Again, definitions of which I was unaware

I’m just after looking up the definition of a word, and I must say that the result confused me. For your reference, here is what I found:


1. Involving or filled with danger; perilous.
2. Being able or likely to do harm.

1 Involving possible risk, loss, or injury: adventurous, chancy, hazardous, jeopardous, parlous, perilous, risky, treacherous, unsafe, venturesome, venturous. Slang hairy. See safety/danger.
2 Causing or marked by danger or pain, for example: grave, grievous, serious, severe.

The results of checking this definition meshed fairly well with my understanding of the word. But the confusion arose because of the use of the world by a representative of HM Government, in relation to the fucking stupid unrepentantly statist suffocatingly nannying smoking ban, which stipulates that all churches (listed or not) must have big-ass no smoking signs at all entrances. Which’ll do wonders for the 1604 decor, obviously, and is now reason 8,103 why I dislike said ban.

Some meddlesome churchmen are pointing out that, what with listed churches being allowed to forgo such things as bright green emergency exit signs (for perfectly logical reasons), they should also be allowed to dispense with the no smoking signs. Given that churches are not, on the whole, renowned for tobacco smoke. Mystic smoke, and perhaps the occasional smoke/mirror trickery, yet, but not tobacco smoke.

Cue the inappropriate deployment of the word ‘dangerous':

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “I accept, without reservation, that there is a long tradition not to smoke in churches but, as I am sure people will appreciate, to have provided an exemption would have created a dangerous precedent.”

Now, off the top of my head, I can think of a few things that would count as dangerous precedents:

  • Allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland, and setting the tone for Austria & Poland to follow.
  • Helping Saddam Hussein stay in power.
  • Caving in to terrorists and hostage takers.

Things that don’t, in my humble opinion, count as dangerous precedents:

  • Not putting up bloody stupid signs forbidding an activity in a place where nobody would think of carrying out that activity, at the cost of making a centuries old building look like shit.
  • Dragging out some people and beating them severely with the aforementioned signage, while repeating ‘Fuck you and your nanny state’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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>