Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
One of the injured parties might want to bring a private prosecution, in particular if they need better injury compensation from the insurance for example. This would surely result in the person's name being revealed.
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Could he (the driver) and his colleagues belong to a certain religion, who's members have been in the habit lately, of running down and killing, in Europe and the Mid East, all those not muslims?
It may not be so, but the squirming and back tracking from PBers is a sight to to behold, in case that happens to be true, so much for our disappearing freedoms.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
However it is all very peculiar, and I can't recall a similar case where the powers-that-be were so secretive. They won't even release the names of the OTHER bin-men in the cabin. EVER.
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Could he (the driver) and his colleagues belong to a certain religion, who's members have been in the habit lately, of running down and killing, in Europe and the Mid East, all those not muslims?
It may not be so, but the squirming and back tracking from PBers is a sight to to behold, in case that happens to be true, so much for our disappearing freedoms.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
However it is all very peculiar, and I can't recall a similar case where the powers-that-be were so secretive. They won't even release the names of the OTHER bin-men in the cabin. EVER.
??!
I doubt that its the case, because its going to come out sooner or later, probably sooner the way things work these days, and hushing up the story on the grounds that the driver was of a religion that might lead people to draw conclusion would be courageous, in the Yes Minister sense of the word. Expect to see the names in a foreign newspaper with links to the British press in a week or two imo.
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Could he (the driver) and his colleagues belong to a certain religion, who's members have been in the habit lately, of running down and killing, in Europe and the Mid East, all those not muslims?
It may not be so, but the squirming and back tracking from PBers is a sight to to behold, in case that happens to be true, so much for our disappearing freedoms.
I guess there's quite a bit of spare tin foil kicking about at this time of year, though gravy in the hair can be a problem.
Anecdotally I've heard there was a bit of abuse directed at cleansing guys emptying litter bins by drunken 'revellers'. In that light I can sort of see the logic behind protecting the driver's identity, though don't agree with it. Again anecdotally, I was told the refuse lorries are supposed to have a dead man's switch; if so, something wrong with the technology if it was a heart attack/fit.
I find it hard to believe someone of your age doesn't know his NINO. I rather suspect you are using it as a stick to beat the Govt in its attempt to eradicate fraudulent voting.
Why should I know it? How often do I need it - maybe twice a year? Why bother to memorise it? Do you know your driving licence ID? Your NHS number? Your tax office reference number? Your frequent flyer numbers? Life is full of identifiers, and too short to bother to memorise them.
With respect, your view is typical of a certain type of legislator, who just assumes that everyone is like themselves, and a certain type of political activist, who suspects that all disagreement is politically-motivated.
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Why does the public have to know the truth ? What will they do differently if they know the identity of the driver . Certainly those injured and the relatives of those who died deserve to know the truth but the general public - No .
Sorry to harp on, but I find this just plain weird. The identity of the driver of the Glasgow lorry will be concealed, sorry, "protected" indefinitely. It will "never be released".
Damn peculiar. Surely there will have to be an inquest, when all the facts are laid out, or don't they have them in Scotland? Don't people deserve to know exactly what happened to whom and why, and whether the driver was in any way culpable?
How can the authorities just say "look, he probably had a heart attack, that's all we're telling you" and expect victims and relatives to accept that?
Like I say, if I were minded towards conspiracy theories, then this would be a keeper. Luckily, I'm not. Yet.
Isn’t there work roster somewhere for the bin-men? Is EVERYONE who knows going to keep, or be kept schtum?
I know journaists have been done over recently for bribing public officials but I can’t see that someone isn’t going to be able to exchange the info for a price. And someone outside UK jurisdiction is going to be able to pay that price.
Not UK jurisdiction: only Scots, presumably, unless the council [edit] were to take out an injunction in England as well (but see below). (It has worked the other way before: the Herald and the Scotsman were able to publish material injuncted by a celeb whose English lawyers assumed that English law was the be all and end all for the UK media.).
In any case, are you all not perhaps jumping to conclusions? The Scotsman report only says that the COUNCIL won't release the information - not that someone else can't. And the Council don't control FAIs (or Public Inquiries) - it is the Procurator Fiscal.
All that is - I infer - happening is that the binmen are being protected from the media for the time being as part of good employment practice and duty to their staff's health. Very possibly there will be a FAI - I would be surprised if there is not - but the binmen are being given a breathing space.
Which is hardly a formula as NPMP was asking for. Its a pattern stating 2 alphabetic characters, followed by six numeric characters in 3 groups of 2, followed by a further alphabetic character - I think we all got that bit, that question was could you validate a correct NINO.
The answer is yes, after a fashion, all numbers in the middle section are valid, HMRC publish a table with all the prefix pairs that have been used for validation purposes, and there are several special case prefix pairs to take into account. The suffix is normally either A,B,C or D (although F,M and P have been used historically) which makes your regular expression over broad. It would be like describing a credit card number as a number with between 16 and 19 digits, which whilst true is massively over broad). There is no way AFAIK to tell if a particular number is valid short of asking HMRC.
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Why does the public have to know the truth ? What will they do differently if they know the identity of the driver . Certainly those injured and the relatives of those who died deserve to know the truth but the general public - No .
Yes we do, we are all potentially victims of unguided dustcarts and need to know, for example, that Glasgow City Council was not negligent. In any case I doubt it is a competent authority to keep the information secret.
Can we leave the events in Glasgow alone and talk about NINO/Post-Codes/Toe-nails (or summinck)...?
Plenty of Regular-Expressions available online to define them...!
:and-breathe:
Are you making a case that PB should only discuss fluffy thoughts?
I care not for Scotland, but I remember Oslo: We rush-in too fast and end-up only looking foolish. How many amongst us blamed muzzies when it was a blue-eyed, blonde Norwegian that slaughtered so many...?
P.S. Humour can be expressed with smilies: If that was you intention then forgive me....
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Why does the public have to know the truth ? What will they do differently if they know the identity of the driver . Certainly those injured and the relatives of those who died deserve to know the truth but the general public - No .
I'd imagine his neighbours would want to give him a bit of extra room when he's backing out of the drive
Which is hardly a formula as NPMP was asking for. Its a pattern stating 2 alphabetic characters, followed by six numeric characters in 3 groups of 2, followed by a further alphabetic character - I think we all got that bit, that question was could you validate a correct NINO.
The answer is yes, after a fashion, all numbers in the middle section are valid, HMRC publish a table with all the prefix pairs that have been used for validation purposes, and there are several special case prefix pairs to take into account. The suffix is normally either A,B,C or D (although F,M and P have been used historically) which makes your regular expression over broad. It would be like describing a credit card number as a number with between 16 and 19 digits, which whilst true is massively over broad)
In 1987 I knew a knew teacher who had bought a driving-licence via friends in Sarf' Luhn'dahn' and internal criminals in Swansea DLC. Nothing is secure: The pattern is clear...!
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Why does the public have to know the truth ? What will they do differently if they know the identity of the driver . Certainly those injured and the relatives of those who died deserve to know the truth but the general public - No .
Yes we do, we are all potentially victims of unguided dustcarts and need to know, for example, that Glasgow City Council was not negligent. In any case I doubt it is a competent authority to keep the information secret.
It sounds like arguing semantics anyway, how could one inform the injured and relatives and have a reasonable expectation of it not leaking out to the press with in a small number of days, even less if any of them feel they are aggrieved parties that are not getting a full hearing.
Which is hardly a formula as NPMP was asking for. Its a pattern stating 2 alphabetic characters, followed by six numeric characters in 3 groups of 2, followed by a further alphabetic character - I think we all got that bit, that question was could you validate a correct NINO.
The answer is yes, after a fashion, all numbers in the middle section are valid, HMRC publish a table with all the prefix pairs that have been used for validation purposes, and there are several special case prefix pairs to take into account. The suffix is normally either A,B,C or D (although F,M and P have been used historically) which makes your regular expression over broad. It would be like describing a credit card number as a number with between 16 and 19 digits, which whilst true is massively over broad)
In 1987 I knew a knew teacher who had bought a driving-licence via friends in Sarf' Luhn'dahn' and internal criminals in Swansea DLC. Nothing is secure: The pattern is clear...!
On that you are dead right, and you live in the UK where its not the tradition to use "gratuities", "express processing fees" and "under the table payments" to make little inconveniences in paperwork, such as not being qualified, go away!
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
Tut, tut, tut....
Who would employ them? Ok; outwith the SNP...?
Do you really think that, if - as you intimate - they are baddies then Cheltenham and Akritiri are not already tapping their communications? Are the "Five-Eyes" blind...?
I care nothing for Scots' law. I do trust certain Scots' lawyers....
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
Same Lord Malloch-Brown that demanded a suite in The Admiralty? How the hell did "t'Economist" hire such a low-life...?
Sorry to harp on, but I find this just plain weird. The identity of the driver of the Glasgow lorry will be concealed, sorry, "protected" indefinitely. It will "never be released".
Damn peculiar. Surely there will have to be an inquest, when all the facts are laid out, or don't they have them in Scotland? Don't people deserve to know exactly what happened to whom and why, and whether the driver was in any way culpable?
How can the authorities just say "look, he probably had a heart attack, that's all we're telling you" and expect victims and relatives to accept that?
Like I say, if I were minded towards conspiracy theories, then this would be a keeper. Luckily, I'm not. Yet.
Isn’t there work roster somewhere for the bin-men? Is EVERYONE who knows going to keep, or be kept schtum?
I know journaists have been done over recently for bribing public officials but I can’t see that someone isn’t going to be able to exchange the info for a price. And someone outside UK jurisdiction is going to be able to pay that price.
Not UK jurisdiction: only Scots, presumably, unless the council [edit] were to take out an injunction in England as well (but see below). (It has worked the other way before: the Herald and the Scotsman were able to publish material injuncted by a celeb whose English lawyers assumed that English law was the be all and end all for the UK media.).
In any case, are you all not perhaps jumping to conclusions? The Scotsman report only says that the COUNCIL won't release the information - not that someone else can't. And the Council don't control FAIs (or Public Inquiries) - it is the Procurator Fiscal.
All that is - I infer - happening is that the binmen are being protected from the media for the time being as part of good employment practice and duty to their staff's health. Very possibly there will be a FAI - I would be surprised if there is not - but the binmen are being given a breathing space.
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
I'm asuming this was a genuine "accident", but there are very few accidents that don't have a preventable cause. We need to know if the dustcart was regularly maintained, if the driver had any underlying medical condition that should have prevented him from driving, if there were any safety systems that failed, etc. I can understand the council not releasing his name - normally at this stage you would assume employer-employee confidentiality anyway - but it shouldn't prevent there being some sort of public inquiry in due course.
Which is hardly a formula as NPMP was asking for. Its a pattern stating 2 alphabetic characters, followed by six numeric characters in 3 groups of 2, followed by a further alphabetic character - I think we all got that bit, that question was could you validate a correct NINO.
The answer is yes, after a fashion, all numbers in the middle section are valid, HMRC publish a table with all the prefix pairs that have been used for validation purposes, and there are several special case prefix pairs to take into account. The suffix is normally either A,B,C or D (although F,M and P have been used historically) which makes your regular expression over broad. It would be like describing a credit card number as a number with between 16 and 19 digits, which whilst true is massively over broad)
In 1987 I knew a knew teacher who had bought a driving-licence via friends in Sarf' Luhn'dahn' and internal criminals in Swansea DLC. Nothing is secure: The pattern is clear...!
On that you are dead right, and you live in the UK where its not the tradition to use "gratuities", "express processing fees" and "under the table payments" to make little inconveniences in paperwork, such as not being qualified, go away!
Sorry to harp on, but I find this just plain weird. The identity of the driver of the Glasgow lorry will be concealed, sorry, "protected" indefinitely. It will "never be released".
Damn peculiar. Surely there will have to be an inquest, when all the facts are laid out, or don't they have them in Scotland? Don't people deserve to know exactly what happened to whom and why, and whether the driver was in any way culpable?
How can the authorities just say "look, he probably had a heart attack, that's all we're telling you" and expect victims and relatives to accept that?
Like I say, if I were minded towards conspiracy theories, then this would be a keeper. Luckily, I'm not. Yet.
Isn’t there work roster somewhere for the bin-men? Is EVERYONE who knows going to keep, or be kept schtum?
I know journaists have been done over recently for bribing public officials but I can’t see that someone isn’t going to be able to exchange the info for a price. And someone outside UK jurisdiction is going to be able to pay that price.
Not UK jurisdiction: only Scots, presumably, unless the council [edit] were to take out an injunction in England as well (but see below). (It has worked the other way before: the Herald and the Scotsman were able to publish material injuncted by a celeb whose English lawyers assumed that English law was the be all and end all for the UK media.).
In any case, are you all not perhaps jumping to conclusions? The Scotsman report only says that the COUNCIL won't release the information - not that someone else can't. And the Council don't control FAIs (or Public Inquiries) - it is the Procurator Fiscal.
All that is - I infer - happening is that the binmen are being protected from the media for the time being as part of good employment practice and duty to their staff's health. Very possibly there will be a FAI - I would be surprised if there is not - but the binmen are being given a breathing space.
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
It says only that the Council is involved. That the Council won't release the info. Not that it is stopping anyone else.
Great heavens, what's the matter with people today?!
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
I'm asuming this was a genuine "accident", but there are very few accidents that don't have a preventable cause. We need to know if the dustcart was regularly maintained, if the driver had any underlying medical condition that should have prevented him from driving, if there were any safety systems that failed, etc. I can understand the council not releasing his name - normally at this stage you would assume employer-employee confidentiality anyway - but it shouldn't prevent there being some sort of public inquiry in due course.
We ought to know the name of the driver and whether he had any health problems that hadn't been properly treated.
Quite. Propensity to have a heart attack doesn't usually stop you from driving, but insulin-dependent diabetes does, unless you can show that you are unlikely to have an unexpected hypo. The rules for HGVs are stricter than for cars. So it is possible, for example, that the driver isn't as innocent as we are led to believe.
Sorry to harp on, but I find this just plain weird. The identity of the driver of the Glasgow lorry will be concealed, sorry, "protected" indefinitely. It will "never be released".
Damn peculiar. Surely there will have to be an inquest, when all the facts are laid out, or don't they have them in Scotland? Don't people deserve to know exactly what happened to whom and why, and whether the driver was in any way culpable?
How can the authorities just say "look, he probably had a heart attack, that's all we're telling you" and expect victims and relatives to accept that?
Like I say, if I were minded towards conspiracy theories, then this would be a keeper. Luckily, I'm not. Yet.
Isn’t there work roster somewhere for the bin-men? Is EVERYONE who knows going to keep, or be kept schtum?
I know journaists have been done over recently for bribing public officials but I can’t see that someone isn’t going to be able to exchange the info for a price. And someone outside UK jurisdiction is going to be able to pay that price.
Not UK jurisdiction: only Scots, presumably, unless the council [edit] were to take out an injunction in England as well (but see below). (It has worked the other way before: the Herald and the Scotsman were able to publish material injuncted by a celeb whose English lawyers assumed that English law was the be all and end all for the UK media.).
In any case, are you all not perhaps jumping to conclusions? The Scotsman report only says that the COUNCIL won't release the information - not that someone else can't. And the Council don't control FAIs (or Public Inquiries) - it is the Procurator Fiscal.
All that is - I infer - happening is that the binmen are being protected from the media for the time being as part of good employment practice and duty to their staff's health. Very possibly there will be a FAI - I would be surprised if there is not - but the binmen are being given a breathing space.
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
I'm asuming this was a genuine "accident", but there are very few accidents that don't have a preventable cause. We need to know if the dustcart was regularly maintained, if the driver had any underlying medical condition that should have prevented him from driving, if there were any safety systems that failed, etc. I can understand the council not releasing his name - normally at this stage you would assume employer-employee confidentiality anyway - but it shouldn't prevent there being some sort of public inquiry in due course.
Quite. Which the piece does not exclude.
"We will never release the names" seems a bit of a bold statement, which Glasgow City Council almost certainly does not have the legal authority to back up. Appending "unless and until required to do so by a competent legal authority" might have been sensible.
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
I'm asuming this was a genuine "accident", but there are very few accidents that don't have a preventable cause. We need to know if the dustcart was regularly maintained, if the driver had any underlying medical condition that should have prevented him from driving, if there were any safety systems that failed, etc. I can understand the council not releasing his name - normally at this stage you would assume employer-employee confidentiality anyway - but it shouldn't prevent there being some sort of public inquiry in due course.
Quite. Which the piece does not exclude.
"We will never release the names" seems a bit of a bold statement, which Glasgow City Council almost certainly does not have the legal authority to back up. Appending "unless and until required to do so by a competent legal authority" might have been sensible.
Quite so. One wonders if something like "to the media" was the actual context of that spokesperson's statement.
Since there is nowhere near a majority for any political party, we ought to start polling people to discover which party they least want in government.
If there was a majority against a particular party that would tell us the will of the people.
Perhaps the voting system could introduce a 'veto vote' (V V) system to show which party we don't want.
In sensible voting systems you can put all the parties in order. If you want to you can start with the one you hate most and work up to the one you hate least...
Surely better not to give even fourth preference to the party you hate most in case it ends up being the deciding vote.
Single Transferable Vote, keep listing until you have no further preference.
The Scotsman report goes a good deal further than "for the time being". They explicitly say the driver's ID will be "protected indefinitely" and his name will "never be released". That's quite dramatic, and odd.
AND they are doing the same for the two other guys in the cabin??!
It looks like a cover-up. I'm sure it isn't, I'm sure it's a cock-up. But it looks iffy. They need better media management, at least.
I'm asuming this was a genuine "accident", but there are very few accidents that don't have a preventable cause. We need to know if the dustcart was regularly maintained, if the driver had any underlying medical condition that should have prevented him from driving, if there were any safety systems that failed, etc. I can understand the council not releasing his name - normally at this stage you would assume employer-employee confidentiality anyway - but it shouldn't prevent there being some sort of public inquiry in due course.
Quite. Which the piece does not exclude.
"We will never release the names" seems a bit of a bold statement, which Glasgow City Council almost certainly does not have the legal authority to back up. Appending "unless and until required to do so by a competent legal authority" might have been sensible.
Quite so. One wonders if something like "to the media" was the actual context of that spokesperson's statement.
I suppose "we're certainly not going to tell you so f*** off" would have been considered rude, even in Glasgow.
Poor old MikeK, he so wants to be able to use the Glasgow tragedy as a means to attack Moslems, but it's not quite working. Maybe he can use it as a way into an ad hominem about lefties instead. Here's hoping ...
Poor old MikeK, he so wants to be able to use the Glasgow tragedy as a means to attack Moslems, but it's not quite working. Maybe he can use it as a way into an ad hominem about lefties instead. Here's hoping ...
That depends what one thinks SLAB is. But I don't think it is anything to do with that but just ordinary employer's commonsense (whatever might be the actual cause (s)).
On the Glasgow tragedy, I don't see the need to release the specific name of the individual unless they have committed a criminal act that led to the crash such as being under the influence of drink or drugs.
I do think though that the Council or the Police should reveal or publicly dismiss all of the possible causes such as whether the driver had a medical condition that affected his ability to perform his work safely, whether he suffered some sort of medical attack that led to the crash or any other factors that might be pertinent to the case. In doing so they would be showing that the Council had been acting properly and there was no cover up.
If it turns out that the driver was or is suspected of having committed a criminal act - and that would of course cover anything that MikeK might suspect - then that will come out in the fullness of time through a court case. If it does not then I do not believe it would be possible to cover it up.
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
On the Glasgow tragedy, I don't see the need to release the specific name of the individual unless they have committed a criminal act that led to the crash such as being under the influence of drink or drugs.
If it turns out that the driver was or is suspected of having committed a criminal act - and that would of course cover anything that MikeK might suspect - then that will come out in the fullness of time through a court case. If it does not then I do not believe it would be possible to cover it up.
What if the driver is innocent of any offence, but bears delictual responsibility for the accident, for which his employer is vicariously liable? To allow the local authority in such circumstances to choose whether or not to release his name would be to make the authority a judge in its own cause.
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
Presumably if we have electronic voting in polling stations the count would be much quicker and a lot cheaper. And even a lot more reliable.
On the Glasgow tragedy, I don't see the need to release the specific name of the individual unless they have committed a criminal act that led to the crash such as being under the influence of drink or drugs.
If it turns out that the driver was or is suspected of having committed a criminal act - and that would of course cover anything that MikeK might suspect - then that will come out in the fullness of time through a court case. If it does not then I do not believe it would be possible to cover it up.
What if the driver is innocent of any offence, but bears delictual responsibility for the accident, for which his employer is vicariously liable? To allow the local authority in such circumstances to choose whether or not to release his name would be to make the authority a judge in its own cause.
And, surely, in a situation where a Court could order the release of the name? Seems to me Glasgow Council painted itself into a corner where it will always be wrong!
It isn't up to the council to release the name of the driver and/or crew, that is the job of the procurator fiscal. The council have told the press to b*gger off, and the press have taken the hump, and now PB is wetting it's panties with conspiracy, blame, and excitement.
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
Presumably if we have electronic voting in polling stations the count would be much quicker and a lot cheaper. And even a lot more reliable.
Ok, but the stated reason for doing it is, much of the time, increasing engagement, not cost saving (although that is a part of it).
On the Glasgow tragedy, I don't see the need to release the specific name of the individual unless they have committed a criminal act that led to the crash such as being under the influence of drink or drugs.
If it turns out that the driver was or is suspected of having committed a criminal act - and that would of course cover anything that MikeK might suspect - then that will come out in the fullness of time through a court case. If it does not then I do not believe it would be possible to cover it up.
What if the driver is innocent of any offence, but bears delictual responsibility for the accident, for which his employer is vicariously liable? To allow the local authority in such circumstances to choose whether or not to release his name would be to make the authority a judge in its own cause.
No, the Local Authority has no legal responsibility to release his name in those circumstances to anyone but the police and the procurator fiscal. They can then look at all the evidence and decide whether charges should be brought against anyone and whether or not in that case the wider public should know the name.
Look at it another way. Suppose the accident was caused by the neglect of a mechanic or someone other than the man driving the lorry. In that instance releasing the name of the driver would do nothing to further justice and would potentially leave him open to unjustified attack prior to all the facts being known.
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
Presumably if we have electronic voting in polling stations the count would be much quicker and a lot cheaper. And even a lot more reliable.
Ok, but the stated reason for doing it is, much of the time, increasing engagement, not cost saving (although that is a part of it).
I suppose it’s harder with e-voting to write “None of the Above” or some such, or put the cross carefully exactly on the line between the boxes.
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
Presumably if we have electronic voting in polling stations the count would be much quicker and a lot cheaper. And even a lot more reliable.
Ok, but the stated reason for doing it is, much of the time, increasing engagement, not cost saving (although that is a part of it).
In today's world, there can be no justification in not having electronic voting. For God's sake, even India has it.
I have just had two posts disappear into the ether, so I suppose they have triggered the spam tram. Apologies if two posts on Australian Senate elections suddenly appear!
Poor old MikeK, he so wants to be able to use the Glasgow tragedy as a means to attack Moslems, but it's not quite working. Maybe he can use it as a way into an ad hominem about lefties instead. Here's hoping ...
Reminds me of that Norwegian carnage. Some PB Tories early on were almost rooting it to be an Islamic attack ! In the end, it was the raving Right who did it.
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
Presumably if we have electronic voting in polling stations the count would be much quicker and a lot cheaper. And even a lot more reliable.
Ok, but the stated reason for doing it is, much of the time, increasing engagement, not cost saving (although that is a part of it).
Pretty dubious about cost saving as well. We all know how well cost control goes on most government IT projects, it would rapidly make a few hundred people counting votes in school gyms look very affordable.
I dont see the real merit of being much faster, sure it keeps the BBC happy, but they dont pay the government for the results, so they can wait a few hours. Most people are happy to read the results in their morning paper or watch it on breakfast TV, the hardcore like us will stay up all night and watch the coverage.
I hope that all PBers and lurkers had a wonderful Christmas.
O/t: on the drive down from snowbound (*) Derbyshire this morning, none of the dozen or so windfarms we passed had any turbines turning. So I had a look: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
Presumably if we have electronic voting in polling stations the count would be much quicker and a lot cheaper. And even a lot more reliable.
Ok, but the stated reason for doing it is, much of the time, increasing engagement, not cost saving (although that is a part of it).
I suppose it’s harder with e-voting to write “None of the Above” or some such, or put the cross carefully exactly on the line between the boxes.
Yes, I hope there is a "I want to spoil my ballot" option in the e-voting booth.
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
I must confess I do not see the benefits of e-voting. If someone is engaged enough to want to vote but cannot be bothered to make a short trip to a polling station to cast their vote, then they cannot be that engaged. If they are physically unable to cast their vote in person we have ways of working around that so they are not disenfranchised as a result.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
Presumably if we have electronic voting in polling stations the count would be much quicker and a lot cheaper. And even a lot more reliable.
Ok, but the stated reason for doing it is, much of the time, increasing engagement, not cost saving (although that is a part of it).
In today's world, there can be no justification in not having electronic voting. For God's sake, even India has it.
Look at it another way. Suppose the accident was caused by the neglect of a mechanic or someone other than the man driving the lorry. In that instance releasing the name of the driver would do nothing to further justice and would potentially leave him open to unjustified attack prior to all the facts being known.
Well put. More generally, isn't there a case for not reporting names even in court cases (as I believe is already the case for juveniles) unless convicted, unless a judge rules there is some overriding public interest (e.g. a PM is charged with treason the day before an election, something voters ought to be aware of)? It's nice for the press to be able to report that Joe Smith looked uneasy in court and he lived at 17 Acacia Avenue, but 99.9% of us will never have heard of him, and the remaining 0.1% may thereafter suspect him forever even if he's found innocent.
I've seen this come up in the context of rape charges, but really it's a general principle: if you're innocent till proven guilty, then that should cover protection of reputation. A possible exception would be if the person charged is suspected of multiple offences, and the police are seeking other witnesses - but then why do we exempt juveniles?
I hope that all PBers and lurkers had a wonderful Christmas.
O/t: on the drive down from snowbound (*) Derbyshire this morning, none of the dozen or so windfarms we passed had any turbines turning. So I had a look: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
0.66GW. Pathetic on such a cold day.
(*) Meaning we had half an inch.
I am sure you are very warm by energy supplied by a heavily subsidised nuclear power station.
Poor old MikeK, he so wants to be able to use the Glasgow tragedy as a means to attack Moslems, but it's not quite working. Maybe he can use it as a way into an ad hominem about lefties instead. Here's hoping ...
Reminds me of that Norwegian carnage. Some PB Tories early on were almost rooting it to be an Islamic attack ! In the end, it was the raving Right who did it.
Not a happy line to take after several vehicles have crashed into public gatherings after shouting islamic slogans and the politicians and media are absolutely sure they are unconnected and just individual nutters. One wonders how many such coincidences have to happen at once before people think there might be more than chance at work here.
I find it hard to believe someone of your age doesn't know his NINO. I rather suspect you are using it as a stick to beat the Govt in its attempt to eradicate fraudulent voting.
Why should I know it? How often do I need it - maybe twice a year? Why bother to memorise it? Do you know your driving licence ID? Your NHS number? Your tax office reference number? Your frequent flyer numbers? Life is full of identifiers, and too short to bother to memorise them.
With respect, your view is typical of a certain type of legislator, who just assumes that everyone is like themselves, and a certain type of political activist, who suspects that all disagreement is politically-motivated.
Luckily I do not even know my debit card number. Therefore, each time I buy on the net, I have to have the card in front of me. At least, it is a check that I have got it. I also as a matter of disciplline do not memorise my password for access control. I once read make your brain ticking and don't make it lazy. Delay dementia !!
I've seen this come up in the context of rape charges, but really it's a general principle: if you're innocent till proven guilty, then that should cover protection of reputation. A possible exception would be if the person charged is suspected of multiple offences, and the police are seeking other witnesses - but then why do we exempt juveniles?
And yet there is no anonymity in rape cases for suspects despite YouGov finding that it is backed by 77% of the public. The problem of course being that if its even mentioned the sisterhood scream the house down with outrage and manhating. The Tories dropped a pledge to introduce anonymity for rape suspects to their shame, despite it being in the coalition agreement. But then again it was the Tories that repealed anonymity in 1988 after it was introduced by Labour in 1976. Disgraceful. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-10760239
Poor old MikeK, he so wants to be able to use the Glasgow tragedy as a means to attack Moslems, but it's not quite working. Maybe he can use it as a way into an ad hominem about lefties instead. Here's hoping ...
Reminds me of that Norwegian carnage. Some PB Tories early on were almost rooting it to be an Islamic attack ! In the end, it was the raving Right who did it.
Not a happy line to take after several vehicles have crashed into public gatherings after shouting islamic slogans and the politicians and media are absolutely sure they are unconnected and just individual nutters. One wonders how many such coincidences have to happen at once before people think there might be more than chance at work here.
During the riots a couple of years ago the were several unconnected loons pasting thngs on Facebook or wherever encouraging rioting.
Mr. T, the driver's identity being permanently kept secret seems a bit weird and unexpected.
Yep but I can see why. Surely its bad enough to know that you (albeit through illness) caused 6 people to die while you actually recovered. Imagine trying to live with that even without the press hassling you for photos.
Then imagine the same with 5 photographers sat outside your front door and your phone constantly ringing. When I first heard it I thought the driver probably wishes he died alongside the others and I imagine that could well be actually what he wants (which is another reason for keeping his name out of the press).
It's hideous for the poor guy. However 6 people died, ten were horribly injured, and a greater good is served if all the facts of the matter are revealed, for everyone to know.
Now I can see a reason to protect the driver's ID for a while. But "forever"? "Never to be revealed"? 1. it is impossible, 2 is this even legal?
We have to know why it happened. Did he have a heart attack, why didn’t he do what he’s unquestionably done a thousand times before.
And why couldn’t the others in the cab do something?
This bureaucratic secrecy is like something from the Soviet Union, when politically awkward accidents were covered up, or obscured. Bizarre.
The public has to know the truth. Would the police forever protect the identity of a man who accidentally caused a pile-up on a motorway, which killed six, and injured ten?
No. So why this guy?
Why does the public have to know the truth ? What will they do differently if they know the identity of the driver . Certainly those injured and the relatives of those who died deserve to know the truth but the general public - No .
Yes we do, we are all potentially victims of unguided dustcarts and need to know, for example, that Glasgow City Council was not negligent. In any case I doubt it is a competent authority to keep the information secret.
So, presumably, we should know the names of all dustcart drivers, lorry drivers, train drivers,...plane pilots........
Since there is nowhere near a majority for any political party, we ought to start polling people to discover which party they least want in government.
If there was a majority against a particular party that would tell us the will of the people.
Perhaps the voting system could introduce a 'veto vote' (V V) system to show which party we don't want.
In sensible voting systems you can put all the parties in order. If you want to you can start with the one you hate most and work up to the one you hate least...
Surely better not to give even fourth preference to the party you hate most in case it ends up being the deciding vote.
Single Transferable Vote, keep listing until you have no further preference.
In Australian senate elections you have to either (1) vote for a single party, in which case further transfers are carried out in the way decided by that political party, or vote for all candidates giving a preference, you are not allowed to stop voting when you have no further preferences. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate#Ballot_paper
Since there is nowhere near a majority for any political party, we ought to start polling people to discover which party they least want in government.
If there was a majority against a particular party that would tell us the will of the people.
Perhaps the voting system could introduce a 'veto vote' (V V) system to show which party we don't want.
In sensible voting systems you can put all the parties in order. If you want to you can start with the one you hate most and work up to the one you hate least...
Surely better not to give even fourth preference to the party you hate most in case it ends up being the deciding vote.
Single Transferable Vote, keep listing until you have no further preference.
In Australian Senate Elections, you either have to vote for a single party, in which case your remaining preferences will be distributed according to that party's (pre-announced) wishes, or give a preference to every candidate (there may be 80). You are not allowed to stop at say 12 and give no further preferences. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate#Ballot_paper
Since there is nowhere near a majority for any political party, we ought to start polling people to discover which party they least want in government.
If there was a majority against a particular party that would tell us the will of the people.
Perhaps the voting system could introduce a 'veto vote' (V V) system to show which party we don't want.
In sensible voting systems you can put all the parties in order. If you want to you can start with the one you hate most and work up to the one you hate least...
Surely better not to give even fourth preference to the party you hate most in case it ends up being the deciding vote.
Single Transferable Vote, keep listing until you have no further preference.
In Australian senate elections you have to either (1) vote for a single party, in which case further transfers are carried out in the way decided by that political party, or vote for all candidates giving a preference, you are not allowed to stop voting when you have no further preferences. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate#Ballot_paper
Since there is nowhere near a majority for any political party, we ought to start polling people to discover which party they least want in government.
If there was a majority against a particular party that would tell us the will of the people.
Perhaps the voting system could introduce a 'veto vote' (V V) system to show which party we don't want.
In sensible voting systems you can put all the parties in order. If you want to you can start with the one you hate most and work up to the one you hate least...
Surely better not to give even fourth preference to the party you hate most in case it ends up being the deciding vote.
Single Transferable Vote, keep listing until you have no further preference.
In Australian Senate Elections, you either have to vote for a single party, in which case your remaining preferences will be distributed according to that party's (pre-announced) wishes, or give a preference to every candidate (there may be 80). You are not allowed to stop at say 12 and give no further preferences. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate#Ballot_paper
Poor old MikeK, he so wants to be able to use the Glasgow tragedy as a means to attack Moslems, but it's not quite working. Maybe he can use it as a way into an ad hominem about lefties instead. Here's hoping ...
Reminds me of that Norwegian carnage. Some PB Tories early on were almost rooting it to be an Islamic attack ! In the end, it was the raving Right who did it.
Slow is being polite. Please engage your two remaining brain-cells next time....
As for the voting age can I suggest that such a clear understanding that Farage is a source of amusement rather than anyone you would seriously think about voting for shows they are more than ready to have the franchise. Better than many of their elders in fact who seem to have gained little from all that experience and supposedly superior judgement.
According to the poll, these are people who think that Eddie Izzard and Russell Brand have useful things to say about politics.
I would be amazed if you consider that to be an indictment of young people and not the elected politicians who should represent them.
Support for the main parties is sinking. Are we going to blame the people for that too?
Damn nuisance when that sort of thing happens Mr L. Sympathies.
Re the Aussie Senate are the candidates in alphabetical or random order. And is there any suggestion that having a canbdidates name high on the lost means they are more likely to be elected?
However it is all very peculiar, and I can't recall a similar case where the powers-that-be were so secretive. They won't even release the names of the OTHER bin-men in the cabin. EVER.
??!
Air, marine and rail accident reports give an interesting slant on this. It's common for no names, either of victims or people involved, to be released, even if they are to some degree at fault. It's just 'the victim, a male aged 35' or 'the driver'). This is the case even when the identity of the person causing the incident is well known - such as the suicide at Ufton Nervet ten years ago which caused seven fatalities.
The reason being the importance is to learn what went wrong (usually, as might be the case in the Glasgow tragedy, multiple causal factors) to try to mitigate them in the future. Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.
The important thing here is to learn what happened and to see what, if anything, could be done to prevent it in the future. I cannot see how releasing information on the driver at this stage would do anything other than harm that process, whatever presumptuous and stupid conspiracy theories people invent.
No, the Local Authority has no legal responsibility to release his name in those circumstances to anyone but the police and the procurator fiscal. They can then look at all the evidence and decide whether charges should be brought against anyone and whether or not in that case the wider public should know the name.
Look at it another way. Suppose the accident was caused by the neglect of a mechanic or someone other than the man driving the lorry. In that instance releasing the name of the driver would do nothing to further justice and would potentially leave him open to unjustified attack prior to all the facts being known.
Actions in delict have nothing whatever to do with the police or the fiscal. Their purpose is to vindicate the private law rights of injured parties. There is no good reason why a defender should have anonymity as a matter of course. The notion in England that a potential tortfeasor should have the right to anonymity unless criminal proceedings are instituted would be heretical. They may do things differently in Scotland, however.
I hope that all PBers and lurkers had a wonderful Christmas.
O/t: on the drive down from snowbound (*) Derbyshire this morning, none of the dozen or so windfarms we passed had any turbines turning. So I had a look: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
0.66GW. Pathetic on such a cold day.
(*) Meaning we had half an inch.
I am sure you are very warm by energy supplied by a heavily subsidised nuclear power station.
Well, without the 7.3GW we're getting from nuclear stations at this very moment, we'd be in real trouble.
I hope that all PBers and lurkers had a wonderful Christmas.
O/t: on the drive down from snowbound (*) Derbyshire this morning, none of the dozen or so windfarms we passed had any turbines turning. So I had a look: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
0.66GW. Pathetic on such a cold day.
(*) Meaning we had half an inch.
I am sure you are very warm by energy supplied by a heavily subsidised nuclear power station.
At last they are actually supplying energy. Unlike the wind sticks.
Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.
The difficulty with this assertion is that injured parties have a right to damages for injuries, occasioned in accidents, caused by a negligent breach of a duty owed to them by defendants. It is the constitutional function of the ordinary courts to determine whether they or not are liable, and those courts operate under a system of open justice. Thus the 'blame game' is both necessary and expedient.
However it is all very peculiar, and I can't recall a similar case where the powers-that-be were so secretive. They won't even release the names of the OTHER bin-men in the cabin. EVER.
??!
Air, marine and rail accident reports give an interesting slant on this. It's common for no names, either of victims or people involved, to be released, even if they are to some degree at fault. It's just 'the victim, a male aged 35' or 'the driver'). This is the case even when the identity of the person causing the incident is well known - such as the suicide at Ufton Nervet ten years ago which caused seven fatalities.
The reason being the importance is to learn what went wrong (usually, as might be the case in the Glasgow tragedy, multiple causal factors) to try to mitigate them in the future. Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.
The important thing here is to learn what happened and to see what, if anything, could be done to prevent it in the future. I cannot see how releasing information on the driver at this stage would do anything other than harm that process, whatever presumptuous and stupid conspiracy theories people invent.
Except in the case of Upton Nervet, Brian Drysdale's name was released.
Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.
The difficulty with this assertion is that injured parties have a right to damages for injuries, occasioned in accidents, caused by a negligent breach of a duty owed to them by defendants. It is the constitutional function of the ordinary courts to determine whether they or not are liable, and those courts operate under a system of open justice. Thus the 'blame game' is both necessary and expedient.
There is a difference between letting concerned parties know the details, and broadcasting it unnecessarily to all and sundry just to satisfy sick curiosity. *If* the investigations show that a significant causal factor was the driver's actions, then yes, they should be able to name the driver in proceedings.
It is patently unjust to release someone's name to the public at this stage of this investigation without their permission, except if it is necessary for the investigation to release it.
However it is all very peculiar, and I can't recall a similar case where the powers-that-be were so secretive. They won't even release the names of the OTHER bin-men in the cabin. EVER.
??!
Air, marine and rail accident reports give an interesting slant on this. It's common for no names, either of victims or people involved, to be released, even if they are to some degree at fault. It's just 'the victim, a male aged 35' or 'the driver'). This is the case even when the identity of the person causing the incident is well known - such as the suicide at Ufton Nervet ten years ago which caused seven fatalities.
The reason being the importance is to learn what went wrong (usually, as might be the case in the Glasgow tragedy, multiple causal factors) to try to mitigate them in the future. Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.
The important thing here is to learn what happened and to see what, if anything, could be done to prevent it in the future. I cannot see how releasing information on the driver at this stage would do anything other than harm that process, whatever presumptuous and stupid conspiracy theories people invent.
Except in the case of Upton Nervet, Brian Drysdale's name was released.
Yes, it was in the media very early on. In that case, the probable major cause was clear, especially with the policeman seeing Drysdale position himself on the crossing. Note the investigation report did not name him.
Unless your assumption is that the bin lorry driver is guilty of something?
Note I am not saying not to name him under any circumstances; just to only name him if it is really necessary. If he is not guilty of anything, then he must be going through sheer hell that the media hounding him would hardly help.
Comments
Good RegEx site: https://www.regex101.com/
This pattern looks quite clean... Now to the pub....
One of the injured parties might want to bring a private prosecution, in particular if they need better injury compensation from the insurance for example. This would surely result in the person's name being revealed.
Plenty of Regular-Expressions available online to define them...!
:and-breathe:
Anecdotally I've heard there was a bit of abuse directed at cleansing guys emptying litter bins by drunken 'revellers'. In that light I can sort of see the logic behind protecting the driver's identity, though don't agree with it. Again anecdotally, I was told the refuse lorries are supposed to have a dead man's switch; if so, something wrong with the technology if it was a heart attack/fit.
With respect, your view is typical of a certain type of legislator, who just assumes that everyone is like themselves, and a certain type of political activist, who suspects that all disagreement is politically-motivated.
Daniel Hannan on top form.
In any case, are you all not perhaps jumping to conclusions? The Scotsman report only says that the COUNCIL won't release the information - not that someone else can't. And the Council don't control FAIs (or Public Inquiries) - it is the Procurator Fiscal.
All that is - I infer - happening is that the binmen are being protected from the media for the time being as part of good employment practice and duty to their staff's health. Very possibly there will be a FAI - I would be surprised if there is not - but the binmen are being given a breathing space.
Which is hardly a formula as NPMP was asking for. Its a pattern stating 2 alphabetic characters, followed by six numeric characters in 3 groups of 2, followed by a further alphabetic character - I think we all got that bit, that question was could you validate a correct NINO.
The answer is yes, after a fashion, all numbers in the middle section are valid, HMRC publish a table with all the prefix pairs that have been used for validation purposes, and there are several special case prefix pairs to take into account. The suffix is normally either A,B,C or D (although F,M and P have been used historically) which makes your regular expression over broad. It would be like describing a credit card number as a number with between 16 and 19 digits, which whilst true is massively over broad). There is no way AFAIK to tell if a particular number is valid short of asking HMRC.
P.S. Humour can be expressed with smilies: If that was you intention then forgive me....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30234304
"Lord Malloch Brown says it is important to make the distinction between supervised and unsupervised systems. There is no reason why supervised e-voting systems, such as those his company manufactures, should not be adopted more widely, he argues,"
He sounds very objective.
"One of his favoured systems involves voters casting their ballot digitally in a polling station and then printing out a hard copy which they can post in a ballot box as a back-up."
For ****'s sake. The man needs a slap in the face with a large haddock (and it'll have to be damned hard to knock some sense into him).
Who would employ them? Ok; outwith the SNP...?
Do you really think that, if - as you intimate - they are baddies then Cheltenham and Akritiri are not already tapping their communications? Are the "Five-Eyes" blind...?
I care nothing for Scots' law. I do trust certain Scots' lawyers....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_of_Abdelbaset_al-Megrahi
Great heavens, what's the matter with people today?!
I do think though that the Council or the Police should reveal or publicly dismiss all of the possible causes such as whether the driver had a medical condition that affected his ability to perform his work safely, whether he suffered some sort of medical attack that led to the crash or any other factors that might be pertinent to the case. In doing so they would be showing that the Council had been acting properly and there was no cover up.
If it turns out that the driver was or is suspected of having committed a criminal act - and that would of course cover anything that MikeK might suspect - then that will come out in the fullness of time through a court case. If it does not then I do not believe it would be possible to cover it up.
Leaving aside that voter turnout has gone up two General Elections in a row, it is still pretty low and I can accept there are problems with democratic engagement. But if someone could so easily cast their vote already but will not unless they can do so online, they clearly don't care that much about who is their MP, so actual engagement with the system is still not great, and you may as well just introduce compulsory voting if all you are concerned about is increasing the turnout.
The council have told the press to b*gger off, and the press have taken the hump, and now PB is wetting it's panties with conspiracy, blame, and excitement.
Look at it another way. Suppose the accident was caused by the neglect of a mechanic or someone other than the man driving the lorry. In that instance releasing the name of the driver would do nothing to further justice and would potentially leave him open to unjustified attack prior to all the facts being known.
I don't have to pay for mine (or need blue pills for "limp dick syndrome" either)
;-)
I dont see the real merit of being much faster, sure it keeps the BBC happy, but they dont pay the government for the results, so they can wait a few hours. Most people are happy to read the results in their morning paper or watch it on breakfast TV, the hardcore like us will stay up all night and watch the coverage.
O/t: on the drive down from snowbound (*) Derbyshire this morning, none of the dozen or so windfarms we passed had any turbines turning. So I had a look:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
0.66GW. Pathetic on such a cold day.
(*) Meaning we had half an inch.
The first Glasgow seat to have the SNP and Labour as joint favourites is Glasgow North. All others have Labour as the favourite.
I've seen this come up in the context of rape charges, but really it's a general principle: if you're innocent till proven guilty, then that should cover protection of reputation. A possible exception would be if the person charged is suspected of multiple offences, and the police are seeking other witnesses - but then why do we exempt juveniles?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-10760239
:muppet-watch:
Support for the main parties is sinking. Are we going to blame the people for that too?
Re the Aussie Senate are the candidates in alphabetical or random order. And is there any suggestion that having a canbdidates name high on the lost means they are more likely to be elected?
The reason being the importance is to learn what went wrong (usually, as might be the case in the Glasgow tragedy, multiple causal factors) to try to mitigate them in the future. Getting in the blame game causes people to clam up and actively hinders getting to the truth.
The bureaus work with the police at times, such as in the following tragic and controversial case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-20339630
The important thing here is to learn what happened and to see what, if anything, could be done to prevent it in the future. I cannot see how releasing information on the driver at this stage would do anything other than harm that process, whatever presumptuous and stupid conspiracy theories people invent.
It is patently unjust to release someone's name to the public at this stage of this investigation without their permission, except if it is necessary for the investigation to release it.
Unless your assumption is that the bin lorry driver is guilty of something?
Note I am not saying not to name him under any circumstances; just to only name him if it is really necessary. If he is not guilty of anything, then he must be going through sheer hell that the media hounding him would hardly help.