You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 26 Mar 2010 10:33 On 26/03/2010 14:24, Ret. wrote: > So you think that it's better to try to detect crimes *after* they have > occurred - as opposed to preventing crimes before they have happened? > > Kev Certainly in my county, that appears to be the case. Actually, they don't even do the former even when they're handed all the evidence they need by work we've done ourselves. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Adrian on 26 Mar 2010 10:34 Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> At least nine of these are in London. (There's one in Stamford but no >>> indication as to which Stamford.) >> There's only one, isn't there? Are you thinking of Stratford? > There's the area around London referred to as Stamford. I've never heard of it. Where is it? Are you thinking of Stamford Hill, in Hackney, or Stamford Brook (tube station, not an "area"), in Chiswick? They're nowhere near each other, and neither's really known as "Stamford". There's also Stamford Bridge football ground, in Fulham, but that's neither an area or known as "Stamford".
From: Brimstone on 26 Mar 2010 10:35 "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:813ssvFu9cU1(a)mid.individual.net... > 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. > But could it be reasonably argued in court that a police officer is likely to use such information in the pursuit of terrorist activity? The relevant part of the section reads:- "A person commits an offence who� (a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been� (i) a member of Her Majesty�s forces, (ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or (iii) a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism ..." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 10:39 Conor wrote: > 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. It doesn't matter a fig whether it's a computer database - or a paper record. If the wrong information is entered on it - then the wrong information is entered on it. Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 10:42
Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 12:01, Adrian wrote: > >> Then there's the financial implications. Very few people are like >> Kev in having access to a final-salary pension. Most have >> money-purchase pensions, where the annuity rates are calculated >> based on medical information. >> >> That information is just as liable to be maliciously falsified as it >> is to be maliciously leaked. What proof is there that it hasn't >> been? The audit trail which is part of the self-same insecure >> application? > > And there's the rub. Kev is an ex-public sector employee so as such > enjoys all the perks and protections that come with it in retirement > such as being insulated from the real world in regards to pensions > etc. > Also virtually all of the public sector are brainwashed into thinking > massive databases are the solution to everything. No they are not - but they are perhaps, more than most, able to recognise the benefits that have come with databases. Would you prefer it if the police had to ask a County Hall employee to wade through a massive card index to find a car's registered owner every time they needed that information? Wanted criminals are regularly arrested because a police officer carries out a PNC check when he stops someone. How would that work if all criminal records were on paper? > > The rest of us have to suffer. Nonsense. Kev |