Actually there is a very strong correlation between death rates and weekends precisely because there is a lack of more experienced staff on at the weekend.

Many consultants work on a rolling rota at weekends but they cover a multitude of wards.
So one week you will have a brain specialist on duty, the following week a cardiac consultant. The problem is that there specialisms are not always the ones that are needed at a particular time.

EU W/Time regulations introduced 1998 and the software that we sell was capable of monitoring the rolling period of 17 weeks (or any term) at that time too - since then I have only ever been asked once to set it up for a client and as far as I am aware none of our thousands of clients have ever been reviewed, or at least they have never asked us how to provide the evidence necessary to prove they are complying.

Regulations that allow you to opt out = fekkin useless regulations.

Ok.
So were both right.

It was the implication that machinery stands idle at the weekend I was taking issue with. I've heard about the correlation you mention and can understand it tbh but it was the other bit of the post I was meaning

The LEGAL PROFESSION? Are you really that ignorant? Solicitors already provide 24/7/365 cover for police stations and whenever their clients are up, they are represented. I am sure there would be no problem with night courts IF those working in them got paid accordingly. But that won't happen. As Grayling and his incompetent ideologues are slashing costs and pay by the million. There is zero chance of them paying more money.

I simply don't understand why you would think that processing more cases using more hours wouldn't cost more money. Of course it would. British Industry can work 24/7 but they can charge what they like for it. You don't want to pay, the plumber / mechanic / whatever won't turn out. Crime isn't like that - most can't afford to pay and unless legal aid does, then overall it simply will not happen.

And as you know if you follow the system at all, where it is at the moment is barristers and solicitors resorting to strike action. Doesn't sound like a governemnt that's likely to be throwing any more money into the pot to me.


Sorry, but an article by a very well-heeled City firm about tax faud cases really is utterly irrelevant to this discussion!



Indeed. In fact, one of the most ridiculous criticisms you could level against the judges is that they “don’t live in the real world”. They spend all day hearing about, dealing with, analysing, reading reports on the most troubled, the worst offending, the mentally challenged, the poor and desperate,the violent, the professional criminals and in a lot of cases the dregs of society, case after case after case. Ironically, they live in (and have to confront) the “real world” about a thousand times more than most of us.

You want us to copy that hugely successful (irony alert) system?

Politicians make the law!

Sadly the judiciary have to apply it.

Says it all really

Perhaps you'd like half day closing on a Wednesday as well? Whilst you ponder the good old days, and those beastly conniving Union Officials who sold out your Birthright, look up ROTA. That should explain where you're going wrong re the doctors.

Yes. A drunken scrote locked up for 42 years as opposed to 4 means the roads and general population are a lot safer by a factor of 10.

If you're happy to pay for him to be locked up for 42 years, go for it.

Unfortunately, not just very expensive equipment stands idle at the weekend, so does entire operating theatres. It is good to see that Prof Bruce Keogh, and many Doctors to be fair, has recognised there is a long overdue need for working practices to change.

In your case, Doctor Rumples proscribes; [url=http://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/10/28/keogh-7ds/READ[/url....inwardly digest....repeat until you understand....with attention being focussed on the final two paragraphs.

The prognosis for enlightenment is mildly encouraging......

I think the fact that hospitals basically don't do doctors at a weekend is a true scandal.

But I don't see anyone persuading consultants to start doing routine operations on night shifts on a regular basis. You may sneer and diss them for that, but I express no opinion at all, save to say that it just ain't gonna happen any time soon.

A consultant does what he is obliged to do under his NHS contract, and then he goes off to earn some serious money in his private work, you know, private ops, consultations, medical reports etc. If you are going to oblige him to work nights say one week in three then he plainly cannot work in his private business that week and again, for just that reason, it can't be done.

Also if you are going to operate theatres for an extra 100 hours per week, where the feck is the money to do that coming from?

I am aware there are guidelines to follow, but to my mind the guidelines must be awry to result in sometimes lax and seemingly inconsistent sentences.

It's not just the sentencing. Someone who is jailed and later found to be innocent have no help from the system when they are let go in the same way a convicted fellon get's a parole officer, accomodation and help adjusting to life. The innocent person then get's slapped with a nice hefty bill for their board whilst in jail, whoever legislated that is frankly evil.

What I was highlighting with that example is the disparity between the two. How one justice system appears much tougher on sentencing.

Both acted recklessly, both caused a road traffic accident resulting in death. One caused one death, the other caused two. You can't really quantify the difference between the 2 incidents and the extra fatality in terms of years in jail. The simple point is, someone who acts recklessly and causes a fatality should be serving much longer than 5 years in jail. That's the bottom line.

Can't we have a system like Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Would having insurance have prevented the man's death?

You're missing the point. Not having insurance is a behavioural pattern. A lack of regard for the law in the same way he showed a lack of regard by driving off.

It showed he was acting recklessly. A reckless act resulting in the death of a human carries 5 years? He'll probably be out in less on good behaviour. Imagine that was your father, your son...your brother. Dead. 5 years?

How can we trust, respect........have faith in a system which shows such an abhorrent disreguard for human life?

It's disgusting.

Agreed


But, the last people that can sentence the criminal fairly and dispassionately are of course the victim's family. It isn't therefore at all helpful to "imagine it was your father "etc. It is always somebody's father. It should not make a jot of difference to sentence that it was YOUR father.


This is just your opinion. The system shows no such thing. The sentencing guidelines are meticulously thorough and whilst i don't question your right to believe that 42 years or whatever would be more just, I think most would say that you are conflating the degree of evilness/ wrongdoing with unforeseen and unintended consequences (which, incidentally, DO ramp up the sentence very considerably)

Here are the [url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving[/url. The range of sentences is in fact 2 - 14 years. The courts rightly do and should take into account all the individual circumstances of any given case.

I'm aware of that.

However, why not consider a system such as that in Scandinavia, which to our eyes might seem incredibly liberal, but which has far better outcomes than the UK has in terms of recidivism?

The other point is that the apparent severity of the US system appears to do nothing to lower crime levels by acting as a deterrent.

Unless you've seen the court papers on each case, all you're going on is media reports, so sentences may appear inconsistent. Until all the facts are known, via the court papers, we (the general public) are just ranting for no reason because we (you) don't know the ins and outs of the case.

We may take issue with the U.S. over aspects of their criminal law system but there is no doubt that a person locked up for 42 years will commit no offences against the public in those 42 years.

I don't accept that severe sentences don't act as a deterrent to at least some people. I think it flies in the face of reason to suggest that. Anyone considering doing an act will, in the majority of cases, have at least some regard for the possible consequences. We pass deterrent sentences in this country too and I simply do not accept that they deter no-one, and are thus entirely pointless.

I am generally against U.S. style draconian sentences but if you consider it from the other end, it is easy to see that deterrence is real and works; by way of example, take the case of shoplifting. This has always been common, but is now literally endemic, costing the economy billions, and has exploded since the effective decriminalisation of the offence. By which i mean, you would have to shoplift to some extremes to actually eventually end up in jail for any length of time, if you ever did. There is thus a very clear connection - people don't have that much fear of getting caught, cos the consequences are not seen as significant.

Another example, from a pickpocketing programme last week. In Spain, if you steal to the value of less than (I think) 100 euro, or something like that, no action against you will be taken. Thus getting caught usually means no more than you will simply be spoken to and moved on. And so pickpocketing is rife. I accept it is rife in other places too, eg London, but being caught pickpocketing in the UK is no big criminal deal for typical cases either, and I reckon any criminal does weigh up - to varying extents - the risk of getting caught (very low), the likely consequence if caught (not much) and the rewards if they get away with it (the ability to get food/drink/drugs which they can't otherwise afford.

I'd be pretty certain that even if possible consequences are ramped up, these can be outweighed if the perceived risk of being caught is low. And it is common to see in cases of serious crimes a belief that the offender was clever enough to get away with it. That obviously waters down the net worth of deterrence.

To prove the point with a simple illustration, people break the speed limit all the time, simply because they are accustomed to always getting away with it. However, put a speed camera up, it WILL act as a deterrent. Almost everyone slows down and goes past at or below the speed limit. Why? Because (a) the risk of detection is very high; and (b) the consequences of being detected (points, fine etc) people don't want. Thus, it is conclusively proved that knowing you are very likely to be caught is part of the picture; but if all that happened was you got a letter pointing out you had been speeding and asking if you'd mind slowing down in future, most people would ignore the camera. Whereas knowing that you'd get points and a fine is an extremely effective deterrent. yes millions are made from speed cameras but still there is no doubt at all that an extremely high percentage of drivers, who are speeding immediately before the camera, brake and pass it below the speed limit.

It's also true that in many cases, and that includes the most serious cases, people lose control and just do what they do in the heat of the moment. Whether anything they previously heard or read or were aware of in the past does or might restrain them from - say - stabbing or shooting somebody when all fired up is debatable.

Is one white and one brown?

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Yet in states that have re-introduced the death penalty, there is evidence that murder rates have [irisen[/i rather than declined, which perhaps suggests that all is not as rational as we would like and/or expect.

I know that this is an unfashionable view in the modern era with its compensation culture and ranting tabloids, but sometimes people have accidents. Sometimes it rains and rivers flood their banks. Sometimes cars crash into other cars. Sometimes cars run other pedestrians. Of course these events are tragedies when they occur but serves no useful purpose to turn the emotions into a witch-hunt to find somebody to blame for what has happened.

This chap had no insurance certainly. But perhaps that was because he couldn't afford the fees charged by these state-backed monopoly fraudsters. Or maybe it had expired and he was unaware. Driving without insurance may be illegal and something that people shouldn't do, but it doesn't mean that such drivers are evil, any more likely to kill people or should be subject to disproportionate punishments such as 42 years.

Similarly driving off after hitting the pedestrian was clearly the wrong thing to do. However unless you have been in that situation you are unlikely to comprehend the high level of guilty and panic that must set in and inhibit their capacity to think clearly. Often when there is a fire or other disaster people panic and run around in a mindless manner that exacerbates the situation, rather than remaining calm and acting in an orderly manner that would actually ensure a better outcome.

All in all I don't think it is possible to judge this person to be a monster. I don't think that a series of mistakes, even if they led to this tragedy, should result in a life in prison or even the paltry 42 years that have been banded around.

Oh Dally: you're giving yourself away with posts like this!