The Lollipop Lady

Ok, this seems fair enough. Lollipop ladies wear reflective coats in order to be seen, so if they\’re not wearing one then they shouldn\’t be doing the lollipop job. I\’m not saying I totally agree, but I can at least see the logic:

A lollipop lady has been banned from wearing festive fancy dress because of safety fears.

But after a complaint by two parents, the city council said she could not take children across the road unless she wore her reflective coat.

So, let\’s have a look at the costume:

\"\"

Erm, a reflective coat is actually going to be more visible than that? So, no, it\’s no reasonable and the \’elfn\’safety police should burn in hell.

6 comments on “The Lollipop Lady

  1. Surely it’s the parents who complained that should attract some of the criticism as well as the spineless “authorities” who didn’t tell them to sod off

  2. “If a crossing patrol supervisor does not wear a reflective jacket they are not insured and if hit, the motorist could not be prosecuted.”

    This is, of course, a blatant bloody lie, and serves to illustrate what incompetent morons we have in our councils. What she could not do, I would guess, is claim compensation from the council for a work-place injury, but to say that a motorist cannot be prosecuted for hitting someone is stupidity of the highest order, presumably intended to justify yet another example of authoritarian cretinism.

  3. “authoritarian cretinism”? What? She’s doing a job that requires the wearing of a uniform, but she wants to be allowed to dress up in a Christmas costume instead. She’s lucky she wasn’t sacked on the spot, or run over repeatedly by infuriated drivers fed up to the back teeth with compulsory “Christmas spirit”. If libertarianism means supporting every idiot who thinks that they’re defying drab conformism by behaving like a self-indulgent teenager, and failing to do the job they’re paid to do, then it’s an even dafter ideology than I thought it was.

  4. “…supporting every idiot who … failing to do the job they’re paid to do…”

    Point me to the part of that report where she said she wasn’t going to do her job, if you’d be so kind..?

  5. Yes, Oswald, authoritarian cretinism; regulation for its own sake. Her uniform serves two purposes; to identify her as having the mandate to do what she does, and to make her noticeable. The stick serves both purposes, the hi-vis jacket being a nod to elfin safety – it was never a requirement in my young days, and we never considered crossing patrols to be dangerously inconspicuous.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>