The importance of box-ticking

Academic Mary Beard writing the 'Diary' in the current issue of The Spectator has had a realisation about the cult of the box-ticking culture on both sides of the Atlantic:

'There have been a number of initiation rituals. I have taken, and passed (with certificate), the National Gallery online course in ‘Security and Privacy Awareness’ (to get internet access). Basically it’s a load of multiple-choice questions, to which you give the right answer — while knowing that, in real life, you’ll probably carry on in your bad old ways. The ‘right’ answer for how to choose a computer password is, apparently, to pick a phrase such as ‘squeaky chair’, and then change a few letters… to make ‘Sq#!aky c>ai?’. Who the hell is going to do that? Your date of birth or children’s names are just so much easier. In the last year I have done an online BBC ‘compliance’ course and a News International ‘work station — health and safety’ course. I have passed both, with no noticeable impact on what I actually do. But I have been ‘trained’, and someone somewhere has ticked a box.'

The concept of regulation by box-ticking really annoys me as it serves mainly as a way of employing trainers and trying to enforce the current fetish for political correctness at all times.

I know that Sterling is suffering but surely it's not litter - yet!

I read that:

"Arthritis sufferer Stewart Smith had just left a charity shop when he was called back by two policemen, who pointed to the note and a till receipt lying on the pavement.

Stewart thought he'd put the money, part of his change from buying a T-shirt, in his back pocket, but it must have fallen out.

Thanking the officers, he retrieved the note and prepared to go about his lawful business. Not so fast, chummy.

The cops informed Stewart he had committed an offence and gave him a £50 fixed-penalty notice for littering.

...

Stewart, a former warehouse worker who has to live on disability payments because of his arthritis, was stunned. A £50 fine would eat up more than half his weekly benefit.

He tried telling them it was an honest mistake. No one in his position can afford to wander the streets throwing £10 notes away. But the ever-vigilant McPlod were having none of it.

Police in Ayr operate a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to littering. Stewart has been told that unless he pays up, he could face further action.

His solicitor is calling for the fine to be rescinded and an apology issued, describing the incident as 'a scandalous use of police resources'.

But Strathclyde constabulary is refusing to back down. No doubt the Case of the Felonious Tenner counts as another crime 'solved', another box ticked, another target achieved.

...

...nicking someone for accidentally dropping a £10 note is just the latest manifestation of our pettifogging punishment culture. The only surprise is that Stewart Smith was collared by a couple of proper, warrant card-carrying policemen. You don't often stumble across a pair of them on foot patrol. "

Yet another example of the result of Labour's obsession with box ticking in the public services. For the police that is a crime committed, solved and punished - a 100% record and so much easier than finding a burglar or mugger, and of course Stewart Smith was unlikely to fight back unlike a member of the UK's feral youth.

More totalitarianism at the checkout

I know I have written before about the fetish some foodstores have for demanding prrof of age even when it is unnecessary. Most recently I blogged that:

"Two pensioners from Essex were left stunned when they were asked to show photo identification to buy a bottle of wine.

Jennifer Rogers went to her local One Stop convenience store with a 70-year-old friend.

But a staff member refused the sale saying she needed photographic identification to prove her age.

A spokesperson for the store said: "We take the sale of alcohol to underage people extremely seriously."

As I said then, those two last lines illustrate so much of what has gone wrong with this Country over the last 12 years of Labour misrule; box-ticking rules and common sense has to take a back seat.


Today I read that:

"Staff at supermarket giant Tesco refused to sell wine to a mother - in case she gave it to her 14-year-old daughter.

Fraud investigator Karen Dumelow, 46, and her daughter Emily were at the check-out when a cashier said she could not serve her in case the wine was given to the youngster.

She had been about to pay for two bottles of white wine at the Portsmouth store while doing her weekly shopping with her daughter.

Mrs Dumelow said she spoke to three senior members of staff who agreed with the cashier who had wanted to see identification for the teenager.

But because Emily was unable to do so Mrs Dumelow was told she could not buy the wine.

She said today: 'The checkout assistant asked Emily for ID and I just told her that obviously she didn't have any because she is only 14 years old.

'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. It was crazy. Do you have to leave your children at home if you want to buy alcohol now?

She was then forced to put aside the wine, pay for the rest of the shopping and then send off her daughter to the car before she could pay for the alcohol separately at the same till."

At least this time the store concerned apologised

"'We work hard to prevent under-age sales, including proxy sales where adults purchase alcohol for under-18s. However in this instance we got it wrong and sincerely apologise.'"

Box ticking, form filling - yes. Common sense - No.

The UK's box-ticking culture

The BBC report that:

"Two pensioners from Essex were left stunned when they were asked to show photo identification to buy a bottle of wine.

Jennifer Rogers went to her local One Stop convenience store with a 70-year-old friend.

But a staff member refused the sale saying she needed photographic identification to prove her age.

A spokesperson for the store said: "We take the sale of alcohol to underage people extremely seriously."

Those two last lines illustrate so much of what has gone wrong with this Country over the last 12 years of Labour misrule; box-ticking rules and common sense has to take a back seat.

Two pensioners are refused permission to buy alcohol because they cannot prove that they are over the age of 18. That's two pensioners, who are quite clearly over the age of 18, being refused permisson to buy alcohol because they have no ID to prove that they are over the age of 18.

And what's the response of the store? Was is "Oh sorry, our member of staff made a mistake, we have spoken to them and have made sure that they realise when they need to ask for ID and when they don't." No; in Labour, box-ticking, Britain the response is a po-faced "We take the sale of alcohol to underage people extremely seriously."

I despair of this Country, I really do.