WARNING – This article may cause offence, it may also take a fraction of your time, could possibly cause eye strain, have various typo’s, may cause you to think, and probably a whole world of other obvious and remote possibilities that I of course take no responsibility for, just in case you thought otherwise!
Through my work I get to hear about all kinds of things that affect people’s lives, as well as noticing general social patterns; all of which has led me to write this article. Ultimately, it’s about the growing need for individual responsibility and how certain sectors of society need to lighten up a little and get a grip.
Certainly, there comes a point when the government needs to intervene and the PC Police have a point; Health regulations etc. in an age of childhood obesity and T2 diabetes or ‘pussy grabbing’ presidents perhaps. However, some of the stories I’ve heard of late just beg the question of when it’s time to start drawing the line.
A small and quite apt example to start with is the lady who got banned from LinkedIn for writing an article that included, brace yourselves because you’ll never have heard this one before… The F*ck word! Maybe it’s me again, but aren’t we capable of making up our own minds whether we want to read an article with the ‘F’ word in the title or not? It was posted on a business forum for professionals, not tots, after all.
Following on with forums, I’ve even been banned from diabetes one’s for being too positive and explaining how T2 diabetes can be reversed – just in case it gave false hope to those who couldn’t pursue it. The point being, that although this was and is a true evidenced statement and certainly not of an indoctrinating nature (unlike some negative posts); I got banned. Should I have
been the one held accountable if some people choose not to engage in reversal or believe it to be possible? – Surely, I have a right to correctly inform people and be entitled to share my experiences. But no I had to be banned!
My partner even gets banned every month from a local city forum for instigating harmless sporting banter because opposing fans report him – Grown men in the playground! Seriously, in this context is it not time to man up and just banter back or, here’s an idea, choose not to read the comments?
On a more sensitive subject matter, l was recently discussing the prospect of a guy being sued over him having wolf whistled at a group of female joggers! Now I’m the first to support woman and equal rights, but legal action! Perhaps a roll your eyes up moment at worst, but dare I say it, was it not once considered a compliment to be whistled at, harmless banter? After all, there’s nothing to stop woman doing it/or something else back – isn’t that the true sign of girl power and inner female confidence, not to be bothered or intimidated by it!
Perhaps if we’re going to go down this route we should ban the diet coke advert of woman leering after the topless model type guy. We talk about equal rights, so perhaps it’s time to lighten up and exert some inner personal power in dealing with things differently – male or female.
There’s even the groups who make an issue out of erotic fiction; The 50 Shades of Grey Book, claiming it encourages and provides an excuse for domestic violence … Does it really? Or has the concept of BDSM eroticism and the fact there’s a root cause for anything been taken out of context. Having a choice is what makes the difference, empowerment even – just maybe it’s also about enjoyment or sexual experimentation, pushing boundaries or the phenomenon of the mind and what makes us tick and why etc., there wouldn’t be a safe word otherwise – that’s the difference!
Whilst domestic violence or abuse of any sort is categorically wrong on every level, and to whichever gender, it is a totally different issue, and if any abuser is of that nature, trust me as a professional, they won’t need any encouragement or ideas from something like 50 Shades of Grey. Perhaps instead we need to look at what people can learn from an early age about the traits of abuses, self-belief systems, and other critical issues to help avoid the complexities of such relationships.
On a separate issue of things going too far, it seems society is increasingly forced to have warning disclosures on absolutely everything. Even before TV programs are about to be aired, we’re warned ‘just in case’ there’s something upsetting portrayed – flashing lights, yes of course, but upsetting scenes? When isn’t there some emotive issue, something controversial or dramatised real life issues – isn’t that the point of TV? Even the news has constant warnings of distressing images – but isn’t the entire news distressing in one form or another, surely that one goes without saying. Perhaps it’s our responsibility of what we choose to watch in the knowledge of what we’re actually watching?
I also can’t believe the need for a current government advert telling us that if there’s a red cross above a motorway lane, it means that the lane is closed. Ok, safety first, but really! Surely if we possess a driving licence we should know this one! And I’m not even going there with unnecessary pedantic parking fines – The fact I’ve successfully appealed the majority gives some indication of how ridiculous they’ve become, not to mention the complexity of some parking metres and interpreting parking rules – though quite deliberate I’m sure!
I could literally go on with crazy examples of things like restaurants changing their name from ‘Fatty Arbuckle’s’ to ‘Arbuckle’s’ just in case it causes offense! I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t if you’re eating there anyway. However, aside from the ‘roll your eyes up’ examples, there are actually some serious cases whereby we really do need to draw the line and choose to take personal responsibility! Things where the freedom of choice is taken away or rules and procedure’s result in the difference between life and death.
I’m really getting to a harrowing example that caused serious implications and distress to all concerned! In this case, a gentleman with T1 diabetes who lived alone sadly lapsed into a hypoglycaemic state – meaning his blood sugar levels crashed dangerously low causing him to eventually pass out. Fortunately, one of his neighbours saw him through the window and called the Paramedics ASAP as they knew he had diabetes.
When the Paramedics arrived, because the door was locked they said they couldn’t enter his property because it was their ambulance services policy. Yet there was a man literally dying in front of them who they could see clearly through the window.
I’m sure most people know that when anyone is unconscious, the brain is being starved of oxygen which can have serious implications. Coupled with dropping blood sugar levels; time is critical to save a person’s life…
By this point the man’s neighbours were pleading with the paramedics to break in and save him, explaining that they ordinarily have a key but he recently had a new door fitted.
However, both Paramedics persisted to refuse to enter and help the man. The younger neighbour then gave them the perfect loop hole to their policy, telling them to go and look for something in the ambulance while they break in the property, so upon their return the door would already be open for them to enter – A great logical solution you’d think. Yet they still refused and as the neighbour attempted all he could to break in nevertheless, the Paramedics stood in front of the door to prevent him from doing so.
What happened to a person’s life being more important than superfluous procedure, not to mention, any paramedics primary role is to save lives not hinder them! Where was the personal responsibility of these two paramedics as individual, compassionate human beings? Is this not becoming a more serious issue in criminal law, and I don’t mean braking an entry!
Eventually the police arrived to break in and the man was taken to hospital, by which time it was too late – he was in a coma, woke up with brain damage, required specialist expensive 24/7 care, then sadly sometime afterwards he passed away. All severely distressing for his neighbours to have witnessed and of course his family to handle and process. Moreover, this was an absolutely absurd and unnecessary situation that didn’t need to happen should pragmatism have prevailed! The sanctity of life was seriously overlooked in favour of ad hoc procedure on this occasion!
I use the term ad hoc because many ambulance trusts do in fact carry tools with them to break in, in such situations. Other trusts also find this incident unthinkable, as they told the family concerned. However, aside from the horrific nature of the event itself, the point is how we really need to draw the line with certain pedantic thinking and behaviour in today’s society.
Certainly from the things I see and hear, especially regarding social services and the like; It’s time to take more personal responsibility and rationality in order to live better, more fulfilled lives. Therefore allowing us to focus on the really important things rather than things that serve no constructive or positive purpose – Bring back common sense and pragmatism please!