We need to start with an example, so I'll take my life in my hands and nominate disabled parking. Now I have no problem with disabled parking being conveniently placed. If you're not very mobile, then being able to park near the supermarket or terminal building is handy.
I do have a problem with the number of places allocated. I don't think I have ever seen every place occupied, not even close. At my local airport there are something like 20 places and I have never seen more than two occupied.
Let's try another.
Five hundred people in the UK die each year in fires. Maybe that sounds like a lot, but given the population of the UK, the death rate from fire is less than one person in 100,000 each year. Two thousand people in 100,000 die each year anyway, so you are (how can I put this delicately?) 2,000 times more likely to just die of, err, death, than you are to die in a fire.
So why is it that we have to deal with those accursed fire doors that "must be kept shut" but which naturally we all prop open? Especially when 70% of fatalities occur in homes where no such fire doors exist. Mind you, small mercies.
A few more:
- Hot taps with notices "warning: hot water" placed above them (I should bloody well hope so, I'd be fairly hacked off if it weren't true)
- Horse chestnut trees uprooted, .e.g. by Norwich City Council, to avoid conker horrors
- Winter Festivals replacing Christmas
- Speedtrap policemen wearing hi-viz flourescent jackets
So what are compassion wars?
Compassion wars are fought to establish who cares. The winner, obviously enough, is the person who cares the most. Not, please note, the person who is more effective. If I care more about poor people than you do, then I win! Never mind that you might be more effective at doing something about it than I am. As you might expect, the favoured battle ground for compassion wars is The Committee.
Risky Shift
It used to be thought that people on their own might come up with extreme ideas, while those in groups would be more moderate. It turns out that the opposite is true. There is a kind of escalation within groups as members up the ante. This phenomenon is known as Risky Shift. Actually it can work both ways - you can have a committee arguing down risk - such as felling trees to avoid the horrors of conkers. So after discussion, a group's actions will turn out to be a more extreme version of any individual's preferred action.
Back to parking
So the committee allocating disabled parking goes something like this.
"Our survey shows we'll need 5 disabled places".
"Yes, but at peak times ... perhaps 10? That's not a lot to ask".
"Well I'm not endorsing any recommendation that has disabled people being unable to park".
"You're right. Fifteen, at a minimum, surely".
"I cannot believe this equivocation over a few places. I suggest 20, and let's be done with it".
"All agreed? Good. Twenty it is then. Now about this conker problem ..."
A fly on the wall reports ...
The following was passed on to me by someone, who must alas remain anonymous, working for the States of Jersey. A committee was convened to look at the issue of free bus travel for disabled people. It was agreed and accepted.
Then someone, probably someone who was very compassionate, said "Old people are disabled in their way aren't they? I think they should have free bus travel too". Now it is characteristic of compassion wars that no one likes to lose. So naturally no one challenged this bit of twaddle. It too was agreed and accepted.
Time passed. The calculations were done. The committee met again. They were shown the cost of their generosity. Turns out there are an awful lot of old people on Jersey. The solids floated gently towards the ceiling where they hit the fan.
Postscript (you couldn't make it up)
A recent study has found that the traditional game of conkers has been banned from a number of school playgrounds. This and other such pastimes, like British bulldog, rounders and even football, have been judged by some schools to be too dangerous for children to participate in.
The research was carried out by Sarah Thompson of Keele University, who analysed the playground activities of 1,000 children in schools in Staffordshire, Shropshire and Lancashire. She found that schools were keen to avoid parents seeking compensation for children's injuries and were confused about health and safety regulations.
Ironically, as she reports, "It seemed that many of the children's attempts to play were extinguished by the same supervising adults who complained that children 'did not play'."Admirers of the shiny brown conker may be surprised to find that Miss Thompson heard it described by some schools as an "offensive weapon"...
No comments:
Post a Comment