You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Bod on 26 Mar 2010 12:17 On 26/03/2010 16:05, Adrian wrote: > 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 So how far out of date do you want those medical records to be at any 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. > > Adrian, get your doctor to inrease the dose of your paranoid tablets. Bod
From: Cynic on 26 Mar 2010 12:26 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:04:29 -0000, "Iain" <spam(a)smaps.net> wrote: >> 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. No politician can be seen to be opposing something that the majority of the public feels strongly about, and all you are describing is the resulting damage-limitation exercise. The people who were in a position to change the rules had known what expenses were being claimed all along, and many of the politicians who are now expessing distaste for how the rules have been "abused" were themselves "abusing" the rules and so were obviously extremely aware of what was going on. To me, it is perfectly clear that the *real* purpose of the rules was to provide a nice amount of additional income to politicians that could be hidden from the general public. As such, they worked exactly as intended apart from the unintended public exposure. -- Cynic
From: Brimstone on 26 Mar 2010 12:31 "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:vbSdnZ4rnJJ8RzHWnZ2dnUVZ7oGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > 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? > Nope, it's because all police officers always tell the truth.
From: Mike Scott on 26 Mar 2010 12:34 JNugent wrote: > Conor wrote: >> On 26/03/2010 14:10, Adrian wrote: >>> 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. > > Would that be Stamford Hill (North London)? > > I've never heard it referred to as "Stamford". > Streetmap offers a choice of Lincolnshire or Northumberland for a straight Stamford. Given the size of the village, I doubt they mean Northumberland :-) -- Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk) Harlow Essex England
From: Adrian on 26 Mar 2010 12:38
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Do you think it's a good thing for DVLA to sell access to the >> registration databases to anybody who asks nicely? > "Nicely" includes handing over the requisite amount of cash, of course. Acksherly, I think you'll find that was covered in "sell"... |