes, not because I believe everyone knows better (it's blindingly obvious that isn't true), but because I believe in individual freedom.

I hasten to add that I don't believe my individual freedom trumps yours. If a behaviour causes significant problems for other people, I have no issue with some proportionate action being taken, such as it being banned, made illegal, or whatever. If, on the other hand, an individual's behaviour is a problem primarily for that individual only, I don't have any issues with a bit of 'nudging', like a sugar tax, but I wouldn't go any further than that.

If a society generally treats its citizens as idiots, it will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the UK is going further and further in that direction.

Banning all consumption of food on public transport seems like a mistaken reaction to the obesity crisis. Inasmuch as it acts as a disincentive to use public transport, and an incentive to drive around in your own private transport instead, it could even be counter-productive.

Kind regards

- Garry
 
Food on public transport. Just another silly headline grabber to divert the attention of the masses.

A bit like the BBC licence fee now being imposed on the over 75s. There are much more substantial concerns for that age group. Not least the cost of care, like that for my parents, running to over £3000 a month, then having their abode sized up by social services.
 
Food on public transport. Just another silly headline grabber to divert the attention of the masses.

A bit like the BBC licence fee now being imposed on the over 75s. There are much more substantial concerns for that age group. Not least the cost of care, like that for my parents, running to over £3000 a month, then having their abode sized up by social services.

the tv licence, as the cost of care, for old people is only imposed on those who have the resources to pay.
 
There are many good dog owners out there who have trained their pets and clean up behind them. That still leaves quite a lot who don't clean up, therefore society makes it an offence with a fine, which seems pretty reasonable to me. Now if only they would fine people who don't train or can't control their dogs in public, wouldn't that be so much better? It'll never happen in Britain due to the huge cost in lost votes, so definitely no "nanny stae" on that one. :mad:

Never mind bad dog owners, parents should be fined for the anti social behaviour of their feral kids.
As for the Nanny State, leave it to Darwinism.
 
Never mind bad dog owners, parents should be fined for the anti social behaviour of their feral kids.
As for the Nanny State, leave it to Darwinism.
Indeed they should. I recently got into a row on a bus because I spoke to a feral child who ran into me. His mother didn't want to control him, so I told him to stop. She didn't much like that, but that's tough.
 
The problem is that a lot of people don't WANT any responsibility.

We now live in a society where it's common for children to start school without having been toilet trained, for instance. When did parents stop giving a damn about their children?
 
Is this another Grumpy Old Men thread?

As with most things in life, it's not a simple yes/no question. For example, in theory what a person chooses to do to his/her own body (overeat, take lots of drugs) is no-one else's business. In practice, we all pay for others' medical treatments indirectly through taxation, so is it fair that we should be subsidising the healthcare of those who don't look after their health, or knowingly damage it? Should those who make such choices be made to contribute more via taxation (eg the more you weigh, the more you pay?)
 


advertisement


Back
Top