From: Conor on
On 26/03/2010 12:17, Ret. wrote:

> You can drag up unlikely scenarios as long as you like. The fact is that
> I stand more chance of being killed by a crashing 747 than I will of
> becoming involved in one of your imaginary scenarios.
>
Mainly because you're ex-plod.

> It could happen to someone, somewhere, but the chances of it happening
> to any one of us is so remote as to be not worth being concerned about.
> And I am *not* concerned about it.
>

Someone in London was recently killed due to one of these imaginary
scenarios you claim are fanciful.

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Bod on
On 26/03/2010 14:10, Conor wrote:
> On 26/03/2010 12:06, Bod wrote:
>
>>> Or even just a mundane but embarrassing ailment. Who wants the whole
>>> world
>>> knowing they had athletes foot or piles or ecszma or IBS or whatnot?
>
>> Why on earth would having that knowledge, bother anyone?
>>
>> Bod
>
> Ask those in the USA who had medical treatment refused because they'd
> not informed their HMO of a pre-existing condition.
>
>

But this is G/Britain.

Bod
From: Conor on
On 26/03/2010 12:27, Ret. wrote:

> Just do a Google on "ANPR successes" and then come back and say the
> system is of no use.
>

I just have. The first page of results is pretty much exclusively from
police forces. Page 2 has more police forces, a home office website, a
couple of local papers printing a story based on figures provided by the
police.

Interestingly, the rest of the websites in the first two pages raise
concerns and show up failures.

> 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.
>
> So what's your answer? Go back to card indexes?
>

Stop bullshitting people about what it can achieve.

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on
On 26/03/2010 14:02, Ret. wrote:

> Oh, well clearly the records in your hospital find their own way from
> the records dept to the department treating you...
>
They're computerised. And I'm glad you brought up that because in the
case of my FIL they've been consistently wrong. His appointment
yesterday was a duplicate of the one from the previous month. They
claimed he'd cancelled an appointment next month even though he hadn't.
They claimed he'd already had his pacemaker fitted when he hasn't. They
claimed he'd had the 24hr heart monitoring period when he hadn't.

In fact, his case has been cocked up so much because of fuckups on the
database that a letter will be sent to our MP.

So much for the accuracy of computer databases.

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on
On 26/03/2010 14:07, Ret. wrote:

> The difference between us is that I don't suffer from paranoia.

No, the difference is that you spent most of your life in a culture
(civil service) that is pro-monitoring, pro-database and you don't
suffer paranoia because you bought all the reasons for the existence of
programmes so accept them as being what you were told they should be for.

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.