A passer by commented on the inadequacy of my shovel (an entirely fair comment), then told me that I obviously didn't read the newspapers. Apparently, if you clear the snow from a public pavement, or grit it yourself, and someone subsequently slips and gets hurt on the bit you've cleared, they could sue you. That's what the Health and Safety Nazis at the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) have been telling people. It was in the papers. Barmy bureaucrats, eh, you couldn't make it up!*
Actually, you could make it up. In fact the Mail and the Telegraph did just make it up.
The leading body for health and safety professionals is urging businesses and communities to do the right thing by clearing snow and ice from public areas....
in the wake of inaccurate reporting in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph and Mail on Sunday. Both newspapers ran stories, yesterday (Sunday 10 January), claiming IOSH was warning businesses not to grit public paths because this could lead to legal action.
The IOSH issued the following clarification:
The IOSH position is most definitely to encourage people to be good employers and neighbours by gritting icy areas and to emphasise that health and safety wants to help protect life and limb, not endanger it.
Call me old-fashioned, but if I want to read made-up stuff, I open a novel.
Speaking of novels, ,some people bizarrely criticize Dan Brown** for the inaccuracies in his books. You can reasonably criticize Brown for lots of things - cardboard characters, wooden dialogue and a facsimile of gritty realism that seems to be moulded out of plastic. But making stuff up? He's a novelist, for crying out loud! He's not just allowed to make stuff up, he's supposed to make stuff up! What does it take to make people understand this, a goddamn powerpoint presentation?
A novel and a newspaper are different things. Some journalists clearly haven't grasped this. If the editors of the Mail and Telegraph had been doing their jobs properly they'd have sent a memo like this to their hacks, explaining this very basic point:
Memo to all journalistic staff
You are working for a NEWSPAPER. A NEWSPAPER is a publication containing up-to-date information about STUFF THAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. YOU ARE NOT DAN BROWN, SO STOP MAKING CRAZY SHIT UP. If you do not understand any part of this memo, please see me in my office where I will be delighted to provide further clarification with the aid of a simple glove puppet show and a large, very heavy, ruler.
Thank you for your kind attention
The Editor
* For the record, I ignored him and carried on clearing our bit of the pavement.
** For the record, I've read a couple of Dan Browns and quite enjoyed them (not quite enough to read The Lost Symbol, although I might do so if somebody left a copy lying around and I had absolutely nothing else to do). His characters are two-dimensional and he writes abysmal dialogue, but for all that, he has some grasp of the rare and elusive art of making you want to turn the page and see what happens next (even when you're reeling with disbelief at the preposterousness of the unfolding story).
Stephen Fry famously dismissed the The Da Vinci Code as "Complete loose-stool-water. Arse-gravy of the very worst kind.". As far as the premise of the novel, characterisation and dialogue are concerned he had a point, but the word "complete" is wrong. Brown's got an ability to keep millions of people reading, even against their better judgement. Five minutes after reading The Da Vinci Code, you might wonder why on earth you bothered, but I bet it's made countless boring Sundays and tedious airline flights pass in a flash.
Dan Brown's books are a bit like malteasers. I know they're insubstantial, less tasty than quite a lot of other foods and not very good for me, but I also know that they're quite more-ish. If I was bored and found a packet in the house, I know I'd gobble them all up in no time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment