louisiana

It lacks an existential planning crisis. But I wouldn't wish that on anyone. B)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It makes a point about the medical industry, but > is absolutely no reason for being 'out' of > digital. > Huguenot, it may have passed you by, but many GPs have been 'in' digital for quite some time. More than a decade, sometimes two. And mostly, I would have little argument with what they have done. They have created digital systems - on the whole - that respond well to the context of use and all the rest, and those systems have often been driven by enthusiast GPs who have really got to grips with the technology, what it can do, what it can best be used for, privacy issues, and so much more. Unfortunately, the arrival of Big Health on the scene has seen some local projects killed and big bucks for certain firms such as BT, but without much gain for GPs/patients and with some serious issues. When you sit in a room (this week) with yet another GP who sees big bucks spent to little effect, with the only winner seemingly being one of the major IT consultancies... I've been around the block, seen so many systems effectively abandoned ('cos nobody's updating them any more) and therefore so full of crap... And then I'm seeing all kind of disingenuous stuff on the nhscarerecords website (it really it not telling the truth)... And a system that really does seem to be full of holes: I mean, page 7 of the 'Changes to your health records' leaflet is so massively disingenuous: it avoids the issue of there not being any systematic protection of data in place (as evidenced in the Hull farce) by saying "until these controls are fully in place across England, your local NHS organisations will have their own measures..." But they clearly don't. Or we wouldn't have people who are *not* involved in any aspect of patient care being able to access records for 13 months without any comeback. These people are clearly *not* "only seeing the information they need to do their job", and are clearly *not* "directly involved in caring for you". And it seems that nobody (neither the leaflet nor the NHS records website) is saying there will be a log of who views your clinical records, which seems to be a very basic requirement.

KemiAdegoke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I really do feel that it?s important voters know > more about their local candidates, from all > parties, and not just the party leaders. Then how about supporting/promoting Democracy Club? http://www.democracyclub.org.uk/ conceived by the ever wonderful Tom Steinberg and Co. Meeting in Kennington tonight (one of many): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=339706801693

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't see who'd want to open a hotel there, but > you never know... Probably more Premier Inn than premier cru :-S

People who walk in one direction while facing a completely different direction.

eusebiovic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Everyone, > > I am starting a campaign to save the last > remaining Cinema in Camberwell (The Gala Bingo > Hall) and preserve it as an Arts > Space/Cinema/Music Venue and unique Community Hub. > This is one of the last Grade II listed > cinemas/theatres left in Southwark. Rumour has it > that it has been sold in private to an Evangelical > Christian Church or private events firm. Many of > our venues have been demolished over the past 25 > years. East Dulwich,Elephant & Castle,Peckham have > all been lost forever. I am starting a Facebook > Page and hope you will all support this embryonic > campaign and see where it can take us! If you are > interested then spread the word! > > Here is the link: > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Camberwell-Unit > ;... 41967 > > or Facebook search "Cinema for Camberwell Green" > > Kindest Regards, > > Victor Ferreiro Hi Victor Rumour eh? Fact is, it's been acquired by a hotel chain. There is no church involved. The interior is not particularly interesting: I think the listing is down to one particular wall, which would be preserved. I'm certainly in favour of preserving local cinemas, but I don't think the building or location are favourable here, and sustainability would be questionable.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I can't even believe that it's Lousiana who's > saying this. She's a campaigner for freedom of the > internet, against digital rights management, and > is pro freedom of public information. Now she's coming > across like a petty control type. Out of > character, or inconsistent, or both. I'm in favour of people being able to keep private what is private to them. There is no contradiction between having public data public, and private data private. > > It makes a point about the medical industry, but > is absolutely no reason for being 'out' of > digital. Nothing against digital. It's only a question of *how* digital is designed. > > Any progression is necessarily a cost/benefit > calculation. What we've got here is plenty of > people @#$%& out 'cost' arguments, and as with the > luddites, many of them are half-baked. It is neither a question of cost/benefit nor of luddites. It's a question of system design. System design can be good or bad. > > What you don't see is productivity, efficiency, > money saved (your tax), better treatments, more > informed staff and lives saved. Idiotic. I've actually come across a hi-tech system that might itself cause iatrogenic disease and death. Purely owing to its design. > > When I worked for the Torygraph in '97 (yes '97) > we were the only paper that didn't do computers. I > wrote out request forms for everything in > quadruplicate. I had a secretarial pool for my > department that had more people in it than the > 'front-line' staff. They typed out each form I > gave them in quadruplicate. > > I was the laughing stock of my peer group. > > Morons, morons. No, not morons. You are presenting a curiously simplistic idea of life. I spend my life attempting to improve the design of systems, so that they work better for people. There is good design, and bad design, and several points in between. The introduction of modern technology does not in and of itself guarantee anything. That's why clients pay me good money, generally after such assumptions leading to major league, expensive disasters unfortunately. There is undoubtedly a good solution to the present situation. Many GPs are engaged in that dialogue.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lousiana has merely highlighted scenarios that are > as easy to apply to paper records as digital. Get > a grip first mate. Not at all. The scenarios that have already played out (involving allegations with some evidence, and talk of prosecutions, but with govt. being lily-livered about presenting records in court) involve the ability to range across the patients of many GP surgeries. Which old skool tech cannot do. As I stated, the *beauty* of the new systems is the scaling aspect. You can literally access hundreds of thousands, millions of records. That could never be done before. I speak as someone who has done extensive fieldwork with both paper and electronic clinical records (e.g. studies of parallel running of systems as part of systems development in clinical health care).

Huguenot, I'm surprised at you. You omitted the incantation abracadabra. To be chanted thrice while dancing on one foot.

ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Data Protection Act will still apply, ie you can > gain a copy of what is there and have it corrected > if wrong. also your consent would be required for > access to be gained. Insurance companies could > only access with your consent. Insurance companies at present can only get access with consent, yes. But the consent model is quite complex and evolving. For example there's the idea of 'implied consent' and of 'presumed consent' in certain situations. And there's a wide array of types of people and organisations that might be accessing. See http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/scr/staff/aboutscr/consent for example. There is currently some discussion around how much access police should have should they be granted access. Once you are in, you cannot in effect leave, as while the clinical portion becomes effectively dormant, the 'legal record' remains, no longer under GP control. If DNA were to be added at any point, it's likely this would be as a legal not clinical item (as now). There have already been breaches of the system, including on pilot sites, and by doctors and non-medical staff. In a Hull case, the breach was for over a year, and was only discovered after the member of staff left. The staff member was supposed to only be able to access anonymised data, but there appeared to not be a barrier to them accessing detailed individual patient data across 20 GP practices. Of course the beauty of SCR is that it makes it easy to see records across the board. In a recent Scottish case (different but similar system), the government said they would not prosecute the doctor concerned as it would not be in the public interest to do so. I think this sends the wrong signals to those who improperly access. They can be fairly sure that they will not be pursued (as the authorities won't want to discuss the records in court perhaps?). Medical data for individuals has a starting price of around ?4 apparently. I'd say in the future this data will be used in hostile divorce cases and all kinds of scenarios we haven't thought of. The reports of use of SCR seem mixed at best. The UCL report was not very upbeat on benefit findings, and in one hospital they're reportedly causing queues.

The Science and Technology Committee report on homeopathy was published today. http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_homeopathy_inquiry.cfm Having watched much of the oral evidence to the committee a short while ago, I'm quite looking forward to reading it.

Thanks Pete There are some posts in the Events section of this forum.

Urban75 occasionally. Then there's always Virtual Norwood, which has some real sparks flying at the moment (if you consider that a Taliban-style assault on the very being of the Crystal Palace & Norwood Chamber of Commerce/Chamber of Horrors, represents sparks). They've also had the local cinema campaign. Se23 - not really, and especially since an escapee from there compared it to North Korea (on EDF, recently). Roz, yeah came across some posts, struck me as a contrarian or a religious nutter, but couldn't make my mind up which. then there are the dance forums...

Some good walking around Downe e.g. Cuckoo Wood, and southern side of Downe Bank, where Darwin used to go walking. It's a doggie paradise, but not busy, and the pub in the village is decent too.

Surma was Surma (opened in 70s?) Curry Cabin was Curry Cabin and I think the Chinese on the corner was there too. Chenner Books also. I think at one point Chenner was using the shop next door (subsequently became bookies) but that might have been earlier. Or that might be a figment of my imagination/the owner talking about doing that. All a bit fuzzy now. The estate agent at the roundabout (98 Grove Vale) has been there for donkey's years, but used to be White Dent. Not sure when the name changed.

sniffy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a great step forward if somewhat futile, > can't see the point myself. > I question how up-to-date this is? I have checked > on the locations of some of last years fatal > incidents yet they don't appear on this map at > all!!!???!!!. Really what is the point of > this!!!???? > Some random cyclists/fatal accidents from last > year, NOT SHOWN ON THIS MAP: > Whitechapel/Valance rd/ female/ September 2009. > Elephant & castle/ Female/ mid 2009. > Holborn Viaduct/ Female/ early 2009. > Peckham/ Female/ June 2009. > Embankment nr Westminster/ Female/ Nov 2009 > Goswell Road/ Female/ April 2009 > etc etc > > So, 6 fatal accidents last year in London and > they're not on this map..... > *who's wasting who's time....* Crikey sniffy, keep your hair on. This is a first attempt by someone, which contains all the data for a number of years. No, it doesn't include the most recent. And yes, I'm sure it can be improved. Most things can. Think of it as a 'beta', version 0.8: I'm sure the person who created it - and who has no doubt devoted considerable time to gathering data from disparate sources - would welcome constructive suggestions for improvement. Such as then combining this data with some kind of cycling traffic data.

Edible Goodies Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FANCY SOMETHING A LITTLE SWEET AND SCRUMPTIOUS > THIS YEAR ??! > > ORDER A GIANT VALENTINES COOKIE, AN EDIBLE NAKED > LADY OR > SOME SWEET LITTLE BISCUITS WITH ICING PHOTOS OF > YOU AND YOUR HONEY ! > > GO TO WWW.THECOUTURECOOKIESHOP.CO.UK AND CLICK ON > THE VALENTINES RANGE. Why don't you crawl back under the stone you just crawled out from, eh? Before I'm tempted to hunt you down and smack one of your ghastly cakes across your oversized cakehole. Mods: please, please exterminate the vermin. It's really most distressing to be confronted with shouty trolls at this time o' night on one post after another.

http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Counter-Terror-Expo,-London-_21722.html B)

Roll Deep Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bill Nighy would make the best pet. Do you think he'd purr in a Nighy way if stroked?

His voice is just soooo delicious. Will have to check out the Ken bloke. Where does he hang out?

People who have a huge and irrational hissy fit on a forum (*not* this one), plus a personal attack (on someone else) and then comment later on the same forum that you can't get any sensible discussion on that forum.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting, but it doesn't tell the details. So > the information is kind of not helpful. > By details I mean - well for example today I saw > two guys on the mobiles texting whilst riding > their bicycles. If they're involved in an accident > they would be considered blameless just because > they were cyclists (according to new plans, > anyway). The details are all contained in the various accident/transport databases. A map is not designed to analyse causation. It is intended to map occurrences spatially. Were they texting with their gloves on?

Ted Reilly, City Cyclists: cyclist injuries and casualties in London. http://www.citybeast.com/londoncyclists.html

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh for goodness sake you could have just said it > was an upright grand. How on earth did 5 of you > sleep under it? Nevermind this is pointless... > > Back on task - Louisiana go with the piano my dear > - you can't beat deafening the neighbours with a > good bit of Rachmaninov on a early Sunday morning > :)) Either that or consider investing in a set of > kettle drums ;-) I think you are right. On the piano at least. I already have a Korg synth, so am not without the 'keyboard that's not really a piano' thing.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you opt for ukelele I recommend the 'Duke of > Uke' shop in Spitalfields. Got a lovely concert > uke there recently. > If you're not getting a piano you may have space > (and cash) for a uke and a guitar !! Ah yes, I've recently been walking pat it a lot but always a hurry to go somewhere and not time go in.