Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I have to say I am concerned that the GP's response is that they 'would prefer' the subject not to drive. Either they are fit for they are not. IANAL but perhaps one or two of those here would like to comment on how they would question in court a GP subsequently to a fatal accident where the driver had been told by their GP that they 'would prefer' them not to drive!
For Big G's neighbours information, there's a Driving Assessment centre at Glan Clwyd Hospital.
Surely the answer lies in your own earlier post. If GPs were competent to address ability to drive, there would be no need for assessment centres. Now, perhaps there might be some sort of case for allowing opticians and GPs to pass on details of vision or neurology but that is something else.
In future, perhaps some sort of AI gizmo under the bonnet will continually assess a driver's ability. If AI can't quite do self-driving, it can surely tell if the car slaloms in and out the white lines.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
Missed a bit. This was flagged as a case highlighted by a current campaign for a law change in eyesight tests for elderly drivers - following the consultation by the previous Govt and the current Road Safety Review.
Thanks for that very helpful graph, Matt. It rather confirms what I had thought.
It astonishes me that I continue to possess the same full driving licence that I had sixty years ago when I passed my test. Intuitively I feel sure I am not as good a driver as I was thirty years ago and a retest would be entirely appropriate. I hope we are moving in the direction of repeat tests, and certainly for the elderly. The case for them is obvious. We shouldn't wait for someone to have a telling accident, nor should we rely on the driver's common sense.
Such testing would have saved me the awkward situation where I had to tell my eighty year old brother that he shouldn't be driving. He stubbornly refused until the doctor told him the same. It's a miracle he never injured someone.
I've got a current interest in this as two-and-a-half years ago, when my licence came up for renewal, I was rapidly losing the use of my limbs and consequently thought I was unfit to drive. So I surrendered it. Six months later I had a spinal operation and while things are still not good, they're improving, and just over a year ago I began to feel that maybe I could drive. So I went and had an assessment, at an an approved Driver Assessment Centre, albeit without a car, and was told that, subject to an actual driving assessment, I was mobile enough, and mentally acute (don't laugh) enough to drive. So, in January of this year I applied to DVLA Swansea for my driving licence again, and filled in a long form about my disabilities. In August (yes, August) I received a reply which told me that DVLA would arrange for me to have an in-car assessment at the centre I'd been to previously. And eventually, in October, I was given one. After which I was told that while I was OK on major roads I tended to drive too close to the middle of minor roads and I didn't use my mirror enough. They recommended that before I had a licence again I should have a few lessons. DVLA confirmed receiving all this and said that if their medical advisor agreed they'd send me a sort of provisional licence, a PADL, which would enable an approved instructor to let me drive an automatic car, which is all I want to do. I'm still waiting!
I'm quite certain that I 'failed' not because of my physical problems but mainly because of the habits I've developed over the 65 years since I passed my initial test. However, were I to start again I would be tempted NOT to tell DVLA about my problems in the first place. However I would recommend anyone who has been driving for many years to have a professional assessment. It did make me think!
Very good post, and an illustration of how difficult an issue this can be for older people and their relatives. It’s especially an issue for those who live in more rural areas, and have come to rely on their car because they can’t walk or cycle long distances or carrying loads such as shopping.
The way forward is probably biennial medial assessments though.
Yes; I live in an area with one bus an hour each way. It's two buses to both of the 'local' hospital's too.
Another difficult issue is persuading older people to move when their current location doesn't work for them any more. Ideally they do it earlier than needed so they can put down roots in a new place, with better public transport etc.
We have exactly this problem. It's an absolute nightmare TBH.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
And the idea that government decisions are binary choices is self evident nonsense.
The article makes some very good, and uncomfortable, points. Statistics is having a bit of a nervous breakdown at the moment, for the following reasons:
The replication crisis The replication crisis is the discovery that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. If you went back to a similar group of people and did the same tests, you wouldn't necessarily get the same result. Ooops. The solution to this is "more studies", but there's no money for that, so instead we do systematic reviews and metastudies, which have problems of their own: they don't remove error so much as smooth it out, and although they can be done in a robust manner they frequently are not.
Desk statistics Statistics cannot be done at the desk it must be done in the field: literally for agricultural statistics. You have to go out and check it in situ, and few do this
Data science vs classical stats A young graduate with a good degree in DS/ML or similar can command a high salary in the city. A similar graduate with a classical stats degree will not. Guess what happens next. But data science isn't theoretically grounded - it just finds patterns - and the displacement of the latter by the former makes it very vulnerable to blind spots and pattern changes. Recall my spat in the comments when some real-life data users made a colossal mistake and I went full Mugatu in the comments and had to bring in Anscombe’s Quartet
Lack of trust Lack of trust of the people in Government leads to poor responses and as we all know differential response causes problems
The blob More government, more statistics, more difficulty, more criticism. There are limits on what can be done with what we have, and no appetite for more statisticians or less government
There are more points I wish to make but no time and no headspace, so hopefully this will do
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
Missed a bit. This was flagged as a case highlighted by a current campaign for a law change in eyesight tests for elderly drivers - following the consultation by the previous Govt and the current Road Safety Review.
Thanks for that very helpful graph, Matt. It rather confirms what I had thought.
It astonishes me that I continue to possess the same full driving licence that I had sixty years ago when I passed my test. Intuitively I feel sure I am not as good a driver as I was thirty years ago and a retest would be entirely appropriate. I hope we are moving in the direction of repeat tests, and certainly for the elderly. The case for them is obvious. We shouldn't wait for someone to have a telling accident, nor should we rely on the driver's common sense.
Such testing would have saved me the awkward situation where I had to tell my eighty year old brother that he shouldn't be driving. He stubbornly refused until the doctor told him the same. It's a miracle he never injured someone.
I've got a current interest in this as two-and-a-half years ago, when my licence came up for renewal, I was rapidly losing the use of my limbs and consequently thought I was unfit to drive. So I surrendered it. Six months later I had a spinal operation and while things are still not good, they're improving, and just over a year ago I began to feel that maybe I could drive. So I went and had an assessment, at an an approved Driver Assessment Centre, albeit without a car, and was told that, subject to an actual driving assessment, I was mobile enough, and mentally acute (don't laugh) enough to drive. So, in January of this year I applied to DVLA Swansea for my driving licence again, and filled in a long form about my disabilities. In August (yes, August) I received a reply which told me that DVLA would arrange for me to have an in-car assessment at the centre I'd been to previously. And eventually, in October, I was given one. After which I was told that while I was OK on major roads I tended to drive too close to the middle of minor roads and I didn't use my mirror enough. They recommended that before I had a licence again I should have a few lessons. DVLA confirmed receiving all this and said that if their medical advisor agreed they'd send me a sort of provisional licence, a PADL, which would enable an approved instructor to let me drive an automatic car, which is all I want to do. I'm still waiting!
I'm quite certain that I 'failed' not because of my physical problems but mainly because of the habits I've developed over the 65 years since I passed my initial test. However, were I to start again I would be tempted NOT to tell DVLA about my problems in the first place. However I would recommend anyone who has been driving for many years to have a professional assessment. It did make me think!
Very good post, and an illustration of how difficult an issue this can be for older people and their relatives. It’s especially an issue for those who live in more rural areas, and have come to rely on their car because they can’t walk or cycle long distances or carrying loads such as shopping.
The way forward is probably biennial medial assessments though.
Yes; I live in an area with one bus an hour each way. It's two buses to both of the 'local' hospital's too.
Another difficult issue is persuading older people to move when their current location doesn't work for them any more. Ideally they do it earlier than needed so they can put down roots in a new place, with better public transport etc.
Public transport was better when we moved here. To be fair we can get most of what we need locally, including socialisation, and there are delivery services.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
Even in Ireland this time where they use the only remotely fair system STV Fine Gael managed to lose a seat on the last count even though they had two candidates still in the run with way more votes together than the candidate who was elected. They were too close in numbers to be voted out. I must admit I thought that was not possible, so I learnt something.
Also for STV to produce PR you need large constituencies with at least ten members. 3, 4 or 5 member constituencies still produce a carve up, again vide Ireland.
What you describe in the first of these paragraphs is a feature of STV, not a bug. The voters control whether their vote transfers between candidates for the same party. This is better than closed-list PR. If the voter likes one of the candidates for Fine Gael, but not the other, then they can transfer their vote to a different candidate for a different party. That's a win for the voters and a blow to central party control.
As to your second paragraph there are other factors to consider other than proportionality, but STV with 3-member constituencies will be a lot more proportional than FPTP, and still allows small parties to gain representation with relatively modest local concentrations of support.
In Ireland they prioritise attempting to keep to County boundaries over consistency in constituency size. This creates the potential for all sorts of shenanigans (e.g. it would be advantageous for a party to have larger constituencies where their support is low and smaller constituencies where their support is high), but this doesn't really happen because the motivation is almost totally to keep to County boundaries. So you have Kerry and Mayo as five-seaters, but Tipperary recently split into two three-seaters and rural Cork west of the city split into two three-seaters.
I agree with most of what you say, except for the county boundaries issue. It isn't unheard of for slivers of one county to be lumped in with the next door county to fulfill their regulation on electorate/TD size.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Are you mixing up Dyson's very fine vacuum cleaners, of which I own three, with his land-banking?
Aren;t you?
Dyson has been successful with marketing and brittle plastics, personally I hate his vacuum cleaners, which are sold on a misrepresentation (there is a filter that will block and kill the motor if it's not replaced) and offer nothing that a good spec 1990's electrolux couldn't do while collecting everything in a convenient bag. Apart from that he wants to employ people in Malaysia (on Malaysian wages, Ts and Cs) but have them working in the UK. But he might deserve some credit for his apprenticeship scheme, time will tell.
That is a fair analysis. The designs are not as clever as claimed. I have the hand held cyclonic "animal" cleaner. You know the one where the collection cylinder is too narrow to collect beagle hair and blocks to the point of being unusable after 30 seconds. Henry and the GTech are a better combination.
We are a Henry / Gtech household. What I love about Henry is the ease of dragging it around and bashing about the walls. Truly the professional’s choice.
Both are regional British businesses too.
I think I’ve seen Henry in hotels on at least three continents.
A quiet British success story compared to consumer brands such as Dyson.
And still made in Chard, Somerset.
We're in the market for a new chordless vacuum cleaner now our Dyson V15 has just about given up the ghost.
May well look at a chordless Numatic.
Can't you treat your Dyson to a new battery or whatever part is dying?
I am not sure what is. The suction does not work on the highest setting now.
I suspect there is some sort of dust and particle ingress into the motor.
My concern is that the cost of repair, although probably less than the cost of new, would be quite expensive so it is better to buy new.
It must be fairly new. Ask Dyson to repair it under warranty. If they say warranty is only 2 years, tell them you would consider that model should last longer and that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides legal rights up to 6 years.
It would be unreasonable to expect Tesco to replace a £10 kettle that breaks after 3 years.
It would be entirely reasonable to expect a vacuum cleaner costing £700 to last for 6 years unless it has been mis-used. The vast majority of the cost in repairs is labour, they may just send a new main body/cyclone out FOC
If they refuse to budge, buy a new different brand and issue a small claim using MCOL for a 'reasonable amount'. If it cost £700 and was say 3 years old, maybe £200 would be reasonable.
Dyson highly unlikely to defend, you have offered them opportunity to rectify and there is little cost to you in making a claim.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
So the premise of the thread is simply wrong - the poll doesn't show that voters regret how they voted in the 2011 referendum at all. It is like saying that because Britons back assisted dying they would vote to bring back capital punishment, or for that matter going to war with Portugal - the two proposals are simply unrelated.
Very few options on offer are Proportional Representation and they misrepresent what they are offering. Proportional Representation is not Equal Representation or an equal share of power
Mrs B of great lamented memory was "leader" of six "Independents" on a council of 52 where conrol was split between four groupings. By leader I mean she told the other five what to do. Through five changes of control on the council Mrs B remained the representative on the Local Authority Association whatever it was called. She effectively played one off against another.
The LDs have always assumed they would do that under PR. That is why Blair went for closed De Hondt for the Euro elections. Didn't work as the electorate voted them out when they wanted change - ie no more Blair.
Even in Ireland this time where they use the only remotely fair system STV Fine Gael managed to lose a seat on the last count even though they had two candidates still in the run with way more votes together than the candidate who was elected. They were too close in numbers to be voted out. I must admit I thought that was not possible, so I learnt something.
Also for STV to produce PR you need large constituencies with at least ten members. 3, 4 or 5 member constituencies still produce a carve up, again vide Ireland.
Yes, it was only after the very thorough piece on the Irish elections that I realised the parties tuned the number of candidates they put up to minimise vote splitting.
It's not always that simple though. Sometimes a party will stand two candidates, even if it is only expecting to receive enough votes to elect one, because it will have one candidate based in the north of the constituency and one in the south (or the east and the west, or whatever), and it will hope that by having a more local candidate for each part of the constituency they can win more votes, and convince the voters to transfer those votes to the other candidate for the party (rather than the other candidate for the locality).
Also, sometimes a party will end up standing an extra candidate to keep the local party happy, or to head off a row over candidate selection.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Surely the point of these 'speeches' is not for anyone to listen but to trail in advance what is going to be said?
As far as the PR is concerned the actual speech could be made in a broom cupboard.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
The BBC still have a banner saying he's expected to speak at 11:00.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Are you mixing up Dyson's very fine vacuum cleaners, of which I own three, with his land-banking?
Aren;t you?
Dyson has been successful with marketing and brittle plastics, personally I hate his vacuum cleaners, which are sold on a misrepresentation (there is a filter that will block and kill the motor if it's not replaced) and offer nothing that a good spec 1990's electrolux couldn't do while collecting everything in a convenient bag. Apart from that he wants to employ people in Malaysia (on Malaysian wages, Ts and Cs) but have them working in the UK. But he might deserve some credit for his apprenticeship scheme, time will tell.
That is a fair analysis. The designs are not as clever as claimed. I have the hand held cyclonic "animal" cleaner. You know the one where the collection cylinder is too narrow to collect beagle hair and blocks to the point of being unusable after 30 seconds. Henry and the GTech are a better combination.
We are a Henry / Gtech household. What I love about Henry is the ease of dragging it around and bashing about the walls. Truly the professional’s choice.
Both are regional British businesses too.
I think I’ve seen Henry in hotels on at least three continents.
A quiet British success story compared to consumer brands such as Dyson.
And still made in Chard, Somerset.
We're in the market for a new chordless vacuum cleaner now our Dyson V15 has just about given up the ghost.
May well look at a chordless Numatic.
Can't you treat your Dyson to a new battery or whatever part is dying?
I am not sure what is. The suction does not work on the highest setting now.
I suspect there is some sort of dust and particle ingress into the motor.
My concern is that the cost of repair, although probably less than the cost of new, would be quite expensive so it is better to buy new.
It must be fairly new. Ask Dyson to repair it under warranty. If they say warranty is only 2 years, tell them you would consider that model should last longer and that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides legal rights up to 6 years.
It would be unreasonable to expect Tesco to replace a £10 kettle that breaks after 3 years.
It would be entirely reasonable to expect a vacuum cleaner costing £700 to last for 6 years unless it has been mis-used. The vast majority of the cost in repairs is labour, they may just send a new main body/cyclone out FOC
If they refuse to budge, buy a new different brand and issue a small claim using MCOL for a 'reasonable amount'. If it cost £700 and was say 3 years old, maybe £200 would be reasonable.
Dyson highly unlikely to defend, you have offered them opportunity to rectify and there is little cost to you in making a claim.
This may already have been tried but first google the symptoms in case there is an easy fix. I have two hand-helds because I replaced the dead one before realising it could easily be resurrected.
So the premise of the thread is simply wrong - the poll doesn't show that voters regret how they voted in the 2011 referendum at all. It is like saying that because Britons back assisted dying they would vote to bring back capital punishment, or for that matter going to war with Portugal - the two proposals are simply unrelated.
Very few options on offer are Proportional Representation and they misrepresent what they are offering. Proportional Representation is not Equal Representation or an equal share of power
Mrs B of great lamented memory was "leader" of six "Independents" on a council of 52 where conrol was split between four groupings. By leader I mean she told the other five what to do. Through five changes of control on the council Mrs B remained the representative on the Local Authority Association whatever it was called. She effectively played one off against another.
The LDs have always assumed they would do that under PR. That is why Blair went for closed De Hondt for the Euro elections. Didn't work as the electorate voted them out when they wanted change - ie no more Blair.
Even in Ireland this time where they use the only remotely fair system STV Fine Gael managed to lose a seat on the last count even though they had two candidates still in the run with way more votes together than the candidate who was elected. They were too close in numbers to be voted out. I must admit I thought that was not possible, so I learnt something.
Also for STV to produce PR you need large constituencies with at least ten members. 3, 4 or 5 member constituencies still produce a carve up, again vide Ireland.
All correct, and there are flaws in PR, AV, STV without a doubt. But to borrow a phrase from WSC it is about choosing the least worst system. FPTP fails this, which was why I (even though right of centre), voted for AV and would do so again.
Yes,no system is perfect and we need a sensible debate about what would serve us best now.
FPTP has serrved us well for a very long time, but its manifest flaws are no longer acceptable and it is high time we tried something else.
I think the last election in Britain shows us that FPTP now means most people are voting against something, rather than for something, and this has meant they've ended up with an absence of something, rather than a thing itself. It's why Labour have such a large majority, but a great gaping void where their sense of purpose should be.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
You really do not seem to understand that if the GP does not ban the driver, there is nothing can be done in the absence of a change in the way GPs operate on this subject
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
Missed a bit. This was flagged as a case highlighted by a current campaign for a law change in eyesight tests for elderly drivers - following the consultation by the previous Govt and the current Road Safety Review.
How does age profile compare with time since past first test profile?
I don't have anything detailed in "age since past test" stats. The best I have on that, I think, is that drivers aged 17-24 have 4x the risk for men, and 2x the risk for women, compared to the average driver. Clearly they are all less than ~6 years since passing the test so various degrees of inexperience, from completely to substantially.
The Brake campaign is around "Progressive licensing for young and newly qualified drivers", which means both characteristics. Young has factors developing hormones, impress my friends or a girl, 'I'm immortal' etc - which would at least in part be tempered by 1-2 year's experience. So it is aimed at new drivers under 21 for their first 6 months iirc.
Potential benefit is of the order of 1000-2000 KSIs avoided per annum, out of a total of just under 30k KSIs in the country per annum. It seems a good benefit for a modest intervention.
My personal experience is that I had one fault collision in my first year, when I skidded the family wagon off a getting-icy roundabout at 1am in December at age 17 and 8 months, shortly after passing my test.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Sounds fine as a theory. Fails validation when confronted with real-world evidence given the manifest failings of Westminster and the better performance of other countries with decades of coalition government.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
You really do not seem to understand that if the GP does not ban the driver, there is nothing can be done in the absence of a change in the way GPs operate on this subject
The optician stopped my father from driving. Surely the DVLA have a whistleblower service. If they don't they should.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
Anybody can inform the police that they think a person's driving is unsafe mentioning specific events and saying they have a dementia diagnosis and they refuse to inform the DVLA.
It is compulsory to tell DVLA if you have dementia.
Its a notifiable condition like epilepsy.
I prseume police can easily check if DVLA has been notified.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
You really do not seem to understand that if the GP does not ban the driver, there is nothing can be done in the absence of a change in the way GPs operate on this subject
IIRC my GP was happy to take the opinion of the Driver Assessment Centre. However, of course, there has to be a referral to that. And a cost. Maybe that's a route to go down.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
Indeed. Our current government seems to be struggling to come up with a coherent programme despite having a whacking great majority. Its predecessor was also rubbish at doing the same thing.
I think it's just another example of reasoning backwards from a conclusion already determined.
What is indisputable is the undemocratic nature of FPTP. The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
Indeed. Our current government seems to be struggling to come up with a coherent programme despite having a whacking great majority. Its predecessor was also rubbish at doing the same thing.
I think it's just another example of reasoning backwards from a conclusion already determined.
What is indisputable is the undemocratic nature of FPTP. The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion.
"The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion."
Surely you'd accept that considering the outcomes of a system is critical in determining whether a system is better or worse than alternatives?
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
But enforcement is not. There is or should be a gap between the medical branch and the enforcement branch. GPs are not police and police are not GPs.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
Indeed. Our current government seems to be struggling to come up with a coherent programme despite having a whacking great majority. Its predecessor was also rubbish at doing the same thing.
I think it's just another example of reasoning backwards from a conclusion already determined.
What is indisputable is the undemocratic nature of FPTP. The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion.
"The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion."
Surely you'd accept that considering the outcomes of a system is critical in determining whether a system is better or worse than alternatives?
Never mind the practice - does it work in theory? !
64.If it is not practicable to seek consent, and in exceptional cases where a patient has refused consent, disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. The benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure must outweigh both the patient’s and the public interest in keeping the information confidential.
68.If you consider that failure to disclose the information would leave individuals or society exposed to a risk so serious that it outweighs patients’ and the public interest in maintaining confidentiality, you should disclose relevant information promptly to an appropriate person or authority. You should inform the patient before disclosing the information, if it is practicable and safe to do so, even if you intend to disclose without their consent.
And:
6.If a patient has a condition or is undergoing treatment that could impair their fitness to drive, you should:
a. explain this to the patient and tell them that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or DVA
b. tell the patient that you may be obliged to disclose relevant medical information about them, in confidence, to the DVLA or DVA if they continue to drive when they are not fit to do so
c. make a note of any advice you have given to a patient about their fitness to drive in their medical record.
7.If a patient is incapable of understanding this advice – for example, because of dementia – you should inform the DVLA or DVA as soon as practicable.
8.If a patient refuses to accept the diagnosis, or the effect of the condition or treatment on their ability to drive, you can suggest that they seek a second opinion, and help arrange for them to do so. You should advise the patient not to drive in the meantime. As long as the patient agrees, you may discuss your concerns with their relatives, friends or carers.
9.If you become aware that a patient is continuing to drive when they may not be fit to do so, you should make every reasonable effort to persuade them to stop. If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop driving, or you discover that they are continuing to drive against your advice, you should consider whether the patient’s refusal to stop driving leaves others exposed to a risk of death or serious harm. If you believe that it does, you should contact the DVLA or DVA promptly and disclose any relevant medical information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.
10.Before contacting the DVLA or DVA, you should try to inform the patient of your intention to disclose personal information. If the patient objects to the disclosure, you should consider any reasons they give for objecting. If you decide to contact the DVLA or DVA, you should tell your patient in writing once you have done so, and make a note on the patient’s record.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
You really do not seem to understand that if the GP does not ban the driver, there is nothing can be done in the absence of a change in the way GPs operate on this subject
The optician stopped my father from driving. Surely the DVLA have a whistleblower service. If they don't they should.
They do in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
The whole system, such that any 'system' exists, is a shambles.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
Indeed. Our current government seems to be struggling to come up with a coherent programme despite having a whacking great majority. Its predecessor was also rubbish at doing the same thing.
I think it's just another example of reasoning backwards from a conclusion already determined.
What is indisputable is the undemocratic nature of FPTP. The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion.
"The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion."
Surely you'd accept that considering the outcomes of a system is critical in determining whether a system is better or worse than alternatives?
Never mind the practice - does it work in theory? !
A philosopher once wrote: "In the real world, theory is merely a tool for practicality."
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
But enforcement is not. There is or should be a gap between the medical branch and the enforcement branch. GPs are not police and police are not GPs.
I agree but a GP should ban an unfit driver and inform the DVLA in the first instance
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
You really do not seem to understand that if the GP does not ban the driver, there is nothing can be done in the absence of a change in the way GPs operate on this subject
The optician stopped my father from driving. Surely the DVLA have a whistleblower service. If they don't they should.
They do in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
The whole system, such that any 'system' exists, is a shambles.
Big G is right on this.
But is the shambolicness because GPs aren't acting or because of the DVLA?
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
Given such an intervention by the GP could save the life of their patient and others, they need to step in. The anecdotal evidence is that they are often unwilling to do. Even when the patient has dementia!
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
You really do not seem to understand that if the GP does not ban the driver, there is nothing can be done in the absence of a change in the way GPs operate on this subject
The optician stopped my father from driving. Surely the DVLA have a whistleblower service. If they don't they should.
They do in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
The whole system, such that any 'system' exists, is a shambles.
Big G is right on this.
But is the shambolicness because GPs aren't acting or because of the DVLA?
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
But enforcement is not. There is or should be a gap between the medical branch and the enforcement branch. GPs are not police and police are not GPs.
I agree but a GP should ban an unfit driver and inform the DVLA in the first instance
@bondegezou quoted paras seem to support that position. One thing though, as GP-patient records are confidential unless you have something like POA over someone (And if that's for a medical reason such as dementia then they certainly should not be driving) then you'll never KNOW (You might strongly suspect but it's not the same thing) if a GP should be notifying the DVLA.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Maybe the Old Bill will be interested. Clearing up a multi car pile up or scraping a cyclist off the front of a Vauxhall Corsa probably generates an awful lot of paperwork.
And how do you deal with an 89 year old with dementia if the GP has not banned her from driving?
If you are genuinely concerned for their own safety and the safety of others I am sure you have enough imagination to think through to whom you should report the matter .
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
You really do not seem to understand that if the GP does not ban the driver, there is nothing can be done in the absence of a change in the way GPs operate on this subject
The optician stopped my father from driving. Surely the DVLA have a whistleblower service. If they don't they should.
They do in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
The whole system, such that any 'system' exists, is a shambles.
Big G is right on this.
But is the shambolicness because GPs aren't acting or because of the DVLA?
In my case, both. Neither have done anything, despite the fact that the individual in question is demonstrably unfit to drive.
Always impressed by how many people are drinking alcohol at the airport at 10am.
It's shocking isn't it. We are a nation of alkies.
It is important to remember to sneer at the 10am lager drinkers from the *right* lounge. After the second free G&T.
Indeed, always plenty of people getting sloshed on free lounge booze too. It's really gross and must be quite unpleasant for the cabin crew to deal with. It's not like I haven't done this myself in my younger days - I once flew back from the Caribbean overnight with some friends and spent the whole flight downing beers, which the flight attendants continued serving to us the whole night! But I'm certainly old enough to know better now, and wouldn't have more than one drink on or before an evening or overnight flight, and wouldn't drink during the day at all. I don't suffer from any kind of anxiety about flying. It's extremely safe, even more so sober.
Even in Ireland this time where they use the only remotely fair system STV Fine Gael managed to lose a seat on the last count even though they had two candidates still in the run with way more votes together than the candidate who was elected. They were too close in numbers to be voted out. I must admit I thought that was not possible, so I learnt something.
Also for STV to produce PR you need large constituencies with at least ten members. 3, 4 or 5 member constituencies still produce a carve up, again vide Ireland.
What you describe in the first of these paragraphs is a feature of STV, not a bug. The voters control whether their vote transfers between candidates for the same party. This is better than closed-list PR. If the voter likes one of the candidates for Fine Gael, but not the other, then they can transfer their vote to a different candidate for a different party. That's a win for the voters and a blow to central party control.
As to your second paragraph there are other factors to consider other than proportionality, but STV with 3-member constituencies will be a lot more proportional than FPTP, and still allows small parties to gain representation with relatively modest local concentrations of support.
In Ireland they prioritise attempting to keep to County boundaries over consistency in constituency size. This creates the potential for all sorts of shenanigans (e.g. it would be advantageous for a party to have larger constituencies where their support is low and smaller constituencies where their support is high), but this doesn't really happen because the motivation is almost totally to keep to County boundaries. So you have Kerry and Mayo as five-seaters, but Tipperary recently split into two three-seaters and rural Cork west of the city split into two three-seaters.
I agree with most of what you say, except for the county boundaries issue. It isn't unheard of for slivers of one county to be lumped in with the next door county to fulfill their regulation on electorate/TD size.
Yes, that does happen, but the vast majority of public comments to the boundary drawing process are to complain about it, so it happens as little as possible to comply with the rules on population per TD and TDs per constituency.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
Missed a bit. This was flagged as a case highlighted by a current campaign for a law change in eyesight tests for elderly drivers - following the consultation by the previous Govt and the current Road Safety Review.
Thanks for that very helpful graph, Matt. It rather confirms what I had thought.
It astonishes me that I continue to possess the same full driving licence that I had sixty years ago when I passed my test. Intuitively I feel sure I am not as good a driver as I was thirty years ago and a retest would be entirely appropriate. I hope we are moving in the direction of repeat tests, and certainly for the elderly. The case for them is obvious. We shouldn't wait for someone to have a telling accident, nor should we rely on the driver's common sense.
Such testing would have saved me the awkward situation where I had to tell my eighty year old brother that he shouldn't be driving. He stubbornly refused until the doctor told him the same. It's a miracle he never injured someone.
I've got a current interest in this as two-and-a-half years ago, when my licence came up for renewal, I was rapidly losing the use of my limbs and consequently thought I was unfit to drive. So I surrendered it. Six months later I had a spinal operation and while things are still not good, they're improving, and just over a year ago I began to feel that maybe I could drive. So I went and had an assessment, at an an approved Driver Assessment Centre, albeit without a car, and was told that, subject to an actual driving assessment, I was mobile enough, and mentally acute (don't laugh) enough to drive. So, in January of this year I applied to DVLA Swansea for my driving licence again, and filled in a long form about my disabilities. In August (yes, August) I received a reply which told me that DVLA would arrange for me to have an in-car assessment at the centre I'd been to previously. And eventually, in October, I was given one. After which I was told that while I was OK on major roads I tended to drive too close to the middle of minor roads and I didn't use my mirror enough. They recommended that before I had a licence again I should have a few lessons. DVLA confirmed receiving all this and said that if their medical advisor agreed they'd send me a sort of provisional licence, a PADL, which would enable an approved instructor to let me drive an automatic car, which is all I want to do. I'm still waiting!
I'm quite certain that I 'failed' not because of my physical problems but mainly because of the habits I've developed over the 65 years since I passed my initial test. However, were I to start again I would be tempted NOT to tell DVLA about my problems in the first place. However I would recommend anyone who has been driving for many years to have a professional assessment. It did make me think!
Very good post, and an illustration of how difficult an issue this can be for older people and their relatives. It’s especially an issue for those who live in more rural areas, and have come to rely on their car because they can’t walk or cycle long distances or carrying loads such as shopping.
The way forward is probably biennial medial assessments though.
Yes; I live in an area with one bus an hour each way. It's two buses to both of the 'local' hospital's too.
Another difficult issue is persuading older people to move when their current location doesn't work for them any more. Ideally they do it earlier than needed so they can put down roots in a new place, with better public transport etc.
Public transport was better when we moved here. To be fair we can get most of what we need locally, including socialisation, and there are delivery services.
I didn't mean this as a direct comment on you - apologies if it came off that way.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
Indeed. Our current government seems to be struggling to come up with a coherent programme despite having a whacking great majority. Its predecessor was also rubbish at doing the same thing.
I think it's just another example of reasoning backwards from a conclusion already determined.
What is indisputable is the undemocratic nature of FPTP. The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion.
"The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion."
Surely you'd accept that considering the outcomes of a system is critical in determining whether a system is better or worse than alternatives?
Show me the back to back experiments which demonstrate that.
You can't, as they don't exist. Why usually happens is the comparison of one country with another, quite different one. Along with a heap of cherry picking.
The other point is that there are likely many factors more important than the electoral system in determining the effectiveness of government.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
But enforcement is not. There is or should be a gap between the medical branch and the enforcement branch. GPs are not police and police are not GPs.
What point are you trying to make here? Seems like a lot of words to say "nothing to see here, all is well". The point is that GPs are failing to intervene in their own patients driving when unfit to do so. That strikes me as a problem. Do you disagree?
In 2024 during a Labour Government Starmer, to muted applause, states the NHS is broken. In 2010 during a Conservative Government the NHS was delivering historical levels of satisfaction.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
With GPs it always runs into the same objection as with requiring GPs to report various items - "We are Doctors, not Policemen; requiring us to do that could prevent the public from seeking medical care". It's a similar tension as around the NHS recovering cost from overseas visitors who have no cover - "we are not a business".
That's one reason I favour the optometrist route for eyesight, and they already have the equipment in place to check easily, and why I prefer a central requirement - which imo helps skirt some objections.
I think doing something at both the elderly end, and the youth end (ie Graduated Licences), at the same time, is good politics.
The reporting of #porridgegate has been atrocious. You expect it of the tabloids, but Radio 4 Today were at it saying porridge had been labelled unhealthy.
Quaker Rolled Oats - 1g of sugar per 100g
Quaker Golden Syrup Oats - 15g per 100g
The latter’s ads are banned, the first are not.
I don’t think the reporters are too stupid the know the difference, so it’s obviously a confected story for the sake of a cheap headline. A bit bloody pathetic really. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1864297916883521973
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Always impressed by how many people are drinking alcohol at the airport at 10am.
It's shocking isn't it. We are a nation of alkies.
It is important to remember to sneer at the 10am lager drinkers from the *right* lounge. After the second free G&T.
Indeed, always plenty of people getting sloshed on free lounge booze too. It's really gross and must be quite unpleasant for the cabin crew to deal with. It's not like I haven't done this myself in my younger days - I once flew back from the Caribbean overnight with some friends and spent the whole flight downing beers, which the flight attendants continued serving to us the whole night! But I'm certainly old enough to know better now, and wouldn't have more than one drink on or before an evening or overnight flight, and wouldn't drink during the day at all. I don't suffer from any kind of anxiety about flying. It's extremely safe, even more so sober.
I shall, however, be enjoying a drink or two on the overnight ferry from Dakar to Ziguinchor, given its colourful history:
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
Given such an intervention by the GP could save the life of their patient and others, they need to step in. The anecdotal evidence is that they are often unwilling to do. Even when the patient has dementia!
I thought it was a legal requirement for a GP to inform DVLA if a patient is driving when unfit
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
Plenty of people were alarmed by it.
It was rash and reckless and set a trap for the incoming labour govt.
However the incoming labour govt, and Reeves, were very happy to talk down the economy and their whole approach undermined business and consumer confidence all for partisan political points. Equally as egregious as Hunt cutting NI twice.
He's using fixing foundations, repairing damp rot in a wall and using a hairdryer to cheat all in one sentence.
He is a really dreary speaker. His speeches are tiresome and his delivery worse, but then Johnson's speeches were useless too, but on a completely different level.
Compare and contrast Starmer with Blair and Wilson.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
But enforcement is not. There is or should be a gap between the medical branch and the enforcement branch. GPs are not police and police are not GPs.
@bondegezou quoted paras clearly show a stat. duty for a GP to report someone they think shouldn't be driving. It really doesn't look up to them about what they think - it's similar to auditors having to report fraud, although the duty to inform the individual(s) concerned is strcitly positive in the case of a GP and strictly negative in the case of accountants "tipping off". There's plenty of other professions with statutory duties, I don't see why GPs are a unique snowflake species when it comes to this sort of stuff.
Can anyone report someone they think is unfit to drive to the DVLA or does it HAVE to be a/their medical professional (or themselves) ?
Anyone can, but it's toothless unless the GP certifies them unfit. Which, in my experience, they are unwilling to do – even when the driver has dementia. Essentially the burden of proof is on the complainant... you have to somehow 'prove' that they are unfit (rather than the driver prove that they are fit!).
This all sounds lovely but what is Starmer really saying here? He wants the state to be more dynamic, so what is he proposing to do to the civil service other than tell them they must be?
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
With GPs it always runs into the same objection as with requiring GPs to report various items - "We are Doctors, not Policemen; requiring us to do that could prevent the public from seeking medical care". It's a similar tension as around the NHS recovering cost from overseas visitors who have no cover - "we are not a business".
That's one reason I favour the optometrist route for eyesight, and they already have the equipment in place to check easily, and why I prefer a central requirement - which imo helps skirt some objections.
I think doing something at both the elderly end, and the youth end (ie Graduated Licences), at the same time, is good politics.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
And the idea that government decisions are binary choices is self evident nonsense.
Has Parris been asleep for the past 14 years? You might have made that argument in 2010, with no recent experience of coalitions and following a string of governments that mostly knew what they were about, even if you didn't agree with them. The best argument against FPTP is the governments it has produced since 2015.
As an aside, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post! E.g. in Exmouth and Exeter East the "winning" candidate polled just 28.7% of the vote, and other similarly low examples are available. In many other seats 40% is a losing score. If anything AV should be called First Past the Post as it requires a candidate to go past the post of 50%. FPTP needs to be called Most Popular Candidate - MPC - or something like that. (Or Least Unpopular?)
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
Given such an intervention by the GP could save the life of their patient and others, they need to step in. The anecdotal evidence is that they are often unwilling to do. Even when the patient has dementia!
I thought it was a legal requirement for a GP to inform DVLA if a patient is driving when unfit
I have just seen Bondegezous post... it shows it is better to follow your doctor's advice. Certainly don't surrender your licence unless you have to, as DVLA are incredibly slow and incompetent at reinstating them. And if you don't follow your doctor's advice he is likely to DVLA and they will revoke it.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
The reporting of #porridgegate has been atrocious. You expect it of the tabloids, but Radio 4 Today were at it saying porridge had been labelled unhealthy.
Quaker Rolled Oats - 1g of sugar per 100g
Quaker Golden Syrup Oats - 15g per 100g
The latter’s ads are banned, the first are not.
I don’t think the reporters are too stupid the know the difference, so it’s obviously a confected story for the sake of a cheap headline. A bit bloody pathetic really. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1864297916883521973
Indeed.
Did you witness the ludicrous pile on by otherwise intelligent posters on here last night? @Richard_Tyndall twice called me a liar for making this exact point. No apology has been tendered, despite my (overly?) polite responses to him. This was all trivially googleable, but some people just want to be outranged for no reason. See also, @viewcode – who is seemingly unable to grasp the difference between porridge oats and processed sweetened junk food that contains porridge oats.
The usual progression of Trump appointments from administration posts to prison is something Trump seems to looking to reverse this time around.
Peter NAVARRO becomes the first person charged/convicted over Trump's 2020 actions (served 4 months for contempt of Congress) to get a job in second Trump administration. https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1864343759124566028
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
And the idea that government decisions are binary choices is self evident nonsense.
Has Parris been asleep for the past 14 years? You might have made that argument in 2010, with no recent experience of coalitions and following a string of governments that mostly knew what they were about, even if you didn't agree with them. The best argument against FPTP is the governments it has produced since 2015.
As an aside, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post! E.g. in Exmouth and Exeter East the "winning" candidate polled just 28.7% of the vote, and other similarly low examples are available. In many other seats 40% is a losing score. If anything AV should be called First Past the Post as it requires a candidate to go past the post of 50%. FPTP needs to be called Most Popular Candidate - MPC - or something like that. (Or Least Unpopular?)
I have a bee in my bonnet about this, and it crops up from time to time, so thanks for joining my bandwagon. My view of FPTP is that the 'post' is not relevant to the constituency - for the reasons you state - but to the election as a whole: the post is at 325 MPs - i.e. enough for a majority.
In a single seat - or, for example, for the London mayoralty - it is not a FPTP election but a simple plurality vote.
We had quite a ding-dong about this last time I raised it (Bart, I think) so I will concede that other views are available.
Can anyone report someone they think is unfit to drive to the DVLA or does it HAVE to be a/their medical professional (or themselves) ?
Yes you can report directly to the DVLA but it doesn't follow they will ban a driver without medical advice
Well that's fair enough. I could report @Big_G_NorthWales as an unsafe driver because I disagreed with him on PB so it is quite correct that a specialist gives a second opinion after my wholly unfair and vindictive report.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
And the idea that government decisions are binary choices is self evident nonsense.
Has Parris been asleep for the past 14 years? You might have made that argument in 2010, with no recent experience of coalitions and following a string of governments that mostly knew what they were about, even if you didn't agree with them. The best argument against FPTP is the governments it has produced since 2015.
As an aside, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post! E.g. in Exmouth and Exeter East the "winning" candidate polled just 28.7% of the vote, and other similarly low examples are available. In many other seats 40% is a losing score. If anything AV should be called First Past the Post as it requires a candidate to go past the post of 50%. FPTP needs to be called Most Popular Candidate - MPC - or something like that. (Or Least Unpopular?)
I believe the name Single Member Plurality is used instead of FPTP in technical discussions for that reason.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
I thought @TSE was going to do something about the abuse of flags. This post was flagged so that hasn't happened yet.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
Given such an intervention by the GP could save the life of their patient and others, they need to step in. The anecdotal evidence is that they are often unwilling to do. Even when the patient has dementia!
There is a culture of pearl-clutching and absence of personal responsibility. If you have an elderly relative who is clearly unfit to drive and a danger to others, there is no doubt in my mind that you have a moral duty to remove that danger.
If the GP, police or DVLA don't do anything about it, then it's up to you. Best way would be to hide the keys, take it to the mechanic and have it disabled or some similar scheme. Online forums have hundreds of cases of people being forced to do stuff like this.
I think doing something at both the elderly end, and the youth end (ie Graduated Licences), at the same time, is good politics.
I've banged this drum here before, but it can stand to be repeated. A lot of RTCs could be prevented by mandatory competence checks for drivers. Just a basic 15 minute check would do, to ensure the driver isn't grossly dangerous. Make it every two years for under 70s, every year otherwise. GPs and opticians would be able to refer drivers for an out of schedule check if they believe a patients driving ability may be impaired.
Graduated licences are a nice idea but very tricky to get right in practice. They already exist in the UK for motorcycles, but that system is horribly broken to the point of increasing the danger faced by many newer riders and making progression for even experienced riders much more difficult than it should be.
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
But ultimely medical fitness to drive is a GP responsibility
But enforcement is not. There is or should be a gap between the medical branch and the enforcement branch. GPs are not police and police are not GPs.
@bondegezou quoted paras clearly show a stat. duty for a GP to report someone they think shouldn't be driving. It really doesn't look up to them about what they think - it's similar to auditors having to report fraud, although the duty to inform the individual(s) concerned is strcitly positive in the case of a GP and strictly negative in the case of accountants "tipping off". There's plenty of other professions with statutory duties, I don't see why GPs are a unique snowflake species when it comes to this sort of stuff.
Ah, I see. I hadn't read them and did not know that: apols.
He's using fixing foundations, repairing damp rot in a wall and using a hairdryer to cheat all in one sentence.
He really is hopeless.
Not sure he is doing himself any favours, not least because he is hopeless at speeches and simply does not inspire
Imagine this was Blair, and he would be listened to
Sometimes people protest too much it's clear they are frit.
Let's compare with screeching Rush, deranged Liz, completely incoherent coked up Boris, terrible Theresa,....
Cameron was plausible, Brown limited, Blair slightly above average..
Frit - you are hilarious
The only people frit are pensioners, farmers, and small businesses, together with mortgage holders with higher interest rates for longer under Reeves jobs and growth destroying budget
One of the most irritating failings of the BBC Politics page (among many) is its seeming inability to ever say when a major political speech is taking place. Does anyone know when Sir Keir is standing up – and where I can watch it (assume BBC/Sky News channel)?
11am.
Thanks – appreciate the heads-up.
Out of interest, from where did you source that intel?
Now 11.15 accord to Sky
Okay thanks Big G. Hope you sort out your issue by the way – it's a horrible situation and one that is seemingly more commonplace than one might think.
Thank you and it is a very seriously widespread issue that needs firm action by GPs and Opticians
Presumably the idea is you don't want GPs enforcing this because it damages the GP/patient relationship and might put people off seeing their GP. You want GPs to be carers, not policemen.
Given such an intervention by the GP could save the life of their patient and others, they need to step in. The anecdotal evidence is that they are often unwilling to do. Even when the patient has dementia!
There is a culture of pearl-clutching and absence of personal responsibility. If you have an elderly relative who is clearly unfit to drive and a danger to others, there is no doubt in my mind that you have a moral duty to remove that danger.
If the GP, police or DVLA don't do anything about it, then it's up to you. Best way would be to hide the keys, take it to the mechanic and have it disabled or some similar scheme. Online forums have hundreds of cases of people being forced to do stuff like this.
Ah yes, stealing the keys/car of another i.e. committing a crime. I'm sure many on here have pondered it – but to suggest that it's an advisable course of action is something of a stretch.
Comments
In future, perhaps some sort of AI gizmo under the bonnet will continually assess a driver's ability. If AI can't quite do self-driving, it can surely tell if the car slaloms in and out the white lines.
(I know people who work(ed) for the ONS)
The article makes some very good, and uncomfortable, points. Statistics is having a bit of a nervous breakdown at the moment, for the following reasons:
The replication crisis
The replication crisis is the discovery that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. If you went back to a similar group of people and did the same tests, you wouldn't necessarily get the same result. Ooops. The solution to this is "more studies", but there's no money for that, so instead we do systematic reviews and metastudies, which have problems of their own: they don't remove error so much as smooth it out, and although they can be done in a robust manner they frequently are not.
Desk statistics
Statistics cannot be done at the desk it must be done in the field: literally for agricultural statistics. You have to go out and check it in situ, and few do this
Data science vs classical stats
A young graduate with a good degree in DS/ML or similar can command a high salary in the city. A similar graduate with a classical stats degree will not. Guess what happens next. But data science isn't theoretically grounded - it just finds patterns - and the displacement of the latter by the former makes it very vulnerable to blind spots and pattern changes. Recall my spat in the comments when some real-life data users made a colossal mistake and I went full Mugatu in the comments and had to bring in Anscombe’s Quartet
Lack of trust
Lack of trust of the people in Government leads to poor responses and as we all know differential response causes problems
The blob
More government, more statistics, more difficulty, more criticism. There are limits on what can be done with what we have, and no appetite for more statisticians or less government
There are more points I wish to make but no time and no headspace, so hopefully this will do
https://archive.is/apXSQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe's_quartet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AUE6rXW45A
Ask Dyson to repair it under warranty.
If they say warranty is only 2 years, tell them you would consider that model should last longer and that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides legal rights up to 6 years.
It would be unreasonable to expect Tesco to replace a £10 kettle that breaks after 3 years.
It would be entirely reasonable to expect a vacuum cleaner costing £700 to last for 6 years unless it has been mis-used.
The vast majority of the cost in repairs is labour, they may just send a new main body/cyclone out FOC
If they refuse to budge, buy a new different brand and issue a small claim using MCOL for a 'reasonable amount'.
If it cost £700 and was say 3 years old, maybe £200 would be reasonable.
Dyson highly unlikely to defend, you have offered them opportunity to rectify and there is little cost to you in making a claim.
Alternatively follow them with your dash cam turned on and post the result on the Go Safe reporting page.
Also, sometimes a party will end up standing an extra candidate to keep the local party happy, or to head off a row over candidate selection.
As far as the PR is concerned the actual speech could be made in a broom cupboard.
I think STV would change that for the better.
E
E
V
E
S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Brake campaign is around "Progressive licensing for young and newly qualified drivers", which means both characteristics. Young has factors developing hormones, impress my friends or a girl, 'I'm immortal' etc - which would at least in part be tempered by 1-2 year's experience. So it is aimed at new drivers under 21 for their first 6 months iirc.
https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/campaigning-for-change/the-change-we-want/young-drivers-and-gdl
Potential benefit is of the order of 1000-2000 KSIs avoided per annum, out of a total of just under 30k KSIs in the country per annum. It seems a good benefit for a modest intervention.
My personal experience is that I had one fault collision in my first year, when I skidded the family wagon off a getting-icy roundabout at 1am in December at age 17 and 8 months, shortly after passing my test.
It is compulsory to tell DVLA if you have dementia.
Its a notifiable condition like epilepsy.
I prseume police can easily check if DVLA has been notified.
Maybe that's a route to go down.
What is indisputable is the undemocratic nature of FPTP.
The attempt to demonstrate which form of voting provides more efficient government is just BS, in my opinion.
Surely you'd accept that considering the outcomes of a system is critical in determining whether a system is better or worse than alternatives?
Doctors and other healthcare professionals should:
advise the individual on the impact of their medical condition for safe driving ability
advise the individual on their legal requirement to notify DVLA of any relevant condition
treat, manage and monitor the individual’s condition with ongoing consideration of their fitness to drive
notify DVLA when fitness to drive requires notification but an individual cannot or will not notify DVLA themselves
64.If it is not practicable to seek consent, and in exceptional cases where a patient has refused consent, disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. The benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure must outweigh both the patient’s and the public interest in keeping the information confidential.
68.If you consider that failure to disclose the information would leave individuals or society exposed to a risk so serious that it outweighs patients’ and the public interest in maintaining confidentiality, you should disclose relevant information promptly to an appropriate person or authority. You should inform the patient before disclosing the information, if it is practicable and safe to do so, even if you intend to disclose without their consent.
And:
6.If a patient has a condition or is undergoing treatment that could impair their fitness to drive, you should:
a. explain this to the patient and tell them that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or DVA
b. tell the patient that you may be obliged to disclose relevant medical information about them, in confidence, to the DVLA or DVA if they continue to drive when they are not fit to do so
c. make a note of any advice you have given to a patient about their fitness to drive in their medical record.
7.If a patient is incapable of understanding this advice – for example, because of dementia – you should inform the DVLA or DVA as soon as practicable.
8.If a patient refuses to accept the diagnosis, or the effect of the condition or treatment on their ability to drive, you can suggest that they seek a second opinion, and help arrange for them to do so. You should advise the patient not to drive in the meantime. As long as the patient agrees, you may discuss your concerns with their relatives, friends or carers.
9.If you become aware that a patient is continuing to drive when they may not be fit to do so, you should make every reasonable effort to persuade them to stop. If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop driving, or you discover that they are continuing to drive against your advice, you should consider whether the patient’s refusal to stop driving leaves others exposed to a risk of death or serious harm. If you believe that it does, you should contact the DVLA or DVA promptly and disclose any relevant medical information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.
10.Before contacting the DVLA or DVA, you should try to inform the patient of your intention to disclose personal information. If the patient objects to the disclosure, you should consider any reasons they give for objecting. If you decide to contact the DVLA or DVA, you should tell your patient in writing once you have done so, and make a note on the patient’s record.
The whole system, such that any 'system' exists, is a shambles.
Big G is right on this.
It's not like I haven't done this myself in my younger days - I once flew back from the Caribbean overnight with some friends and spent the whole flight downing beers, which the flight attendants continued serving to us the whole night! But I'm certainly old enough to know better now, and wouldn't have more than one drink on or before an evening or overnight flight, and wouldn't drink during the day at all.
I don't suffer from any kind of anxiety about flying. It's extremely safe, even more so sober.
You can't, as they don't exist.
Why usually happens is the comparison of one country with another, quite different one. Along with a heap of cherry picking.
The other point is that there are likely many factors more important than the electoral system in determining the effectiveness of government.
With GPs it always runs into the same objection as with requiring GPs to report various items - "We are Doctors, not Policemen; requiring us to do that could prevent the public from seeking medical care". It's a similar tension as around the NHS recovering cost from overseas visitors who have no cover - "we are not a business".
That's one reason I favour the optometrist route for eyesight, and they already have the equipment in place to check easily, and why I prefer a central requirement - which imo helps skirt some objections.
I think doing something at both the elderly end, and the youth end (ie Graduated Licences), at the same time, is good politics.
He's using fixing foundations, repairing damp rot in a wall and using a hairdryer to cheat all in one sentence.
Quaker Rolled Oats - 1g of sugar per 100g
Quaker Golden Syrup Oats - 15g per 100g
The latter’s ads are banned, the first are not.
I don’t think the reporters are too stupid the know the difference, so it’s obviously a confected story for the sake of a cheap headline. A bit bloody pathetic really.
https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1864297916883521973
Order your copy today: http://lnkfi.re/lAxuCn
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1864626829073518621
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/world/africa/senegal-ferry-joola.html
It was rash and reckless and set a trap for the incoming labour govt.
However the incoming labour govt, and Reeves, were very happy to talk down the economy and their whole approach undermined business and consumer confidence all for partisan political points. Equally as egregious as Hunt cutting NI twice.
Compare and contrast Starmer with Blair and Wilson.
As an aside, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post! E.g. in Exmouth and Exeter East the "winning" candidate polled just 28.7% of the vote, and other similarly low examples are available. In many other seats 40% is a losing score. If anything AV should be called First Past the Post as it requires a candidate to go past the post of 50%. FPTP needs to be called Most Popular Candidate - MPC - or something like that. (Or Least Unpopular?)
Did you witness the ludicrous pile on by otherwise intelligent posters on here last night? @Richard_Tyndall twice called me a liar for making this exact point. No apology has been tendered, despite my (overly?) polite responses to him. This was all trivially googleable, but some people just want to be outranged for no reason. See also, @viewcode – who is seemingly unable to grasp the difference between porridge oats and processed sweetened junk food that contains porridge oats.
Imagine this was Blair, and he would be listened to
Peter NAVARRO becomes the first person charged/convicted over Trump's 2020 actions (served 4 months for contempt of Congress) to get a job in second Trump administration.
https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1864343759124566028
It was embarrassing Dad syndrome.
I have some sympathy for him. I think he means well but just comes over terribly.
In a single seat - or, for example, for the London mayoralty - it is not a FPTP election but a simple plurality vote.
We had quite a ding-dong about this last time I raised it (Bart, I think) so I will concede that other views are available.
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1864626829073518621
Since I know PB loves Chistmas adverts. And Boris.
Whether they can deliver on them, we shall see. But at least they are showing ambition.
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
I guess though they can fudge it as the election will be in 2029.
Let's compare with screeching Rush, deranged Liz, completely incoherent coked up Boris, terrible Theresa,....
Cameron was plausible, Brown limited, Blair slightly above average..
If he doesn't set targets, he's unambitious and has no plan.
If he does, he is creating "hostages to fortune".
If the GP, police or DVLA don't do anything about it, then it's up to you. Best way would be to hide the keys, take it to the mechanic and have it disabled or some similar scheme. Online forums have hundreds of cases of people being forced to do stuff like this.
Graduated licences are a nice idea but very tricky to get right in practice. They already exist in the UK for motorcycles, but that system is horribly broken to the point of increasing the danger faced by many newer riders and making progression for even experienced riders much more difficult than it should be.
If you disagree with someone, discuss it via a comment, rather than hiding behind the anonymity of the flag.
The only people frit are pensioners, farmers, and small businesses, together with mortgage holders with higher interest rates for longer under Reeves jobs and growth destroying budget