All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
[ 4 minute read ]
Dogs with typewriters
First the BBC tricks us into thinking that Trump meant that everyone should fight at the Capital and now Sky News is being lazy with their news. On their website they ostensibly tell us where the worst areas in the UK for uninsured drivers are. Yet, their list is for defendents per 1000 residents. Surely, there is a question on whether there is adequate police coverage to catch uninsured drivers and what percentage of residents even have access to a car or motorbike, in any given area. Certainly, if a whole city is below the poverty line we can expect that whenever we see a private motorised vehicle on the road there is a strong probability that the driver is uninsured. Lets face it just keeping a car legal for driving 165 miles a week on the road can cost about sixty pounds a week for many people, when we consider insurance, road tax, fuel and repairs to meet MOT requirements. Can we expect people solely reliant on benefits to shell out three thousand pounds a year for driving locally? Should we expect the police to prosecute uninsured drivers beyond a certain number? I mean, if there are only a few police officers in an area they can only catch so many uninsured drivers before they need to go and do something else, right?
I suggest that road users are not considering the number of people in a city as a threat to their safety; they are instead considering other roads users, including cyclists, horses and pedestrians (who – the latter three, by the way, would never be defendants in a prosecution for having no insurance unless they previously drove and got caught).
I cannot help thinking that Covid 19 made everyone think, ‘Well, my effort is good enough’ without them recognising what good actually is. It seems that, nowadays, mediocre is good enough and ‘good’ today, is what would have been considered to be not enough to get a second interview for a job prior to 2019.
I know The Guardian a few years back had an article that stated that studies had shown that frequent use of a Smartphone temporarily snips up to 15 % of the user’s IQ. When the average IQ is 103 today, with a 15% reduction we have an IQ (87.5) that is only just above the AVERAGE IQ of a dog; 70. Some dogs have a higher IQ then that. 87.5 is halfway between an average human without a SmartPhone and a dog!
Find a clever dog and give it a typewriter and a job at Sky News or the BBC and we might just get some sensible and varied content.
09:07 Monday 10th November 2025: https://news.sky.com/story/worst-areas-for-uninsured-driving-revealed-as-hit-and-run-victim-says-he-was-left-for-dead-13465600