On 27/05/2019 16:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 12:11:36 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2019 17:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 5:20:50 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2019 17:12, MrCheerful wrote:

On 22/05/2019 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2019 15:02, GB wrote:
On 21/05/2019 19:03, MrCheerful wrote:

another million quid of taxpayers money wasted.

A million quid to take him to hospital, give him some resusc.,Â* and
pronounce him dead? Why?

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...-2019-16308063

Where oes the million pounds figure come from?

according to this site:
http://www.makingthelink.net/tools/c...road-accidents
it is now 1.69 million

QUOTE:
"Cost of a fatal casualty (all ages) - including lost output, medical
and ambulance costs and human costs"
ENDQUOTE

Yes but... that's the estimate (ie, made-up) average cost of a road
accident fatality. It includes - and this is important - an estimated
value of the deceased person's rest of life productivity, which must be
quite difficult to estimate accurately. So that bit of the figure has to
be taken with a few pinches of salt.

It also includes "human costs" which means that a value is put on the
distress and losses caused to bereaved relatives, friends, etc. I can
see that in these touch-feely days, one would want to value such losses,
but whether it ought to be done in money - and how that should be done
anyway - is far from clear.

Overall, it does not mean that £1,690,000 is the value of emergency
services expended on dealing with the incident. The figure for "lost
output" will be the biggest part of it. Most of it will be expended or
incurred even if no emergency services are involved.

Wow! I actually agree with you for once, I think.

The Hospital and staff will be there. The Paramedics will be on duty. The only costs are consumables.

If I chose to drive to work tomorrow the costs are fuel and parking.
I own a car so the fixed costs have to be paid whether I use it or not.


Car tax, insurance, MOT and annual service are spent anyway.

The same error of logic is sometimes made when it is pointed out
(erroneously) that it costs £nn,nnn a year to keep a prisoner in custody
in an effort to argue that a particular offender (or category of
offender) should not get a custodial.

The figures which are quoted might or might not, be accurate as the
average cost when all overheads are taken into account, but they are an
average, not a marginal, calculation.

If the figure were (say) £50,000, it would not cost an extra £50,000 to
squeeze in an extra guest at the Wandsworth Hotel. Neither would it save
£50,000 to let one of them check out early. Most of the cost is in
overheads and would not change much.


If we did not send so many people to prison we would not need so many prisons.

Thats a truism, but control over it is not in the hands of the courts or
"society in general". It is firmly in the hands of those who are sent to
prison, which is an outcome which arises only after a fairly lengthy
career in low-order crime. Obviously, there are exceptions, but we
aren't talking about murderers without entecedence.

I was on a jury once where the Judge set a 6pm to 6am curfew on the defendant between conviction and sentencing and told him he was likely to get a custodial sentence. Given the age of the defendant I thought a 6 month curfew would be more fitting than a couple of weeks prison involving loss of job.

You were there and I wasn't, but what was his career to date like?