I have just seen two very tall scary monsters on TV lumbering slowly down a London street, snapping their sharp lobster like claws, and scanning the fleeing crowds with their huge, single malevolent eye.

No I wasn’t watching Doctor Who and Amy Pond doing battle with the universe’s most heinous fiends, I was watching the launch of the Olympic 2012 mascots. These characters, named Wenlock and Mandeville, sound more like the villains in a Sherlock Holmes novel rather than important ambassadors for the Olympic brand.

I disliked them immediately and my reaction was one simple question, ‘Why?’

But having spoken to colleagues, friends and family, I see that opinion is polarised. For everyone who thinks that they look like roast beef flavour Monster Munch, there is another who thinks that they are cute, cuddly and exciting. (Most agree however that the one on the left looks like it has wet itself!)

Love them or hate them, within a few years they will become two of the most instantly recognisable images in the world. And those of us who see them as monsters now will probably grow to grudgingly love them.

Maybe.

So the skies are open again. Everyone is hailing Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways as a hero for forcing the Government to reverse their decision to keep UK airspace closed because of the perceived threat of the volcanic ash cloud. A bit of brinkmanship with 26 Boeing 747s and everything is back to normal.

Well sort of. Thousands of people are still stuck abroad. Holidays have been ruined. Business has been lost. And others have blatantly profiteered from their misery.

The Government admits that it over reacted to the potential risk. But don’t they always?

They over reacted to SARS – predicting millions of deaths – which never, fortunately, happened. They over reacted to Swine Flu and spent billions on vaccinations and pills, and then had to sell vast surpluses on the cheap. They over reacted to the volcanic ash cloud and again cost the economy billions. Is it better to be cautious and spend unbelieveable sums just in case? Or should there be a better sense of proportion and realistic planning?

Whatever – there is a pattern here. Over react. Spend billions. Realise you have over reacted. Count the losses. Then go and do exactly the same when the next crisis emerges.

And if the Government were wrong about SARS, Swine Flu, and the ash cloud, why do we think that they are correct about Climate Change?

There have been several stories in the media recently about incidents that seem to break all the laws of common sense. They are of course a result of our increasingly litigious society.

One example tells the story of a company that was forbidden by a Job Centre to advertise for “reliable” staff on the assumption that this would discriminate against “unreliable people”. Indeed the inference was that “unreliable” people would be able to sue for such a slur on their character. Is it worse that there are people who would make such a claim or that there are no win no fee lawyers out there that would be prepared to have a go?

And then “Health and Safety” get in on the band wagon. Another story involves a restaurant that has stopped offering tooth picks to its clients on the basis that they may injure themselves and consequently sue the restaurant. Again this is complete nonesense.  Especially when the same clients can apparantly be trusted to use very sharp steak knives to eat their meals with. You could slice through the bone of a finger like butter with a nicely sharpened steak knife. But you’d have to be a bit of an expert to do serious damage to yourself with a small sliver of weak wood.

But there is obviously a fear that such litigation is possible or the restaurant wouldn’t have taken such an action in the first place. Perhaps they should get their clients to sign a disclaimer or maybe they should allow tooth picks but with prominent warnings about the potential dangers of using them.

What about the story where local councils were alledged to have avoided gritting pavements  for fear of litigation. The argument was that if the pavement was gritted and someone fell they could be sued for not doing an adequate gritting job. On the other hand if the pavement was ungritted then anyone falling on it would not be able to blame anyone but themselves.

It gets worse. A friend works in a company where they needed to buy a microwave oven for the staff kitchen. Rather than go through tortuous procurement proceedures one enterprising individual bought one from a reputable high street store. Of course the health and safety people wouldn’t allow its use until it had been checked by a qualified electrician who could verify it was safe to use. I’m sorry but since when did well known high street electronics retailers start reserving a corner of their stores to sell unsafe goods?

“Unsafe but discounted” is that it?

When reading these stories it really makes you wonder whether we are living in a fantasy land. But this combination of political correctness and the fact that we are encouraged to take absolutely no responsibility for anything anymore because someone else is always to blame has led us into this sad reality.

Perhaps it is time for a future Government to look at the whole issue of “no win no fee” lawyers and some of the crazy cases we hear about and start to promote the idea of individual responsibility more. An re-introduction of common sense into Health and Safety would be welcome as well.