Clown prohibited from making balloon animals. It's for the Children. [Archive]

California Tanker

08-14-2007, 03:52 PM

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/14/nclown114.xml)

A children's entertainer has been banned by Tesco from using balloons during his act in one of their stores.

Barney Baloney, the clown, usually twists them into animal shapes and hands them to children. But Tesco has told the 47-year-old, also known as Tony Turner, to keep the balloons in his pocket and entertain children with what is left of his act

<snip>

"We have banned balloons because latex is used in the manufacture of them and this can trigger an allergic reaction in some children. We always have the welfare of children at heart."

He's also been banned from blowing bubbles, as children might slip and fall.

<sigh>

NTM

Uthgar the Brazen

08-14-2007, 04:01 PM

Pre-conversion T.S. Eliot was right. :doh:

livius drusus

08-14-2007, 04:14 PM

He should make lambskin condom animals instead.

Watser?

08-14-2007, 04:14 PM

:rolleye2:

viscousmemories

08-14-2007, 04:21 PM

He's also been banned from blowing bubbles, as children might slip and fall.
That article says he was "forced to stop using a bubble-making machine after being refused public liability insurance", not that Tesco banned him from blowing bubbles.

Shelli

08-14-2007, 05:02 PM

He should make lambskin condom animals instead.:lol:

:pif:

Angakuk

08-15-2007, 06:17 AM

Given that some children are frightened of clowns, and may suffer serious emotional trauma when encountering a clown, I think that Barney Baloney should also be prohibited from wearing a clown costume and clown make-up.

Originally Posted by livius drusus
He should make lambskin condom animals instead.
Only if those condoms are guaranteed to be lanolin free.

ChuckF

08-15-2007, 08:09 AM

Why is this even news? Tesco is insulating itself from liability. Big deal.

Mr Turner, who was booked for a five-hour show at Tesco's Crossgates Centre store in Leeds, had to rely on magic, puppets, juggling and an emu costume to keep the children amused.
:violin:

Book some parties.

Stormlight

08-15-2007, 12:53 PM

:dieclown:

Dingfod

08-15-2007, 05:03 PM

They probably sell balloons at Tesco.

Sock Puppet

08-15-2007, 05:08 PM

Why is this even news? Tesco is insulating itself from liability. Big deal.
:yeahthat:
There's an awful lot of whining these days every time something is considered a potential liability by a single freaking company, and said company decides to do away with it. Safety/litigation concerns are rapidly becoming the new "PC" to rail against.

viscousmemories

08-15-2007, 05:09 PM

Every time I read 'Tesco' I think of the first time I heard it, in this Lily Allen lyric:

There was a little old lady, who was walkin down the road
She was struggling with bags from Tesco
There were people from the city havin lunch in the park
I believe that it's called al fresco
Then a kid came along to offer a hand

But before she had time to accept it
hits her over the head, doesn't care if she's dead
Cause he's got all her jewellery and wallet

California Tanker

08-15-2007, 06:15 PM

There's an awful lot of whining these days every time something is considered a potential liability by a single freaking company, and said company decides to do away with it. Safety/litigation concerns are rapidly becoming the new "PC" to rail against.

With some justification, I would think. The fact that liability issues have become such a concern particularly over small things, is sympomatic of a greater problem.

OK. Some kids are allergic to latex. "Mom! Look! A clown making balloon animals!" "Johnny, don't take one. You know you're allergic to balloons." A little bit of personal responsibility can go a long way to reducing the overall effects on others.

NTM

ChuckF

08-15-2007, 06:17 PM

With some justification, I would think. The fact that liability issues have become such a concern particularly over small things, is sympomatic of a greater problem.

OK. Some kids are allergic to latex. "Mom! Look! A clown making balloon animals!" "Johnny, don't take one. You know you're allergic to balloons." A little bit of personal responsibility can go a long way to reducing the overall effects on others.

NTM
I don't see that as much of a justification. First and foremost, it assumes that Johnny is with mom and that both mom and Johnny know that Johnny is allergic to latex.

Tesco is taking responsibility for the safety of its customers. What's wrong with that? It's a pretty straightforward business decision: they can potentially expose themselves to financially damaging lawsuits or not. Which one is better for the shareholders?

I'm not even sure why Tesco is in the clown business to begin with, but that's beside the point. Why is it up to Tesco to entertain little Johnny? Why doesn't little Johnny take some personal responsibility and learn how to make his own damn balloon animals?

Sock Puppet

08-15-2007, 07:24 PM

With some justification, I would think. The fact that liability issues have become such a concern particularly over small things, is sympomatic of a greater problem.

OK. Some kids are allergic to latex. "Mom! Look! A clown making balloon animals!" "Johnny, don't take one. You know you're allergic to balloons." A little bit of personal responsibility can go a long way to reducing the overall effects on others.Fine. But there are a lot of people in this allegedly overlitigious world, and if you think everybody's going to demonstrate this level of personal responsibility, you obviously never went to Sunday School.

Besides, there's only so many times I can stomach an umpteenth version of "My parents let me go swimming in crocodile breeding grounds in the Everglades 7 days a week and twice on Sundays, and it never hurt me, so I don't understand why kids are so coddled today."

Dingfod

08-15-2007, 07:59 PM

Look kids, at the very large man made of hay! That's something you see every day.

Stormlight

08-15-2007, 08:08 PM

Why doesn't little Johnny take some personal responsibility and learn how to make his own damn balloon animals?

Because he's allergic to latex! Jeez, pay attention!

Sock Puppet

08-15-2007, 08:28 PM

Look kids, at the very large man made of hay! That's something you see every day.I prefer "hyperbole." It sounds more scientifical.

Dingfod

08-15-2007, 08:30 PM

He could make them out of synthetic rubber, couldn't he? Geez, the simplest things...

Dingfod

08-15-2007, 08:30 PM

Look kids, at the very large man made of hay! That's something you see every day.I prefer "hyperbole." It sounds more scientifical.At least it sounds like you know what you're doing.

Watser?

08-15-2007, 11:55 PM

allegedly overlitigious world
Ehm, try country...

InTheServiceOfZeke

08-16-2007, 12:39 AM

But Tesco has told the 47-year-old, also known as Tony Turner, to keep the balloons in his pocket and entertain children

:)

Angakuk

08-16-2007, 01:51 AM

Hey little girl, why don't you reach in my pocket? I have a nice surprise for you. That's Entertainment!

California Tanker

08-16-2007, 03:38 AM

I don't see that as much of a justification. First and foremost, it assumes that Johnny is with mom and that both mom and Johnny know that Johnny is allergic to latex.

Presumably the kid is going to find out he's allergic to latex at some point. Are you suggesting that it's basically a ticking time-bomb, and wherever Johnny comes into contact with latex for the first time there is going to be a cause for legal action? The clown is doing nothing negligent, unlawful, forced or unusual. The common 'egg-shell' rules shouldn't apply here, if I recall my legal principles correctly.

Tesco is taking responsibility for the safety of its customers. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. What irks me is the fact that the general situation is such that Tesco believes that it's in their interests (presumably out of litigation fear as opposed to philanthropy) to have such a prohibition.

I mean, why not have the store employees conduct business in full NBC suits, in case one of them has a cough that a customer has no immunity to?

NTM

ChuckF

08-16-2007, 03:42 AM

godfry n. glad

08-16-2007, 04:28 AM

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 04:29 AM

Oh, Chuck, you libertard, just because a business makes a business decision for business reasons doesn't mean its the right decision. Did I say business and decision enough times?

godfry n. glad

08-16-2007, 04:42 AM

Why would Tesco not believe it's in their interests to have such a prohibition, and why would that irk you? Clearly, Tesco believes that the financial benefit of the prohibition outweighs any financial benefit of...uh...balloon animals. Business will do what best satisfies the bottom line.

The clown needs to take a little personal responsibility and come up with some new tricks.

Does Tesco sell balloons? After telling their hired help to not use latex products, have they removed all latex products from their shelves?

Is there some kind of legal difference between a free balloon animal offered by a contractor with the store outlet and a product sold within the store? Is that the difference? I'm wondering...Wouldn't they have to clear their shelves of rubber bands, condoms, gaskets, work gloves, paints, suction cups, hoses, and the like?

ChuckF

08-16-2007, 04:45 AM

I think that's the difference, yes. Unfortunately, I know very little about Tesco, and have only been inside one a few times.

I don't see what is irksome in Tesco deciding to take a (very) small and reasonable step to avoid the small probability and the associated legal liability of hurting one of their customers or one of their customer's children. No balloon animals at the Tesco's in Leeds. Big deal.

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 04:52 AM

I would imagine latex products on shelves are more likely to be packaged in neutral materials. The balloon animals, otoh, feature a lot of exposed latex which people could easily brush against inadvertently as the kids play with them, bat them about, drop them, etc.

erimir

08-16-2007, 10:18 AM

Speaking of allergies to latex, I would hate to discover I'm allergic to latex the first time I try to have sex (and after putting the condom on).

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 04:05 PM

I think many so-called latex allergies are actually allergies to the corn starch which is used to keep the latex from sticking to itself. There are non-allergenic substitutes such as talc that could be used for that purpose.

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 04:09 PM

I think many so-called latex allergies are actually allergies to the corn starch which is used to keep the latex from sticking to itself.
What makes you think that? From here (http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/common/allergies/basics/254.html):

The protein in rubber can cause an allergic reaction in some people. The thin, stretchy latex rubber in gloves, condoms and balloons is high in this protein. It causes more allergic reactions than products made of hard rubber (like tires). Also, because some latex gloves are coated with cornstarch powder, the latex protein particles stick to the cornstarch and fly into the air when the gloves are taken off. In places where gloves are being put on and removed frequently, the air may contain many latex particles.

So it looks like the opposite is actually true: cornstarch becomes an allergen because of its proximity to latex.

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 04:45 PM

I was misinformed. Corn starch is definitely an allergen, but it appears it's more rare than I thought. Then again, latex allergies aren't exactly the norm either.

Clutch Munny

08-16-2007, 04:47 PM

Speaking of allergies to latex, I would hate to discover I'm allergic to latex the first time I try to have sex (and after putting the condom on).

You might experience swelling in the affected areas!

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 05:14 PM

Just for informational purposes relating to livius' and my posts above.

One double blind study showed 5 our of 207 subjects (2.4%) in the tested population have allergies to corn. (http://ift.confex.com/ift/2001/techprogram/paper_8617.htm) This study found that although corn allergies may be relatively rare, when it occurs it can be severe.

Latex allergies are estimated less than 1 percent (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/me/2002/00000027/00000001/art00046) of the general population, higher in those sensitized due to regular exposure in their occupations such as health care workers, rubber manufacturing, painting, etc. at about 15% and those individuals with spinal bifida as high as 69%. Those figures include everything from minor skin irritations to asthma and shock (rarely). Some of those percentages come from this article (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/464479_4) which also says studies of latex allergies estimate the percent of latex allergy sufferers at less than 2% in the general population.

I'm just saying ...

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 05:18 PM

Is an allergy to corn the same thing as an allergy to cornstarch? They used different preparations of corn in the study, not cornstarch per se.

Also, they specifically recruited people with known corn allergies, so I don't really understand how they could determine prevalence of corn allergy in the general population from the data. :wha:

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 05:22 PM

Here's (http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/algy/abstract.00000381-199712000-00010.htm;jsessionid=GGrJKLQ0CKWWTk1Qwq4q6wsTz5CG2RTDvH5LFYWCQzvQfvTknkxZ!-260396143!181195628!8091!-1) a study that says that the use of cornstarch on latex gloves might play a role in the increase of latex allergies, not because people are allergic to the cornstarch, but because it doesn't bind the allergens as effectively as talc does.

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 05:24 PM

Oops. Wrong study linked.

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 05:26 PM

:five:

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 05:30 PM

How do they know it's the latex being carried by the corn starch and not the corn starch itself causing the allergic reactions? I can see that more study needs to be done, or stop using natural rubber latex and switch to a synthetic rubber product.

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 05:33 PM

They test for which allergen is causing the reaction, presumably. :dunno:

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 05:36 PM

They should, if they're thorough.

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 05:38 PM

None of these studies are worth the pixels they're printed on if they don't confirm the source of the reaction.

Dingfod

08-16-2007, 05:43 PM

I don't know their methodology if they don't state what it was, perhaps it was just correlating numbers from other studies or whatever. The corn allergy study I cited above told theirs in their summary.

California Tanker

08-16-2007, 06:18 PM

livius drusus

08-16-2007, 06:24 PM

What makes you think that excessive litigation (assuming it exists) is the cause? What if Tesco decided that the cost of even an infinitesimal chance of danger obviates the virtually non-existent balloon animal benefit?

It's not like balloon animals are some integral part of the Tesco way of life. I can't imagine Tesco or any other company would think it was worth even the tiniest, most outside chance of causing their customers harm or putting the company at risk of a lawsuit.

Adam

08-16-2007, 06:29 PM

What if Tesco decided that the cost of even an infinitesimal chance of danger obviates the virtually non-existent balloon animal benefit?

I believe Tesco refers to that as their One Percent Doctrine.

ChuckF

08-16-2007, 06:29 PM

I don't see how this example constitutes any kind of evidence that "excessive litigation" exists.

D. Scarlatti

08-16-2007, 06:33 PM

Or that it's a problem. There can never be enough litigation.

Adam

08-16-2007, 06:34 PM

Well, "excessive litigation" usually means something like "litigation that leads to a result that I personally find silly". CT thinks that disallowing balloon animals due to the possibility of inflicting latex allergies is silly (I sort of agree, btw, but then I've never suffered from latex allergies, so perhaps I'm underestimating how severe they are). If we assume that litigation, or fear of litigation, is the cause (which isn't actually evident, as far as I can see) then, by definition, that litigation is excessive.

ETA: And, yes, I'm being rather smartassed here, but I've seriously never seen "excessive litigation" defined in any way that doesn't reference outcomes that the speaker finds ridiculous.

ChuckF

08-16-2007, 06:44 PM

I imagine the thought process behind this decision as such:

A) Tiny chance that a child (or adult) goes into anaphylactic shock at the local Tesco. This is bad for a number of reasons, not least among them the possibility of litigation.

B) Reducing that chance by getting rid of latex balloons at clown shows.

Numerous airlines don't serve peanut snacks; peanut allergies, like latex allergies, can be very severe, and reactions can be brought about not only through eating, but also from smelling or coming into physical contact with peanuts. Why should any company take the risk - or expose its customers to the risk - when it's something so simple to avoid?

D. Scarlatti

08-16-2007, 06:51 PM

And, yes, I'm being rather smartassed here, but I've seriously never seen "excessive litigation" defined in any way that doesn't reference outcomes that the speaker finds ridiculous.

In fact, excessive litigation should be preferable to excessive trials by jury leading to excessive judgments, at least to the overlawyered crowd. Me, I'm a fan of excessive threatening letter-writing.

Ensign Steve

08-17-2007, 01:52 AM

Speaking of allergies to latex, I would hate to discover I'm allergic to latex the first time I try to have sex (and after putting the condom on).

Shouldn't you have practiced putting the condom on before having to fumble around with it in front of your partner the first time?

erimir

08-17-2007, 11:22 AM

Well yes.

I thought about that before I posted that, but I decided to go with the more dramatic situation of it ruining your first attempt at intercourse.

Ensign Steve

08-17-2007, 02:11 PM

Oops. :blush: Once again, nuance is lost on me.

ChuckF

08-17-2007, 05:53 PM

Well yes.

I thought about that before I posted that, but I decided to go with the more dramatic situation of it ruining your first attempt at intercourse.
To say nothing of your partner's experience! Only thing worse than losing your hard-on is swelling up and dying from latex allergy.

California Tanker

08-17-2007, 09:02 PM

Or that it's a problem. There can never be enough litigation.

It would be a lawyer who says that, of course...

I think there can be. The resources, time, effort, money spent into litigating some things could quite possibly be better spent on other things. I view it along the lines of a work-to-rule: Rules which are put in for very good reasons on an individual basis but overall the whole system grinds to a halt.

Well, "excessive litigation" usually means something like "litigation that leads to a result that I personally find silly". CT thinks that disallowing balloon animals due to the possibility of inflicting latex allergies is silly

You are quite correct. I do find it silly, personally. Evidently, so do the editors at the newspaper. How many generally inconsequential business decisions make it to national news?

Shouldn't you have practiced putting the condom on before having to fumble around with it in front of your partner the first time?

Hmm. I never thought of that.

NTM

Dingfod

01-18-2008, 06:54 AM

Study: Clowns scare children. (http://www.hospitalhealthcare.com/default.asp?title=Clowndecorations%22scare%22children&page=article.display&article.id=7545)

Qingdai

01-18-2008, 07:18 AM

"We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. "
I bet that applies to adults too.
Clowns :shudder:

California Tanker

01-18-2008, 08:01 AM

I don't get it.

What's the clownophobia based upon?

NTM

Qingdai

01-18-2008, 08:05 AM

John Wayne Gacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy) for one.

Watser?

01-18-2008, 01:07 PM

I saw these really scary clowns in a circus when I was maybe 4 or 5, it's one of my earliest memories. They pretended to shoot one of the clowns' head of with a cannon. I had nightmares for months.

Clowns, brrr :shudder:

Uthgar the Brazen

01-18-2008, 01:08 PM

I always really liked clowns when I was a kid.

Yes, yes, "explains a lot" blah blah blah. Fuckers.

Adam

01-18-2008, 07:41 PM

Way to steal all our jokes, Uth. Ass.

And, yes, clowns are terrifying. I think the clown in It was actually the least scary clown ever because at least he was supposed to be scary. The most terrifying thing about most of the fuckers is that they actually think it's whimsical or some shit to hide their faces behind all the creepy makeup and prance around. :shudder:

Stephen Maturin

01-18-2008, 08:06 PM

John Wayne Gacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy) for one.

And Klutzo (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1010071clown1.html) certainly wasn't public relations gold. He's with the Lord now, having died (http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2007/12/21/news/state/10191206934843.txt) back in November after being tasered in jail.

D. Scarlatti

01-18-2008, 08:26 PM

Thanks for the Klutzo update! I hadn't heard he got zapped.

And CT, litigation doesn't simply refer to actions that tie up court resources that might be better devoted elsewhere. The overwhelming majority of litigation takes place between private parties in the act of attempting to mediate and settle disputes before they get to court. In fact, avoidance of court is often the very object of litigation. It's only occasionally that the courts are asked to actually pronounce on questions of law that arise during the course of litigation, and downright rare that litigation leads to trial, the most resource-sucking event of all (including the resources of human consciousness, as you'd note if you've ever attended a civil trial).*

* Although I have little doubt that Maturin's trials are far and away more entertaining than most.

godfry n. glad

02-21-2008, 07:04 PM

Hmmm...It never really occurred to me that clown fear/hate ran that deep.

I enjoy the multiple clowns exiting from the tiny clown car image. Otherwise, I've never truly enjoyed clowns, not really understanding the point; but neither did they bother me, one way nor another.

I guess it helps explain how the term became such a derogatory invective that we save for incompetent nitwits in positions of authority.