Calling for a ban
These days, I don’t often have cause to encounter the Metro newspaper that clutters the entirety of the London public transport system of a morning. For something that used to play a vaguely significant role in my morning routine, I feel I should miss it.
The truth of the matter is that I don’t. In fact, I’m rather glad that I don’t encounter it, as it saves me from the temptation to read it. The paper is a muddle of articles partly recycled from the previous day’s Evening Standard, awkwardly-written “light interest” items, and a crossword.
The only truly original content, it seems, is to be found on the letters page. Occasionally an oversight allows a reasonably intelligent comment to slip through and get published. Sadly, however, the paper usually fails to persuade those with well-considered points to contact them. The average letter reads thus:
“I agree entirely with [insert name of previous contributor] that [insert trivial issue] has gotten completely out of hand. I fail to see why people today can’t just [insert overly simplified non-solution to issue]. If I’d carried on like that when I was younger I’d have gotten a thick ear. I say [insert perceived cause of trivial issue] should be banned.”
In spite of my desire to believe otherwise, maybe this really is how people think. But each of the letters that assume this format raise two questions: whom doe the writers think should ban all the things that want banning; and are the writers the same people who subsequently complain about the “nanny state”?
I’m no evangelist, but the ban on using mobile phones in cars and smoking in public places seem like two examples of the Government formulating policy based on exactly this variety of narrow-minded quick-fire thinking. The annoying thing is that it cannot be argued that either of these are a bad idea – but the way they’ve come about and the reasons used, at times, to justify them is somewhat disturbing.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I’d still like to believe that people can think for themselves. At best, wouldn’t it be nice if policy-making were transparent and not a popularity contest? I say that saying things should be banned should be banned.
I blame "Them".