Wednesday, 29 July 2009

Missing The Point Spectacularly

Yes, it’s another one of these stories:
Television and radio presenter Nicky Campbell's mother was banned from taking photographs of his children at a swimming pool.
She’s pretty forthright in her complaint.
'The attendant was adamant that I had to stop. He might have taken away my camera. I must say, it is a sign that we are living in a nanny state.'
It is indeed.

Can you expect some help from your famous son?
Mr Campbell, who presents BBC One's Watchdog and the Breakfast show on Radio 5 Live, said: 'I am sorry.... I don't think my mother looks like a paedophile or a terrorist.

'She is from an era when such things were acceptable.
/headdesk

Newsflash for you, Nicky. It still is acceptable!

And if people told the petty little Hitlers where to get off, and informed them that if they tried to confiscate their camera, they’d see them (and their employers) in court for theft, as they have no legal powers to do so, we could nip this madness in the bud.

Will no-one stand up for themselves any more?
A spokesman for Edinburgh Leisure that runs the swimming pool denied there was a wholesale ban on photography, claiming staff took a 'common sense approach'.
Ah ha ha ha ha!

Who knew Edinburgh Leisure would join in with ‘Silly Week’?

17 comments:

cartermagna said...

Like it: /headdesk is the new facepalm for me. I shall be using that one.

steveshark said...

It's getting so that you're a paedophile by default.

Deeply insulting and not at all helpful in catching the genuine article.

Sue said...

How ridiculous is this all getting?

I am a grandmother and when my granddaughter visits me, I photograph her every move because I live in Spain and don't get to see her often.

You'll love this :

Now health and safety chiefs ban swimmers from doing lengths

Do you get the distinct impression that they don't want people to exercise at all?

Mark Wadsworth said...

If it says somewhere in the small print on the sign near the door that members of staff can confiscate your camera or expel you without refund, then under normal contract law they probably can. There's no need to justify it.

We used to have a ballot box to deal with sort of thing but LibLabCon are all the same now.

Heck knows why.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Sue, that's a good link.

Try following it and look closely at the URL!!

Obsidian said...

Unless there's a sign otherwise stating they can take a camera, she should've suggested any attempt to do so would involve her knees introducing his testicles to his diaphragm.

Sue said...

I can't see anything Mark! Do you mean the "elf" thing?

If not, must be the hot weather here.. or I'm a thickie (am I allowed to say that word)? :)

JuliaM said...

"...not at all helpful in catching the genuine article."

I'm not sure that's a big concern of the people who promote this kind of thinking. Not at all, really...

"You'll love this.."

Oh ho! So that story's made the 'Fail' already, has it? I was reading it in the 'B&D Post' this morning...

I can't, for the life of me, figure out how doing widths is supposed to be safer than lengths.

"If it says somewhere in the small print on the sign near the door that members of staff can confiscate your camera..."

I doubt they've got that far. They've probably assumed (correctly) that no-one will object, that they'll all do as they are told...

"...she should've suggested any attempt to do so would involve her knees introducing his testicles to his diaphragm."

Heh!

"..am I allowed to say that word.."

Here, you can say anything you like :)

And yes, I hink it's the 'elf' bit..

Mark Wadsworth said...

Sue, I meant the "elf" bit. At least somebody at the Torygraph has got a sense of humour.

Sue said...

It's all getting beyond a joke though, isn't it?

I live my life here in Spain in relative normality and watch with horror as my beloved country slowly metamorphosises into bedlam!

I worry for my children...

James Higham said...

Common sense?

Anonymous said...

first they came for the paedophils and you said good.
then they came for the terrorists and you said good.
then they came for the rapists and you said good.
and now they come for you.

Rob Farrington said...

No, a 'common sense' approach would be to realise that almost anyone with a mobile phone could take pictures covertly. Paedophiles probably wouldn't even bother doing that - I'm sure that there are far more 'interesting' pictures to be found on the darker parts of the web, if they're that way inclined.

People taking pictures openly are almost bound to have innocent reasons for doing so but hey, who cares? As long as the authorities can be said to be 'doing something', even if that thing is totally ineffective and only harms innocent people, and other people are employed in enforcing that policy, then who can argue, right?

After all, its for the children!

Angry Exile said...

A common sense approach?

Ahahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Ahahahahaha.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

What a prick.

Rob said...

"It's about variety, giving a whole host of swimming options."

No it isn't, because you removed the one option everyone previously used.

"Most people who are training for events don't want to swim 33.3 metres"

Did you ask them? Of course not.

Since when did it become perfectly acceptable for public servants to lie brazenly in public, and without punishment?

Rob said...

I thought /facepalm was a reference to shoving your palm in someone's face, like a rugby handoff. I consider myself educated!

JuliaM said...

"Since when did it become perfectly acceptable for public servants to lie brazenly in public, and without punishment?"

Since there stopped being consequences for it...