Jump to content

The New Condem Government


bickster

Recommended Posts

Oh and they put on hold plans to sell your medical records, denying the system would be misused for commercial gain, then they do this,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10656893/Hospital-records-of-all-NHS-patients-sold-to-insurers.html

Disgusting.

How is this legal?

Someone should take this up in Strasbourg.

This one slipped by with very little fuss didn't it. The BBC likes to drive home the Tory 'we must outsource' message when understaffed wards with over worked nurses results in levels of care falling short. What's vile is the way that the nurses, who's view is never heard, are passively blamed.

So, no heads have rolled for this, and yet here it's reported that more data is being used for commercial purposes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hospital-records-used-to-target-ads-on-twitter-and-facebook-say-privacy-campaigners-in-latest-nhs-data-concerns-9166633.html?utm_content=buffere1d32&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

More of your confidential medical records have been sold it seems. This time Marcus Agius has got hold of them. What could possibly be the problem in letting a man who was 'heavily involved' in the Barclays Libor scandal loose with your most private information?

You might want to remember all this come May 2015, especially if your insurance premiums have gone up...

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/government-sells-entire-nhs-patient-data-to-firm-headed-by-disgraced-banker/

Edited by Kingfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Paddy Power you can bet on the Pistorius trial. Surely it's time to tighten up the regulations on betting. I'd start by banning those freakin' annoying betting adverts.

'Will you? Won't you? Will you? Won't you?' Yes I bloody would! Who's the daddy now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this news has been buried pretty quickly. Much about it in the Heil? No, better to hound somebody for having a tenuous link to a paedophile organisation rather than an alleged paedophile.

Edited by villaajax
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this news has been buried pretty quickly. Much about it in the Heil? No, better to hound somebody for having a tenuous link to a paedophile organisation rather than an actual paedophile.

 

Last but one word, there's a typo - you misspelled "alleged".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gulp. I think I must wash as I find myself in some agreement with Malcolm Rifkind.

 

I hope it's about the merits of a particular cheese, or a pleasant place to walk on the beach, and not the utter bollocks he's straining through his shitty underpants here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gulp. I think I must wash as I find myself in some agreement with Malcolm Rifkind.

 

I hope it's about the merits of a particular cheese, or a pleasant place to walk on the beach, and not the utter bollocks he's straining through his shitty underpants here.

It was the one single line that he said on newsnight: that it would be shameful for the west (and specifically the UK) to decide not to impose trade/financial sanctions just for their own short term interests.

That seems part of the gist of that piece - what's the to do, there?

Edit: Some of the comments about the minimal impact on european nations is a little, if not a lot of, bunk but apart from that?

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Gulp. I think I must wash as I find myself in some agreement with Malcolm Rifkind.

 

I hope it's about the merits of a particular cheese, or a pleasant place to walk on the beach, and not the utter bollocks he's straining through his shitty underpants here.

 

It was the one single line that he said on newsnight: that it would be shameful for the west (and specifically the UK) to decide not to impose trade/financial sanctions just for their own short term interests.

That seems part of the gist of that piece - what's the to do, there?

Edit: Some of the comments about the minimal impact on european nations is a little, if not a lot of, bunk but apart from that?

 

 

Yes, agree with that, it would be shameful not to impose sanctions for our own short term interests.

 

But the alternative we are contemplating is imposing sanctions for our own short term interests.  Which would also be shameful.

 

I suppose taking a broader view, and not following in the wake of that shocking, disgraceful, preening hypocrite Kerry, is out of the question?

 

Should our choices be framed by such reprobate scumbags as Rifkind and Kerry, or rather the interests for which they are the paid mouthpieces?  I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, don't condemn me for begrudgingly agreeing with a comment made by Rifkind with which you would also agree (I found myself in some agreement, i.e. that it is shameful not to impose sanctions just because it may damage what (a very few of us - i.e. those in the UK) may have or might well want to have), but point out the shameful and short term interest driven alternative sanctions that are being suggested and why they are that.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see this news has been buried pretty quickly. Much about it in the Heil? No, better to hound somebody for having a tenuous link to a paedophile organisation rather than an actual paedophile.

 

Last but one word, there's a typo - you misspelled "alleged".

 

Actually no. He has been arrested but not charged and certainly not convicted. We also don't know (since he hasn't been charged - yet) what the offence is.

 

Surprised this comment has survived since it is potentially libellous. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I see this news has been buried pretty quickly. Much about it in the Heil? No, better to hound somebody for having a tenuous link to a paedophile organisation rather than an actual paedophile.

 

Last but one word, there's a typo - you misspelled "alleged".

 

Actually no. He has been arrested but not charged and certainly not convicted. We also don't know (since he hasn't been charged - yet) what the offence is.

 

Surprised this comment has survived since it is potentially libellous. :)

 

You mean the original quote which you are repeating but which Ajax has already changed?

 

But unfair on Ajax for you and PeterMS to keep quoting the original post. It's like you're trying to get him in trouble or something .... ;)

Edited by Jon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â