First thing you have to realise is that much of what you posted is largely from centre right rags, no-one in the UK is ever going to think any story printed in The Sun is credible unless its absolutely impossible to deny, such as a nuke landing on London.
Next. “The nanny state” is a political construct have a guess which part of the political spectrum it comes from.
For instance, the story about coppers riding bicycles, this storty is simply not true, I saw them doing this only yesterday.
One reason for the so-called nanny state stories is part of anti EU politcaling.
A great deal of Health & Safety legislation emanates from directives sent out from the EU, a directive is not a law, it is a statement that requires EU member states to enact legislation that complies with a a set standard.
Each state can decide just how strong those laws will be, but the directive sets a minimum level.
The idea is that all EU states have a certain baseline of legislation so that things such as Safety, anti-competition laws, Working Time regulations are such that no one state can undercut the others by having worse standards than others so that member states are not exploited in the name of a quick buck whilst other states take care of the welfare of their citizens - in other words its to prevent cut-throating.
Next point, Safety legislation is inconvenient, it costs a lot to ensure compliance, but ultimately it is about the protection of the lives and welfare of citizens.
A great many companies in the UK, along with vested interests in the media, would like to get rid of a lot of Safety legislation so as to make that short cut profit, but ultimately people will die or become disabled through just going to work.
Often what happens is that you get people who try to do health and safety on the cheap, and instead of hiring people who are trained and understand the law, and what a hazard and a risk is and the differance between them, they try to do it as an inconvenient add on.
The result is that untrained people, who are ignorant of the principles of safe working practices end up banning or preventing certain activities when its obvious that the risk of harm is negligable.
This sort of stuff is wonderful news for our centre right media.
Its usually cheaper to hire a Safety Consultant for a few months to find out how to continue carrying out the same activities safely than it is to actually ban the practice - short term costs verses longer term investment.
Safety can cost money if it isn’t done well, but try having an accident and find out what the true costs are, as an example, when company premises is damaged by fire, one third will never reopen, which loses business, jobs profits taxation - you name it, and yet most fires are caused by very easily prevented means, such as ensuring rubbish bins are kept outside and with steel lids on.
These silly “nanny state” stories are largely fiction, or highly exagerrated, for instance it was said that playing conkers was banned in some school playground, when the reality is that there is no need to do so, and few schools did ban it, and those who did so did not understand safety and the relevant requirement - but it makes good headlines for the Sunday Filthies.
I can think if many silly safety stories that somehow only appear in these centre right media, and they are all myths, google up these terms HSE Safety Myths and you’ll get the picture.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12556-f0.cfm
http://www.kendalhang.btinternet.co.uk/myths/index.html