Return of Common Sense

Internet jokes about the death of common sense have been flying around in recent years, but I am heartened by a couple of recent announcements by the UK's new Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition Government.

The first relates to the over-zealous use of (often imaginary) Health & Safety Regulations by Local Authority officials to ban all sorts of enjoyable and traditional activities in the interests of health and safety, and the fear of compensation claims. Children's games (such as Conkers) have been banned without protective gear, traditional and slightly mad activities like pancake races and cheese rolling have been banned.

The Government is now making a plea for the return of Common Sense, and requires Local Authorities to make out a written case for banning anything under Health & Safety Regulations, and gives local communities the right to challenge any such ban. They also want a reduction in TV adverts for "no-win, no fee" legal services and a reduction in the so-called Compensation Culture.

The second piece of good news is that regulations preventing school teachers from physically restraining a child, or from offering physical comfort to a distressed child have been scrapped. Thank heavens that piece of nonsense has gone.

Tales from the back of the School Minibus

Part of my job is the transport of eight primary school children to and from school. They are aged between five and eleven years.

Listening to the surreal conversations of the five-year olds is part of the pleasure of the job.

Me: "Don't unfasten your seatbelt while I'm driving."
Child: "It's OK - there are never any police down this road."

Child (in state of excitement): "Lionel, guess what."
Me: "What?"
Child: "My mummy's buying me a new water bottle".

Child 1: "I had a rat sandwich for lunch."
Child 2: "You can't eat rats."
Child 3: "You can - it's meat."
Child 4: "Did you know you can eat a duck?"
Child 2: "You're not allowed to eat a duck."
Child 3: "Well, you can eat a duck, but only if it's mad."

You heard it here first, folks!

Children's Playground - A Triumph of Civic Responsibility

The other day I commented on an attempt by a local businessman to purchase a right of way for an access road to his proposed housing development, which would result in the loss of up to 15% of the playing field area. The playing field committe were in favour of accepting an offer of more than £70,000.

Under the constitution of this registered charity it would require a 51% majority of residents attending a public meeting to approve such a deal.

Yesterday evening I attended the public meeting called to discuss the matter, and I was astonished to find the Village Hall bursting at the seams - standing room only, with some people standing outside listening through the side doors that had had to be opened. There were in excess of 300 people, ages ranging from eight to eighty.

In spite of feelings running high the debate was orderly, polite, and with plenty of good humour. One young lad (must have been around 10 or 11 years old) stood up and said his piece, saying that if they were going to finish up kicking a ball about near an access road and a housing development, balls might get kicked over the fence, damage cars etc., and it they went round to ask for their ball back "...they might - well - er - get killed or something!" This produced a good laugh and a round of applause.

I pointed out that up and down this country we have been selling off bits of playground and sports fields for housing development for the past couple of decades, and it was about time it stopped and we got a grip on our priorities: which is the most important - another batch of expensive houses that we don't need, or space for our children and grandchildren to play in. Regarding the playing field finances (often desperate) I said I was prepared to declare in front of the assembled public that I would be more than happy to contribute the huge sum of £1 per month by Direct Debit. I chose this ridiculous figure to demonstrate that if all these people who had filled the village hall did exactly the same it would provide an additional income of £3,600 p.a. This would more than cover the biggest annual outlay, i.e., the public liability insurance premium (nearly £2,000 p.a.)

When it came to the vote we were hugely amused to find that the committee had not printed enough ballot papers to go round. Since it had been clear which way the wind was blowing several of us suggested that we conduct the vote by a show of hands. This was agreed, and to make it even more significant, it was suggested the Chairman should frame the question in this way: Who is in favour of accepting an offer of £70,000? He did, and about four hands went up! Then he asked for the NO vote and a sea of hands shot up. Never mind a majority of 51%. This was a majority of 99%!

During the Annual General Meeting that immediately followed on, the Committee Chairman (a personal friend of the controversial businessman - but let's not dwell on that!) was (politely) given his marching orders. A new Chairman was elected, also a new Secretary and a new Treasurer.

There were over one hundred written pledges of regular donations to the playing field.

This was local democracy at its best in action. I was proud to be part of it, and it restored my faith in civic responsibility.

Don't mess with our Children's Playing Field

My village has a children's playing field. A local businessman who is used to getting his own way by flashing wads of cash around is trying to get hold of a chunk of the playing field to make an access for some houses he wants to build.

He's waved a large amount of cash in front of the playing field committee and they've gone all starry eyed at the prospect of having badly needed money in the bank with which to maintain a smaller playing field.

I think what we have to consider is which is the more important: a grassy space for our children and grandchildren to run around in, enjoying the swings and slides, etc., or a bunch of expensive houses that the village doesn't need.

Up and down the UK in the past couple of decades we have been merrily selling off sports facilities and playing fields for housing development, whilst at the same time belly-aching about kids having nothing to do hanging around on our streets.

It's about time it stopped, and here is as good a place as any to make a stand. OK, so the income and expenditure on this field is running too close for comfort, but that is not a reason to sell off a chunk of it. Someone else could come along in a couple of years waving more money around for another bit of land. Where is the logic in accumulating more money in order to maintain a disappearing asset?

I'd be prepared to commit myself to £1 per month going into the committee's bank account. At this point, dear reader, you are probably saying "He's a generous bastard! Only £1 per month?" But that's my point - it's so little that anyone could do it, and all it would take would be a couple of hundred people making the same commitment (give up a few bags of crisps or the odd newspaper each month) and there would be a guaranteed income increase of £2,400 per year (which, as it happens, would pay for the public liability insurance premium - the biggest chunk out of the committee's budget).

There's a public meeting next week to discuss the proposed sell-off. Apparently it can't be done without 51% of those attending the meeting voting in favour of it. I shall be casting a NO vote. Developments will be reported.