You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Cynic on 26 Mar 2010 09:22 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:15:53 -0000, "Iain" <spam(a)smaps.net> wrote: >> One of the problems with being under constant surveillance is that you >> don't only need to obey the rules, but you also need to obey what >> other people think the rules *ought* to be. >It is also what is intended within the _spirit_ of what was written. As we >are all far too aware of, the government cannot legislate to cover >everything, although attempts are made to do this. Unless you were present or read the minutes of the discussions that took place between the rulemakers, you can only guess as to what the "spirit" (purpose) of the rules might be. Generally the rules will be made such that people cannot use them too far outside the purposes that they were *really* designed to achieve, even if that is not the purpose that has been publically stated. And if the rules *do* begin to be used outside of their real purpose, they are invariably changed PDQ to stop that happening. >It should have been clear what the intentions of the rules were - what the >expenses were intended for, and their purpose. This had clearly been >exploited to extreme degrees, well beyond this and some MPs were clearly >pushing it and abusing it. The spirit of the original concept had gone. >The consequences therefore have to be accepted. You are merely guessing as to what the intention of the rules were. Many jobs come with "perks" that have the main purpose of providing the employee with some additional disposable income without upsetting other employees by making the salary difference look too large and/or saving the employee and company some tax. The fact that the employee may need to use his company car, mobile phone or town flat for business, and that business use is the way the directors may have publically justified those perks does *not* mean that he is abusing the rules by using them a heck of a lot more for private purposes. -- Cynic
From: Conor on 26 Mar 2010 09:48 On 26/03/2010 11:43, Ret. wrote: > And if you are brought in unconcious from a car wreck? > I've been brought in unconscious from a RTA decades before such a system was thought of. I'm still here. > Why is it 'dangerous'. I couldn't give a monkey's who sees my medical > records. > What about if your life insurance company does and refuses to pay out for an undisclosed visit to the doctors? > So what are your 'what ifs' that makes this new system 'dangerous'? See above. They've already sold the DVLA database to anyone who wants access. And that's even before we get to the data lost on trains. > Remember that under the present system your paper records are frequently > carted about from hospital to hospital and department to department by > porters. > I visited a hospital yesterday with my FIL who was having some tests. I waited in the reception for an hour and didn't see a single porter with any records. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 26 Mar 2010 09:50 On 26/03/2010 11:36, Ret. wrote: > But if you are unconcious when you are taken into A&E, having immediate > access to details of your current medication and any allergies, etc. > could be the difference between life and death. > So why aren't thousands of people dying in A&E at the moment due to lack of information? > The new system apparently requires 'smart cards' to gain access to the > database, and as there will be less need to transport paper records > about, it is likely to be more secure than the present system. > Hardly. The current system limits how much can be got. The new one provides full national records. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 26 Mar 2010 09:51 On 26/03/2010 11:44, Ret. wrote: > I really couldn't care less who looks at my medical records. > Would you if your insurance premiums and pension payments were based on them? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Bod on 26 Mar 2010 09:52
On 26/03/2010 13:48, Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 11:43, Ret. wrote: > >> And if you are brought in unconcious from a car wreck? >> > I've been brought in unconscious from a RTA decades before such a system > was thought of. I'm still here. > > >> Why is it 'dangerous'. I couldn't give a monkey's who sees my medical >> records. >> > > What about if your life insurance company does and refuses to pay out > for an undisclosed visit to the doctors? > >> So what are your 'what ifs' that makes this new system 'dangerous'? > > See above. They've already sold the DVLA database to anyone who wants > access. And that's even before we get to the data lost on trains. > >> Remember that under the present system your paper records are frequently >> carted about from hospital to hospital and department to department by >> porters. >> > > I visited a hospital yesterday with my FIL who was having some tests. I > waited in the reception for an hour and didn't see a single porter with > any records. > > They were stuffed down their trousers. Bod |