On Thursday 16 October, the Fine Bunch return with the first Salon of the autumn season, asking ‘Should we be protected from ourselves?’
Life is full of risks but where do we draw the line between what's acceptable and what isn't? If we want to eat, drink or smoke ourselves to death, is it our decision or should the government have a say? Where does the role of the state end, and personal responsibility begin? And which risks are worth taking?
The Salon is an open event for anyone who is interested in a lively discussion, whether you’re think that we should be taking more risks or exercising more caution. This promises to be one of our most provocative debates yet, so please come along and hear what the speakers have to say, and join in with your own thoughts.
Speakers
Angus Kennedy, technology consultant and freelance writer, says "it seems that every new risk that is identified, no matter how minor, has to be responded to with some new moralising campaign or draconian measure to restrict our liberties further."
http://www.instituteofideas.com/people/angus_kennedy.html
Graham Carson from Drury PSM, who promote health and safety management in companies, will be taking the view that sensible risk management is a positive thing.
www.drurypsm.com
Event Details
Thursday 16 October 2008, 6.30 till 8.30pm
Tickets £5.00 from The Media Centre reception or by calling 01484 483000
The Media Centre, 7 Northumberland Street, Huddersfield HD1 1RL
View Larger Map
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Should we be protected from ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Great!
I'd set myself against Graham Carson of Drury PSM from the outset as my own experiences of Health and safety in practice have proven it to be a constraining experience and often used as a disciplinary measure - this largely relates to experiences at a heavily regulated factory but ever more so in everyday life. Whether he sees H+S interventions as being to curb the worst practices of profit-at-any-cost factory bosses or fallible human character traits wasn't clear, however, he does take his profession serious enough and managed to hold his own in the discussion.
Carson made the attempt to distance his outfit and the H+S executive from some of the more outlandish tales and myths attributed to this quarter by stating that their interventions are aimed at being 'reasonably practicable', also that there are many people escalating these myths such as Jeremy Clarkson, Terry Wogan and sections of the press, etc. This is likely the case - especially with the likes of Clarkson - but even though that may be so aspects of H+S have all manner of authorities hedging their bets 'just in case' as no-one wants to be proven liable. In this case risk consultancies are beneficiaries of the prevailing culture and not necessarily its drivers.
In his summary Carson mentioned that he wouldn't be surprised if his ilk were blamed for the current financial crisis as they seem to get blamed for everything else. He was jovial about this and not outwardly claiming being victimised but the same culture of risk aversion he has become part of is largely to blame. Of course there are fundamental flaws with the way that the market economy operates but economics is heavily influenced by the prevailing culture and, particularly, western capitalism finds it difficult to justify itself.
Until recently economic trends have seen relative rises in living standards across the board but this seems to have led to the belief amongst our elites that society expects too much and the market system's chaotic character unbound; this noticeably from it no longer having to justify or make excuses for its shortcomings as against recently existing 'alternatives'.
See also - From the politics to the economics of fear
Post a Comment