Re: "perhaps they'd like to offer some evidence of this."
"Even journos will not reveal their sources if they believe there's an actual risk."
You just cling onto that happy fantasy!
2030 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
GDPR is mostly about processing. Where storage is a subset of processing.
Automated decision making is another subset.
Accepting an IP address is lawful for a number of reason, necessity and legitimate interest are the two most robust, but it is not the ephemeral nature that makes it legal.
" I have an email address at that client's domain"
Is your client a limited company?
If so they can still email you under the corporate exemption from PECR. GDPR consent doesn't come into play because it's legitimate interests, not consent.
"There is of course an unsubscribe link ... shouldn't be receiving the emails ..."
So if it bothers you, click on the unsubscribe link. Until you do that you haven't got a legal leg to stand on.
"that most if not all were never going to proceed beyond a report on the medical samples."
Well these days pretty much everything has to have an initial case file for CPS to review. It can't be done on a conversation between police and CPS any more. And if "your day" was prior to CPS charging decisions I can't help.
" Are the police and/or CPS being set targets as to the number of cases to go to court regardless of merit?"
There are targets for outcomes. As far as possible everything either has to go to CPS or proved not to be a crime. And yes, there are targets and those targets affect pay rises.
I've commented here many times before; the grey area in the middle "probably not a crime", "not enough evidence" or "not in the public interest" has been made really hard. There is an Inspector whose sole job is to reject those cases and force a referral to CPS.
Custody sergeants still can, and do, decide that charging isn't in the public interest; and peculiarly the case Inspector - as a more senior officer - will give the Custody Sergeant a bollocking but can't lawfully override their decision.
That was, of course, the position taken before Liam. However policy makers are often driven by the press and public opinion rather than common sense.
In Liam's case the judge ordered a review, various lawyers slung abuse and he's sueing the Police.
So whilst you are absolutely correct, it isn't going to happen.
Sifting through the evidence is a big thing. Think how many text messages, emails and Twitter messages are on your phone. Since Liam Allan every single one of them has to be reviewed and analysed for relevance. That can take a detective days. Detectives were already overstretched to the point where even some murders are being handled by shift not CID and fitted in around their response duties.
In effect there's been a complete halt to new investigations while CID process their backlog.
Quality justice is expensive.
"Why not just give the evidence to the defence in the first place?"
1. Would you want the entire contents of your phone to be given to the defense if you accuse someone of a crime?
2. You don't really want the accused rapist knowing the names and addresses of the victim, her sister, her daughter, her mother and the refuge she went to.
“You can't just rely on the demeanour of the witness... that’s a conclusion, not a reason.”
"It is common for judges to say they are not impressed by the witness’s evidence.”
Seems to me that they're both right. Judges often say that they are unimpressed by a witness, but that's usually because the witness contradicts themselves, lies, has an incredible story or appears to be making it up as they go along.
Judges dismissing evidence because the witness slumped, looked a bit shifty, eyes were too close together etc. seems wrong.
"it's primarily to avoid the appearance of favoritism."
Would much prefer that they avoid actual favouritism.
It will forever be my shame that, when a director, I once voted for a policy to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
Doesn't make much difference. I used to spend much of my life on hold to Sprint. Much to the annoyance of the IT director who imposed the £1,500/month frame relay link on us it managed about 98.5% uptime, whereas the "business" ADSL line for £50/month got 99.95%.
And the ADSL people would answer the phone and fix things, until they got bought by Pipex.
That's easy. It doesn't need to exist.
No more than "black programmer club" or "proofs for Python" or "white 100m sprinters" or "straight male hairdresser club".
Whenever society splits itself into factions that fight for resources - whether that's sunloungers on the beach, jobs, oil or food - then we all lose.
You can argue that IT teaching in schools is poor and disenfranchises girls, but that's a reason to improve the school system so that girls and non-nerdy boys don't feel left out, not to discriminate in favour of the girls to the detriment of everyone else. Do we do special Rugby for Weedy Kids, no?
Sexual, racial, religious or gender discrimination is bad. The ends do not justify the means.
The UK policy seems slightly different, in that we will attempt to keep at least one parent and children together. That seems to lead to us deporting children who, in themselves, are UK citizens. It also seems to lead to us splitting up families in order to deport one parent and the children together if the children do not have leave to remain.
Would be amusing to see Meghan and any future Wales kids refused entry... should drive home the stupidity to the flag waving racists (although she was reportedly intending to do the family history test to get citizenship though).
Theresa May, who instigated all these policies and fought for them through the Courts, really is a nasty piece of work.
The description "Scotland Yard’s SO15 counter-terrorism command" comes from The Sun, where this story originated.
SO15 is the Scotland Yard team that deals with Official Secrets Act breaches (as well as counter terrorism and a whole load of other things). So this is The Sun and The Register sexing up a story.
"We've had customers (patients) giving us these numbers to contact them on - they cost a fortune to use"
Oh the irony. Presumably phone numbers left on the premium rate contact system after navigating a maze of "Press 5 now" options for 20 minutes only to be told nobody is available to take the call right now because they only answer phones from 10am to 10.30am.
"There is no imaginable situation in which an F-35, or any number of them, would do us the slightest good."
The optimistic scenario is that they'd stop an invading army for long enough that there's enough time to get on the phone and avert a nuclear holocaust.
Realistically though these are a tool for bullying much weaker countries.
"It's certainly been a long time since the standards were put in place"
"On 14/07/2017, the IETF with the publication of RFC8200 announced that the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) had become the latest Internet Standard."
Less than a year doesn't seem a long time to me.
"Did that story mention the doctor was at the end of a TWENTY FOUR hour shift?"
Maximum shift length in the NHS is 14 hours with breaks and the NHS adheres to the European 48 hour week. Plenty of other occupations do much longer shifts.
That's not to say that a doctor will be fine after a 13 hour shift with no breaks, but it's a lot different to 24 hours.
Also has very little relevance to failings in an administrative process, which is what the OP was referring to. Always annoys me when people defend NHS inefficiency by saying that the staff are working hard - we don't deny that, staff having to work hard is one symptom of a broken process.
"Late 2001, my optician wasn't happy about my field tests, and wrote to my GP requesting a specialist consultation."
This is your problem right there. Why is the optician contacting your GP? Your optician should let YOU know and YOU should contact whatever healthcare provider you want to provide the service.
Patients should be in control of their treatment, not some archaic old boys club.
"Isn't that what venture capitalists do on a much grander scale"
No. Elon Musk owns about 20% of Tesla Inc. in return for his investment. He doesn't (just) own a Tesla Roadster.
If the Vega+ backers owned 60% of RCL between them then they wouldn't be in this mess.
Shockwiz, as an example, was a successful crowd funded project. A relatively small number of people paying £130 or more. But they had a working prototype and were pretty much production ready.
Elite Dangerous on the other hand; relatively cheap, vapourware at the start, lots of disappointed punters.
Vega+... well had all the hallmarks of a scam from day 1.
Ask yourself what would the Dragons do? Invest in a vague idea with no product, no IP and no delivery plans? Of course they wouldn't, so why would you?
'Amazon on the "I inspected it and decided I don't like it" grounds without any hassle. As far as I can see they have to do that, it's not Amazon being nice.'
If you do this a lot Amazon will decline to have you as a customer. Whether that's legal or not is a discussion point.
Other retailers, for example Chain Reaction Cycles for protective gear where fit is important, encourage it and is a market differentiation point in a sea of online sellers.
It's all about passing the blame around. Teachers don't want to be accused of a cover up. Parents want someone to take responsibility for parenting from them.
So it all comes down to a PC who, technically, should be arresting the ten year old to decide between the devil (arrest the child and seize their phone for forensic analysis and get lambasted for over-reacting and traumatising children) and the deep blue sea (do nothing, take the black mark on the clean up statistics all the while knowing that if anything happens and it escalates then they're going to prison for misconduct in a public office).
Yes. Police feel hamstrung by the courts; if they chase anyone on a motorbike and that person injures themselves or anyone else then the Police are liable. That's led to many forces prohibiting any pursuit involving a motorbike (and it's almost impossible to get a car pursuit authorised too).
Even if someone is caught the court hands out a small fine, which doesn't get paid. Most of the moped thefts aren't robbery. Where there genuinely is a robbery and the criminal is caught and charged they'll find themselves before a proper judge and then we do get proper sentencing. But that's a very rare event.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020