Girl gets sunburn at school after suncream ban

[JonRB]

mechsympathy said:

People are required to think for themselves less and less, and as a consequence they become unable to think for themselves.

That's actually quite profoundly astute and quote-worthy.

[mechsympathy]

Best go and do something daft to compensate.

[otolith]

mouseymousey said:

mrmr96 said:

Really? 20 or 30 years ago there was none of this nonsense. Have people got stupider?

I think it's also about the media and availability of information. In this example people know that a nut allergy might kill a kid so a kneejerk reaction is ban all nut products, including sun screen(!), without actually realising that skin cancer is a far higher risk than a reaction from a nut allergy.

Does seem odd to me that nut allergies have become such a massive concern within the education system and food labelling regulations - it was never even thought about when I was a kid, yet nobody at my school ever went into anaphylactic shock. I wonder how prevalent life-threatening peanut allergy is, compared to other allergies, and whether the level of concern is in proportion or just the result of very successful lobbying by the poor buggers with affected kids?

[JonRB]

otolith said:

Does seem odd to me that nut allergies have become such a massive concern within the education system and food labelling regulations - it was never even thought about when I was a kid, yet nobody at my school ever went into anaphylactic shock. I wonder how prevalent life-threatening peanut allergy is, compared to other allergies, and whether the level of concern is in proportion or just the result of very successful lobbying by the poor buggers with affected kids?

It's quite funny actually. Growing up as a kid in the late 70's / early 80's I always had to read the ingredients to see if there were nuts or peanuts.

Then we went through a period of food saying "contains nuts" when it actually contained nuts.

Then it just got silly with the likes of M&S putting "Caution: May contain nuts" on a carton of milk (FFS!) because it was cartoned in a factory where the aunt of someone who once worked there had a packet of Dry Roasted.

Which puts me back to actually reading the ingredients just like before. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

Edited by JonRB on Friday 10th July 13:07

[Podie]

JonRB said:

otolith said:

Does seem odd to me that nut allergies have become such a massive concern within the education system and food labelling regulations - it was never even thought about when I was a kid, yet nobody at my school ever went into anaphylactic shock. I wonder how prevalent life-threatening peanut allergy is, compared to other allergies, and whether the level of concern is in proportion or just the result of very successful lobbying by the poor buggers with affected kids?

It's quite funny actually. Growing up as a kid in the late 70's / early 80's I always had to read the ingredients to see if there were nuts or peanuts.

Then we went through a period of food saying "contains nuts" when it actually contained nuts.

Then it just got silly with the likes of M&S putting "Caution: May contain nuts" on a carton of milk (FFS!) because it was cartoned in a factory where the aunt of someone who once worked there had a packet of Dry Roasted.

Which puts me back to actually reading the ingredients just like before. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose! )

Edited by JonRB on Friday 10th July 13:07

Blame the rise of the litigation culture.. where there's blame, there's a claim.

[zac510]

thehawk said:

In NZ and Australia it's compulsory for kids to either bring sunscreen and a hat, most schools will also have sunscreen dispensers available.

Yes even 20 years ago at school if you didn't have a hat you weren't allowed to play. You had to sit in the corner in the shade and sulk!

[Ganglandboss]

Zod said:

There are too many stupid people in positions of authority working for the state. These people are of no use to anyone.

This is bugger all to do with the state. There is no specific legislation that states kids cannot take sun-cream to school. Legislation requires employers, employees and organisations to:

"conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."

Note very carefully the section in bold. Where you get problems is where some over-zealous spazmoid who sees a minute risk does not understand this. A retarded chimpanzee knows that the sun's rays are harmful to the skin, and this affects everyone. How anyone can be incapable of realising this poses a greater risk than the odd kid getting a bit of a rash astounds me.

In this instance the school is guilty of failing in their obligations and somebody needs fking with the wide end of the rag-man's trumpet. I am also surprised that any of the parents said nothing when they were told it was banned.

[Oakey]

JonRB said:

otolith said:

Does seem odd to me that nut allergies have become such a massive concern within the education system and food labelling regulations - it was never even thought about when I was a kid, yet nobody at my school ever went into anaphylactic shock. I wonder how prevalent life-threatening peanut allergy is, compared to other allergies, and whether the level of concern is in proportion or just the result of very successful lobbying by the poor buggers with affected kids?

It's quite funny actually. Growing up as a kid in the late 70's / early 80's I always had to read the ingredients to see if there were nuts or peanuts.

Then we went through a period of food saying "contains nuts" when it actually contained nuts.

Then it just got silly with the likes of M&S putting "Caution: May contain nuts" on a carton of milk (FFS!) because it was cartoned in a factory where the aunt of someone who once worked there had a packet of Dry Roasted.

Which puts me back to actually reading the ingredients just like before. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

Edited by JonRB on Friday 10th July 13:07

Thanks for clearing that up, I often wondered how you nut allergy sufferers managed to eat anything at all these days with everything from food to the kitchen sink having a "May contain nuts" warning

[otolith]

Ganglandboss said:

Zod said:

There are too many stupid people in positions of authority working for the state. These people are of no use to anyone.

This is bugger all to do with the state.

It is when the idiots involved are public sector employees. Plenty of H&S spacktards in the private sector too, mind.

[JonRB]

Oakey said:

Thanks for clearing that up, I often wondered how you nut allergy sufferers managed to eat anything at all these days with everything from food to the kitchen sink having a "May contain nuts" warning

I'm quite lucky really. My allergy isn't very bad; if I eat nuts I just cough, sneeze and feel crap like I have a cold. It passes after a few hours. Unpleasant, but not life-threatening. So unless the food actually contains nuts then I'm fine.

If it says "may contain traces of nuts" then I know I'm ok. Otherwise I just skim-read the ingredients.

[FunkyGibbon]

Ganglandboss said:

"conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."

Spot on. Non of this nonsense will have come from the HSE and I doubt it came from the LA H&S department either. Most likely from the LA Insurance and Litigation team, who in my experience can issue edicts on health and safety (note deliberate lack of H and S in that), under the guise of Health & Safety (note the deliberate H and S in that).

In reality it is an ill thought out arse covering exercise.

Anyone for a game of conkers?

Conkers myth