Andy Hall wrote:
On 29 Nov 2004 13:44:00 GMT, wrote:

Oh you cynic! How can you possibly think that the nanny state wants
anything but to protect us from ourselves?

While I'm much (totally?) in sympathy with the rants about part 'P'
might I point out that 'the nanny state' was put by there by *us*.

However, I wonder how many of *us* would have voted for *them* if they
thought that *they* would be involving themselves in trivial
legislation like this.

If by 'us' you mean the denizens of uk.d-i-y I susppect not many.

On the other hand 'we' (as in the population at large) certainly have
been voting for exactly this sort of thing overall, people want more
police, more control of how things can be sold, etc., etc. When asked
if you want more police and control of 'yobs' etc. most people will
say yes, things like part 'P' sort of hang on the coat-tails of all
this.


It's not some totally independent being out there trying to beat us
into submission, it's a load of under (or over) worked individuals
probably trying to do the best they can in the circumstances.

The reality seems to be that trade organisations like the ECA (by
their own admission) and others pushed for this for a long time and
managed to hoodwink the bureaucrats concerned that this would be a
Good Thing and would save lives. It's an easy political headline
that allows justification of virtually anything.

Yes, exactly, like many other things which 'save lives' but are done
without looking at their other effects. The trouble is that on the
face of it 'saving lives' is always a good thing and trying to argue
against it is very difficult, especially in public/on the 'media'.

--
Chris Green