Timster

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who is Sainsburys to prevent you from parking > where you like on their property? You are entitled > to park anywhere and ignore their wishes. Anyone > who suggests otherwise is self centred and has a > terrible sense of entitlement. Er, it's their property. It's just like asking people to take their shoes off when they come into your house. Or was this an ironic post. I am losing track. Damian H - I thought this was amusing to start with. The level of emotion, thought and anger invested in your posts compared to the relatively trivial issue at hand could have been scripted by Larry David. But there is a point where self-righteous rage at double buggies getting in your way stops being amusing turns into sociopathy and I think you've crossed that line. Seriously, go back and read your posts and consider whether they are the thoughts of a sane man with a grip on reality.

This thread is very funny. I think Damian H is the Rosa Parks of the childless. Just who is suffering from Sainsburys' discriminatory, capitalist scheme to lure parents of young children into their store with the promise of more convenient parking (apart from Damian H's blood pressure)? And on a serious note, does anyone really think that an ED mother or father would start challenging someone who had parked there who did have a 'genuine need' to do so?

I would have thought the quality of leadership and management of a local primary school is exactly the sort of issue that should be discussed on a forum like this. Public criticism (or indeed praise) is part of the job if you are a headteacher. I am aware that there are real concerns amongst parents of children at Goodrich about the school's performance and that must inevitably reflect on the headteacher. It is disappointing those genuine concerns have been hijacked by discussions about race. I cannot believe anyone who took time to think about it could honestly believe that there was any real likelihood the poster was intended as a racist attack. I do not know the governor in question but it seems unfeasible to me that - even if he was a racist - he would have decided to announce this to the world at large on a poster advertising a meeting of parents and governors - and at a school with such a mixed racial catchment. Whether you like it or not, the response of the headteacher demonstrated poor judgment - and she should have anticipated that reporting the governor to the police would expose the school to unwelcome attention. The Daily Mail would not have had a story if any concerns she had about the poster had been dealt with internally. It is also worth remembering that being a school governor is a unpaid role involving a certain amount of personal sacrifice. This fiasco may well put people off taking it on. I also think that people should remember when posting on this forum that you may unwittingly be the source for newspaper stories - I am sure plenty of journalists check the topics on a forum like this for story ideas.

Surely it is?! But that's beside the point. PS not sure why this has been lounged.

Coming through Peckham Rye station on the way home from work, one of the staff was shouting at a man taking photos of the inside of the station. I don't know why he was taking photos - but I told him he was allowed to and told the staff member the same thing. Am I right about that? Do Southern staff have authority to stop people taking photos in a public place?

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi - sadly I was not able to ask my question in > public through lack of time - so many people asked > good questions. > I raised it after with some of the team and a > Director of Operations. > They were the ones who looked in horror and told > me to tell people to write to Tim. > I am sorry and genuinely apologise if I gave the > impression it was a question asked in the main > event. > It was not. > I was told that a lot of thought had gone in to > whether this should have been done and a lot of > people within the hospital thought it should not > have been. > But what do I know, I am merely a patient and > someone who bothers to turn up to meetings to > reflect other people's concerns. I had indeed been > a recent patient and remain one, yet have never > received the letters. I asked questions for others > who were not there. What question did you ask exactly? "Did you know there are some mad people who object to King's raising funds by sending letters to recent patients?" I would have been horrified to discover some people could be so anal and unsympathetic to people's efforts to do a bit of good in the world.

> > I would hope you'd do as I do and go to whatever > events/festivals have the music/artists on that > you want to see, regardless of who's running them. > > Excellent answer Sue! And I think the same rationale should apply to pubs.

I'm all for keeping 'local' 'real' pubs going, but I can't see that this Wetherspoons would be competition for any pubs like that and the fact that a pub is 'local' and 'real' doesn't always mean it's any good. Skidmarks' mum's pub sounds lovely - but I guess it isn't in East Dulwich.

I like Wetherspoons. Cheap beer, even cheaper reliable food (honestly microwaved), and helpful and friendly staff. In fact, I love Wetherspoons. I would go so far as to say that Curry Club on a Thursday with some decent guest bitters and good company is as perfect a night out as anyone could wish for. The Vale sucks the life and soul out of any living thing within 100m radius of it and so I think this can only be a good thing. (shame it is all just a rumour based on someone 'knowing' a 'surveyor')

Where is the strange parallel universe people live where you need permission to use someone's address to write to them?? It reminds me of the story a few years ago of an elderly couple who had stopped paying their gas bills during the winter and were cut off. British Gas didn't pass on their details to social services because they were worried it would have been a breach of Data Protection law (it wouldn't) and they were found dead in their home of hyperthermia. Date Protection laws are widely misunderstood and there is a peculiar jobsworth tendency in this country to think they apply in all sorts of circumstances where they do not. Elderly and vulnerable people in my experience get confused and worried about all sorts of letters and phonecalls they receive. I am afraid the world has to carry on in any event. The other side of this story is that someone who had a good experience of King's receives the letter and decides to donate some money. Money which Kings might not have received otherwise and which are they able to put to good use. Please please carry on sending these letters and don't be put off by a few people's warped ideas of how a hospital trust should behave. Also, why hasn't anyone targeted Great Ormond Street for similar abuse? Or is it okay for them to raise money because they only look after children and get visits from Ronan Keating.

And sorry to harp on about this but if you give someone your address, that person doesn't need to then obtain your consent to write to you, because it's self-evident that is what they will use your address for. It would be impossible for business to function at all if DJ was right. That's why the ICO website talks about people having the right to object to direct marketing etc - not businesses having to obtain consent to direct market to you.

Do you raise these objections to every company that mailshots you? Some of them might be in breach of data protection? Why is King's being singled out for this treatment?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even the ICO's own website states that a person > must consent to way their information is processed > so I think there are grounds for a challenge here. > The information held on patients in fact has even > tougher requirements because of the sensitive > nature of some of that information. I'd like to > see proof that the ICO sanctioned this process of > sourcing patients addresses for a mailing list not > related to their treatment, and the grounds by > which it did so because there is nothing on their > own website that disagrees with anything I've > pointed out in relation to the law so far. The ICO > are NOT the law by the way...they are a body that > seeks to uphold the law....which is why they can > be challenged if they get it wrong. Why would you want to do this???? What would it achieve??? Stop King's from raising money? I want to see what part of the GMC guidelines this breached.

And I am simply at a loss to understand how the GMC guidelines would be relevant to this scenario - I suggest DJKIllaQueen re-reads them carefully.

> know everything about but i think: > > 2. the data protection act does not relate only to > passing on information but to how data is used > and the charity being a different entity is more > than a technicality > > 3. as such, names are being passed on - from the > hospital to the charity > > 4. people should generally not send unsolicited > mail to people without having collected > appropriate consents 2 and 3 you're right about but I still think it is a technicality and would be looked at in the overall context of whether patients could reasonably expect their data to be passed on to the charity. 4 is wrong - no consent is needed. you have the right to ask someone to stop sending you unsolicited mail, or when you hand over your personal data to request that they do not use it to send you mail, but there is no positive obligation on someone who stores and process personal data to obtain your consent before sending you unsolicited mail.

It's broadly correct pk. (Out of interest, which bits do you think are wrong?)

Crossed with RosieH and Jane (because I am a slow writer)

I still think this is absurd. 1. The GMC guidelines relate to medical information (not names and addresses) and whether it should be passed on to third parties. I assume you wouldn't object if the hospital used your name and address to write to tell you'd dropped your credit card in an outpatient's waiting room. Nobody is passing the details of STD sufferers to condom manufacturers so they can include them in a direct marketing campaign. 2. The issue in this case is covered by Data Protection which again relates to passing on of information - not using YOUR name and address to write to YOU. I appreciate there may be a grey area here in that the charity is distinct from the trust but that strikes me as technicality. 3. No names and addresses are being passed on - the letters are being sent to people who already know they visited hospital. DulwichMum's point is only relevant (and I assume the letters only go to people 18 and over) if someone else opens your mail and I am afraid a hospital shouldn't have to factor in an adult's inability to protect his or hers own privacy. The battered mother who'd had a termination she hadn't told her partner about would be written to anyway by the hospital for medical reasons. 4. Nobody needs permission to write to you and that is why we all receive junk mail every day. If an organisation with your details writes to you and you don't want them to again, then you can request that they take your name off their mailing list. The same would apply to Kings. 5. So what if someone gives some money because they feel guilty. That's why I give money to charity. That's how charities survive. Do you honestly believe vulnerable people's livelihoods are threatened every time they receive a request for a charitable donation? Sorry for the bullet points. PS I am surprised no one has objected to the plan to put mugshots up in the A&E waiting room of every recent patient that has refused to make a donation.

I am sorry but this thread is completely absurd and I can only wonder at the Director of Fundraising's patience in responding to people's so-called 'concerns'. King's saves lives. It treats patients who are very ill. Many people on this forum will owe it a great deal. It does so on a limited budget and so it tries to raise a bit more money by asking for donations. Like every other charity in the UK. Unlike many charities, it does not ambush people on the street. Unlike BT, it doesn't phone me up at inconvenient hours to suggest I'd save money by changing my internet provider. Every extra bit of money Kings raises means it can do a better job for its patients - that's you! If some of the people on this thread can't see that then maybe they should opt out of using King's and exercise their choice to go private. Sorry to be so impatient but I am fed up with the NHS being expected to aspire to ridiculous standards which aren't expected of anyone else just because they're funded by taxes. I'm not suggesting King's should be immune to criticism, but please try and put in perspective what you are complaining about (receiving a letter) with the job they do (I'll say it again - they save people's lives). (For the avoidance of doubt this isn't directed specifically at OP whose concerns I think are unfounded but not expressed unreasonably - but general tone of debate since)

The only reason the bank wouldn't loan your buyers the money would be if the surveyor had valued it at less than the price they were paying. It will be a condition of the mortgage that the buyer has taken out buildings insurance which will cover subsidence and mean there is no risk to the bank. This sounds like a delaying or negotiating tactic and I agree you certainly shouldn't pay for your own survey.

In another example of it being a small world, I had a pee next to Malcolm Tucker at Dulwich Picture Gallery on Saturday.

expat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > or people could get to the train with a few > minutes to spare.... thanks, I'd never thought of that! seriously, the point was that you get bellowed at and they start closing the doors when people who've been waiting patiently on the platform for the train are still queuing to get on. it's nothing to do with getting there on time.

Barry, Can I have a whinge about the sometimes over-enthusiastic guards at Peckham Rye when you're getting on the train in the morning. I know you want the trains to leave on time and it's annoying when people rush on at the last minute holding up the doors but quite often (and in particular yesterday morning on the 0748 to London Bridge) they start blowing their whistle and bellowing at passengers when we're still queueing in an orderly fashion to get on the train. I don't know if I'm supposed to start barging past anybody in front of me to get on the train before the doors close but maybe it would be better if the guards were a bit more patient when the only reason we haven't got on the train as quickly as they'd like us to is that we're being patient and courteous. It really doesn't improve your state of mind in the morning to have people shouting and blowing their whistles at you like you're a convict that has to get back in his cell.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why were at least two trains (7:46 and the 9:21) > reduced to only 3 carraiges, with no explanation? > > I was late to work (again) because of the trains, > and I heard someone on the later train collapsed > because of over-crowding. > > I know it's not your area Barry, but it would be > appreciated if you could look into it because it's > not really acceptable. I was on the same carriage as the person that collapsed on the train this morning and it was nothing to do with it being over-crowded. (In fact, the train was busy for that time of the morning but could hardly be described as over-crowded). Much as I'd love to, we can't blame Southern for everything!

Bloody nuisance planes. Where were they this morning to drown out all the birds singing away at 530 in the morning? - it's like living in the country for god's sake.