We made a trip to Agde last week to visit the most delightful, quirky, eclectic, little local history museum.
(I can't recall its name and it's not comimg up on Google)

Martin has been trying to get me there on at least my last thre visits to France but somehow it never worked-out until this time.

But this is not the purpose of this post: it was simply the purpose of the visit to Agde.

I'm back to my 'nanny state' whinge!

When we arrived in the town we met other members of the party on the quayside, which I immediately noticed was totally unprotected.

I don't believe that this would be allowed to occur in Ireland.

I am sure that, for insurance reasons, in a similar situation in Ireland, there would have been erected a balustrade, if not a child-proof barrier, which would have totally destroyed an historic vista.

I pondered as to how and why two member states of the EU could have such variant responses to a situation and I came wonder whether, in Ireland, we are taking directives to unnecessary lengths for fear of litigation of which we have become so fond.

I wondered whether, perhaps, the directives do stipulate that new installations must be made safe across the member states (and wheelchair accessible etc., etc..) but that, in law, original sites may be left unprotected (unmolested) and that the principle of the public being responsible for their own behaviour, and therefore safety, should apply.

Or is it just another case of the French saying 'oui' we agree to that but then ignoring the directive entirely. - I have the feeling that they do this constantly, and I like it!

Have I just got a bee in my bonnet?
Am I just thinking and talking nonsence?
Does anybody know the true situation in these regards?