PDA

View Full Version : Where can I buy Conker Goggles


Salu
04-10-2004, 12:24
Oh deary deary me....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004460644,00.html

Political correctness and litigation paranoia are rife nowadays.

Do you think that in 15 years we will all be sitting in perspex boxes afraid to leave our home in case we accidently "touch" someone and face prosecution because we have infringed on their privacy?

Or maybe we will be laughing at how trite we were!

Mick
04-10-2004, 12:33
When I saw the title I laughed and its so true nanny state here we come. :rolleyes:

Dave Stones
04-10-2004, 12:37
Oh deary deary me....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004460644,00.html

Political correctness and litigation paranoia are rife nowadays.

Do you think that in 15 years we will all be sitting in perspex boxes afraid to leave our home in case we accidently "touch" someone and face prosecution because we have infringed on their privacy?

Or maybe we will be laughing at how trite we were!
maybe we should just all be like the boy in the bubble... if we all live inside a plastic bubble, surely nothing can harm us? ;)

BBKing
04-10-2004, 12:39
Surely the nanny state approach would be to ban conkers entirely? This, while silly, is not the daftest thing that could happen. Not sure what's politically correct about it though.

Julian
04-10-2004, 12:49
I certainly don't remember bits flying into my eyes... but as for my knuckles :Yikes: :shocking: :cry:

So why no protective gloves? :shrug:

Mick
04-10-2004, 13:00
Well its that bonkers this ban that the story is on sky news site...

Mr Halfpenny, head of Cummersdale Primary School, in Cumbria, said: "The children asked to play conkers in school and I thought it would be really mean to say 'no'.

"This is a rural custom that should not die. You can't wrap children up in cotton wool all the time, you have to let kids be kids."

I think the headteacher sums it up well there.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13231029,00.html

basa
04-10-2004, 13:32
Can't wait 'til these idiots insist on American style shoulder, knee and arm pads and helmets to play soccer !!!!! :rolleyes:

Be the end of 'headers' though !!!!! :(

Hey wait they'd have to wear goggles as well in case dirt off the ball got in their eyes. :shocked:

Paul
04-10-2004, 14:07
Once again stupidity rules :rolleyes: How did I ever survive to be 41 :eek:

Mal
04-10-2004, 14:33
To me, this is the major part of the problem:

Many schools have banned conkers for fear of getting sued if pupils are injured.
I know, it is going overboard, but looking from the other side, there are always people who will sue at the drop of the hat. :shrug:

Mick
04-10-2004, 14:39
Some people need to get real and realise that such activities always include risks, getting out of bed is a risk, funny how noone has banned work and advised you to stay in bed though. :D

Mal
04-10-2004, 14:43
I do agree, it's stupid, but I can see why they've done it for. The growing compensation culture.

Maggy
04-10-2004, 15:36
It's about time a few judges threw out a few more cases that are based on such stupidity and stated that enough is enough.

Or the government insist that only the truly horrendous cases of real harm get taken to court.Perhaps an organisation similar to the CPS could be set up for civil cases which could look at all such cases and turf out the really stupid ones.

Or parents who think this is really stupid counter sue any parent who brings such frivolous actions to court for ruining their childrens only stab at childhood.

etccarmageddon
04-10-2004, 15:42
you can get the goggles from Homebase and B and Q - protective goggles are ideal for jobs like painting fences. thread closed!

:)


I'm glad to see you are being sensible when interfacing your conker with another persons conker.

Salu
04-10-2004, 15:45
I imagine in 10 years or so, the accident helplines will have expanded to include virus infringement helplines etc.

"Have you ever been coughed on in public? Do you want to make a compensation claim on a no-win-no-fee basis, we want to hear from you, so we can ensure you receive the full 100% compensation from your claim. The virus infringement act of 2007 states that you are entitled to claim compensation from the careless, thoughtless person who infected you and removed your rights to a cold free life.

Phone NOW on 0800..................."

We have to accept that life is risky. The odds were against you when you were concieved. 80-90% (est) of conceptions are said to abort.

The "dangers" of conkering have not changed for decades. Why do we need goggles now?

Isn't the truth that we are all a bit more precious nowadays and much less tolerent?

Nidge
04-10-2004, 16:37
When I hears this I fell out of my chair laughing my head off, kids have been playing conkers for years, making them wear goggles is beyond a joke, what next finger protectors for when they are writing?

cookie_365
04-10-2004, 20:20
It's about time a few judges threw out a few more cases that are based on such stupidity and stated that enough is enough.

Or the government insist that only the truly horrendous cases of real harm get taken to court.Perhaps an organisation similar to the CPS could be set up for civil cases which could look at all such cases and turf out the really stupid ones.

Or parents who think this is really stupid counter sue any parent who brings such frivolous actions to court for ruining their childrens only stab at childhood.
There is no chance whatsoever of a parent successfully suing the school/education authority in the unlikely event a splinter from a conker hurt an 'ungoggled' child.

There's already an excellent way of weeding out trivial claims: the courts. In a free society people must have the right to go to law where they have suffered or think they have suffered a wrong.

It's not the cases that end up in court that are the problem; it's the ones that don't. The ones that have no chance of getting anywhere but use up, eg headteacher's, time in replying that could be made better use of, or the ones where the insurance company just says 'give them their hundred quid if they'll go away and stop wasting our time' - and then puts the premiums up.

Perhaps we need a new civil wrong of 'trivial action' so the potential defendant could issue proceedings of their own to recover their admin/insurance costs of dealing with a trivial threat of proceedings which never actually got issued?

The other side of the coin is those ads where some luckless soul tells how they broke 4 ribs and was off work for 6 months but thanks to www.blameframeclaim.co.uk (http://www.blameframeclaim.co.uk) got a whole £1000 compensation - because the claim company weren't going to waste their time faffing around getting a decent settlement for a punter who could be easily hoodwinked; and the insurance company probably couldn't believe their luck that they weren't facing a real personal injury lawyer.