* Posts by smsman99

5 posts • joined 30 Mar 2012

NHS trust loses personal data of 600 maternity patients, kids


Re: Again.....Taking the piss now.

While I can see the sentiment of your comment, I think you have missed the target here.

The Working Time Directive is a toothless wonder that limits working hours for over 18s to 48 hours and unpaid overtime that you volunteer for does not count as work under the Directive.

I have some experience of "the usual Goverment IT tendering process" and while there are indeed instances of bidders "skimping on non essentials", there should be safeguards in place to identify these. I always find it curious that when it all goes wrong people fall so easily for the "it was the nasty supplier wot done it" excuse. It's as though being crap at the job was a valid excuse.

Perhaps the poor harassed member of staff should tell the mamanger that the data protection procedures are not conducive to getting the report finished by Monday. Then come up with some suggestions about how these procedures may be improved.

The key points here remain:

Why was sensitive data relating to 600 maternity patients taken *HOME* in the first place. This, in itself, is more alarming that the medium used to transport it.?

Why were ward lists "contained the name, date of birth, diagnosis, treatment plan and test results for 122 patients." (the paper files mentioned in the article) allowed to be taken out of the hospital by a junior doctor?

To me, these just sound like poor procedures, poor implementation and poor or non existent enforcement for which both management and staff share responsibility.

UK.gov to unveil reborn, renamed net-snoop plans in Queen's Speech

Black Helicopters

Shambles on the horizon

This sounds like a classic govt departmental land grab:

No clear scope or vision. Check

Vague mutterings about protection against terrorism, paedos and criminals. Check

No timescale or cost breakdown. Check

The security geezer on the radio this morning was even trying to use the heightened threat due to the Olympics and Jubilee as a ratchet device to increase the scare factor. Fortunately, David Davis was able to point out that these events would be in the past before this proposal could actually hit the statute books.

Hopefully, the cost and public backlash will get this kicked into the long grass again.

Even at Have Your Rant on the BBC, the usual "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade are being drowned out by the anti's, some of whom are even presenting reasoned argument (well as reasoned as HYS ever gets).

The optimist in me hopes that this is consigned to the dustbin of politics quite quickly with minister claiming they have listed to the vox populaire and reconsidered.

If not, it may be time to man the barricades. Black helicopter 'cos I just can't be sure.

£575m school IT bonanza showers Capita, RM, 16 others


Oh Dear, so soon!

So, our political masters have a much publicised bonfire of the quangos to appeal to their Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph heartland, then after the orgy of self congratulation has finished, replace it with a bureaucratic "framework".

This is then imposed on hapless head teachers, principals and associated support staff who can only purchase from the recommended list of trough feeders, but without the advice and guidance that the now abolished quango was there to provide.

The next step will be a round of useless managed services being imposed on schools and colleges, followed by a very public meltdown of the same, then ministers being interviewed on the Toady Programme to explain why it all went so wrong (and blaming everyone except themselves)

As someone much more intelligent than me once said: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Extreme weather blown away from unexpected direction


Re: Oh dear

Personally, I didn't interpret someone descibed as a professor at the Center for Science and Technology *Policy* Research as being a climate scientist.

Leaving that aside, if you actually take time to read the report, the section under discussion ( cites a number of papers where Piekle Jr. was either lead or contributing author.

If you believe his reputation needs to be questioned, perhaps you should take it up with the IPCC.

On the general point,though, I will agree that "reputable" and "climate scientist" aren't often seen together. In the wake of Fakegate, even less so.


Re: Oh, knock it off

Such confidence and riteous indignation would be appropriate if you had bothered to read all the documents provided at the link in the article and come to a fully informed position.

Your link points to the "Summary for Policymakers", whereas the quote in the article comes from the actual report where, on page 268 you will find the quoted text verbatim.

Please take time to do the full research before jumping to conclusions. It's frankly embarrasing.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022