All this nanny state really is going too far....

[Justin Smith]

We needed some more snap off utility knives for work. Last time, only a few years ago, we bought 10 reasonable quality knives (18mm blade size) off E Bay for about £15 I seem to remember. And we could buy decent quality replacement "snap off" blades easily and cheaply too.
We could do with some more knives and blades now so I went onto E Bay expecting it to take about 2 minutes.
Er, no......
Nobody on E bay, certainly from the UK, seems to sell the knives or the blades, though we could still get them from Toolstation, £5 each thank you very much. Wickes sell some for £4 each but **** quality. B&M appear sell some but only the smaller 9mm blade type.
I am assuming it's something to do with new regulations about the sale of knives (though I do not really think a snap off blade knife would be the preferred weapon of choice for the average hoodlum) ?
Coming on top of the Jacobite tourist steam train (Fort William to Mallaig) being banned because people could actually pull the window down to look about, including at the engine (why else would you want to be hauled by a steam engine....) this really has gone far enough.

Society is dumbing down by introducing countless new regulations, bans, restrictions so that even the most irresponsible, immature, and (let's be honest) plain thick person is not capable of causing harm to themselves.
And it's the rest of us, the great majority, who are being bought down to the level of those with no brain.

 

[alan1302]

Amazon sell Stanley ones £2.25 each.

eBay have always had a ban on selling knives - I expect they are just being more proactive in not selling them on the site now....they do seem more strict now.

 

[fisicx]

A bit of googling and you can find loads of cheap knives. I buy them by the box, works out very cheap.

 

[Gyumri]

I am assuming it's something to do with new regulations about the sale of knives (though I do not really think a snap off blade knife would be the preferred weapon of choice for the average hoodlum) ?

Goldfish can also be quite dangerous if they get into the wrong hands:

Branded a criminal for selling GOLDFISH to a boy aged 14: Pet shop owner fined £1,000 and told to wear electronic tag

Great-grandmother Joan Higgins, 66, was caught by council bosses in an undercover investigation after she unwittingly sold the fish to the 14-year-old boy, breaching new animal welfare laws.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[alan1302]

Goldfish can also be quite dangerous if they get into the wrong hands:

Branded a criminal for selling GOLDFISH to a boy aged 14: Pet shop owner fined £1,000 and told to wear electronic tag

Great-grandmother Joan Higgins, 66, was caught by council bosses in an undercover investigation after she unwittingly sold the fish to the 14-year-old boy, breaching new animal welfare laws.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Except that entire story does not involve dangerous goldfish

 

[Gyumri]

Except that entire story does not involve dangerous goldfish

Have you ever seen a goldfish swimming around in a plastic bag that looks dangerous?

The story isn't about whether goldfish are dangerous but about the risk of selling them to underage youths - the same as selling knives.

I am sorry that even by reading the whole story the meaning didn't jump out at you (pardon the pun).

 

[alan1302]

Have you ever seen a goldfish swimming around in a plastic bag that looks dangerous?

The story isn't about whether goldfish are dangerous but about the risk of selling them to underage youths - the same as selling knives.

I am sorry that even by reading the whole story the meaning didn't jump out at you (pardon the pun).

I know what the story is about - someone selling pets to underage buyers is at risk of fines/prison just as people that sell knives to underage buyers.

I can't see anything dangerous in it though - when you sell items you verify the persons age before you sell them. No verification, no sale.

 

[Justin Smith]

On the subject of it's gone too far.......

MPs to vote on smoking ban for Generation Alpha

MPs to vote on smoking ban for Generation Alpha

Rishi Sunak wants to ban those born after 2009 from buying cigarettes, creating some of the toughest anti-tobacco laws.

www.bbc.co.uk

I hate smoking, so one would have thought I'd be delighted that "smoking is to be banned".
But no way.
It's easy for people who do not smoke to say ban smoking, and these authoritarians probably think they're being virtuous. But in actual fact they're just being selfish.
This is supposed to be a free country, what are they going to ban next ? I'd have thought preventing people being over weight would make more of a positive difference to the nation's health, so how long before they introduce a ban on people being fat ? Or tax eating ? Except they are planning to do exactly that aren't they !

It's the modern way, regulating people's lives and banning stuff, get used to it because you'll be seeing even more of it over the coming years.

 

[Justin Smith]

Or tax eating ? Except they are planning to do exactly that aren't they !

On this subject we were in Taco Bell the other day and a family were there who were all grossly obese, even their 8 year old had started going that way....
But society cannot even call these people fat because that might upset them and these days upsetting anyone is the ultimate sin (they are, in fact, slowly, making it a crime to do so....) so they tax food instead, in this case the drinks the drinks that Taco Bell sell. But I don't want zero sugar Pepsi I prefer the taste of normal and I cannot help thinking sugar (a natural ingredient) is better for me that these artificial sweeteners, so why should I be taxed for that choice ? Particularly when I am not over weight anyway ?
In actual fact it was even worse that than because many of these fast food places have just stopped selling "normal" coke because it's too complicated to have two different pricing structures so I have to "choose" a zero sugar drink.

And the aforementioned fat family proves it doesn't work anyway.....

 

[Fagin2021]

As usual, the Act is just a political gimmick.

It doesn't actually ban Gen A from smoking - just makes it illegal for them to buy cigarettes.

So what happens when an 'Enforcement Officer' (a burgeoning profession) sees a youngster smoking in the street ? Does he or she ...

1. Demand proof of age ? What happens if they haven't got any ?
2. Demand to know how said youngster acquired the fags ?
3. Have sanctions when told to f*** off ?
4. Have powers to prosecute the buyer/seller of said fags - if known, if provable ?
5. And so on, and so on, and so on....

Another danger is that it actually encourages smoking - shows you're 'edgy', 'in with the crowd', adventurous, anti-authority and for teenage boys (like ASBOS), a badge of honour.

The whole thing's a dogs breakfast.

 

[Justin Smith]

Here's an interesting sidelight on the nanny state thing, in fact my 11 year old was quite concerned about it !
He was watching "Newsround" and they had a story about kids playgrounds being made disabled accessible and "inclusive". Straight away he picked up on the problem that if they really do want to make the whole playground "inclusive" for disabled kids they would have to remove any piece of playground eqpt that a disabled child could not use, and that would include pretty much all the stuff he, and other kids, likes playing on !
I suspect there may be a bit of confusion here between disabled accessible (who would object to playgrounds being accessible to disabled kids ? *) and disabled inclusive, but the trend of history indicates to me that sooner or later all playgrounds may well have to be disabled inclusive (i.e. nothing in them that disabled kids could not use) by diktat.

* Unless it was impractical or horrendously expensive.