Posted By Paul Oliver Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they failed to do in disciplining their unruly children It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim. Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.

Posted By Paul Oliver I would say youv'e definitley has a sense of humour bypass.

Posted By Nick Higginson Paul For what it's worth, I thought it was funny.... Regards Nick PS I also agree with most of it. As for "we've never had it so good", crikey...........words fail me

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Don't get me wrong, I liked it on the level of creative writing or fiction. Very funny! But that's exactly what it is! The problem is that I am increasingly coming across people in the workplace who genuinely believe this stuff and attempt to live their lives by it.

Posted By chrys r martin I thought it funny as well, - sadly though, common sense is not common any more - or am I just showing my age ?

Posted By MichaelM Sean Never liked Stella, I prefer a good vodka and lemonade:) Michael

Posted By Frank Hallett The middle of the week is always the best time to get a response to this type of post; weekends are far more interesting! I hope that you've applied copyright to your post Paul - the "common" papers that are exceded even by the Beano & Dandy for truth and interest will snap your piece up like vultures after fresh meat. Common Sense, like "reasonable" means whatever the person talking about wants it to mean and Truth has always been the earliest casualty of such exchanges. Of course, I apply common sense [but only in relation to my definition] which may not be anyone elses! The Waltons were a fiction - Goodnight John-boy. Frank Hallett

Posted By Frank Hallett Absolutely correct Derek. This is another step down the "sensible" approach to risk management so heavily promoted earlier this year. Unfortunately, no-one has yet come up with a universal definition of "common sense" or "sensible" or "reasonable". Therefore we must continue to base our risk management decisions on the only definitions available - the existing H,S&E law as enacted in the EU and transposed into national law by the various member states. This then relies upon the various judiciary to interpret the law and arrive at the "common sense", "sensible" and "reasonable" decisions. One of the very real underlying problems stems from the extremely wide [and sometimes conflicting] variation of decisions arrived at by the judiciary. This isn't helped by the way in which the UK law frequently considerably exceeds the EU Directive requirements [openly admitted by HSC & HSE] and also the way in which the HSE will manipulate the menu of avaible offences to enhance their potential to get the result that they consider is most desirable [normally they get it right, but sometimes it appears to be a travesty]. So, what's the point of all that? Address the real problem and don't assume that your [whoever it is] assumptions are matched by anyone elses. It's tedious, but every time that a person makes an assumption, they must provide a base definition of their view of "common sense", "sensible" 'cos people simply don't all see the same. and "reasonable". Frank Hallett

Posted By J Knight Well, like I say, it was quite amusing, but I think it was the stuff about housebreakers that really got my goat; after all the 17 year old was unarmed, running away and shot in the back. And as for 'never had it so good'; I really think that's true, we live longer, are healthier, have more of our own teeth, travel more, earn more and can buy more (including more and more tasty forms of alcohol - real ale is nice but you can' beat a good bottle of oaked chardonay, even if it is a little passe) than most of our parents, and believe me, the streets were no safer in the fifties than now; in the nineteenth century they were considerably less safe. Oh, and did anybody mention that we're now considerably less likely to die at work? No? Well, they should, even though that's all down to red tape, government interference and grey suited mindless bureaucrats...like us. Well done folks, John

Posted By John Webster Common sense would suggest it is much safer to send children than adults up chimneys as they are less likely to become stuck. Risk assessment would indicate that we should be sending children DOWN chimneys wearing a suitable harness and line etc. Mine have got too old and big for chimney cleaning now, but there's always the grandweans!!

Posted By Mark Talbot Reading the latest releases on fatal accidents in Europe, the UK is the second lowest per capita working. It has to say something for the higher standard of law (Sweden is lowest for some reason, and Portugal a staggering six times higher!). Someone forgot to tell Common Sense that he is dead - he still contributes to my policy and procedures on a regular basis. He is also a very welcome guest at my training sessions. Don't give up on him - invite to your meetings and you might be surprised by how much lighter your burdens will be. Take him home and your relationships will benefit too. (p.s. liked the article nonetheless !)

Posted By Rob T To J Knight - What was wrong with shooting the 17 year old in the Tony Martin case (you have mentioned it here twice now). I would have been quite happy to have pulled the trigger - the boy shouldn't have been there. Almost every other country in the world states that you are allowed to defend your home and that an intruder is guilty by default but I suppose the Guardian reading minority apologists for all wrong doers would disagree. Have a look at what the boy's "friend" has been up to since the incident and think what the little oik would also have been doing. At least he can't burgle and attack people anymore. Maybe Tony Martin should have used both barrels - I for one would have been happy.

Posted By Philip McAleenan Now we’re advocating summary execution of children on this forum ...

Posted By Karen Todd Rob T - I happened to mention the Tony Martin story to an American (from Kentucky to be precise) whilst at a conference in Germany. His response: "We'd probably have made him president"... Karen

Posted By J Knight Rob, I don't read the Guardian. I don't get my views from any newspaper, as it happens. What is wrong with shooting an unarmed person who is running away? I don't know. Maybe Tony Martin displayed a moral courage I lack myself. Maybe I'm just not enough of a man to kill harmless scared people; he was out of the house at the time of his killing as it happens. If he had been threatening Tony Martin then perhaps such a response would have been justified, but he wasn't. Did you know that the great heron Martin was caught with a car full of dodgy number plates last year? Not thta his moral standing has any bearing on his barvery in taking a twelve bore to a juvenile. Oh, and by the way, like most people I have been burgled, by children, and I did shoot them, and I poisoned their dog first, John

Posted By Philip McAleenan Shooting unarmed soldiers in the back as they retreat is a war crime. Shooting unarmed burglars in the back as they flee is murder. And as for taking leaf from anyone’s book, the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes should be enough to convince anyone that if the use of lethal force by those charged with upholding the law has barbaric consequences, how much more so would that power be in the hands of everyone else. And with regard to those who would retreat from a serious debate, remember that the intellectual context in which we develop our ideas about safety has important consequences for the types of solutions that are developed. The rationale of those who would shoot burglars regardless of the circumstances is that employers should engage armed guards with a shoot to kill briefing to protect their premises at night.

Posted By Derek Holt Heather, As an ex-soldier, I think you have mis understood the context of my previous. Reference was being made to the previous reactionist statements earlier in the thread. The point being made that if 17 years olds can fight for Queen and Country then they can hardly be called children and should not be treated as such. Also you may be surprised to know that contrary to some peoples belief, 17.5 year olds have fought on the front line in conflicts not too long ago. I think we all agree that the Tony Martin case will continue to be an immotive subject and that everyone is free to express their own opinions whichever newspaper they read. As pointed out, we are not judge and jury, but any debate is healthy so long as it is pertinent to the point of discussion and to be honest on a cool, overcast Saturday morning in Russia I have forgotten the original link that brought us all to discuss the Tony Martin case. I therefore leave you with this last thought to ponder over your weekend, which I believe sums up most of the discussion on this thread: Common sense is a form of evidence that is based on conventional wisdom, tradition, or someone’s personal philosophy or perspective. It is hard to judge the validity and reliability of common sense because little supporting evidence is involved. Most people judge the validity and reliability of common sense by the person citing common sense as the basis for a decision. However, common sense can be a very biased approach to decision making and means nothing more than “what is common to me makes sense.”

Posted By Rob T I think there's an element of missing the point here. If someone wasn't illegally trying to burgle a house there would be no discussion here! Why is it that some people always seem to take up the side of the criminal? In safety terms - when doing a RA, your first goal is to remove the hazard - Tony Martin did that!! Hey ho.

Posted By Jez Corfield Rob, Plenty of householders have got away with killing intruders because they were rightly defending themselves and their family, but in Martins case he laid a trap, laid in wait and shot a fleeing burglar in the back, clearly this was excessive force. Now that might feel like the right and justifiable thing to do, but this isnt Texas, this is Britain, where householders cant shoot any intruders as part of their constitutional rights. In the UK householders have obligations to abide with the law, as well as the right to defend themselves. For your information, I am not on the side of the criminal, I am on the side of the law, which in Martins case was fairly applied. Jez

Posted By J Knight Ron, Maybe it was political pressure from the Daily Bile and its like; but then, justice inthis country is above that kind of thing, isn't it? John