You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 25 Mar 2010 13:32 On 25/03/2010 12:04, 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. And so can the insurance companies. They may not have access now but the gubbermint has a long history of opening up databases to those willing to pay for access. > 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. Remember what you've said in this long thread if she ever claims on any medical related insurance either here or when on holiday and it gets refused because of something she didn't mention on the application form but the insurance company found on the database. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 25 Mar 2010 13:35 On 25/03/2010 15:00, Ret. wrote: > So do you think that the national NHS records system is intrusive? > I'll let you know when access is opened up to the private sector (most likely to insurance companies) to pay for it as has the DVLA database. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 25 Mar 2010 13:38 On 25/03/2010 15:10, Ret. wrote: > I can understand that there are other people who are not like this, who, > instead of being amiable and co-operative, are argumentative, > unco-operative, and will not do *anything* unless they absolutely have to. > I am quite lucky in this respect. As someone who is an ex-member of the security services (Police/Armed Forces etc) , I do not have to answer a police officers questions thanks to an amendment to the Terrorism Act. In fact, unless he has good reason, the officer is actually committing an offence under the Terrorism Act by asking me. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 25 Mar 2010 13:40 On 25/03/2010 15:15, Ret. wrote: >> And so you end up with events that you will surely recognise: "A >> shock revellation today showed that the suicide bomber responsible for >> 234 deaths was already known by the police to be a potential threat >> *months* before the tragic incident. Yet last Thursday police stood >> idly by and allowed a known terrorist to board a crowded commuter >> train. Ministers are calling for an urgent investigation as to why >> such vital intelligence was completely ignored ..." > > I can see why you call yourself Cynic... > This is kind of the rub. They have these databases but they prove to be of feck all use at preventing anything serious. They do however inconvenience lots of people due to errors in entries and in some cases, this has led to perfectly innocent people dying. In the meantime, there's always the worry that some civil servant will lose huge swathes of quite sensitive information. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 25 Mar 2010 13:44
On 25/03/2010 17:10, Ret. wrote: > You may also be surprised to hear that very often, after being stopped > and questioned in a friendly and polite manner, the drivers would > remark: "It's nice to see that you are out and about and doing your > job." But then these are the people who recognise that the police are > there to help them and arrest criminals and who do not believe that > every policeman is there to harass them and stitch them up. > That is before, for reasons out of the Police's control, they ended up being quite a rare sight on the streets. Around my area, once it gets past teatime, there are 4 officers covering a few hundred square miles. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |