The risk factor
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 
Following the story that laissez-faire politician Boris Johnson is to stand as a Conservative candidate for mayor of London, more good news. The Daily Telegraph reports that Ed Balls, the new Schools Secretary, "is to tackle the compensation culture which has led to bans on playground games such as marbles and tag".
Children should not be "wrapped in cotton wool" but allowed to have snowball fights in winter and play conkers in autumn, he said as he urged parents to take a more balanced approach to risk.
"The idea you decide as a society that people aren't going to make snowballs because of a compensation culture is not the kind of society I want to live in," he said at the launch of a consultation on how to keep children safe while allowing them the freedom to explore.
At last, another politician talking sense. There are, of course, two issues involved here - the nanny state and the litigious society. Yes, there are lots of interfering, paternalistic do-gooders out there, but there is also a genuine fear of being taken to court. The two go hand-in-hand. In order to roll back the frontiers of the nanny state we first have to remove the threat from m'learned friends.
I still think things will get worse before they get better, but it's encouraging to hear a government minister speak in these terms. Hopefully, Ed Balls and others will realise that this is not just about children (who, I accept, need some protection), it's also about adults being allowed to take risks too, as long as their behaviour doesn't pose a serious threat to other people.
The headline of the Telegraph story is, 'Playtime needs risk if it's to be fun, says minister'. Perhaps The Free Society's motto should read: 'Life needs risk if it's to be fun'. Other suggestions welcome. Full report HERE.
Reader Comments (3)
It takes politicians a bloody long time to catch up with public opinion doesn't it?
Something like ten years ago people were complaining vociferously about the political shift towards (what would become known as) 'zero risk' living. Has it taken them ten years to finally understand what is truly 'popular', or has it taken them ten years to work out that 'zero risk' living is an unattainable goal?
It would be nice to think that politicians are starting to exercise common sense, Simon, but at this point, with a ban forced through despite the fact that it firmly flies in the face of public opinion, I have lost all hope.
I hope that kids will get more freedoms, certainly, but I have no expectations regarding how long those freedoms will last before another nutty idea descends upon Parliament.
Politicians really need to spend a lot more time around REAL people. They seem to me to be totally shaped by inter-parliamentary chats, media, and squeaky wheels. They lose all touch with the electorate, get carried away with power, and end up wondering 'what went wrong'.
The "Compensation Culture" boost the coffers of the Legal Beagles, remember -- the greater compensation, the better fees for "good work"(?).. If nonsense-cases had been bunged out by the courts from the start, the world would be a saner and healthier place for all.
I too saw this article and was amused by it - how can politicians have one kind of attitude to 'risk' on the one hand and another attitude to 'risk' on the other. I had fun paraphrasing Ed Balls comments to reflect the smoking issue:
'Adults should not be "wrapped in cotton wool" but allowed to smoke indoors with the permission of proprietors he said as he urged the government to take a more balanced approach to risk.
"The idea you decide as a society that people aren't going to smoke because of a compensation culture is not the kind of society I want to live in," he said at the launch of a consultation on how to protect public health while allowing the freedom to choose.
Interesting huh?