A reminder that Sir Keir Starmer is the greatest Leader of the Opposition since the end of WWII

System · May 15

A reminder that Sir Keir Starmer is the greatest Leader of the Opposition since the end of WWII– politicalbetting.com

This is a salutary lesson that winning elections means there's no automaticity about being a great Prime Minister.

TSE

Read the full story here

DavidL · May 15

Pity he's a shite PM.

rcs1000 · May 15

DavidL said:
Pity he's a shite PM.

You're very generous.

TheScreamingEagles · May 15

Top three in that graph, all lawyers, just saying.

Pulpstar · May 15

Does that make Bozza the greatest PM since the war ?

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

Elon Musk bossing it in China:-

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2055155949242114463

dixiedean · May 15

What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.

AnneJGP · May 15

I was brought up on the saying: if you can't find anything nice to say, best say nothing. So I'll say nothing, but it's all very sad.

HYUFD · May 15

Last week though Starmer saw the greatest number of their party's council seats lost by a party leader in the last 50 years after Major in 1995. That result of course triggered a leadership challenge by John Redwood which Major survived, Portillo chickened out of challenging him though then unlike Streeting and maybe a returned Burnham challenging Starmer now

turbotubbs · May 15

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.

Too long in power and everything starts to smell. My conterfactual is what would have happened if Labour had won a narrow victory in 1992?

Big_G_NorthWales · May 15

As posted on last thread Sky showing video of Burnham jogging as per the still photo on here

I would vote for Burnham as I want Farage to lose but also Starmer would quickly be an ex PM

HYUFD · May 15

turbotubbs said:

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.
Too long in power and everything starts to smell. My conterfactual is what would have happened if Labour had won a narrow victory in 1992?

Heseltine would have replaced Major as Tory leader, Labour would have been hit by Black Wednesday and Heseltine beaten Kinnock in 1997?

Penddu2 · May 15

Read into this what you will...

Welsh Conservatives have just announced their shadow cabinet. Darren Millar - WCon leader has given himself the portfolio - Armed Forces & Veterans. Which of course is not devolved.

He is an absolute clown - even by standards of the WCons..... I sense he is on the way out - not just as leader of WCon... but out of party altogether. First defection incoming?

LostPassword · May 15

Bit unfair not to have 1931 on that chart.

What's really staggering is that Starmer would have far exceeded Atlee if he hadn't run such a useless election campaign.

I think the extent to which British politics is still dealing with the fallout from the Truss Ministry is underrated. Voters never liked Starmer, but many felt obliged to give him a landslide majority because of what the Tories had done.

And Reform first sparked into life when Truss was defenestrated, animated by those unwilling to accept that she had blundered so catastrophically.

Richard_Tyndall · May 15

TheScreamingEagles said:
Top three in that graph, all lawyers, just saying.

Top three on that graph all Labour.

bondegezou · May 15

FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.

I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.

HYUFD · May 15

TheScreamingEagles said:
Top three in that graph, all lawyers, just saying.

Though Attlee never practised and only Starmer made QC unlike Blair. 2/3 of the top 3 Tories, Cameron and Heath, Oxford PPE graduates, Churchill, the other, never went to university despite being a noted historian

rottenborough · May 15

Caroline Lucas says Greens shouldn't fight this one too much:

Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
1h
I hope this isn’t true. There are times when it’s more important to put country before party. This is one of them. Burnham’s longstanding commitment to a fairer voting system could transform our democracy & counter dire threat of a Reform UK government

rottenborough · May 15

Caroline Lucas says Greens shouldn't fight this one too much:

Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
1h
I hope this isn’t true. There are times when it’s more important to put country before party. This is one of them. Burnham’s longstanding commitment to a fairer voting system could transform our democracy & counter dire threat of a Reform UK government

Casino_Royale · May 15

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.

Which tells you just how far you have to fail in Britain before the public reluctantly votes for Labour.

HYUFD · May 15

LostPassword said:
Bit unfair not to have 1931 on that chart.

What's really staggering is that Starmer would have far exceeded Atlee if he hadn't run such a useless election campaign.

I think the extent to which British politics is still dealing with the fallout from the Truss Ministry is underrated. Voters never liked Starmer, but many felt obliged to give him a landslide majority because of what the Tories had done.

And Reform first sparked into life when Truss was defenestrated, animated by those unwilling to accept that she had blundered so catastrophically.

The Labour vote really surged against the Tories after the Truss and Kwarteng budget. Reform surged under Sunak's premiership and then with the Farage return to lead them and have increased further since Badenoch beat Jenrick to become Tory leader. Now over half the 2019 Boris vote backs Reform, only the posher bit of the 2019 Boris vote is still voting Tory

bondegezou · May 15

Another example of how lies about immigration spread quickly: https://x.com/Care2much18/status/2054998967230898353?s=20

williamglenn · May 15

rottenborough said:
Caroline Lucas says Greens shouldn't fight this one too much:

Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
1h
I hope this isn’t true. There are times when it’s more important to put country before party. This is one of them. Burnham’s longstanding commitment to a fairer voting system could transform our democracy & counter dire threat of a Reform UK government

She's from the old school that sees the minor left-wing parties as Labour affiliates, but politics has moved on since then.

carnforth · May 15

Did you really mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaticity ? Or did you mean automatic-ness?

Big_G_NorthWales · May 15

turbotubbs said:

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.
Too long in power and everything starts to smell. My conterfactual is what would have happened if Labour had won a narrow victory in 1992?

Look at the Senedd last week where labour won just 9 seats out of 96

I did say how bad Wales looked for labour but the reality is they are years away from recovery in Wales

Andy_JS · May 15

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.

It could be that it's more a function of the Tories being in office for 14 and 18 years on the last two occasions.

tlg86 · May 15

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:
Caroline Lucas says Greens shouldn't fight this one too much:

Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
1h
I hope this isn’t true. There are times when it’s more important to put country before party. This is one of them. Burnham’s longstanding commitment to a fairer voting system could transform our democracy & counter dire threat of a Reform UK government
She's from the old school that sees the minor left-wing parties as Labour affiliates, but politics has moved on since then.

The main reason the Greens shouldn't fight too hard is that they aren't going to win and it could look a bit embarrassing.

And, if Burnham fails anyway, they can say "see, Labour can't beat Reform".

TheScreamingEagles · May 15

carnforth said:
Did you really mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaticity ? Or did you mean automatic-ness?

the condition of being automatic, or the degree of this

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/automaticity

Mexicanpete · May 15

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Top three in that graph, all lawyers, just saying.
Top three on that graph all Labour.

That's because Labour are invariably in almost perpetual opposition.

Sean_F · May 15

PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.

Sean_F · May 15

PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.

eek · May 15

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.

Going back to HMRC, if you neighbour knew that you had checked their tax records without justification and complained, you would be out for gross misconduct as soon as the audit log was checked and it had been confirmed that you shouldn't have looked.

Source the rules when I was implementing the audit at DWP for universal credit.

Likewise at NatWest / Barclays. Every view is audited, if found that there was no justification you've got a lot of explaining to do and for banks that data is compartmentalised - they record which part of the record you look at alongside the overall visit.

Gallowgate · May 15

https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important

dixiedean · May 15

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.
Which tells you just how far you have to fail in Britain before the public reluctantly votes for Labour.

Well yes.
Ourr default setting is Conservative government.

LostPassword · May 15

bondegezou said:
Another example of how lies about immigration spread quickly: https://x.com/Care2much18/status/2054998967230898353?s=20

Note that part of the issue here appears to be people treating LLMs as an authoritative source. I've seen it disturbingly often on here too. People simply willing to take the word of an LLM as gospel.

They simply aren't reliable. They will make things up, at best, or be coded to purposefully feed you biased bullshit.

kle4 · May 15

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:
Caroline Lucas says Greens shouldn't fight this one too much:

Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
1h
I hope this isn’t true. There are times when it’s more important to put country before party. This is one of them. Burnham’s longstanding commitment to a fairer voting system could transform our democracy & counter dire threat of a Reform UK government
She's from the old school that sees the minor left-wing parties as Labour affiliates, but politics has moved on since then.

Yes, it's all to play for now. Though i don't think they'd win it against Andy.

Really old school sees the LDs as Labour affiliates too, against their wishes.

dixiedean · May 15

The Green vote in Makerfield is very much a "Labour are too right wing" vote. Rather than a student loans, Palestine and trans one.
So it may be less resilient and more amenable to a candidate resolved to take Labour leftward in any case.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:
Bit unfair not to have 1931 on that chart.

What's really staggering is that Starmer would have far exceeded Atlee if he hadn't run such a useless election campaign.

I think the extent to which British politics is still dealing with the fallout from the Truss Ministry is underrated. Voters never liked Starmer, but many felt obliged to give him a landslide majority because of what the Tories had done.

And Reform first sparked into life when Truss was defenestrated, animated by those unwilling to accept that she had blundered so catastrophically.
The Labour vote really surged against the Tories after the Truss and Kwarteng budget. Reform surged under Sunak's premiership and then with the Farage return to lead them and have increased further since Badenoch beat Jenrick to become Tory leader. Now over half the 2019 Boris vote backs Reform, only the posher bit of the 2019 Boris vote is still voting Tory

We need to remember a lot of the 2019 Boris vote was due to Nigel Farage standing down his candidates in Tory seats.

FF43 · May 15

I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o

kle4 · May 15

Sean_F said:
PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.

System changes tend to happen because one side think they'll benefit. True supporters continue support even if it wouldn't because on balance X is better than Y.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o

Who's to say? Cash is fungible.

HYUFD · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:
Bit unfair not to have 1931 on that chart.

What's really staggering is that Starmer would have far exceeded Atlee if he hadn't run such a useless election campaign.

I think the extent to which British politics is still dealing with the fallout from the Truss Ministry is underrated. Voters never liked Starmer, but many felt obliged to give him a landslide majority because of what the Tories had done.

And Reform first sparked into life when Truss was defenestrated, animated by those unwilling to accept that she had blundered so catastrophically.
The Labour vote really surged against the Tories after the Truss and Kwarteng budget. Reform surged under Sunak's premiership and then with the Farage return to lead them and have increased further since Badenoch beat Jenrick to become Tory leader. Now over half the 2019 Boris vote backs Reform, only the posher bit of the 2019 Boris vote is still voting Tory
We need to remember a lot of the 2019 Boris vote was due to Nigel Farage standing down his candidates in Tory seats.

To an extent but there were a number of voters in 2019 who had always voted Labour, lent their vote to Boris but would never vote for another Tory and have now gone to Farage and Reform

Andy_JS · May 15

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o

All the attempts to damage Trump with this type of thing failed miserably, and the same will probably be true with Farage. If you want to dent his popularity, you have to deal with the policy issues with which he's popular.

Fairliered · May 15

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.

Patients should also be able to see who has accessed their records and why.

Fairliered · May 15

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.

Patients should also be able to see who has accessed their records and why.

Fairliered · May 15

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.

Patients should also be able to see who has accessed their records and why.

Fairliered · May 15

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.

Patients should also be able to see who has accessed their records and why.

Casino_Royale · May 15

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.
Which tells you just how far you have to fail in Britain before the public reluctantly votes for Labour.
Well yes.
Ourr default setting is Conservative government.

Britain, especially England, is a small c-country that occasionally votes Labour.

HYUFD · May 15

Sean_F said:
PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.

If the Tories backed Reform certainly and would also nullify anti Reform tactical voting unlike FPTP as you could equally get a Labour government supported by the Greens and LDs.

In Italy and Sweden and New Zealand you now have centre right and nationalist right party coalition governments in power with PR, same in Israel, while in Spain the centre right and nationalist right are part of a coalition in opposition to oust the governing Socialists at the next Spanish PR general election

kle4 · May 15

Andy_JS said:

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o
All the attempts to damage Trump with this type of thing failed miserably, and the same will probably be true with Farage. If you want to dent his popularity, you have to deal with the policy issues with which he's popular.

The problem with that is sometimes things are significant and deserve to be raised regardless of if it 'works' to undermine support.

No Trump voters can claim to be surprised by what they've gotten after all.

RandallFlagg · May 15

Andy_JS said:

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o
All the attempts to damage Trump with this type of thing failed miserably, and the same will probably be true with Farage. If you want to dent his popularity, you have to deal with the policy issues with which he's popular.

Well, the Epstein files haven't exactly done Trump any favours.

bondegezou · May 15

Andy_JS said:

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o
All the attempts to damage Trump with this type of thing failed miserably, and the same will probably be true with Farage. If you want to dent his popularity, you have to deal with the policy issues with which he's popular.

Trump's popularity has collapsed. That's probably a mix of things, but the fraud and corruption may be part of it. So I don't think it's entirely accurate to say "this type of thing failed miserably" with Trump. Also, Trump had a reputation as a successful businessman who wheeled and dealed, which Farage doesn't, and Farage is in the UK, where there are more options for voters to consider and a traditional belief in fair play.

We saw polling a few months back showing that linking Farage to rich donors does hit his popularity. Reform's and Farage's increasingly panicked response to the £5 million story suggests they think it will hurt him.

kle4 · May 15

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o

Could be true, but muddying the waters helps either way.

bondegezou · May 15

Fairliered said:

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.
Patients should also be able to see who has accessed their records and why.

I don't think we have final details yet, but https://www.england.nhs.uk/digitaltechnology/the-single-patient-record/#security-spr is where NHS England lays out their basic approach on this.

Casino_Royale · May 15

Andy_JS said:

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o
All the attempts to damage Trump with this type of thing failed miserably, and the same will probably be true with Farage. If you want to dent his popularity, you have to deal with the policy issues with which he's popular.

Which due to cognitive dissonance, they never will - because that would mean revisiting some very dearly held tenets and doing something about it.

TheScreamingEagles · May 15

I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o

eek · May 15

kle4 said:

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o
Could be true, but muddying the waters helps either way.

Got to ask did ITV really pay him £2m+ to appear on I'm a Celeb?

viewcode · May 15

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important

Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

eek said:

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.
Going back to HMRC, if you neighbour knew that you had checked their tax records without justification and complained, you would be out for gross misconduct as soon as the audit log was checked and it had been confirmed that you shouldn't have looked.

Source the rules when I was implementing the audit at DWP for universal credit.

Likewise at NatWest / Barclays. Every view is audited, if found that there was no justification you've got a lot of explaining to do and for banks that data is compartmentalised - they record which part of the record you look at alongside the overall visit.

To play devil's advocate, it could be the more police eyes on case details and photos, the more likely it is that someone will recognise a pattern. The current ITV drama Believe Me on the black cab rapist case is an example where similar complaints were not linked, as were the Jimmy Savile and other cases we can't talk about. Just the other day @Cyclefree was lamenting her suffering because clinicians could not share records.

Nigelb · May 15

Sean_F said:
PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.

Or not.

They're more likely to achieve that under FPTP, IMO.

In any event, proportional voting is simply a fairer system. If the electorate chose to do something stupid, that's a quite separate matter.

The more interesting question is whether Burnham will act like Farage, and decide that PR is "not in our interest" once he gets a sniff of power.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

viewcode said:

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important
Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week

Hold on. Courts are expected to rule on the basis of this declaration and not legislation?

DavidL · May 15

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:
Pity he's a shite PM.
You're very generous.

Famous for it.

HYUFD · May 15

Nigelb said:

Sean_F said:
PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.
Or not.

They're more likely to achieve that under FPTP, IMO.

In any event, proportional voting is simply a fairer system. If the electorate chose to do something stupid, that's a quite separate matter.

The more interesting question is whether Burnham will act like Farage, and decide that PR is "not in our interest" once he gets a sniff of power.

Reform only have a chance of a Reform majority government under FPTP.

Under PR Reform could still form coalition governments with the Tories though

Nigelb · May 15

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o

If the fucker was so well off, why did he need a £5m bung anyway ?

eek · May 15

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o

The solution is actually simple, Southampton forfeit the first leg 3-0 given how clear cut the case against Southampton is I can't see any other solution.

The problem is it seems Southampton have now admitted spying on other clubs this season which creates a bigger issue.

Nigelb · May 15

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

Sean_F said:
PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.
Or not.

They're more likely to achieve that under FPTP, IMO.

In any event, proportional voting is simply a fairer system. If the electorate chose to do something stupid, that's a quite separate matter.

The more interesting question is whether Burnham will act like Farage, and decide that PR is "not in our interest" once he gets a sniff of power.
Reform only have a chance of a Reform majority government under FPTP.

Under PR Reform could still form coalition governments with the Tories though

"Reform led government" applies in both cases.

Brixian59 · May 15

Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

eek said:

kle4 said:

FF43 said:
I doubt Farage expects anyone to believe this.

Farage paid for £1.4m house with I'm a Celebrity cash, says Reform

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c809gkg7m00o
Could be true, but muddying the waters helps either way.
Got to ask did ITV really pay him £2m+ to appear on I'm a Celeb?

£1.5 million was widely reported, eg:-

Nigel Farage to become ‘highest-paid’ I’m A Celebrity star in history
https://metro.co.uk/2023/11/13/nigel-farages-wild-im-a-celebrity-get-fee-revealed-19817568/

bondegezou · May 15

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.

One of those is the current leader. One was the leader three back. Slight difference.

Cookie · May 15

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.

Why is it unacceptable to coalition with Reform but acceotable to coalition with Green? Both are equally beyond the pale.

HYUFD · May 15

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.

It was the Worcestershire Tory Leader agreeing to make a Green Leader of the county council that Kemi rightly ruled unacceptable, it would have meant Reform could now say 'Vote Tory, get Green' had Kemi not told CCHQ to suspend his party membership

rcs1000 · May 15

turbotubbs said:

dixiedean said:
What's really fascinating about that graph is the extent that when folk get sick of a Tory government they can get quite extraordinarily sick of them.
Too long in power and everything starts to smell. My conterfactual is what would have happened if Labour had won a narrow victory in 1992?

There was an article or book by -I think- Will Hutton called The Election They Wish They'd Never Won exploring exactly that counterfactual.

Gallowgate · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

viewcode said:

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important
Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week
Hold on. Courts are expected to rule on the basis of this declaration and not legislation?

The legislation is the Human Rights Act 1998

Brixian59 · May 15

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o

I cant believe the fuss over this frankly.

If Boro had any inkling all they need do was practise a formation or drills they would never use on the day.

Storm in a tea cup.

Besides Middlesborough and their bland stadium are desperately dull and non atmospheric.

Miles behind their bigger neighbours.

Nigelb · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

viewcode said:

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important
Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week
Hold on. Courts are expected to rule on the basis of this declaration and not legislation?

Try reading the leaders' agreed statement, which I posted on the last thread.
Courts rule on the basis of legislation and precedent, but this is about the members agreeing a common set of principles.
If all member states agree on a tougher approach, then that is their business.

The ECHR has less power than is assumed. As the statement says, it is not an appeal court of fourth instance.

HYUFD · May 15

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

Sean_F said:
PR could very well usher in a Reform-led government.
Or not.

They're more likely to achieve that under FPTP, IMO.

In any event, proportional voting is simply a fairer system. If the electorate chose to do something stupid, that's a quite separate matter.

The more interesting question is whether Burnham will act like Farage, and decide that PR is "not in our interest" once he gets a sniff of power.
Reform only have a chance of a Reform majority government under FPTP.

Under PR Reform could still form coalition governments with the Tories though
"Reform led government" applies in both cases.

True but a Farage led government with Kemi his Deputy PM and maybe even Stride as Chancellor with PR looks rather different than a Farage majority government with Tice Deputy PM and Jenrick Chancellor with FPTP.

See the recent SNL sketch with Farage as PM and Kemi his Deputy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0lr8o24RJU

Cookie · May 15

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o
The solution is actually simple, Southampton forfeit the first leg 3-0 given how clear cut the case against Southampton is I can't see any other solution.

The problem is it seems Southampton have now admitted spying on other clubs this season which creates a bigger issue.

Again: football is stupid. Why 3-0? I recall a Scotland game against, let's say, Estonia, in which Estonia didn't turn up, which Scotland were awarded 3-0. 3-0 isn't a terribly big score.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

Gallowgate said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

viewcode said:

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important
Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week
Hold on. Courts are expected to rule on the basis of this declaration and not legislation?
The legislation is the Human Rights Act 1998

Yes but the government's press release says the interpretation will change.

The declaration is expected to help courts interpret how the ECHR is applied
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week

dixiedean · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.
Going back to HMRC, if you neighbour knew that you had checked their tax records without justification and complained, you would be out for gross misconduct as soon as the audit log was checked and it had been confirmed that you shouldn't have looked.

Source the rules when I was implementing the audit at DWP for universal credit.

Likewise at NatWest / Barclays. Every view is audited, if found that there was no justification you've got a lot of explaining to do and for banks that data is compartmentalised - they record which part of the record you look at alongside the overall visit.
To play devil's advocate, it could be the more police eyes on case details and photos, the more likely it is that someone will recognise a pattern. The current ITV drama Believe Me on the black cab rapist case is an example where similar complaints were not linked, as were the Jimmy Savile and other cases we can't talk about. Just the other day @Cyclefree was lamenting her suffering because clinicians could not share records.

Every Serious Case Review into a child's death points up lack of information sharing as a significant factor.

Pulpstar · May 15

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o
The solution is actually simple, Southampton forfeit the first leg 3-0 given how clear cut the case against Southampton is I can't see any other solution.

The problem is it seems Southampton have now admitted spying on other clubs this season which creates a bigger issue.

Wrexham should sue them for £50M

(Playoff win value ~= £200M, so a place is worth 1/4 of = £50M)

turbotubbs · May 15

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o

Well of course they do.

Back in 1990 Swindon won the Division 2 play offs to reach the top flight. Ten days later they were relegated two divisions for financial irregularities (that almost certainly other clubs were doing at the time, and that Spurs later were only fined for). As a result Sunderland were promoted, despite losing the most one sided 1-0 I've ever seen. Could have been 10-0. But why Sunderland and not say Blackburn, who Town beat in the semi-final?

The whole thing was a mess. At the time I think the PTB wanted to Town to lose so that relegation of one division would be accepted, or a heavy fine. When they won it created an enormous problem.

Saints now present the same issue. if the game goes ahead and Saints win the game with the biggest financial reward in football, what happens if they are then found guilty? Its a farce.

turbotubbs · May 15

Brixian59 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o
I cant believe the fuss over this frankly.

If Boro had any inkling all they need do was practise a formation or drills they would never use on the day.

Storm in a tea cup.

Besides Middlesborough and their bland stadium are desperately dull and non atmospheric.

Miles behind their bigger neighbours.

Its not the point. Its specifically an offense now, post dirty Leeds a few years ago. If its proven it could see serious repercussions.

turbotubbs · May 15

dixiedean said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.
Going back to HMRC, if you neighbour knew that you had checked their tax records without justification and complained, you would be out for gross misconduct as soon as the audit log was checked and it had been confirmed that you shouldn't have looked.

Source the rules when I was implementing the audit at DWP for universal credit.

Likewise at NatWest / Barclays. Every view is audited, if found that there was no justification you've got a lot of explaining to do and for banks that data is compartmentalised - they record which part of the record you look at alongside the overall visit.
To play devil's advocate, it could be the more police eyes on case details and photos, the more likely it is that someone will recognise a pattern. The current ITV drama Believe Me on the black cab rapist case is an example where similar complaints were not linked, as were the Jimmy Savile and other cases we can't talk about. Just the other day @Cyclefree was lamenting her suffering because clinicians could not share records.
Every Serious Case Review into a child's death points up lack of information sharing as a significant factor.

Slightly different issue but a while ago I read several books about the Yorkshire Ripper case. Essentially the lack of ability to resolve all the evidence and connect the dots allowed him to go on doing evil for many years. Nowadays he would have been caught (assuming no change to behaviour). One of the more striking things was a collection of photofits from different witnesses. Add in the automated number plate recognition and of course DNA and hopefully no-one would ever get away with such crimes for such a length of time.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

'Millions' of pounds saved by replacing Palantir tech in refugee system
...
The report notes the Government's chief commercial officer informed Palantir of his concern about the firm's practice of offering a zero- or nominal-cost initial offer to gain a commercial foothold.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l2j1lxdk5o

Speaking of sharing data across systems, Palantir has recently been awarded contracts by the NHS and Metropolitan Police among other public bodies.

Benpointer · May 15

HYUFD said:

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.
It was the Worcestershire Tory Leader agreeing to make a Green Leader of the county council that Kemi rightly ruled unacceptable, it would have meant Reform could now say 'Vote Tory, get Green' had Kemi not told CCHQ to suspend his party membership

Better than' Vote Tory get Reform' imo.

(Although we all know that's what will happen next time.)

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

viewcode said:

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important
Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week
Hold on. Courts are expected to rule on the basis of this declaration and not legislation?
Try reading the leaders' agreed statement, which I posted on the last thread.
Courts rule on the basis of legislation and precedent, but this is about the members agreeing a common set of principles.
If all member states agree on a tougher approach, then that is their business.

The ECHR has less power than is assumed. As the statement says, it is not an appeal court of fourth instance.

I did read it thanks and my point remains that we normally expect courts to act on legislation and case law and not what politicians agree. The Supreme Court recently ignored what legislators' intentions on the trans issue, for example.

Pulpstar · May 15

Brixian59 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o
I cant believe the fuss over this frankly.

If Boro had any inkling all they need do was practise a formation or drills they would never use on the day.

Storm in a tea cup.

Besides Middlesborough and their bland stadium are desperately dull and non atmospheric.

Miles behind their bigger neighbours.

The fact that Boro dominated the first leg, but (Like the rest of their season post christmas) could not get the ball over the goal line and that Southampton's spying looked completely amateurish and of questionable value are neither here nor there.
It's a specific offense now which is wasn't when dirty Leeds did it and needs a sporting punishment. As a points deduction isn't of use in the playoffs it has to be a void first match with a 3-0 deemed scoreline to Middlesbrough to my mind.
That they might have spied on other teams in the season, well that is a seperate issue and maybe a hefty negative points total to start the 2026/27 season with. It is expressly forbidden and seeing as the EFL have come down on Wednesday, Leicester and WBA this season on varying degrees for losing tonnes of money - not one of those violations was a specifically sporting one so they really need to come down like an absolute tonne of bricks on this to send out the message that if you are caught getting up to this nonsense you WILL be severely punished.

Heathener · May 15

Manchester Anecdote Update. Sample size: 1.

G'day. I heard more today from my tory voting acquaintance in Manchester. He owns a pub and recently opened a restaurant.

He loves Andy Burnham and thinks he has "been brilliant for business" in the city. He loves that he gets things done. He was desperately hoping to hold onto Burnham as mayor of Manchester.

The last politician who cut through across the political divide like this was ... Boris.

This is why this guy is such a threat to a Reform or Tory-Reform Government.

HYUFD · May 15

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.
It was the Worcestershire Tory Leader agreeing to make a Green Leader of the county council that Kemi rightly ruled unacceptable, it would have meant Reform could now say 'Vote Tory, get Green' had Kemi not told CCHQ to suspend his party membership
Better than' Vote Tory get Reform' imo.

(Although we all know that's what will happen next time.)

Depends, the Tories could abstain in a hung parliament on a confidence vote and just vote bill by bill.

Kemi didn't tell Worcestershire Tories to do a deal with Reform either, she just rightly decided the Tories forming an administration with a Green leader was unacceptable

Andy_JS · May 15

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.

I very much doubt it.

bondegezou · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

viewcode said:

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important
Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week
Hold on. Courts are expected to rule on the basis of this declaration and not legislation?
Try reading the leaders' agreed statement, which I posted on the last thread.
Courts rule on the basis of legislation and precedent, but this is about the members agreeing a common set of principles.
If all member states agree on a tougher approach, then that is their business.

The ECHR has less power than is assumed. As the statement says, it is not an appeal court of fourth instance.
I did read it thanks and my point remains that we normally expect courts to act on legislation and case law and not what politicians agree. The Supreme Court recently ignored what legislators' intentions on the trans issue, for example.

International law is somewhat different?

Nigelb · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

viewcode said:

Gallowgate said:
https://x.com/attorneygeneral/status/2055293869168755087?s=46

This is the problem the government has. “We’ve signed a new ECHR declaration… This addresses tackling illegal immigration” … yeah but what? How? Just so much nothingness.

In any event people will read the first bit, say rude words about the government, and then vote reform. They should lead with “WE HAVE AGREED X WITH OTHER EUROPEAN LEADERS WHICH ALLOW US TO DO Y BECAUSE Z” The actual mechanism is not important
Fair enough. Does this help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reforms-to-secure-british-borders-to-be-agreed-by-foreign-ministers-in-moldova-this-week
Hold on. Courts are expected to rule on the basis of this declaration and not legislation?
Try reading the leaders' agreed statement, which I posted on the last thread.
Courts rule on the basis of legislation and precedent, but this is about the members agreeing a common set of principles.
If all member states agree on a tougher approach, then that is their business.

The ECHR has less power than is assumed. As the statement says, it is not an appeal court of fourth instance.
I did read it thanks and my point remains that we normally expect courts to act on legislation and case law and not what politicians agree. The Supreme Court recently ignored what legislators' intentions on the trans issue, for example.

The member states were reminding the Court that the latest version of the declaration of rights (from 2021), which is the treaty text on which the Court's decisions is obliged to base its decisions, added the principle of subsidiarity.
In their opinion the court has recently taken on too much which should legally have been left to member states.

The declaration on human rights is literally what the politicians who lead member states have collectively agreed to sign up to. If they think they are being misinterpreted, or the court is acting ultra vires in ratcheting up its powers, then it is open to them to say so, and ultimately amend the declaration ,as they did when they added the subsudarity principle, and as they have done multiple times in the past.

I may not agree with everything that they set out here -
https://rm.coe.int/pdf/09125948802bc2cc
- but it quite within the bounds of propriety for then to say it.

Big_G_NorthWales · May 15

Andy_JS said:

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.
I very much doubt it.

Re Kemi of course it won't and her current popularity including her take down of labour at the Kings speech has been widely praised

Indeed the one way to beat Farage is for Kemi to take centre stage on the right and I expect to see that in the coming months

Big_G_NorthWales · May 15

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Brixian59 said:
Kemi sacking Worcestershire Tory Leader for supporting progressive alliance against Reform will alarm a large swathe of moderate Tory Members and Voters.

Caroline Lucas strongly suggesting Greens should not field a candidate in Makers field if Burnham stands, specifically because Burnham is a long term supporter of Proportional Representation.

Both very very significant and potentially important pointers for the future travel of right wing and progressive wing alliances in the medium term future.
It was the Worcestershire Tory Leader agreeing to make a Green Leader of the county council that Kemi rightly ruled unacceptable, it would have meant Reform could now say 'Vote Tory, get Green' had Kemi not told CCHQ to suspend his party membership
Better than' Vote Tory get Reform' imo.

(Although we all know that's what will happen next time.)
Depends, the Tories could abstain in a hung parliament on a confidence vote and just vote bill by bill.

Kemi didn't tell Worcestershire Tories to do a deal with Reform either, she just rightly decided the Tories forming an administration with a Green leader was unacceptable

That seems to be their position in the Senedd

Malmesbury · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:
'Millions' of pounds saved by replacing Palantir tech in refugee system
...
The report notes the Government's chief commercial officer informed Palantir of his concern about the firm's practice of offering a zero- or nominal-cost initial offer to gain a commercial foothold.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l2j1lxdk5o

Speaking of sharing data across systems, Palantir has recently been awarded contracts by the NHS and Metropolitan Police among other public bodies.

Which goes back to having real expertise in contract negotiation.

The “initial freebie to lock you in” is junior stuff in the world of commercial contracts.

The_Woodpecker · May 15

turbotubbs said:

Brixian59 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree with the Smoggies.

Boro want Southampton out of play-offs over Spygate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy2dg2w168o
I cant believe the fuss over this frankly.

If Boro had any inkling all they need do was practise a formation or drills they would never use on the day.

Storm in a tea cup.

Besides Middlesborough and their bland stadium are desperately dull and non atmospheric.

Miles behind their bigger neighbours.

Its not the point. Its specifically an offense now, post dirty Leeds a few years ago. If its proven it could see serious repercussions.

Premiership Leeds.

bigjohnowls · May 15

On Topic

Any sentence that contains the phrase Keir Starmer and Greatest leader is misleading without the word not in front of greatest leader.

The one exception would be if it refers to him replacing his predecessor who is clearly in with a shout of greatest leader based on his 2017 achievements where he increased Lab vote share by the largest amount since WW2!

Malmesbury · May 15

dixiedean said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

bondegezou said:
FPT.....

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:

LostPassword said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
A hospital trust has admitted that nearly 50 staff members looked inappropriately at the medical records of victims of the Southport knife attack.

The data breach happened at Aintree Hospital in Liverpool, where some of the injured were treated, in the days after the July 2024 attack but has only emerged this week.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. When you give people access to data they will look at it. People are very curious [aka nosy].

You can only prevent this by not giving people access to the data in the first place - e.g. tying access to the data to scanning the patient barcode on their ID wrist strap, or to a specific workflow (consultant scheduled to operate on patient).

This is why a digital ID system/ID cards as generally conceived by the British state has to be resisted. The result would be to make all your data available to every government employee at all times.
Following on from this news story...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-patient-care-as-nhs-set-to-introduce-single-patient-record

The Single Patient Record will be available to all health and care staff in real time, meaning patients get higher quality, safer, joined-up and more personalised care.

Robust protections will be built in, including different levels of access to reflect different needs and clear audit trails – ensuring the public can trust that their data is always secure.

Will be interesting to see what those "robust protections" are. Something like an automatic email every time your record is accessed would be reassuring.
There will be a visible audit trail, I presume, albeit probably not an automatic email.
But visible to whom and with what consequences?

If you sack everyone who takes an inquisitive peek at records they have no business looking at I'd guess the NHS recruitment crisis would be multiplied tenfold.

I worked at the then Inland Revenue for a few months almost a quarter of a century ago. I had access to the entire National Insurance and Self Assessment databases (not including the VIP data). We were regularly reminded that the records we accessed were logged. There was weekly news about the former employees prosecuted for assisting fraud of one sort or another - but I didn't hear about anyone getting into trouble for looking at their neighbour's tax records.

I just don't think you can put that temptation in front of people and not expect so many people to look that you can't effectively discipline them for it.
I don't know what they're planning. Option 1 would usually be that all accesses are visible to the system administrator, but EHRs are generally moving to PHRs (personal health records), where the patient can access their own record and the audit log could be visible to them.
Going back to HMRC, if you neighbour knew that you had checked their tax records without justification and complained, you would be out for gross misconduct as soon as the audit log was checked and it had been confirmed that you shouldn't have looked.

Source the rules when I was implementing the audit at DWP for universal credit.

Likewise at NatWest / Barclays. Every view is audited, if found that there was no justification you've got a lot of explaining to do and for banks that data is compartmentalised - they record which part of the record you look at alongside the overall visit.
To play devil's advocate, it could be the more police eyes on case details and photos, the more likely it is that someone will recognise a pattern. The current ITV drama Believe Me on the black cab rapist case is an example where similar complaints were not linked, as were the Jimmy Savile and other cases we can't talk about. Just the other day @Cyclefree was lamenting her suffering because clinicians could not share records.
Every Serious Case Review into a child's death points up lack of information sharing as a significant factor.

Sharing information doesn't mean making everything available to everyone.

Strangely, many organisation manage to share their data with responsible parties without needing a special breach of GDPR and other rules/laws.

HYUFD · May 15

bigjohnowls said:
On Topic

Any sentence that contains the phrase Keir Starmer and Greatest leader is misleading without the word not in front of greatest leader.

The one exception would be if it refers to him replacing his predecessor who is clearly in with a shout of greatest leader based on his 2017 achievements where he increased Lab vote share by the largest amount since WW2!

Yet Corbyn still lost even in 2017 and Starmer won a landslide majority in 2024. Starmer knew how to count and that he was fighting an election based on seats won not votes won

williamglenn · May 15

https://x.com/siennamarla/status/2055281169936122153

EXCL: Senior Labour figures are concerned that the party will be dragged towards “bankruptcy” if Andy Burnham successfully stands as its candidate in the Makerfield by-election, triggering a mayoral by-election and possibly a leadership contest

Andy_JS · May 15

Ed is probably the Labour leader Farage would most like to face at the next election. It's amazing that quite a lot of people in the Labour Party apparently can't see this.

A reminder that Sir Keir Starmer is the greatest Leader of the Opposition since the end of WWII

Comments