From: Cynic on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:59:22 -0000, "Brimstone"
<brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>> A body that is under the complete control of the government must
>> surely be regarded as being part of the government?

>It is indeed a part of the government machine, but it is not "the
>Government".

Semantics. AFAIAC the police are part of the government.

>If all their policies and actions are controlled by politicians why are
>there official enquiries into some of their actions?

Because the government is not itself an homogenous entity. Not
everyone in the government is working toward the exact same goal. It
would all work a darn sight better if they were.

In many cases the enquiries are set up in order to scapegoat a
particular section of the government or individual when it is certain
that the matter cannot be kept entirely under wraps. It is often
necessary to sacrifice your bishop in order to protect your queen.
Pretty much bread-and-butter stuff to a senior politician.

--
Cynic

From: Cynic on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:41:49 -0000, "Rob"
<rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>|| A body that is under the complete control of the government must
>|| surely be regarded as being part of the government?

>But unfortunately they're not under the complete control of the government.
>It wasn't the gov who ordered them to intercept lawful travellers on the
>motorway (miners strike), unlawfully retain DNA samples, introduce kettling
>to detain lawful users of the highway, apply random drug screening to
>captive crowds in pubs and town centres, etc, etc...

Do you imagine for a second that if the government had disagreed with
any of those policies that they would not have been stopped PDQ?

And I would be astounded if none of the things you mention were
carried out at the suggestion of a politician. It's how politics has
always worked.

--
Cynic

From: Cynic on
On 24 Mar 2010 22:09:54 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> Even if it did, one red Ford Fiesta looks the same on CCTV as any other
>> red Ford Fiesta.

>Not necessarily.

>This Fiesta has a GB sticker. That Fiesta has a rear wiper.

Hmmm. "It cannot possibly be my car in the photo yer 'onour, because
the one in the photo has a GB sticker and no rear wiper, whereas my
car has no GB sticker and a brand-new rear wiper."

Maybe you'll also protest that it can't be you because the driver in
the photo is wearing dark glasses, whereas you are quite obviously
*not* wearing dark glasses.

It might work if the magistrate is under the age of 5.

--
Cynic

From: Kim Bolton on

Ret. wrote:

>Yesterday my wife received a letter from the NHS describing the new national
>records database that is being set up. The benefits, of course, is that once
>up and running, any doctor, anywhere in the UK, will have immediate access
>to the medical records of any person from anywhere else in the country. If
>you suddenly fall ill, or are seriously injured when on holiday down in
>Cornwall, a doctor down there can access your records no matter that you
>might live in Preston.
>It is made clear in the letter that if my wife does not want her records on
>this national database, then she can 'opt out'. Will she? Of course not.
>
>I can see it now, however, you will all be saying: "What if the information
>is sold to pharmaceuticals companies. They will then be able to bombard you
>with junk mail advertising their cures for your specific ailments." "What
>if a blackmailer gets hold of the fact that you once had Syphilis and
>threatens to let your family know?" etc. etc. What ifs, what ifs, what

Although you dismiss these things as 'what ifs', that's how one
explores the possibilities of database usage and data loss.

Would you rather have a disaster and then deal with the problems?

Databases exist to be mined and sold. The NHS one will go the same way
- the NID was offered to firms that paid enough money, even while it
was being discussed.

--
from
Kim Bolton
From: Ret. on
Kim Bolton wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>
>> Yesterday my wife received a letter from the NHS describing the new
>> national records database that is being set up. The benefits, of
>> course, is that once up and running, any doctor, anywhere in the UK,
>> will have immediate access to the medical records of any person from
>> anywhere else in the country. If you suddenly fall ill, or are
>> seriously injured when on holiday down in Cornwall, a doctor down
>> there can access your records no matter that you might live in
>> Preston.
>> It is made clear in the letter that if my wife does not want her
>> records on this national database, then she can 'opt out'. Will
>> she? Of course not.
>>
>> I can see it now, however, you will all be saying: "What if the
>> information is sold to pharmaceuticals companies. They will then be
>> able to bombard you with junk mail advertising their cures for your
>> specific ailments." "What if a blackmailer gets hold of the fact
>> that you once had Syphilis and threatens to let your family know?"
>> etc. etc. What ifs, what ifs, what
>
> Although you dismiss these things as 'what ifs', that's how one
> explores the possibilities of database usage and data loss.
>
> Would you rather have a disaster and then deal with the problems?
>
> Databases exist to be mined and sold. The NHS one will go the same way
> - the NID was offered to firms that paid enough money, even while it
> was being discussed.

So when you get your letter - will you be opting out? I got mine today...

Kev