Originally Posted by codprawn
I DID answer my own question so why the dig? I was merely trying to point out that unless truly remote they are better off leaving the system free for users who REALLY need it - where do you draw the line? How long before every parent in this Nanny State of ours decides their kid needs one on their way to school or whilst walking the dog???
Because its stupid to say its not needed, and then say - but actually it is! If it is needed somewhere in the UK then its silly to say that because most of the country doesn't need it we shouldn't permit them.
I am sure there are other remote areas where there is potential for them to save lives.
At current cost it is unlikely to be adopted by many (even those walking/climbing in remote areas). Increased demand - reduces cost which is good for everyone.
"Nanny State" is when the government intervene to protect the population (usually used in a derogatory sense to imply it is unnecessary) - so it has nothing to do with "parents deciding". Those parents already can track the locations of their children via their mobile phone to within a pretty small area - but few chose to, so I'm not convinced by your argument.