I think this was the best solution
Quote:
It seems to me that if a candidate fails and is violent to the examiner that they should
* be banned from re-sitting the test for a period of time (the more violent the longer the period) ( possibly?)
* have to pay double in order to pay for the additional examiner in the car
* automatically be taken to court
If they are violent on failing their test, then they will most likely be violent on the road.
It seams that the driving test center are not doing their duty as an employer to ensure their employees are safe with known hot heads. There must be a duty to of care to the employee including providing an extra examiner at a loss in these circumstances.
Having been in customers houses there was never a question of my employer providing assistance in rough areas. And the customer was not doubled charged because they might have presented a risk. This included providing phone services for tagging and a restricted dialing for an alcaholic farmer who let of a shotgun from the living room at a fox during our last visit

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV
Snap Unhappy“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code