Friday 3 July 2009

”It rubs the lotion on its skin…”

…or not:
Teachers have barred children from bringing sunscreen into school for fear that they will share it with others who are allergic.
*sigh*
Parents have been told that in order to protect their children from the sun they will either have to apply a 12-hour sunscreen before school or come in at lunchtime and re-apply the cream.
Well, of course, everyone’s got time to do that, haven’t they?

And employers will be quite happy for mothers to nip out for a long lunch to apply suncream to their nine year olds, I’m sure…
Catriona Hoy, 45, was amazed when she heard about the ban from her nine-year-old daughter Kiera.

'I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I understand some children could be allergic but surely the danger of skin cancer and sun damage outweigh allergies,' she said.

'Surely they could just tell the children not to share their sunscreen, or keep it locked in a cupboard, clearly labelled with the children's names.'
Yeah, but that would be too simple, obviously. Far easier to just slap a blanket prohibition on something.

It’s the parental equivalent of ‘I don’t know (or am too lazy to find out) who wrote ‘Miss sucks!’ on the notice board, so I’m keeping you all in after school…’
Mrs Hoy, a children's author and chemistry teacher whose other daughter Caitlyn, 11, also attends the school, added: 'Some children may be allergic to wheat but they haven't banned sandwiches in case the children share lunch-boxes.'
Oh, great! Now you’ve given them an idea….
She added: 'I'm a working mother - I don't have the luxury of time to be able to come to school and apply it. I do not expect the teachers to apply it either.

'Both my daughters are old enough to be able to apply it themselves and that's what we should be teaching our children - to protect themselves.'
Strewth! Teaching children to be self-sufficient and able to do things for themselves?

What kind of a school do you think this is….?
Headteacher Gayle Mawson today stressed the school's concerns about allergies and cross-infection but said there was not enough time for staff to apply sun-cream to 550 pupils.

She added: 'We take the health and well-being of our children very seriously. We believe that if parents apply sunscreen at home then they are in control of the situation and we feel that that is what most parents would want.'
Have you actually asked them?

Or have you just assumed this is what they want, because it suits you to do so?

The expected charities and groups are up in arms:
The ban drew sharp criticism today from David Longman, director of charity Killing Cancer, based at the University College Hospital, London.

He said: 'It's insane. Of course children should have sunscreen and learn how to apply it.

'I have not yet come across anyone who is allergic to sun screen but I have come across a lot of children who are allergic to the sun.

'It is absolutely lunatic of any school, head teacher or set of governors to think they should ignore this ticking time bomb.'
Mmm, bit strident there, but I get your gist.

And this idiocy isn’t confined to schools. This related issue shows the real reason for the ‘elf and safety gone mad aspect:
Royal Mail bosses have stopped supplying postmen with sun cream - for fear the company could be sued if staff fail to use it and develop skin cancer.

Norwich staff have been given factor-15 lotion for their rounds over the past two summers but company lawyers have called a halt.

Melly Hill, of the Communication Workers Union, said: 'The legal people looked at it and said that if Royal Mail provided sun cream and then people didn't use it and got skin cancer then they would be liable.'
Yup, it’s the ‘Oh my god, we might be sued!’ factor yet again, which I suspect is driving the schools issue too.

But are they right? If you issue employees with safety equipment, but they don’t use it, as long as you’ve issued it, trained them correctly, deal with repeated breaches where possible, etc then surely you can’t be held liable?

9 comments:

North Northwester said...

Nice title, Julia; very literary, but did you expect to use such a blunt instrument to dissect liberal insanity?

To the point, once authority was undermined by 'feelings' and 'rights', then responsibility was quietly pensioned off and 'responsiveness' brought to play.

I do like the egalitarianism of it all, though - if not everyone can go to Eton because public schools use up all the good education and therefore none-one should be allowed to attend them, then it surely follows that anyone excluded by Nature or genetics [the liberals' own persona Jesus] then let's face it, none should be saved.

Logical.
Liberal.
Lunatic.

Anonymous said...

"If you issue employees with safety equipment, but they don’t use it, as long as you’ve issued it, trained them correctly, deal with repeated breaches where possible, etc then surely you can’t be held liable? "

Precisely what the Health and Safety at Work Act was introduced to do; protect both employee and employer. If the employer has trained the employees in the correct use of equipment, and the employee fails to adhere to the guidelines then the company is not liable.

Royal Mail are hiding behind legal dept because I suspect that if other mail depots got wind of one being issued with suncream, all the posties would want it. Ergo, a cynical cost saving measure.

Ross said...

Surely there is also a risk of sun burn and the skin cancer in later life for the children no longer able to apply the cream?

Rob said...

"The legal people looked at it and said that if Royal Mail provided sun cream and then people didn't use it and got skin cancer then they would be liable"

That is total bullshit. My guess is that they wanted to save money (suncream is very expensive) and thought up this legal wheeze.

Rob said...

"Surely there is also a risk of sun burn and the skin cancer in later life for the children no longer able to apply the cream?"

In later life, i.e. long after they have left the school, ergo not the school's problem.

JuliaM said...

"...did you expect to use such a blunt instrument to dissect liberal insanity?"

:D

"...then let's face it, none should be saved."

Communism was said to offer 'the equality of the grave', after all...

JuliaM said...

"Royal Mail are hiding behind legal dept because I suspect that if other mail depots got wind of one being issued with suncream, all the posties would want it."

They should have factored ('scuse pun) that in to their cost analysis, surely?

Anonymous said...

Ref your last para.

Yes, you're correct, if you do all that then probably you would not be held liable.

But can even begin to imagine the bureacracy that would be involved in proving that you'd done all that?

The Procedures, the Training records, the Risk Assessments, the internal audits, the Quality processes, the validation, and so on and on and on.

Pretty sensible of the Post Office to body-swerve all that, imho.

What's wrong is not the PO managers, but the whole compensation culture.

"First, let's kill all the lawyers"

Catriona Hoy said...

Thanks Julia for your supportive comments...just like to point out that the school keeps saying it can't apply the sunscreen to 550 pupils. I've never asked them to do that...merely that children who wish to can do so.
My daughter herself is allergic to certain products and we use one that I am happy with..I don't see why the school should dictate that I find another which falls withing their guidelines.

Such a shame that the other three local schools all encourage children to bring in sunscreen. Such a storm in a teacup when we could all wish that common sense would prevail.

I was encouraged today as I walked home when a young girl of around 14, whom I had never met, crossed the street to tell me that her mum thought I was great and well done.

cheers, the mad sunscreen woman of saffron walden