From: Brimstone on

"Cynic" <cynic_999(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:59:22 -0000, "Brimstone"
> <brimstone(a)> 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
> 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.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

From: Conor on
On 24/03/2010 22:59, Ret. wrote:

>> And does it prevent them from doing it?
> It enables the police to monitor the movement of criminals vehicles. If
> a criminal is actually wanted then if his vehicle triggers an alarm on
> the M6 for example, then a motorway car can be despatched to intercept it.

But it doesn't enable them to monitor the movement of criminals, merely
a vehicle that they might drive.

Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on
On 24/03/2010 23:18, Ret. wrote:

> What if? What if? What if? This is really becoming very tiresome. What
> if your next door neighbour has a brain storm, kills his wife -but tells
> the police that you did it? We could go on all week coming up with What
> ifs...

Ask Jean Charles de Menezes about "what ifs". Oh wait, you can't and why
is that?

Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on
On 24/03/2010 23:22, Ret. wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>> On 24/03/2010 16:44, Ret. wrote:
>>> Do you believe that the police and intelligence services have the
>>> time or the resources to examine the movements of the entire
>>> population just on the off-chance that a few may not be beyond
>>> reproach?
>> Yes. Most of it can be automated.
> Tell me how you would create software that would examine millions of
> vehicle movements and come up with the result:
> "The drivers of these vehicles may not be beyond reproach."

The search results merely need to bring up something that looks like it
could fit the Police's guesstimate of how the crime happened.

Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Big Les Wade on
Kim Bolton <nospam(a)all.invalid> posted
>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.

Scotland launched its care record service a year or two before England,
and here's what happened:

Doctor who hacked into Prime Minister's health records escapes

Jan 10 2010 Norman Silvester, Sunday Mail

A DOCTOR who hacked into the health records of Gordon Brown and Alex
Salmond will not be prosecuted, we can reveal today.

Andrew Jamieson sparked a security alert after breaking into
confidential computer files on the PM and First Minister and a series of
other high-profile Scots.

Former Labour leader Jack McConnell and his wife Bridget had their
sensitive files viewed.

BBC newsreader Jackie Bird and Old Firm stars were among other victims.

We told in March how Jamieson, who worked at the Queen Margaret Hospital
in Dunfermline, was charged and appeared on petition at Dunfermline
Sheriff Court.

Now all the victims have been told there will be no trial as the Crown
say that is not in the public interest - even though there is enough
evidence to prosecute.

It is understood the doctor also has ongoing health problems.

Jamieson claims he only looked at the files out of curiosity and did not
pass on the information or use it for any financial gain.

But he could face disciplinary action from his regulatory body the
General Medical Council.

Every victim got a letter from Mark McGuire, acting principal depute at
the Crown Office, last week explaining the reasons for dropping the

The Crown Office said: "After full consideration of all the facts and
circumstances, including confidential medical reports, Crown Counsel has
decided that no proceedings should be taken in relation to this matter."

A Crown Office source added: "There was enough evidence to prosecute

"But having taken into account the nature of the hacking and medical
reports relating to the accused, it has been decided it wouldn't be in
the public interest.

"Were these offences to be repeated then he could stand trial on the
original charges."

The breach was discovered on a national database called the Emergency
Care Summary system, which holds the details of 2.5million people in

It contains personal data such as names, ages, addresses, current
medication and adverse reactions to prescribed medicines.

Nhs staff have to ask patients' permission to look at the ECS, except if
a patient is unconscious or unable to give consent.

It was launched in 2006 with the promise that the system had the
"highest standards of security".

Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.