Predesigned government solutions

Social problems - predesigned long term realities.

Personal Responsibility

The point which I would like to make here is that of a countries treatment toward its populace, the justification used to do so and possible reasoning behind it.

The strategy I refer to can be given many names, but one which characterizes the attitude with a great eloquence is 'nanny state', which I believe is being nurtured in one instance by the allowed growth of a 'compensation culture'.

Firstly, rather than me stating numerous individual cases to suggest such growth, allow me to post links in reference:

money.guardian.co.uk...

news.scotsman.com...

www.iht.com...

www.manchesteronline.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...


There are reports too numerous to mention that exemplify the escalation of this passtime born, I believe, mostly of greed and which leaves such a bitter taste.

The situation is now that stories such as - 'man buys vehicle, man goes for drive, whilst driving puts vehicle on cruise control, leaves driving seat to get drink/get changed, vehicle crashes, man sues successfully' - while not being exactly commonplace, lead us no longer to gasp in disbelief. It has become now that such an incident could indeed be true, that such an asinine tale could be fact. (Which, of course, the aforementioned example is not.)

By awarding, or in some cases even entertaining such claims as a 'Scottish woman suing her employer for �15,000 after she broke a nail', I believe it is being deemed acceptable that people are incapable of utilising basic common sense. This is a fact I refuse to believe - that such idiocy has been prevalent all of their lives - if true then I fail to see how they would have made it through childhood. Therefore these claims must be made based upon greed, (as I believe the majority of todays claims are), and as such should be immediately dismissed. However the continued existance of companies boasting such high morals as 'no win - no fee' laughably intimating 'we're only here to help you', would seem to suggest this is not the reality and that such cases are in fact increasing .

It might seems obvious to the majority of us that many claims should not even make it to court, let alone be upheld. Why then should anyone else, especially one so educated as to be set in a position of judgement over such a claim, see it in a way that the case for compensation be validated though an award of damages? Could it be that they are encouraged to? The more outrageous claims that are publicised and successfully fought, the more it becomes acceptable to seek compensation for lesser incidents.

It is this culture of blame that has led to the treatment which we have become accustomed to.

We find ourselves now in the ludicrous position of, for example, companies being required to put extra warnings on such as 'Hot Apple Pies' saying 'Caution - filling may be hot'. My personal view is one of disbelief that such a warning should be almost a legal requirement nowadays. Shouldn't a person automatically be cautious of a product which when sold is labelled as hot?

A friend of mine is a sculptor, on a recently purchased chainsaw a warning reads :
"Caution - Do not attempt to clean while saw is in operation."

Now come on, surely the theory of natural selection should be pushed here - if you are so idiotic that you are destined to end your life through such incompetence, perhaps it is to mankinds benefit that your genes are not passed on to future generations.

It is the encouragement of farcical legal claims that compels the treatment of society as that of being a danger to itself. Thus the government is forced to make up for the lack of responsibility we are prepared to take for our own actions.

Therefore government intervention becomes a requirement in the oversight of our everyday lives, because encouraged through greed to make such claims, the population puts itself in to the position where they simply cannot be trusted to display and make use of the most basic common sense.

Could it be possible that so many claims now are entertained and perhaps even encouraged because the resultant situation of a need for governmental protection from our own stupidity is a desired and calculated consequence? That we are slowly to become further resigned to the idea we need leaders, not only to manage that which they do already, but even to the extent of becoming so intricately involved with the day to day tasks of running our lives?

If not then why the justification through compensation awards for behaviour that surely grown adults are expected to avoid, (I didn't realise I should have turned the chainsaw off first - nobody told me).

It could be interpreted that this action is being allowed to continue so a population would get used to government becoming ever more involved in the daily running of the most personal aspects of their lives. An agenda to allow the development of a problem to which the most obvious solution is a predetermined and considered programme, let such a solution be 'suggested' by the populace and simply agree.

I would liken it to the immigration 'problem' that keeps rearing it's head in the UK media. Through this, society is being led into a situation where it asks, and depending on how much this problem disturbs them perhaps even demands or begs, government to keep more stringent an account of the movement of its population.

The result - a caring govenment then humbly bows to public pressure and installs the requested tighter controls on personal movement and thus freedom.

Are we being led like fools into accepting the requirement for government guidlines in every aspect of our lives down to the finest point, through the percieved need to protect us from our own stupidity?

Are we to end up demanding our own subjugation?

Jack