Nanny State Numpties
Three separate stories have raised my ire this week and if you haven't already seen them, please allow me to share them with you, and have a rant in the process of doing so.
The first concerns two women police officer in the UK who decided to baby-sit each other's children. This would happen when their shifts were different, in order to save money on hiring outsiders, and thereby rely on a trusted friend to look after the kids. This has caused the attention of the busy bodies who state that unless you are a registered child minder or a close relative (during working hours) this kind of eminently sensible arrangement is against the law. One could make comments like your friends you choose, your family you're born with, but let's allow this to pass for a moment. Can anyone imagine the logic (or lack of it) that has gone into this particular variety of bureaucratic madness?
Item number two concerns the newly retired senior police officer, who wished to try out his new digital camera by taking some photos of his grandson's weekend football game. As soon as he attempted to take any pictures, he was challenged and required to explain why he was taking photos of children. He explained he was taking them of his grandson, only to be told that he would need the written permission of the parents of any other kids he inadvertently snapped in so doing.
The last is my particular favorite. A young couple took some (celluloid) pictures of their small children having a bath. When the film was processed at the local branch of Boots, or wherever, the images displayed caused the manager to inform the police. The Plod duly turned up with a search warrant for the house and access to the man's computer, and were not to be dissuaded from carrying out their duty when the incredulous parents explained the images were of their own children.
Now, I suspect I am not alone in detesting all forms of child pornography and pedophilia, and strongly support laws that seek to curtail the spread of both of them. However, these three cases above beggar belief in terms of the lack of logic, prescience or simple old fashioned common sense. Sure, we need to protect our children and grandchildren. This is better achieved by enforcing laws where a real threat or risk is evident – not by invasive and wholly irrational further erosions of our liberty by the nanny state.
I know I'm beginning to sound like the Daily Mail, but there comes a point where, to quote Churchill, I think we all need to say “this is a situation up with which we will not put!”