GPS for dementia suffers is more than a stigmatisation…

In the news this week it was released that Sussex Police are rolling out a plan, that was trialled in Chichester, to equip dementia sufferers with a GPS tracking device, so that they can be traced quickly, and more cheaply, should they go missing.

The main crux of peoples argument against it, appears to be that this would equate dementia sufferers with criminals, effectively tagging them.

Mindme is about the size of an electronic car key and can be worn on a belt, as a pendant, a key fob or in a pocket. It is neat, discreet and very easy to use.

According to reports in The Argus:

Sergeant Suzie Mitchell said: “The scheme is only costing Sussex Police a few hundred pounds but, comparing this to police time, resources, potential risk to the missing person, let alone the anxiety and worry for their family, it is, in my opinion, a few hundred pounds well spent.”

From personal experience, and I am not sure how this didn’t happen in the trial, the device would never leave the house.

Many times I have had to turn my mother’s flat upside down to find her keys. So that they don’t go missing, she puts them away safely, which as she has dementia she can never remember putting them away, let alone where she put them.

The same thing would happen with the GPS device. In her mind it would be far too valuable to take out with her, so she would treat the same as her keys and put it away ‘safe’. The only good thing would be that if it was attached to her keys, I may find them easier.

Whilst I am sure that the Mindme alarm would be very good in some circumstances, I’m not sure dementia is one of them, especially in my mothers case.

The only way, in my opinion, for the GPS system to work, would be a non-removable tag, or an implant. Both of which would infringe all the civil liberties that have been well stated.

The Alzheimer’s Society statement:

‘In some circumstances and when appropriate consent is given, GPS tracking can enable a person with dementia to remain independent for longer, providing them and their carer with peace of mind. But we must balance the potential advantages to the individual and the protection of a person’s civil liberties. Any tracking system must support and never replace good quality care.

‘Alzheimer’s Society understands the safety of people with dementia is an important issue to address and people with dementia and carers have told us that they welcome technology like this if used in the right way. We’re working with organisations such as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Missing Persons Bureau to ensure people with dementia feel secure and included in their communities wherever they live.’

Personally I think they are missing the point.

Why the Liberal Democrat Party exists (in my opinion)

This post was prompted by a comment:

“Clegg days the Lib Dems are no longer a protest party? No longer a need for them then.”

No doubt an ad hoc comment on (via Andrew Sparrow, The Guardian/Observer):

Nick Clegg is delivering his main speech to the Lib Dem spring conference later this morning and, from the extracts that have been released overnight, it may well be the most upbeat, optimistic speech that he has ever delivered. Here are the key points.

• Clegg will say that the Lib Dems are now longer a protest party.

In the days after the [Eastleigh] by-election, even though we won, I was asked how I feel about our party no longer being a magnet for the protest vote. No longer the automatic ‘none-of-the-above’ choice. But the truth is: the Liberal Democrats are not a party of protest, we are a party of change. A party that is for things, not simply against things…

The Liberal Democrat Party is not going to disappear anytime soon. Regardless of sweeping statements.

If other Party’s (or members thereof) wish us to disappear, one has to ask why?

Are we a thorn in their side keeping them from inflicting their will on the Country, unchecked? or, do they just want to annihilate anyone who doesn’t agree with their views? (isn’t that a dictatorship?). Whatever the reason, we simply must remain to give voters an option for change, at local and national levels.

As I have previously stated, I do not agree with every decision the Party makes, that goes for everyone in any Party, I guess, but my views are more in line with the Libdems, than any other Party in our political spectrum.

To quote Paddy Ashdown from his speech at conference yesterday:

“I was not born a Liberal. I became one nearly 40 years ago. When a man in a bobble hat knocked on my door and asked for my vote. To be honest I told him I wasn’t interested. I was fed up with all politicians. But he was insistent. So I told him if he could persuade me Liberalism was different, he could have my vote.

What happened next, changed my life.

What he said was a million miles from the paternalism of the two then dominant parties that had so spectacularly failed 1970s Britain. The state socialism of the Labour party. The casual and heartless incompetence of the Conservatives.

He convinced me there was something different. A vision that has driven our party and its predecessors for more than 150 years. The Liberal promise to enable and empower every citizen – to fulfil their potential – regardless of wealth, or gender, or colour or creed.

To enable them to be who they want to be…”

We may disagree, like brothers and sisters and argue between ourselves, no other Party has a conference like ours! We all have different ideas how to achieve those ideals (as I write this the “secret courts” debate is running at conference), but we do agree that we want “to enable and empower every citizen – to fulfil their potential – regardless of wealth, or gender, or colour or creed”

So there is a need for the Liberal Democrats, no longer as a protest party, as party that has achieved 75% of its manifesto, as a party that makes up the coalition government and can do so again in 2015, as a party who CAN also make a difference locally. Somewhere my political views can be achieved, which could never happen under Tory, Labour, UKIP et al.

The more other Party’s tell us we are not needed, actually tells us we are very much needed.

see also: (Independent Editorial: The Lib Dems are walking tall -They have made a difference as a junior coalition partner, which the voters recognised)

Watching Paint Dry…

Thanks for visiting…

I have been for the last few weeks working on the PCC elections.

Everything I have posted seems to be ignored, by everyone except those associated with the process, or those that have suddenly realised they don’t have a clue who to vote for, but have realised a poll is happening and would like some information. All info required is at PCCLINKS.

To test the theory that ‘watching paint dry’ would get more attention than PCC I am writing this blog, and purposely not involving PCC in the title. I can then compare the figures…

Thanks for your participation!!

p.s Please vote on Thursday. PCC is happening, no matter what your thoughts on the position are.

Mixed meta-force (PCC Independent Candidates)

Whilst following the PCC elections, I have heard a lot of comment regarding the merits of Independent PCC’s

It has been said that PCC candidates aligned to a political party would be swayed by that party to make decisions in said party’s favour. A fact staunchly refuted by some candidates, though others not so, I have heard one candidate mention having links to Dave and Theresa * (a retort that was answered by Independent candidate with “for two years maybe, until the next election”).

As an argument for impartiality in the role, take my local Libdem candidate Pete Levy, for instance, he admits that it did cross his mind to stand as an independent. Would that have changed his political view, in general?

Pete has publicly stated that in all his years in the police, and with the Police Authority, he has never and would never be swayed by Party instruction, his decisions are his own, and it will not influence decisions he makes should he be elected as PCC.

It is true that independent candidates haven’t had their £5000 paid for by a political party, but are they truly apolitical?

Whether we care to admit it, or not and actively follow a political party, we all have political views (some more radical than others). That has surely got to influence some decisions we make in our working lives. In that regard Police Crime Commissioners (independent, or not) can be no different.

I don’t dismiss the talk surrounding Independent PCC candidates, but please consider the two following points:

- If you vote for a politically backed candidate, you know their political alignment.

- Look closely at candidates experience for the job rather than their political alignment, like Pete, they may be ‘independent’ in the job anyway.

Please USE your vote, wisely, on 15th November…

(For all your PCC info go to http://pcclinks.wordpress.com)

* mentioning no names – Ken Maddock

Useful facts (and links) about Police & Crime Commissioner Elections

Sorry, the info has moved to a dedicated blog at http://pcclinks.wordpress.com

Fare rises, what NOT to do about our railways…

So this week, we hear that yet again rail fares are to rise at above inflation rates. Articles in today’s papers describe how some Govt MP’s are to challenge George Osborne on this because they fear loss of voters in marginal seats…  (Guardian)

Personally I think there is cause for wider concern.

In this age when the roads are full to capacity, when we are supposed to think greener etc. what better way to exacerbate this but to price people out of taking the train instead. As if Dr. Beeching didn’t do enough damage to the rail network in the 60′s.

This will also hit the economies of our cities. In a couple of months time (although the rises are scheduled for January, the point is still the same), people will be looking to go Christmas shopping (yes, I know!!), ideally some people would like to visit London, or a local city, for a day out and shop as well. This year, and next, they will think twice about going due to the cost of getting there. For instance my stepson last year took the train and had a day in Bristol, this year he isn’t going because money he would have spent shopping will all go on the train fare to get there. If people in general did this it would equate to a loss for the train operator and the high street. His would not  be an isolated case.

I’m guessing the price of fares has to rise due to lack of funds to subsidise the rail network and the ageing infrastructure, but if less people are encouraged to use the trains then we will still have to subsidise more anyway. Surely we should be encouraging people to use the train network, where possible, rather than hindering it and putting up prices more is definitely a hindrance, what we should actually be doing is cutting the fares, somehow…

I am not a libdem who thinks that everything green is the way forward, but surely this fare rise flies in the face of getting people off the roads!

Sport – Why I think DC is wrong

As the Olympics comes to an end it risks being overshadowed, almost straight away, by politicians.

To carry on the legacy of the Olympics, I agree that sport should be promoted to the young, in established and rarer sports.

How this is done however is more a bone of contention. If you ‘force’ children to participate in P.E at school it will, categorically, NOT increase our medal count at future Olympics. In fact it would probably have the opposite effect and turn children away.

I agree that exercise is important and that it should be encouraged as part of a school curriculum, but that will not bring more athletes to the fore.

The best way forward is for schools, government et al, to encourage children to join sports clubs and groups to learn their sports properly. If the Government wants to increase young sport, it should channel the funds to those groups, who should be given time to run more taster sessions at schools to obtain interest.

This view comes from a personal experience.

Years ago I helped to run a youth football club (ages 7 to 16), we all took FA courses as part of our learning. I shouldn’t run down P.E teachers, but the teachers at the local schools frankly had an overview of all sports but were useless at coaching football (and not just in my opinion).

Another personal experience of how children can learn new sports was when one of my sons attended a hockey exhibition/taster session. He had never seen or tried hockey before. He loved it, took it up and had trials at county level. Something he never would have achieved through school.

So Mr Cameron, if you want to ‘do the right thing’ for an Olympic legacy, by all means promote sport but do it right, not as a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction.

Children who need help, need help…

I am no expert in children with “special needs”, “learning difficulties” or whichever “label” you wish to use and my own children have grown up and passed school age.

Yesterday’s phone-in on 5Live Breakfast was ‘Are we too quick to label our kids?’

I didn’t manage to catch the whole programme, but the bits I did hear made me question the way we approach children who need help, especially with, or at, school and were worrying in the least.

The callers told of their experiences with their children, whether a label would help etc. This ranged from the school picking up on a learning problem I.e dyslexia straight away and dealing with it, to league tables being more important and ignoring the problem and batting the parents calls away.

The numbers of children needing help appears to have risen. In my opinion this is because detection is a lot better, hence the rise.

Sometimes, I’ll agree we are too quick to label and some children are slow starters, does this mean we ignore them?

Regardless of whether it has a label, or not, (the consensus I think is that the label is good because it channels the child in the right direction), in this day and age it is scandalous that it depends on which school your child attends dictates how (or whether) a problem is detected and how it is dealt with.

When a parent knows there is a problem but is ignored by Heads, there IS a problem. One caller told of a history of dyslexia in the family and how the youngest child’s showed signs of it, but had to wait until that child was eight and a half before tests were done.

Another to told of how they told the school about their child being called a ‘retard’ by another child. Only to be told by the school that they would look into it, but as they didn’t witness, it would be hard to prove the child didn’t make it up, oh and that bullying doesn’t start until the age of 10.

Whether this is a SATS or league table problem etc. should not prevent the minority of children who have ‘learning difficulties’ getting the care they clearly need, whichever school they attend.

I’m sure it’s not a simplistic as it seems, but pure common sense tells us this just isn’t right.

(examples given are as I remember them and not verbatim)

Lords Reform , a Tory coalition policy too…

The Guardian on 5th May 2012 had an article on Lords Reform:

Queen’s speech rebellion over Lords reform

Leading Conservatives are angry that Lib Dem policy is being pursued rather than measures to boost the economy

Yes Nick Clegg is driving this proposed bill but:

Tory Manifesto 2010 says:

We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current house of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence 

The Coalition Agreement says:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.

That indicates that this is a Coalition policy and a TORY one too.

There will always be a LibDem…

The local elections are over and the press are pushing the predictable diatribe of woe regarding political parties who didn’t fare so well, and giving plaudits to Party leaders whose input probably didn’t change anyone’s minds…

From a Lib Dem point of view, we remained on a 16% vote share, which although we lost seats, means our core vote is holding.

Everyone likes winning, but is that really the ‘be all and end all’?

Should we all follow the same political ideology?

No, of course not, otherwise we would all be herded in to two camps, or worst of all one.

Do all football supporters follow teams because they are top of the Premier League, or Scottish Premier League?

So thank you people of the press for pointing out that we didn’t do so well, but if you think that means I will change colour and support a Party who I don’t agree with, you are wrong.

I support the Libdems because they are closest to my political views, even if they are NOT top of the Premier League, and despite comments otherwise, we ARE making a difference.

There will always be a Liberal Democrat Party, for people just like me.