I cannot believe the arrogance of any instructor who thinks that training a person who has no desire to go beyond a PPL is a waste of time
Prats like that need to be reminded that it's the people who desire a PPL are paying for their flying, mortgage etc. If I was in a school run by somebody with that attitude I'd leave and they would be very clear about why I'd left.
I'm sure that a lot of people who apply for an NPPL will take as long to get their licence as a PPL, some people take a while to learn the basic skills. If these people do not want to do an IMC or fly foriegn but DO want a reasonable medical then the NPPL is the way to go. I can count of the fingers of one hand the number of times I've been to France (although I did fly in Singapore) so the relaxed medical now that I'm 45 will be very welcome. As you can gather, I think the NPPL is a great idea. It has long been known (even by the CAA) that the PPL medical is over restrictive eg when did an ECG (Extra Cash Generator) ever predict heart problems. Oh, that's never then.
A person driving an HGV down any one of Britain's motorways is 99% sure to do far more damage if he/she dies at the wheel than if the same person was in a light aircraft. More or less by definition truckers operate in a relatively high people density environment, pilots generally don't for the majority of their flying. Also, when was the last accident in the UK caused by a trucker dying at the wheel? I can't recall one.
Rant mode OFF