Saturday, 1 August 2020

Drumming Up Business, Love?

Smith, who had been on duty at Airedale Hospital, was a diabetic who said she checked her blood sugar levels before she set off and they were “totally fine.”
But she began to feel unwell with hyperglycaemia and ignored the clear indications that she should not be driving, Mr Stranex told Bradford Crown Court.
She drove on and off the pavement before the crash and was described as having “a glazed expression.”
Most of the nurses I've seen have that permanently...
She veered in the road and was said to have been going too fast. Mr Stranex told the court her driving record included “bumps” and she had attended a speed awareness course.
Which is rather a weasel way of saying 'was previously caught speeding', isn't it?

As usual, these people never seem to harm themselves, only innocent other drivers or pedestrians:
Mr Ellison, who had enjoyed mountain biking and tennis, spent 20 weeks in hospital and said in his victim personal statement that at times, he wanted to die.
He had been a DIY enthusiast but now couldn’t even change a lightbulb.
“The driver has devastated my life and that of my family,” he said.
No, no, Mr Ellison, you've not understood who is the real victim here....
Tom Gent said in mitigation: “This was a tragic and awful incident.”
Smith had been a nurse for 23 years and driving since 1989. She was racked with guilt and utterly devastated by the dreadful injuries she had caused.
But Mr Gent conceded she had not been attending for specialist diabetic reviews and should have known she was unfit to drive that evening.
Testimonials spoke of her as compassionate and caring and “an extremely kind woman.”
The effect on her was “exceptionally acute” and her mental health problems had been exacerbated. Last November she attempted to take her own life after experiencing nightmares and high levels of anxiety, and being overwhelmed by guilt.
She's a nurse. Surely she's best placed to make a good job of taking her own life?

So why is she still here?
Smith, 47, of East Hill Street, Barnoldswick, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with 300 hours of unpaid work. She was banned from driving for five years and until she takes an extended retest.
'Keeping death off the road'...for a while.
“You could go to prison for a million years and it wouldn’t change anything,” Judge Rose said.
Smith had made a “deliberate and determined” attempt on own life and he feared for her health if she was sent immediately to prison.
Clearly, she's a lousy nurse as well as a lousy driver, if she couldn't do that right either.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

How many road traffic accident (oops, they are incidents now, aren't they?) victims does it take to change a lightbulb?

Why didn't she plead that she was immune from prosecution because, well, the NHS?

Incidentally, you get a speed awareness course if you are just a bit above the speed limit, not a lot, although the last one I attended had people caught at 95 - I was doing 35 (allegedly). The police fake these results if you didn't already know.

If you've never done a speed awareness course, Julia, then you are one lucky woman. The one I went to was run by 2 coppers who knew feck all, didn't understand the material they had on the powerpoint slides, and showed some films that were faked up with accidents that couldn't happen. They also spouted a great deal of nonesense.

Anonymous said...

Speed awareness courses are just a money-tree for the private company owned by the Chief Police Association. Money's more attractive than road-safety.

Anonymous said...

The speed awareness courses are run by a private company, the directors of which are serving, or retired, Chief officers of Police. The money that erring motorists pay to attend the course, as an alternative to court action, a fine, and penalty points, goes to this private company. The Police officers who lecture on these courses are not privately hired during their off duty time, as is normally the case for other private companies, but have their official duties assigned to the lectures on the authorisation of those same Chief Officers of Police. Somehow, they are all allowed to get away with this.
The son of an ex colleague had to attend one of these courses, during which one of the lecturing officers explained that speed is not necessary, saying something like, "Does it matter if you are a little late for that appointment? Better to arrive late than not at all." It was then pointed out to them by the young man that the letter to attend the course had the warning that anyone arriving late would not be admitted to the lecture room. No excuse will be accepted. It will count as a failure to attend the course and will result in a prosecution and court appearance.
The irony and double standard appeared to be lost on the lecturers and the young lad was warned he came very close to failing the course.
I have no idea if anyone has been failed for using the same observation.
Just idly wondering.
Penseivat

Stonyground said...

I've been on a speed awareness course and it was very informative, had constructive two way discussions and was only very slightly preachy towards the end. I did briefly do 35 in a 30 zone. The stretch of road in question is straight, has a footpath that is separated from the road by an area of grass and there has never been an accident at that location. I have been driving for more than 40 years without incident.

I am also a diabetic and, when first diagnosed, I used insulin injections and had to do blood tests before driving. It isn't rocket science. I also carried glucose tablets at all times as they are instantly effective against hypoglycemia.