Margaret Thatcher was probably the only woman I could have ever worked for. Why? Because she operated like a man. She had balls of steel, and unlike her handbag, always left her hormones at home. A rare bird indeed.
I love women and am all for equality. But I couldn`t have tolerated a female boss.
Interestingly, as yesterday`s papers revealed, neither can most women. New research shows that women who answered to a female supervisor suffered more depression, insomnia, headaches and heartburn than if their boss was a man. Not great for productivity, morale or the NHS.
Biology dictates that men are more suited to lead, protect, provide and procure. Our instinct is to look after and out for those under our wing. My office is predominantly staffed by women – all of whom are super efficient and who do a sterling job telling me what I need to do and where I need to be. But it works because I`m the boss. The dynamics are perfect.
Women in power often have a point to prove and can be tempted to emasculate the men they lead in order to strengthen their position. Alternatively they strategically play up their femininity to deflate and deflect male aggression.
Men make great bosses because we don`t fudge the issue with tears, tantrums or tactics.
And until there are more iron ladies on the payroll, I`m afraid this man is not for turning.
Time to scrap the 70mph motorway speed limit
I drive thousands of miles on our motorway network each year. And the 70mph speed limit is dangerously slow.
Instead of promoting road safety, it causes frustration, impatience and stress – which only serves to create an accident waiting to happen.
I’ve long been an advocate of hiking up the motorway limit to 90mph – though making this flexible in response to bad weather.
Today’s cars are designed to combine speed and safety. That’s why so many motorists become irritated by having to almost dawdle at an unnaturally slow speed.
But news this week that motorists who are caught doing up to 86mph will now escape fines and points by doing a drivers’ awareness course is not the way forward.
All this will do is line the pockets of the speed cash-cow industry.
What would make far more sense is for the Government to seize the opportunity to overhaul our arcane motorway legislation. In fact I think my following five point plan is, without question, the only way forward:
1) Increase the speed limit and rigidly stick to this (at the moment there is a ‘tolerance zone’ where guidelines suggest no prosecution for 10 per cent plus two mph).
2) Middle lane dawdlers should face a fine and between three and nine points for driving without reasonable consideration.
3) HGVs are responsible for most accidents – and pollution – on our motorways.
Either their operators should be encouraged to use rail. Or their use of motorways should be restricted to night time use.
4) The gantry system should be specific, accurate and reliable rather than the haphazard way drivers are currently given information about why there is a speed restriction and how long it’s going to last for.
5) Don’t let testosterone-fuelled teenagers who have just got their clammy mitts on a full driving licence loose on our motorways. The test should include motorway driving and enforced viewing of shock-horror videos of motorway accidents.
Remember it’s not speed that kills. It’s inappropriate speed that does.
Enough said.
Let’s get a full view of just who is at the wheel
Talking of driving, why on earth do speed cameras mainly zap us from behind?
All this does is identify the car and the number plate – but not the driver. Useless for recognising who was behind the wheel at the time of an alleged offence.
So many cash-strapped families are down to one car, which is then driven by several members. Therefore when a speeding notice drops on the doormat, it can be anybody’s guess who was at fault.
There is a legal obligation to provide the driver’s details. And there is massive pressure to furnish this information: if you don’t, you get six points and a fine. If you get it wrong, you could go to prison.
It’s time all cameras face the front to give the owner of the car much needed assistance. Or is that exactly the point…….?
Blind canine loyalty left me deep in thought
I stopped in my tracks when I read yesterday about a 10-year-old blind Jack Russell which relies on a fellow terrier to guide him everywhere.
The pair have apparently been inseparable for the last decade. But their closeness became even more apparent when one, Zac, had his eyes removed following a severe infection. Not only was I bowled over by this deeply moving example of canine loyalty, it was also a painful reminder of having my own beloved Stafford put down five months ago – after the vet told me that after months of battling a cruel autoimmune disease, his eye would also have to be removed.
It was the last straw. I couldn’t let my dog suffer any more and made the decision to let him be at peace. Since then I’ve been haunted on a daily basis by the decision. Could he have been cured? Would my dog, already wracked by illness, cope with the pain and lasting effects of losing an eye? I don’t have the answer.
But reading about this blind dog has certainly raised a very painful question.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
What i cannot understand "Why build cars that can travel at 200mph" we should be building smaller cars with smaller cleaner engines ,not bigger/faster.
SO LETS GET THIS RIGHT MR LOOPHOLE what you want is the motorways left clear for the rich and famous to be able to drive at 100 mph without anyone getting in their wayor to slow them down. all lorys to be banned , nobody to overtake unless capable of 100mph, and employ you to get them off when they are caught going to fast.
How about banning those in the legal defence and claim business who systematically increase the honest drivers insurance premium. Gone are the days when the cost was just the repair of the cars, its the legal costs which far exceed the repair costs now and who pays, everyone. Who gains fat lawyers.
Draw the line at 75. There's a reason for the limit, higher speed crashes put yours and other's vehicles beyond their crashworthiness. I don't care if people are too bone idle to get out of bed on time, if people want to go faster than the M6 or M1, get a train.
1) Is not the tolerance to allow for potential inacuraccy in speed measurement?
2) What speed id dawdling?
3) Since HGV operators are not train operators would this not mean the end of road haulage as an industry?
How much would need to be spent on the new railway tracks, or moving industry, retail to new locations near existing ones?
Would Trafford Park need to close?
5) How would this ban be enforced, checkpoints at motorway slip roads? And is the author aware that the UK is not entirely covered in motorways, Wales for example has one, running along about half of the south coast, there are none west of Exeter or in Norfolk, Sufolk or Lincolnshire?
Rather than a sensible way forward it sounds much more like the motorists usual cry of get everyone else out of my way.
It's about time people was tought how to drive and not how to pass test.
What a shame Mr Loophole isn't using his position to encourage safer driving habits. Most people I know who've been on a speed awareness course have positively benefited from the course, although I tend to agree about young drivers
LOL what a load of tosh!
The limit is currently set at 70mph and people may exceed that by "10 per cent plus two mph" which makes 79mph. If the allowance is for error in speedo, camera etc then if the limit was set at 90mph then the 'error' would mean that people would think they'd get away with 101mph which to me is just outrageous! If the limit was raised the people that currently drive at 100 would more likely go to 120+.
As for the middle lane dawdler:
Mr Freeman - "Your honour, my client was dawdling in the middle lane because he tried to over take a HGV driver who shouldn't have been on the motorway during the day"
Unofficial speed limit is now 86. Speedos under-read by 5-10%.
So you can already drive at what your speedo claims is 90mph.
and what experience has he got in road safety? none! i know lets allow millions of talentless and incapable drivers drive around the motorways at nearly 100 mph! marvellous idea nick! what next chocolate fireguards?
and at the price of fuel ... the ordinary people on average wage cannot afford to drive faster or pay the fine if they do !!!
the motorway speed limits should in my opinion be just that !
I must say....I totally dissagree with the sugestions above regarding increasing the speed limit to 90 mph on motorways. Its O K for you to sugest that it's not just speed that kills. You don't have to mop up the corpses at the end of the day. You don't have to suffer the traumas of the victims families. And let's face it... the faster the speed.....the more crashes; then all the more littigation will be required and all the more finances will be going into the accounts of 'jumped up over-paid solicitors' ...... individuals, who.....with comments like these show their ignorance and lack of care towards those who unwillingly keep them in work, through their stupid actions.....like speeding.
Freeman - and anyone else, should not be driving thousands of miles, they should consider moving nearer to where they work. For other commuting, rail is usually faster.
The pollution and vehicle inefficiency of driving of driving at more than 50 is will published, he should do his homework. He also seems to think that he is safe but it is other road users not doing what he wants that is the problem - he should retake his test and be psychologically tested before getting back in his car.
Driving on most motorways at more than 70 is often impossible and an accident at a higher speed will almost certainly kill the driver and anyone in the area with shrapnel from his disintegrating car. Most motorway accidents are the result of carelessness and driving at the wrong speed - too fast.
I look forward to reading of his demise shortly.
Do you have any columnists with a brain cell?
I don't understand why the road work average speed camera's view from the front especially when motorbikes don't have registration plates on the front, how will they be recognised and fined etc
You did what you thought best for the dog you loved.
Show a bit more understanding and compassion in the way of your fellow man too and you'll be more than half decent.
When I saw the headline for this article, I thought I was going to find myself in agreement but some of this is just daft. I agree that the speed limit needs reviewing and I'd like to see a more flexible limit in operation because on roads with good visibility in good weather it is safer to travel faster than 70 but then again there are some bendy country roads where the limit is 60 and it's not safe to go at such speeds. I agree that speed is not the cause of accidents - it's bad driving such as tailgating, lack of signalling, dangerous overtaking manoeuvres etc but these are much harder to legislate for than speed because you need police on the roads instead of cameras.
The idea of banning HGVs is ridiculous - we need our HGVs so that our supermarkets and shops can be stocked and so that we can import and export the things we need. I do think that HGVs should be consigned to the leftmost lane however as they have speed limiters yet they still attempt to overtake vehicles they have no hope of overtaking and that causes congestion as other drivers move to the third lane to overtake them.
I do agree that you shouldn't be able to go on the motorway without some sort of special training but then again, I think that you should have to do a vocational cause in driving that covers everything like driving through fog, icy conditions, night driving etc as there are far too many bad drivers on the road because all they had to do was drive safely for one hour of their lives to pass their test. It's not enough, there should be a minimum amount of supervised driving time before you're let lose with a death machine
"All this will do is line the pockets of the speed cash-cow industry"
Said seemingly without any hint of irony from a man who charges clients thousands of pounds for the pleasure of being represented by the one and only Mr Loophole (tm)
Mr Freeman .... I disagree with you on many things...but your perceptive article above on male vs female bosses is spot on.
I know many of my female colleagues that would rather have a male boss - for your reasons exactly. The female bosses I know have an obsession for detail, micromanagement, intrusive monitoring and top down targets which stifles free thinking, initiative and individual initiative
I am sorry but this guy is given space to sing the praises of Thatcher (the Destroyer) and dismiss the female half of the population as inferior with such ridiculous statements as, “Biology dictates that men are more suited to lead, protect, provide and procure”, and all anyone here seems interested in commenting on is his views about the motorway speed limit! Maybe it is only men that are reading this on-line and that is why there is such a poor response to these outrageous views. So, as a bloke, let me just stand up for my female counterparts and say from my experience women are equally, if not better, equipped to take on senior management roles and to dismiss their abilities on mass says more about the capabilities of Mr Freeman not women. Get back to the stone age with Andy Gray and Co.
I don't recognise the caricatures of women and men that Nick Freeman describes in any of the people I have met or worked with. The stereotypes he invokes are outdated and offensive.
Mr Freeman put his bait out - the fishes all took it... hook, line and sinker.
Ignore him, and he'll be history on the MEN's website.
The Banyan Tree -
I am not trying to impress anyone just address a blatant injustice.
I suspect that if you hold the same views on women that Mr Freeman does (but don’t have his money) then you will never have had a “bird” and therefore fill your time with train spotting and stamp collecting (sorry train spotters and philatelists!).
Why would any MAN want to serve a "boss". Typical English creep: once a peasant, always a peasant.