Do the greens have an aspirational policy around beating this record?

The Greens love to ban things, though Simon Bridges is fast getting a reputation for a meddlesome banner as well. I wonder though if they have an aspirational policy around beating this record?

Chris Grayling, the employment minister, is publishing a list of the 10 ?most bizarre? health and safety bans which have come to light since he took office just over a year ago.

Top of the list is the decision by the Wimbledon authorities to close Murray Mount after it rained, amid fears that tennis spectators would slip over.

Bans on pins to secure poppies and the halting of children?s sack races are also ridiculed.

Mr Grayling is heading a review of health and safety laws, an issue championed by David Cameron.

He appeals to councils and companies today to ?show common sense?. He said: ?We have seen an epidemic of excuses wrongly citing health and safety as a reason to prevent people from doing pretty harmless things with only very minor risks attached.

?The law does not require this to happen: people must be encouraged to use their common sense.

?Middle managers in councils and companies should not try to hide unpopular decisions behind health and safety legislation. People must acknowledge these myths and continue to challenge them.?

Other unacceptable health and safety bans highlighted by Mr Grayling include stopping pupils from using monkey bars without supervision in Oxfordshire; a ban on kite-flying on a beach in east Yorkshire; and preventing carnivals with fancy dress parades.

The decision by the All England Lawn Tennis Club to close the hill where fans gather to watch televised coverage of Centre Court attracted much criticism.

Judith Hackitt, chairman of the Health and Safety Executive, wrote to Wimbledon and the Lawn Tennis Association complaining about the decision.

?People have been walking up and down wet grassy slopes for years without catastrophic consequences,? she said. ?If the LTA was concerned about people slipping and suing for their injuries the message should have made clear the decision was ‘on insurance grounds?.?