Nanny state means my recycling days are over

I TOOK a pair of modern, perfectly usable skis into the local Isabel Hospice charity shop, only to be politely advised that it could not accept any ski equipment, as well as a whole host of useful items, for reasons of health and safety.

I could offer the skis for sale on eBay, or in my local paper, or I could give them away, but a charity shop cannot sell them, presumably, in case they are defective and someone hurts themselves, which, of course, never happens in skiing unless the equipment is defective.

Presumably, I would be liable if I sold them or gave them away and, if that is not the case, why are charity shops singled out?

Why can we no longer be responsible for our own actions? If someone bought my skis or, indeed, some second-hand electrical equipment (which they could not get from a charity shop) it is up to them to get it serviced or checked to make sure it is serviceable.

Health and safety is presumably there to protect us poor, stupid members of the public from our own actions, as well as to providing thousands of people with jobs making sure that the letter of the law is applied.

My skis will now be taken along to the tip and dumped, together with many other items which could usefully be sold by charity shops.

I thought we were encouraged to recycle and save the planet; now my skis will unnecessarily take up space in a landfill site.

Someone who would have bought them will now buy elsewhere, which will lead to another pair of skis being manufactured with the additional energy consumption that will involve.

I have had enough of the nanny state and my recycling days are over.

If our laws require landfill sites to be used for perfectly serviceable items, why should I worry about tin cans and bottles?

DAVID BATEMAN

Green Drift

Royston