I like your maths jane . Says it all.
I was not sure what I thought this morning. Excellent points about training people to "diagnose" at cashpoints; unleashing well intentioned trainees upon the world etc.
How will they be able to tell, really. The only time I have ever been seriously fuddled at a cashpoint it was about 25 years ago when I had consumed far too much cannabis. I don't mix in dope-consuming circles any more, but given the rather high use of cannabis and alcohol amongst the over 60s, really, how will they be able to tell? Drunk/stoned/altzheimers or just plain stressed by technology?
To me it smacks of "big society" double think. The government want to be seen to be doing something, without spending much money. They are deeply conflicted - on the one hand they like the thought that "the voluntary sector" will take issues like this away from the state. But the trouble is that in order for this to happen" a/ you have to keep your top-down centralist tendencies under control b/ vol sect may not do what you want them to do c/ govt does not get kudos d/ often they need funding to do anything and e/ they may not actually spend money in a useful way.
This is based on a Japanese initiative. Not sure if it was evaluated in Japan but even if it was, will a good idea necessarily transfer between 2 v different cultures?
I am against national roll-outs of "bright ideas'. I am in favour of small trials which are carefully evaluated and then rolled out.