pk

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's absolutely right. Data protection protects > type of use as well as confidentiality. There is > definitely an issue with names and addresses being > used for a different use without prior consent as > far as I can see, from not only what the law says, > but also the GMC's own guidelines on data > protection. but in these particular circumstances advice has been sought from lawyers and the office of the information commissioner so it seems likely that this mailing is compliant as such, and in general, it strikes me as sensible activity that's trying to do something positive

Timster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's broadly correct pk. (Out of interest, which > bits do you think are wrong?) i might be wrong as it's not really an area that i 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

Timster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. although i think that we're broadly in the same camp, i don't think that quite a bit of the above is accurate about what you should and shouldn't do with personal data

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just because Kings is a hospital doesn't mean > those using it shouldn't expect the same privacy > afforded them by other companies in realtion to > personal data (and an addrees IS personal data). but they're saying that they've consulted with the ICO and taken steps to comply i'm with Hug, timster and the others who can't get the moaning - how bad can receiving a letter from a charity be? (even if it were to ask for a donation, which i understand it doesn't) and as for those suggesting that people may not seek hospital care in case they get sent a letter from a reputable charity afterwards - do you really believe that? guess you can't please all the people all of the time even when you're trying to do something positive

i don't like shopping centres, but a probably like westfield better than any other

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > What is so necessary at the present time to keep > birth rates up when it is easily argued that the > opposite is true? it not 'so necessary to keep up birth rates' so i wouldn't specifically encourage people to have more children either (or give them tax incentives for doing so)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > how would you dissuade people from having more than one child, > pk? in the uk at the present time, i wouldn't

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > expat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why should flying (a very small part of total > carbon footprint) be taxed more and having > children be subsidised? you don't think that going on holiday (or wherever) should maybe be treated differently to creating human life? or they both things that only rich people should be able to do? (although i suppose that rich children are more likey to go abroad on holiday so may be they in particular should be discouraged, from a carbon point of view?)

it's the consistent use of 'marriage' in quotation marks that made me chuckle

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As this little island is so heavily populated, > would it be a good idea to tax future incomers > from all sources? No Those born get to pay taxes later when they grow up and go to work

honesty is the best policy

but people/animals don't join the group to just give and not take. the benefits are for all and if you accept the view that the purpose of life (particularly before self awareness) is an innate wish to pass on your genes (which you might not acccept) then the group helps protect you and your genes (in relatives and offspring) and as such serves your own purpose (as well as that of others, incidentally) following from rosie's point about breeding altruism - i guess you could argue that it can never happen - evolution concentrates genes that offer a competitive advantage and can being truly selfish ever do that? (written in a hurry so apologies if it's nonsense)

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DJKillaQueen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > It doesn't say anything of the sort! it clearly > says "no person" and then with the standard > exceptions. > > It is a standard part of most licensing to > premises that have a bar and sell alcohol. > > Selective reading and misinterpretation could > damage an objection... to be fair it does say no person UNDER 14 so that condition doesn't prohibit 14 and overs - but that doesn't in itself mean that over 14's are allowed other than as the law otherwise permits (dunno what it allows let's also not forget that plenty of pubs do allow under 14's at certain times - have you lot not been to the Herne?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 112 - No person under fourteen shall be in the bar > of the licensed premises during the permitted > hours unless one of the following applies a.He is > the child of the holder of the premises licence > b.He resides in the premises, but is not employed > there c.He is in the bar solely for the purpose of > passing to or from some part of the premises which > is not a bar and to and from which there is no > other convenient means of access or egress d.The > bar is in railway refreshment rooms or other > premises constructed, f itted and intended to be > used bona fide for any purpose to which the > holding of the licence is ancilla. In this > condition "bar" includes any place exclusively or > mainly used for the consumption of intoxicating > liquor. But an area is not a bar when it is u sual > for it to be, and it is, set apart for the service > of tablemeals and alcohol is only sold or supplied > to persons as ancillary to their table meals. > > I think that pretty clearly says that any person > 14 or over can be in the bar at any time. There > are seperate clauses for the sale of alcohol > itself (to persons over 18 only). It is part of > the terms of the license being applied for. really?

madger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just feel that 2am on a sunday night is > too late for a bar like the Adventure Bar to stay > open. > > 2.30am ...will be actual chucking out time on > sundays if this license goes throug> i think that your posts are obviously considered, but i do think that i should point out that the application is for 12/12.30 on Sunday not 2/2.30

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the police do apply stereotypes > ... ...they randomly stop far more > male drivers than female drivers, they stop older > cars more than they stop new cars, they stop left > hand drive and foreign plated cars more than they > stop british cars...and so on. so it's not really random then is it?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if someone looks dodgy you pull em, simples. > > KingKong you need to meet (and possibly even ARE) > Eater 81...... i don't get why someone suggesting that black people are disproportionately stopped and searched is seen as saying something controversial, it's fact ain't it?

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I never said he had a right DJKQ, but he does it > and I don't care that he does. i agree with that: does he have a right? no does he do it for the community? no is it worth me getting upset about? no, i don't care

dennis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would the gracious folk of EDF be equally > accommodating to Mr Sainsbury if he coned off the > area adjacent to his Dulwich Plough shop from 9 to > 5pm ? Debatably he also provides a "valued > community service". i agree with this - people don't run shops for the good of the community, they run them to make money for themselves

BB100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uppereastsider Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The state SHOULD NOT be able to define what a > > parent's role is? > > I agree but it already has. Parental capacity is > laid out in the Framework for Assessment of > children in need and their families (2000) > > Parents often know what's best > > for their children - the government of the day > > shouldn't have a say in this (unless a child is > > abused)... But at this rate there'll be a cap > on > > when men/women can be parents. Ridiculous - I > say! > > As Keef has explained, the state needs to define > it's role and responsibilities more clearly so > parents are not left with threats of intervention > (and social finger wagging) when they make, often > subjective but with good intention, decisions > about their children's welfare. isn't the state's role: "Securing the wellbeing of children by protecting them from all forms of harm and ensuring their development needs are responded to appropriately"? and towards that: "A framework [the Framework for Assessment of children in need and their families (2000) no less] has been developed which provides a systematic way of analysing, understanding and recording what is happening to children and young people within their families and the wider context of the community in which they live." (source: the Framework for Assessment of children in need and their families (2000)) 'subjective but with good intention' can equal wrong and the focus here should surely be more on ensuring the safety of children rather than not upsetting parents?

Alec John Moore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not at all sure about a shaming section of the > forum it's a really bad idea in my opinion, if it's actually a serious suggestion

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IQ tends to be tested under exam conditions, > involving no verbal communication but in life I > believe we are judged by friends and peers on our > communication skills and ability to talk around > subjects and express our thoughts verbally. > > Which is more valuable skill in life, strong > analytical/logical skills, or verbal communication > skills. hopefully it's not got much to do with the ability to use questions marks (sorry - personal irrational thing that causes me rage)

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > PK, it's a message board, if one has an opinion > about another posters post then it's perfectly > hunky dory to say so and allow them to reply. Or > not. i agree (and haven't disgreed above). in fact, i myself have merely expressed an opinion > Provided we all confine ourselves to the decencies > of debate, then all will be well in the 'hood. again, i agree > I don't know what 'people' you are referring to > and as for what they might or might not 'do round > here', I'm at a loss. i meant what i said: "people [on this board] who choose to accuse someone of lying > rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt > or keeping quiet" as in my opinion some people do (i haven't particularly noticed who, but newcomers/others often/sometimes get an unduly hard time, in my opinion) > In fact I'd like to make it clear that I'm not > 'people' at all, or indeed to my knowledge ever > have been. i agree you are probably one 'person', but sometimes perhaps one of several 'people'? > Surely if I think a person has not strictly > confined himself to the truth or may have > exaggarated a touch, then to give an opinion on it > isn't unreasonable? i agree, not necessarily unreasonable, but perhaps sometimes unfriendly > Of course keeping quiet or giving the benefit of > the doubt is always an option, so I won't comment > on the former and you may be correct about the > latter. You never know. out of interest, what is it you're admitting to having 'some form' on?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why so convinced it's made up Hona? I could be > being a mug, but Muffin's story rang true to me. isn't he just doing that thing that people do round here: if suspicious, accuse someone of lying rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt or keeping quiet?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If the point you are making is where are the stats > specifically for accompanied vs unaccompanied, > fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was > making. And in any event, when the occurrence you > are talking about is exceptionally rare, e.g. > child murders at the hands of strangers, the > difference in likelihood between accompanied and > unaccompanied kids is likely to be wafer thin in > statistical terms. yeah that's what i was geting at - i thought that was what the thread was about re murders i agree that the numbers are likely to be very low (thankfully) but in this extreme example i guess i'd be surprised if unaccompanied 5 and 8 year olds were not more at risk than those that are with adults