From: Iain on 26 Mar 2010 13:09
"Cynic" <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> 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
>>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.
Whatever you want to call it, it was pulling the reins in.
> 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.
Maybe, maybe not - I don't know. Do you?
> 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.
Is that right? Do you have more knowledge? You sound quite good at putting
people down who express their opinion and make fair assumptions. But now
you seem to be making rather wilder assumptions.
From: AlanG on 26 Mar 2010 13:15
On 26 Mar 2010 16:05:25 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>AlanG <invalid(a)invalid.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> 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So how far out of date do you want those medical records to be at any
You were speaking generally not about the NHS system.
But I set one up that was updated each night
>> 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.
Not necessarily but still a lot of people.
>'course, even if there is only read access, that doesn't do anything
>about unauthorised users accessing sensitive personal information.
Indeed. But we get that anyway with clerical staff being bribed by
And there is all that use the government will try and bend it to.
From: Mike Scott on 26 Mar 2010 13:17
> 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.
Funny you should mention that. One did come down a few miles north of
Harlow a few years ago. Part of Hatfield Forest is still afaik fenced
off (radioactive?). I shudder to think what might have happened. So
/your/ idea of low probability may well not align well with that of others.
> 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.
Out of curiosity, I'd say the chance that your house would burn down is
singularly low. So may I assume you don't trouble with fire insurance?
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England
From: Cynic on 26 Mar 2010 13:23
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:09:34 -0000, "Iain" <spam(a)smaps.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>Whatever you want to call it, it was pulling the reins in.
If that was not a result of the public finding out, then the timeing
was a pretty unlikely coincidence.
>> 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.
>Maybe, maybe not - I don't know. Do you?
It was widely reported that the system was such that the rulemakers
*had* to peruse all the claims, and some of the politicians who were
telling us how disgusted they were over the matter themselves gave
back large amounts of money that they had claimed. So yes, I do know.
>> 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.
>Is that right? Do you have more knowledge? You sound quite good at putting
>people down who express their opinion and make fair assumptions. But now
>you seem to be making rather wilder assumptions.
It's a pretty certain deduction from the facts that we know.
If your job was to decide on the rules for claiming expenses, and it
was also your job to oversee and/or approve all expense claims made,
then if you saw that the rules were being used to claim expenses that
you had never intended should be claimed, is it not pretty obvious
that you would change the rules PDQ so that such expenses could no
longer be claimed?
From: Ophelia on 26 Mar 2010 13:27
"Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> Not true. In some circumstances it could be an offence to not answer. Of
> course if he gets arrested for it, he may then refuse to answer any
> subsequent questions.
More detail, please?