UK government refuses public review before launch of NHS data platform The UK government is refusing to run a public consultation on the expanded use of centralized data analytics on personal health information – under a £360 million ($432 million) contract that spy-tech business Palantir is tipped to win. Minister of State for Care and Mental Health Gillian Keegan told Parliament that NHS …
Any trust has been eroded:
- by the government generally through partygate, Brexit, cost of living crisis, contract awards during Covid, ...
- planned data grab of what is VERY personal data
- planned 'after the fact' engagement
- procurement process and favoured bidder
Stop, re-think and engage with the public now!
If something does not stand up to scrutiny it is not good enough.
This post has been deleted by its author
> it was the population as a whole which voted fro Brexit.
Wtf? You brexit lot have a screw loose.
If the boot were on the other foot, i.e. 52/48, you would be screaming for another referendum, and I would reluctantly have to agree. But if it's 48/52, you are shouting "we won you lost get over it you remainiacs"
If a decision of that magnitude doesn't achieve a clear majority, then obviously it has to be put back to the people.
What if it were down to the last vote? Would you still say "the people have spoken, we won you lost get over it"?
I recall being told that the brexit referendum would use the same rules as a general election, i.e. there has to be a majority to call it a done deal. Then we had the "non-legally-binding" vote, and it surprisingly went your way by the narrowest of margins after all of the lies and dirty tricks, i.e. mass manipulation on facebook. Then you changed the rules afterwards and said the People have Spoken. Well sorry, the people certainly have not.
As far as I can see it, the main beneficiary of Brexit was Vladimir Putin, because it divides and destabilises Europe and the other Western alliances. And of course he had the means to rig it his way, since he had such good mates in the tory party via Alexander Lebedev, and he had a whole department dedicated to rigging foreign elections on social media.
And the tory party, known for its greed and megalomania, know that the Queen will shortly gasp her last. They want to seize absolute power so that they can tear up the rulebook and do whatever the hell they like. Selling us all out to Palantir is just the start of it.
I see the Prime Mincers job is up for grabs ...........maybe a foriegner can do the job better ?
What's wrong with puttin' Putin into the UK Parliament ?
Surely he couldn't do any worse than the last lot of Tory twats at selling out UK soveriegnty ?
ALF
> maybe a foriegner can do the job better ?
I never quite understood why the cabinet members / head of state are expected to be nationals (and is that actually the case in Britain?)
After all, companies don't always appoint their CxOs from the inside, do they?
> If the boot were on the other foot, i.e. 52/48, you would be screaming for another referendum, and I would reluctantly have to agree. But if it's 48/52, you are shouting "we won you lost get over it you remainiacs"
Indeed, Farage specifically said before the vote that a 52/48 win for remain would be "unfinished business". https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-eu-referendum_uk_576e6585e4b08d2c56393f12
And let's not forget that the question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Nowhere was leaving the Single Market mentioned. The Leave campaign sold Brexit on the basis of continuing to trade freely with our European neighbours.
It's amazing how hard-line remains so frequently allege the leave campaign lied, yet themselves lie so blatantly that even our departing PM would be embarrassed.
The first 'hit' on a search I just carried out flagged up George Osbourne (supported by Ed Balls and Vince Cable, so cross party) speaking in May 2016, prior to the referendum, stating how we needed to stay in the EU to stay in the Single Market.
A quick quote from his speech: "Fact: we now know the Leave campaign want to take us out of both European Union and the Single Market."
True, that is the remain campaign stating that, not the leave campaign. Nevertheless, it was entirely clear to everyone that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.
AC: "... George Osbourne (supported by Ed Balls and Vince Cable, so cross party) speaking in May 2016, prior to the referendum, stating how we needed to stay in the EU to stay in the Single Market."
(At the risk of severe downvoting), that would be the same George Osborne who still insists that his austerity 'package' had nothing to do with making poor people poorer, even though he cut welfare payment:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/06/george-osborne-britain-cuts-austerity
"If you were going to be looking for savings in welfare, pensioner benefits is not the place that I would first turn to. I would look at housing benefit for the under-25s, when there are many people listening to this programme who can't afford to move out of their home but if you're on benefits you can get housing benefit under the age of 25. There are people, for example, on incomes of £60,000 or £70,000 living in council homes – I'd look at that."
(It seems that GO is 'brainy': https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/george-osborne-quotes)
>>>Nevertheless, it was entirely clear to everyone that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.<<<
Hanan, Farage and all the other grifters are in record as saying, "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market." So wind your neck in, Gaslighting-AC.
> Nevertheless, it was entirely clear to everyone that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Official campaign Vote Leave said: “Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave”
A July 2016 Comres/BBC poll of British voters found that 66 per cent said the government should focus on “maintaining access to the single market so Britain can have free trade with the EU”.
>>Anyobe mentioning of "Brexit" here should remember that BOTH sides lied through their teeth.
Apples and Giraffes... The difference being that the remainiac lies would have resulted in.... no change at all.
The Brexit lies resulted in what is being played out day by day - an unmitigated social, financial and economic disaster with the UK poised to break international law because the incumbents made promises that are actually impossible to deliver.
It's also a standard scumbag tactic these days to accuse your rival of your own crimes. Partygate vs "Beergate"? There was an order of magnitude or three difference in the scale of the rulebreaking, but the tories like to claim that Labour was "just as bad" and therefore it's all moot.
The scale of lies and manipulation on the leave side were staggering. I'm sure they can dig up some instance of a remain-side campaigner having lied, but then again there was plenty of false-flag skullduggery going on, they could have been a deliberate straw man.
Putin "de-nazifying" ukraine.. now accusing them of war crimes.. It's not so much the pot calling the kettle black as the skillet calling the crockery black. It's a war of rhetoric and I'm sick of it.
A bad decision is a bad decision. It doesn't get better because it's been implemented. Far from it. Making and implementing it are only the start of the problem.
If we don't lay the consequences at its door we're not going to learn from the mistake. We also need to be vigilant that those consequences don't lead us into a constitutional crisis. BoJo's antics have nearly got us into one already in the last few weeks.
The more and more i see how the EU act i know Brexit was the right choice. Had they just kept it as a common market which is what we originally joined i'm sure most would have been happy, but its turned into a monster nobody asked for and its over reaching into peoples lives now for the worse. The UK since the 80s had been warning over and over again to stop this ever tighter integration and they just kept doing it the are surprised Brexit happened, they were warned over and over and over again.
The EU will learn a hard lesson on why having the Euro was a big mistake. Their Central Bank has been running at -0.5% interest , what do you think is going to happen to Greece, Spain, Italy etc when interest rates go up to curb inflation? Green has a national debt of 200% its GDP for example , with Italy not far behind.
This could be the straw the breaks the EU's back.
Now that we aren't part of it, what's all the copncern about ?
Comparing European politics to UK politics is a waste of time, unless you start to count all of the good things that we have already lost, and then look at all the good things that are about to be washed away, and be replaced with an American model, derived from a country that cannot tell the truth to it's own politicians or voters.
We have lost Legal Aid for tenants fighting unscrupulous landlords, we have landlords who can now hold their own sudo legal Reviews to enable repossession of their rented property without taking the tenant to court.
We have American products replacing European household name brands with dodgy stuff that requires you to start a class action against the company in order to get your money back, or a trifle in compensation if you are lucky.
The milk we now import is full of puss and antibiotics, your health data has been sold to American pharmacuetical and health insurance companies, without your permission.
Boris's mates were even talking recently about not having to follow the legal codes of practice as were laid out in the European Conventioin on Human Rights............
FUCK OFF YOU NIT WIT.............
SOZ. ALF
And our NHS medical records can be sold off to the highest lowest bidder!
Meanwhile the EU is actually doing a lot to tackle data-slurping by big tech twats.
It also has an impeccable standard in Human Rights, something that Priti Patel & co would dearly love to abolish.
The brexit-voting tories are just a nasty landlord-class who long for feudal powers to turn the rest of us into serfs, and the brexit-voting labour are a sad bunch of xenophobic simpletons, hoodwinked by a bus, who thought that brexit was about funding the NHS and keeping johnny foreigner out (e.g. my friend's mother, who said she voted brexit to "get rid of all those bloody pakis...") - if only they could comprehend what the tories were planning for them, and for the NHS.
How the EU act? What, against Britain? Well it's a fairly protectionist trading bloc and, in case this wasn't already painfully clear, you're now on the outside.
The EU would have stood up for you. Now they stand against you. That's what happens when you leave... what did people expect?
As I did. ;) However all trade blocs are, by their nature, protectionist. There is liberalism and lowering of barriers for the members of the bloc, something that eases trade between member countries, and by virtue of that, defavourises trade with the outside world. In essence, a trade bloc provides internal perks at the expense of outsiders. A form of protectionism. It's basic economics.
Free trade agreements lower tariffs between partners and are considered non-protectionist, since they place no restrictions on trade outside the FTA (each member's 'external' tariff schedule is for themselves to decide).
The EU is a Customs Union, and customs union's combine some element of an FTA with specific requirements placed on all members to maintain protectionist tariffs to outside competition.
So while all trade blocks provide benefits to their members, and thus could be argued to be a form of protectionism, as you say, in a FTA, that is an incidental by-product.
The EU, being a CU, is protectionist by design (as can be demonstrated in fact, by, for a simple example, the tariffs placed on oranges to protect the Spanish orange growers' market share)
"This could be the straw the breaks the EU's back."
<gallic shrug>
The Express (in particular) has been saying that semi-regularly since the Euro was introduced. It has weathered Ireland's problems, Greece's problems, Italy's problems, Greece's other problems... this economic shitstorm is a mixture of Covid and Russia, it is an external force and it's affecting everywhere. So, yeah, things will be tough, but the Euro will continue. I won't make plans for it's failure any time soon.
If anything is going to mess up the EU in the near future, it'll be whether or not they can manage to continue to coordinate a EU-wide response to what's happening in Ukraine. But, again, external issues.
Disclaimer: I live in France.
and his wife wasn't aide to the vice-president of the Conservative Friends of Russia a.k.a Westminster Russia Forum
Despite describing itself as a think tank, no published research exists, and they are likely more akin to a lobbying group
"Any trust has been eroded:"
Your list of reason for not trusting the government seem to be related directly to, and only to, the current government. Are you young? Have a short attention span? Simply forgotten all the reasons previous governments of all colours have given us to erode trust over the years?
I still upvoted you for the sentiment though :-)
Thanks for the note - on the spectrum from Conspiracy Theorist to Gullible I would see myself as a Sceptic / Cynic.
I have kept my comment to the issue highlighted by the article and the government who oversees this.
Agree that there are many other examples from previous governments in this country (as well as governments in other countries)...
Data fetishists at work. *
The deep lack of transparency and the insistance it must be done their way are quite large markers.
Like the private sector ones the quitters used to pump out their saturation-level bu***hit that whatever your worst nightmare, Turkish-paedo-terrorist-dole-scrounging-cash-in-hand-building-workers^ for example would immediately come true if you didn' vote leave NOW.
^The very worst kind
BTW
The number of leave voters matches the number of people in the UK believed to have the math skills of an an 11YO
Natually I'll point out that correlation<>causation, but it is an intriguing coincidence, is it not?
A bunch of low civil servants who unlike majority of those reading TheRegister had to go to the office every day were allowed to have a glass a wine in the garden with the very people they worked in the office and we are calling it “partygate”?
This is just stupid politics.
Downing St is the top, not the bottom.
They broke the law. Repeatedly. Almost every week.
It wasn't "a glass of wine". It was large groups raucously drinking until several people threw up and passed out.
At the time, the law said "No gatherings of more than two people", with limited exceptions for necessary work.
Getting drunk is neither work nor necessary.
In any other workplace, that behaviour gets you a written warning, if not fired.
In Downing Street, that's a Friday during a pandemic.
And don't forget, much of this wanton behaviour was before we had any vaccines, or even known effective treatments.
It was sheer luck that there wasn't a huge outbreak that totally incapacitated the Government. The Prime Minister almost died!
But their attitude is being reflected throughout UK society as a whole. I will use as illustration the 5 Managers of Together Housing Association Ltd and their legal counsel (barrister) who felt that the COVID rules in play at the County Court Bradford should not apply to them..
So they got together to conspire how they would win they case that they shouldn't. Three times over a two day period, these arrogant twats went in hand in hand five at a time into a meeting room which had a large sign on the door which said "no more than two people to use the room, AND wear a MASK".
Did they take any notice of the court usher the first time they were reprimanded ?
No, did they heck ...
Of course these laws are written to control mere muppets, and are not for the facsist pigs who are prosecuting the mere unfortunate muppets.
I think YOU should remain out of Europe and suffer the consequences, as YOU won't learn any other way
ALF
>that spy-tech business Palantir is tipped to win.
Which is completely fucking absurd given:
- Palantir's role as incumbent was based on a no-compete direct award resulting from their providing free consultancy time supporting COVID response
- Palantir otherwise have zero track record of UK central government delivery
- Palantir's track record in the UK private sector is similarly nonexistant
- Palantir's track record in the global private sector is - at best - patchy
This is a contract for a data platform nobody in the NHS is asking for being awarded to a company that has no right bidding for it spending money the NHS doesn't have.
The contracts process so far has been a joke. NHS England do not have the competency to run this kind of tech procurement. The public contracts notice for this mega-contract runs to 289 words total. All other information has been delivered under NDA via confidential "supplier briefings" consisting of 45-minute powerpoint sessions, laden with Palantir-specific language like "purpose-based access control" and marketechture diagrams that have been all-but lifted from Palantir white papers. The format of and process for the procurement runs completely contrary to central government policy in every respect. It makes no allowance for SME involvement - normally mandatory. It has no preference for the use of open source technology or open standards for interoperability - normally mandatory. It makes no attempt to divide the nine figure sum into smaller deliverables - normally mandatory.
This should be an immense scandal, because unless the process is challenged it's going to result in us shoveling the best part of a billion quid (remember this is just for 5 of hundreds of use cases) to a thoroughly evil company, outsourcing the entirety of the NHS's data assets to their staff in the process, with zero oversight and almost certainly delivering zero business value to the doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals overstretched on the business end of things.
Whoever ends up as health secretary in three months time would do well to can this entirely.
I'm not sure they do. Or should.
We have masses of heath data already that indicate (for example) that there needs to be a better policy response to obesity which could have a major impact not only on people's lives but on the burgeoning cost of healthcare. However, the government refuses to produce a policy response because "nanny state". Yet there's nothing more "nanny state" than taking people's health records without their consent "for their own good". If we refuse to use the data we already have, why waste resources on collecting more?
It appears that the motivation for this is not healthcare per se, but the opportunity of creating profitable treatment industries. The problem with them is that they depend on people remaining sufficiently sick that you can bleed them dry financially: there's no profit in a simple cure. And that's before we get on to the questionable links some of the potential financial beneficiaries may have.
I'm getting the feeling that Cambridge Anals is fiddling with this junior news outlet, 'cos I am unable to affect the number of upvotes by clicking on the up arrow ????
I can click the down arrow to transfer my vote to it's opposite the down vote, but am unable to add an upvote.
How odd ?
ALF
I wonder who in the Tory party has a friend who's going to be making a lovely bit of coin on this?
I mean, there are plenty in that party with links to Russia, who have taken Russian money, who also refuse point blank to detail how Russia influenced the last GE.
Do the restrictions the UK and EU have placed on doing business with Russia extend to brown envelopes as well?
@wolftone
Quote: "...brown envelopes...."
Sorry to see that your model is SO-O-O-O-O-O old fashioned.
Have you not heard that the latest trend is shopping bags (from Fortnums) stuffed with folding cash!?
The highest in the land...the elite....have participated in this fashion trend.....why not a politician (or two)?
P.S. Take a look at recent exchange rate moves.....US dollars are VERY fashionable too!
It's a 3 stage process:
1. NHS can't manage data itself so needs help from US megacorporations.
2. US megacorporations have done such a good job that we need them to manage the clinical stuff too!
3. Private enterprise has done such a good job that we need it to manage the finances via insurance based schemes because "small state".
I note with interest that Rishi Sunak's parents were a GP and a pharmacist, but his chosen career was investment banking and hedge fund management. As always, watch the money.
For a long time (20 years - ish) I have been working in the NHS sending data to the Renal Registry
It collects data on Renal Patients. It is run by Clinicians, has strong patient reps, and is very careful of who gets to see the data.
It is an example of doing things right, has enabled many changes in the way that we care for patients with renal failure, backing changes in care with hard data showing the efficacy and outcomes.
So when the article talks about the good outcomes that can be made from looking at health data I agree. But without the safeguards (and I don’t see them here) the risk out ways the benefits.
It costs money to do this stuff. So either you pay to do it or you have to allow the data to be sold to pay for the analysis you want.
Surely someone must remember this one GIGO.
How much is the not complete NHS data set worth ?
How much info does the NHS actually hold on patients, er which is actually relevant ?
I have attended chiropractics treatments for many years, which the NHS does not have any record of.
I have been successfully using Cannabis oil to treat skin cancer, but I did not get it on prescription via my GP. Numerous friends buy cannabis products (full spectrum) for health and well being, which are unknown to the NHS record keepers.
If a friend is suffering from depression or anxiety I am far more likely to suggest any number of efficacious treatments icluding Psylocibin, than I am likely to say, "you should see your doctor about that".
Nuff said I think, the illustration is clear, the NHS data set isn't really that "complete" or "useful" to USA drug companies and USA health insurance markets, that is ..... going forward into our none NHS health future.
ALF
Permanently, or do you keep going back for another fix?
'Chiropractic' has a long and pretty undistinguished record. Works for some, damages others, provides very temporary relief, and another 'talking therapy' for many. Overall: meh.
Which seems to sum up the results of clinical studies: meh, or, in other words, chances are you will be wasting your money.
It's your personal opinion.
I am sadden that you feel so strongly about it from your own experience that you are quite happy to prevent others from using the same treatment which you tried but were unhappy with.
Personally I can say that I am today able to work and enjoy lige because of Mc Timoney Choropractics which were not available on the NHS.
The accident happened in the 70's whilst doing cross country running. I was offered opiate pain killers and anti inlfamatory medicine, but had to wait three years for the NHS to give me an examiniation. The examiner did not touch me, just recommended physio therapy which I still needed to be on medication to attend the clinic which told me there was nothing wrong with me.
I have had corsets and wedges made for my shoes, and had two specialist orthopeadic officer chairs since then so I can still use a PC. Still no word from NHS on a treatment that will work.
In the meantime I have one chiropractic each year and I no longer need a diet of opiates to kill pain, I do not have any.
Maybe you should have tried McTimoney rather than a British Chiropratic qualified person. Good luck with you problems, NHS doesn't have many of the answers.
FFsake cannabis without THC ?
No magic mushroom tea for my anxiety ?
ALF
Scotland barley voted to remain.
It's really not as clear cut as Scots like to make out.
I found the stats very interesting. Down to a few thousand votes in some regions.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum/eu-referendum-results-region-scotland
"...Scotland barley voted to remain..."
No I think you'll find that Scotland's barley is fully employed being malted for our national drink...
Seriously though, the UK-wide vote to leave was hardly clearcut. 52% is not a decisive vote by anybody's standards (anybody sensible anyway.)
Whether or not 52% is considered decisive is usually based on whether you agree with the result or not.
And as a passing remark, if you are considering a case where votes number in the millions, a difference of few percent of the vote can correspond to quite a few standard deviations; and so be rather statistically significant indeed. Though "statistically significant" may or may not be the same as politically significant, personally significant, or whatever other preferred metric you might have.
As a rough rule-of-thumb, I tend to assume vote casting is Poissonian, which on 1 million votes gives a standard deviation of 1000, or 0.1%; thus a 52/48 split would be of order of 10's of standard deviations. On this rough basis, whatever arguments you might have against the significance of the vote would seem unlikely to be statistical in nature.
Oh for crying out loud, anyone with any sense knows that trying to take a crowd of people through a difficult and controversial course of action based on a bare majority is not only a mug's game and stupid, it's also asking for trouble, because near on 'half' those who voted are going to feel shafted, and shanghied into doing something they disagree with.
Anyone running a business, let alone a country, who has any kind of integrity and sense of 'public service' will do their level best to come up with, if not a consensus, then at least a substantial majority in favour of the change. And if they can't get it will either leave the matter alone for a good while, or work very hard to address the concerns of the unhappy minority.
"Oh for crying out loud, anyone with any sense knows that trying to take a crowd of people through a difficult and controversial course of action based on a bare majority is not only a mug's game and stupid, it's also asking for trouble, because near on 'half' those who voted are going to feel shafted, and shanghied into doing something they disagree with."
And you think that ignoring the majority because it did not meet your arbitrary definition of "substantial" would not have been asking for trouble?
I agree the decision was close, but the other side of that is that the only chance Remain had would have been to have a close result too - there was no chance of a landslide.
"work very hard to address the concerns of the unhappy minority."
Absolutely. Unfortunately, the public decided to vote Boris in again. Partly because the Labour party had misread the signs and did not try to steer things towards a better Brexit while the LibDems preempted Donald Trump by openly campaigned for ignoring the vote unless it came out the way they wanted.
Have a look at how 'referendums' are typically conducted in sane democracies, and come back to us when you find that a 'bare majority' is regarded as an adequate foundation for substantial change. Likewise, any organization with any understanding of 'sound management' practices, when it comes to handling fundamental changes. Typically the minimum threshold for change is 60%, and often higher.
'Brexit' was a mendacious shambles, regardless of which side of the fence anyone is on (including the fence sitters), and it disgraced the 'democratic' processes we supposedly uphold.
Having said all that, look at the massive benefits we have gained from 'leaving' in such an ill-judged manner. There are ways of leaving the house, without ending up looking like a self-absorbed shit.
Maybe, in ten years or so we will have recovered some dignity and sense of direction that enables us to get along creatively and maturely with our closest neighbours; just a shame we couldn't manage that level of competency when it came to actually leaving.
A minimum 60% (or whatever) may be common elsewhere, and may also be sensible - it is certainty a point worth considering.
However, while some places, like Switzerland, I believe, hold referendums quite regularly, they are rare in the UK, and I believe that 50%+1 is typically what we have used here (does anyone have the rules for the 1974 referendum on the EEC to hand? or the Scottish independence referendum?)
Regardless, 50%+1 was the agreed basis for winning prior to the referendum.
Both leave and remain campaigns agreed that rule.
If I recall correctly (perhaps I don't, it was a while ago), the SNP voted against having the referendum at all, but other than that, no one disputed or disagreed with that rule prior to the vote.
If you have written proof of objections to the '50%+1' winning margin rule from before the campaign started, I would genuinely be interested to see them.
But it does seem to be the case that leave were happy with 50%+1 as the best chance they had to win, while remain (anticipating a win with ~55 to perhaps 60% of the vote) were not keen to set a 'super majority' requirement that they did not anticipate that they would achieve, so were just as happy to agree 50%+1.
I suspect the remain campaign realised how bad it would look to set a super-majority requirement, fail to meet it themselves, then claim victory by default of maintaining the status quo ante.
For a loser to argue after the event that they were not happy with the rules agreed for the competition, when they made no objection before hand (when they expected to win by the agreed rules) makes them look more like undemocratic sore losers than anything else.
And since the subject has been raised, should I assume that all the people that I predict will down vote me will be demanding that in any future Scottish independence referendum, a super majority of 60% or 67% should be required for independence?
Who 'won' or 'lost' is irrelevant, the point is the stupidity of a 50%+1 threshold has set the scene for endless bitterness, recrimination, foot dragging, and divisiveness - which is exactly what is happening.
A very poorly organised departure, with no forward planning, is now even further hobbled by the fact that a substantial proportion of the population don't support it. Who'd have guessed!?
It definitely wasn't the one Boris started, as that was never suggested in public by anyone - eg putting a customs barrier down the Irish Sea was inconceivable.
And of course, how many voted "Screw you Cameron", on the assumption that it didn't matter, nothing would change anyway?
And of course, several million British citizens settled in the EU were deliberately disenfranchised. It's not hard to guess how that bloc would have voted overall.
I had an experience of brexit crossing yesterday, Dover-Calais. The whole leg (London-Calais) was over in less than about 13 hrs. Including about 8 hrs at Dover before sailing away (temps, P&O, brexit). I wish that was a mandatory experience for every brexiteer, I imagine, somewhat... enlightening.
"Not sure about NHS Wales or Ireland, maybe somebody could chip in."
Ireland is a foreign and hostile country that protected and protects murderers hiding on their side of the border while screaming that there must be no "hard border" on what they view as their private island because balance of trade is more important than trying baby-killers and other thugs.
They're not part of the NHS.
And don't forget your neighbours, three streets away, are vicious, layabout, crack-heads, parasitising the nation and to be exterminated at the first available opportunity.
The fact that one of those neighbours from three streets away is a carer for your granny goes straight to /dev/null.
The UK protects its own murderers, ie the paratroopers from Bloody Sunday among others such as the many loyalist terrorists who were on the payroll of various UK and local NI government branches (RUC, UDR, MI5 etc). Investigations into those crimes have been consistently obstructed (especially by "disappeared" records) or hampered by inadequate resourcing, and now may be outlawed entirely by Westminster.
The ROI government is not, and has never been, synonymous with the IRA.
Further, the border between the ROI and NI is now the only major land border between the UK and the EU and is of great importance not just to the Republic but to the Single Market
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32887445
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/collusion/stevens3/stevens3summary.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/26/northernireland.ireland
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8352/
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-70236&filename=O%60LOUGHLIN%20AND%20OTHERS%20v.%20THE%20UNITED%20KINGDOM.docx&logEvent=False
Yeah, it's always the UK that's the baddy. Funny how so few attacks happened over the border in Ireland, isn't it? It's almost as if the threat was coming from the South rather than the North.
"The ROI government is not, and has never been, synonymous with the IRA."
Dream on. They've even had Taoiseachs from the IRA. The Irish government has always viewed the republican violence as a useful bargaining chip towards regime change in the North. When Blair decided to trade on that basis they grabbed it with both hands.
And if the border is of great importance to Germany - sorry, the EU - then they can police it how they like. On their side of it, not ours. There is no reason why goods going to and from NI to Scotland, England, or Wales should have anything to do with the EU. The issue is clearly Ireland's to deal with when goods come into their country, and ours when they come the other way. There's nothing special about that and the EU copes with it from the rest of the world.
I don't see China struggling to get the results of slave labour over the EU (or any other) border anywhere. But then the EU doesn't have any territorial ambitions in China, does it?
But then, the North and the South seem to be getting on with their border just fine, on the whole, now that they've had some time to sort themselves out.
It's only certain dogmatic ideologue politicians who are determined to stir the pot, regardless of the cost to others, in order to further their own interests.
Same as it ever was. Idiots.
"Not sure about NHS Wales or Ireland, maybe somebody could chip in."
Ireland? I assume you meant to refer to Northern Ireland rather than Ireland (separate country and all that - its health service is called the HSE).
In the case of Northern Ireland the NHS equivalent is called HSC NI ("https://online.hscni.net/").
Once the data is in this new system, how long until the first breach occurs and is swept under the carpet?
It's all well and good saying we have a policy paper saying your data will be safe, but spending the money to ensure that the data is safe?
Do you trust the NHS to even follow the law? I don't, as evidenced by what I have uncovered has been happening in Northern Ireland for the past 12 years.
"Once the data is in this new system, how long until the first breach occurs and is swept under the carpet?"
Well what happens when the first breach is actually that the data was unlawfully placed on (shared with) the system in the 1st place?
What happens when they do not sweep this under the carpet but actually admit to the Information Commissioners Office that they have acted unlawfully, knowing that the ICO will not actually do anything about it (lack of "regulatory appetite")?
More details in a separate post further down...
One day, we will get a non-hard-right government. They are going to have a lot of cleaning up to do
When I was a child, there was a "double jeopardy" law to stop the system from continuously trying to prosecute someone for the same crime until the authorities got what they wanted.
That law was done away with. Can I suggest that they do away with the idea of not being able to prosecute someone for breaking a law if it wasn't made until after they had actually done the action. Could we make some retrospective legislation to punish people for things like economic theft, dodgy PPE contracts and various other forms of theft they have been legally doing over the last few years?
If that wasn't a hard right manouvre then it appears that we no longer know what "hard right" actually means.
You had to work without PPE, you were not entitled to 80% of your previous wages, you were not entitled to Universal Credit, or Housing Benefit.
The ones that did work, on the front line, all the way through that facsist decision that you should "stay at home", whilst others do not.
The they got called BAME, but it wasn't racist. Just overworked immigrants doing jobs white English people won't do.
The my daughter is told that she cannot enroll at college to midwifery.....Why ? 'cos she hasn't had all of her jabs. 9 months later, it doesn't matter of you had your jabs or not, you can go on your holidays (?) and come back to work in the office. Or lose your job !
Telling us that kids don't et COVID, so they can go to school with the kids of BAME folks. NOT telling us that your dog can carry COVID and spread it.
As long as you have enough money, in Britain the laws do not apply to you. You can fly out of Stanstead on a private jey bound for the F1 in Brazil and can bring back Brazillian variety of da bug.
Hoestly ? A "jab" in the arm is all you need............
A tap on the head wouldn't do you any harm either......
ALF
Protesting the thread going off topic or the quitters coming out of the woodwork?
Actually I happen to think the same toxic mix of a lack of rules and p**s poor regulation of the rules were evident in both the referendum and this situation.
Or as someone observed "In the absence of light, darkenss prevails"
but... I thought that if you have nothing to hide, etc, etc?! Or was it 'do as I say...', etc, etc? I'm SO confused!
In reality, most probably, their 'selected businss partner', aka Palantir UK Ruler, 'asked' to include a very small print in their contract, to the effect that no public scrutiny. Yeah, tinfoil hat, but what other _reason_ there might be? That they FORGOT? DIDN'T REALIZE? I'm sure they can afford and do employ those fine men, women and other denominations from the legal breed, who can, without fail, translate PERFECTLY the Palantir 'mission' into any contract terms and conditions.
"That my most personal and intimate records* are held securely by totally trustworthy institutions."
Institutions that cannot be bothered to comply with Data Protection law for an extended period and who, when their failure to comply is queried/questioned/highlighted will simply ignore, spread confusion, and lie to cover up their wrongdoing.
I've got an appointment with an ophthalmologist on Monday. Which is great because I really need one as anyone reading my posts knows. I only found out by chance just in the nick of time because I got a hand held magnifying glass and was finally able to read the last years snail mail.
My one worry is how the hell did they know? I've not been able to see a GP in years. Did an El Reg editor or reader arrange it for me?
[It was funny reading a year's mail all at once in order. Council is demanding £160 tax. Council takes me to court. Council sends me a cheque for £130 for the pandemic, that I can't cash. Council send me a £150 rebate on my tax. Council takes me to court again for £10. Council sends me a cheque for £150 for the cost of living crisis, that I can't cash. I'm on the waiting list for an ophthalmologist. Ive got an appointment with an ophthalmologist. My appointment with an ophthalmologist is cancelled. New appointment with an ophthalmologist. I just phoned the council and they suggested I see a moneylender. "Do you mean like Raskolnikov did?" "Hold on a minute, I'll need to ask someone.."]
The ICO are not just a waste of space as "enforcer" for Data Protection law, they are actually complicit with some organisations' which continue to break data protection law on a large scale.
In the past few weeks ICO have really shown their contempt for Data Protection law.
[Background Info: the Northern Ireland Electronic Care Record (NIECR) is the sharing of personal health data between 500+ organisations in NI (including all GP Practices, Community Pharmacists, Community Optometricists, and Independant Sector health orgs i.e. private hospitals) by creating a central "database" that they all have access to. The NIECR central system is operated by Business Services Organisation (BSO), a "arms-length" body of the Northern Ireland HSC (aka NHS NI). NIECR has operated since July 2013. It is similar to the proposed NHS England GPDPR sharing that was delayed last Spring after public complaints]
Below is a quote from a BSO email to ICO last month which confirms that all Northern Ireland GP Practices have, since NIECR's launch in July 2013 to the present day, not actually agreed to/signed the NIECR Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) that makes any such sharing lawful.
BSO also gave a vague "intention" to ensure that GP Practices actually sign the DSA at some, *undefined*, future date but meanwhile GP Practices will continue to share personal health data unlawfully with NIECR in the meantime.
BSO to ICO:
> The other issue that we discussed briefly was the mechanism for seeking the agreement of GPs for the revised Data Sharing Agreement. When the Data Sharing Agreement had been drafted we had sought to get a signed acknowledgement from each GP practice of the new Data Sharing Agreement. This proved a difficult administrative processes, given the number of individual GP practices. I would acknowledge that this was never followed through from our side. We will seek to create a more robust tool for seeking GP agreement when we have finally agreed the Data Sharing Agreement revision that is currently under way. This is required both to ensure that GP Practices are aware of their responsibilities as outlined by the Data Sharing Agreement. <
The ICO case officer's response, after receiving BSO's email, to me regarding this aspect of my complaint was:
> BSO has confirmed to the ICO that when the data sharing agreement had been drafted, they had sought to gain a signed acknowledgement from the GPs involved; however, this proved to be a difficult task and was not followed through. That being said, the organisation has advised that when the revised data sharing agreement has been agreed upon, they will create a tool in which they can seek GP agreement.
With this in mind, we do not intend to take any further action at this time with regards to this. <
So ICO have proof (a clear admission) that since July 2013 to the present day no GP Practice in Northern Ireland has ever agreed to/signed the NIECR DSA to make their sharing of health data lawful despite their sharing of said data ocurring on a daily basis for *9 years* and ICO is going to take no action!
BSO have given a vague "commitment" that NIECR will attempt to come into compliance with Data Protection are some undefined future but will continue operating as before in the meantime.
How big a breach of data protection law has to occur before ICO will actually take any action????
In the same email to ICO quoted below is BSO also acknowledging that (all agreed versions of) the NIECR DSA have never defined any lawful basis (or lawful condition) for the sharing of personal data. BSO has attempted to "read between the lines" of the DSA to then claim *last month* which lawful basis was intended from the start of NIECR in July 2013 and ICO have accepted BSO's blatant mischaracterisation of the DSA.
BSO to ICO:
> Also, within the body of the DSA, in Paragraph 4 NIECR Information Governance Model, it states that the key principles to be applied to the processing of data are "that the use of NIECR is for direct patient/service user care only" and that "information is accessed when there is a clinical/caring relationship with the patient/service user". While Public Function is not specifically mentioned it seems clear that the basis of processing was never intended to be consent. <
In order for the 360+ organisations who participated in NIECR at its launch in July 2013, through to the 500+ organisations participating in it currently, the DSA must clearly state all lawful bases and lawful conditions so that all participants are "on the same page" and have exactly the same understanding as to what they are *jointly* agreeing to.
The ICO case officer's response, after receiving BSO's email, to me regarding this aspect of my complaint was:
> With regards to the electronic processing of your personal data, it would appear that BSO originally relied upon Schedule 2(5) and Schedule 3(7) of the Data Protection Act 1998; and Schedule 3(8) on a case-by-case basis. Based on the information provided in response to this, we do not intend to take any further action at this time with regards to this specific aspect of your complaint at this time. <
So ICO's investigation into NIECR is a complete whitewash.
It is not that ICO are failing to do their job, it is that ICO are actively helping to cover up unlawful activity.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
