You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 26 Mar 2010 09:52 On 26/03/2010 11:51, Ret. wrote: > The problems today is that although police numbers have increased - they > have nowhere near kept pace with the massive increase in demand. > And why does that demand exist? Thatcher destroyed society in the 80's and subsequent governments have outlawed all means of control of kids that used to be acceptable. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 26 Mar 2010 09:54 On 26/03/2010 11:58, Brimstone wrote: > Thus demonstrating that you have learnt nothing from this discussion. > He is a retired Police Inspector. We all know the Police's call for national databases. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 26 Mar 2010 09:58 On 26/03/2010 11:58, Ret. wrote: > Conor wrote: >> 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. > > Would you care to enlighten us as to this amendment that excuses you > from answering lawful questions? I don't suppose it excuses you from > being arrested for refusing to give your name and address when it is > lawfully required...? > The new set of rules are under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act. They target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) � which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. ...such as my name and address.... Having served in a period when the IRA were particularly active on the UK mainland, our names and addresses were considered to be of importance to the IRA who could target us with car bombs etc. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 10:00 Conor wrote: > 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? Thousands of people are certainly dying unnecessarily every single year within our NHS. No idea what proportion of these deaths occur within A&E however... > > >> 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. Actually, no it doesn't - it provides 'summary'. Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 10:02
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. Oh, well clearly the records in your hospital find their own way from the records dept to the department treating you... Kev |