Thin End Of The Wedge..?

Applying to roles deemed “safety-critical”, a host of employees from lorry drivers to binmen and lollipop ladies are being checked using breathalysers and swipes of their skin. Failure or refusal to take a test is regarded as a disciplinary matter.

Yes, well, we wouldn’t want to see a lollipop lady roll out of control and crush a few kiddies, would we?

Say…are they now saying that was what happened in Glasgow?

Similar policies have been put in place in boroughs across the country after a Glasgow bin lorry lost control last December, killing six people and injuring 10 more.

Although the Crown Office ruled that no-one was to blame, the driver of the vehicle told a Scottish newspaper how he had fallen unconscious at the wheel and could not remember anything about the crash.

Didn’t think so. This is just control freaks looking to get their rocks off, and using this as an excuse.

And yes, I suppose I should be happy to see it applied to council workers. But you know what? I’m not.

Because it won’t stop there, will it?

7 comments for “Thin End Of The Wedge..?

  1. Hereward unbowed.
    April 15, 2015 at 10:23 am

    Time was, when you took responsibility for your own life and consequently if you valued you job – and you were a driver you made damn sure you didn’t roll in to work worse for wear, now it’s true certain substances are harder to detect than others.

    “Applying to roles deemed “safety-critical”, a host of employees from lorry drivers to binmen and lollipop ladies are being checked using breathalysers and swipes of their skin. Failure or refusal to take a test is regarded as a disciplinary matter.”

    As we are living in the age of equality, why does it just have to be “roles deemed “safety-critical” “?

    Come on, think about the widespread use and the countrywide scale of drug abuse, people who use it are the ‘middle class’ ie people who use recreational drugs are of a type who have no qualms about their usage and their provenance [who cares if we are funding terrorism?? and grooming, sex trafficking – s’not my fault…oh but it is] – they can also afford [the prices of recreational drugs] to use skunk, charlie, meth, crack and even H – council workers – office bods and senior management [and across the administration].
    We know drug taking across the apparatchiks and beyond in the administration is rampant – this is true, the casual disregard to using proscribed drugs – remember Paul Flowers the Crystal Methodist preacher of CO-OP fame and chairman no less – he was the dork who was caught.

    So, in the labour party spirit of “FAIRNESS, EQUALITY AND WHATEV” should not arbitrary random substance checks be made universal in councils and across all government departments – it’s only fair.

    • ivan
      April 15, 2015 at 11:56 am

      You beat me to it.

      This random testing should start at the very top and work down with all those not passing being dismissed and banned from ever holding a public office again or working in any public authority. We should also include all politicians and those in the public services in this as well.

      • Hereward unbowed.
        April 15, 2015 at 2:04 pm

        Quite right, I couldn’t agree more.

      • April 16, 2015 at 7:23 pm

        Abso-frigging-lutely. Test one, test all; especially Council Chief Executives and Councillors. They make critical decisions over safety issues, so why should they be left out?

        While you’re at it, close the subsidised bars in the Houses of Lords and Commons. The message should be; ‘Don’t drink and legislate’.
        👿

  2. Hereward unbowed.
    April 15, 2015 at 10:26 am

    Oh and btw, has Raedwald stopped linking to this site and if he has banned you – I wonder why?

    • April 15, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      Raedwald’s link is working as of five minutes ago.

      • Hereward unbowed.
        April 15, 2015 at 6:02 pm

        Yes, thank you!

Comments are closed.