You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 11:44 Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 14:10, Ret. wrote: >> Conor wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Probably because I can see the massive benefits that can be obtained >> from such system - and because I don't dwell on the unlikely >> downsides. > > Thankyou for confirming your indoctrination and brainwashing. It's not indoctrination - it is simply knowledge from having worked with such systems. Do you think that the DVLA database that gives police officers instant access to registered owner information to be a bad thing? Do you think that the PNC which gives the police instant access to criminal records to be a bad thing? Do tell... Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 11:52 Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 14:17, Ret. wrote: > >> I made it quite clear that I was disputing their allegation that I >> had been speeding. I could have refused to take the breath test on >> the grounds that they had no lawful reason to request it - but that >> would have been a very stupid thing to do. > > Only because failure to give a breath test upon request results in a > driving ban Although not if it could be shown that the request for the breath test was not lawful (which it was not in my case). The problem is it would have been my word against two police officers. - something else which I suspect you supported. Of course I did - and still do - don't you? Kev
From: Rob on 26 Mar 2010 12:03 Ret. wrote: || Conor wrote: ||| On 26/03/2010 14:17, Ret. wrote: ||| |||| I made it quite clear that I was disputing their allegation that I |||| had been speeding. I could have refused to take the breath test on |||| the grounds that they had no lawful reason to request it - but that |||| would have been a very stupid thing to do. ||| ||| Only because failure to give a breath test upon request results in a ||| driving ban || || Although not if it could be shown that the request for the breath || test was not lawful (which it was not in my case). The problem is it || would have been my word against two police officers. Why would that have been a 'problem' - lengthy legal arguments on complicated points of law? -- Rob
From: Iain on 26 Mar 2010 12:04 "Cynic" <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4dcpq55ntpnppt3lgeeifarkooob3gj6pg(a)4ax.com... > 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. I think that it has been made very clear to what sort of level the spirit of the rules should have been interpreted. This has been seen from the level of investigations and recommendations for repayments. And as I have said, some MPs have gone beyond this. Perks or no perks, they simply went too far. I cannot comment on the quality of the rules, but yes, you must have seen that there was a review. Iain
From: Adrian on 26 Mar 2010 12:05
AlanG <invalid(a)invalid.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Not necessarily. It's trivial to set up a read only system. Copy a > master system and only let it be viewed. So how far out of date do you want those medical records to be at any given time? > The danger comes from the person who *does* have write privileges for > the master system. Which, in the context of the NHS system, will be virtually identical to the list of users with read access. 'course, even if there is only read access, that doesn't do anything about unauthorised users accessing sensitive personal information. |