Posted By Frank Hallett Dear All For any respondents, please read this post carefully as I don't wish to be pilloried for something that I haven't actually said! To my mind, many of the responses to the earlier post regarding "Common Sense" that subsequently raised the issues of children, violence, all forms of anit-social behaviour and young persons enlisting exemplify the fundamental problems stemming from the original issue - which was about the loss of so-called "common sense". That whole thread has simply reinforced my view that what is "common sense" to one person can be an extreme, and unacceptable, point of view to another. This is why we have "The Law"; which isn't perfect either but attempts to reduce the greatest number of variations in understanding and application to, at least, a common denominator that all can refer to as without that common denominator there ceases to be a society and anarchy becomes the norme. If you don't like "The Law", or the way that society applies it, these are totally different issues and require to be debated as such. I start from the point that "common" means "commonly held" or "commonly recognised" or "commonly understood" and that means that the view [whatever it is] is shared by a majority of those within that society! A society will create the rules by which it wishes to live; this is the first part of my definition of "common sense". That society will then create the system by which those rules are applied; this is the second step in my definition of "common sense". The area that the original post appeared to attack is the third step, whether the system is perceived to be applying those rules equally to all. This is not a lack of "common sense" but a glaring failure in the system under discussion and intellectually equivalent to holding that "all accidents and their consequences are a matter of luck". From this point it could be argued that what is really needed is a trancparency and ease of understanding of "The Law" so that its equitable application can be better assured. All views are welcome. Frank Hallett

Posted By Barry Cooper Frank I couldn't have put it better. As the previous respondent, I didn't join the original thread, but I believe you have clearly defined where the problem lies Barry

Posted By Robert S Randall Hi Frank, I didn't contribute to the earlier post either but, for what it's worth here's my opinion. What you are talking about is not "common sense" but custom and practice. Common sense is the (often mistakenly held) view that no training or instruction is required to undertake a task because one knows instinctively how to do it. How much trouble has that attitude got us into?!!

Posted By J Knight As a contributor to the earlier thread I must say that I do agree with your comments, Frank, but there is more that can be said. Common sense doesn't arrive fully formed but like many other forms of consensus is manufactured, and it changes from generation to generation; nowadays almost from week to week. It is like the media in that it has no memory; and in this it is unlike the law. The law, being written, is part of our society's collective memory, it is one of the way in which we attempt to learn by previous mistakes and experience; it could be called society's SMS (well, that's perhaps to over rate SMS's!). It is an ass, but it is also all we've got, and if we expect the law to be upheld in our professional sphere we should expect it to be upheld socially, John

Posted By Mark Talbot Custom and practice, common (shared experience), and acceptable practice. To call ahead (by phone) to secure a table at a popular restaurant is common sense. To call ahead to MacDonalds is stupid (for several reasons, including futility). To call ahead (by phone) was not common sense in 1800's London, because the phone was not widespread. So it can be seen to be a developing, social, idea. To speed through a 30 MPH zone is common (frequent) but completely devoid of sense. So, 'Common Sense' might be a moveable feast which has a practical, shared, moral, and current aspect.

Posted By J Knight How about; if you're a distinctly authoritarian politician or newspaper owner from either side of the political spectrum; 'common sense - a reason to attack social safeguards we don't agree with in a way which we hope will mask our own agenda' John