Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly (Post 10432078)

An unfortunate set of circumstances.

An unforseeable chain of events.

Everyone who takes a car on the road is at the risk of killing someone else every single day, quite possibly through no fault of their own.

Just like those DJs we don't mean to cause anyone any serious harm.

Best we all avoid such stupid, wreckless risks and simply stay at home every day.

Originally Posted by bobd22 (Post 10431869)

I can't see where you are coming from I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Pocaloca (Post 10432664)

Just that some people complain when things they find funny - racist or sexist jokes for example - are banned because they are politically incorrect, and the "PC Brigade" are regarded as a bunch of humourless idiots who can't see that it's just a bit of harmless fun.

Now suddenly the same people are calling for hoax phone calls to be banned, which can also be very funny, because one of them had unfortunate consequences.

Can't anyone else see the irony?

Originally Posted by tommy.irene (Post 10431961)

If the radio station rang 5 times , why did no one answer the phone..

Originally Posted by Domino (Post 10431533)

the discussion between partners may fall under the Data Protection Act, but I am not so sure it has been tested in a court of law. The larger problem is that certain medical records are kept for 40 years :eek: and that gives one hell of a chance for someone to see something, but also in the past 20-30 years how many times has the NHS changed its record keeping systems ! !
I am not so sure the information is security locked in a similar manner to that of a police officer carrying out a PNC check - but those with the desire, the will and a little bit of knowhow have been able to break that as well.
But the DPA is an Act of Parliament and all who come into contact with such information are not required to sign their acceptance - they have to obey the law, even when they don't know about it. (Ignorance of the law is no defence). But the onus is on the Data Holder to ensure the information that is stored is timely, correct, necessary and safely stored.

financial or sales sensitive information could lead to a potential signing of a non-disclosure agreement, but then every year Directors who should know better are barred from holding directorships for divulging such sensitive information or misusing it for their own ends. Additionally, salesmen have been successfully prosecuted for divulging information.

the only document I have ever signed that is fully enforceable in law is the Official Secrets Act, but then you would hope that would be the case.

considering how hard it was to get information on my dying father over the telephone I am surprised that anyone got a single word out of nurses.

.

Originally Posted by Pocaloca (Post 10432664)

Just that some people complain when things they find funny - racist or sexist jokes for example - are banned because they are politically incorrect, and the "PC Brigade" are regarded as a bunch of humourless idiots who can't see that it's just a bit of harmless fun.

Now suddenly the same people are calling for hoax phone calls to be banned, which can also be very funny, because one of them had unfortunate consequences.

Can't anyone else see the irony?

Originally Posted by Rambling Rose (Post 10433005)

Ok thats all true but the DPA covers information that has been recorded on a computer database. You could still be privy to information that has only been passed by word of mouth or on bits of paper. (as in my case)
As for the NHS record keeping systems, I could bore for Britain because as far as I experienced there is no standard system. However my experience is from Scotland and the NHS there is under separate management from England and Wales. I thought they had tried to get a standard system going but gave up after years of expense and no results.
However I can't resist a story:
The Drs I worked for kept computer records and paper files on each patient. The paper files were kept with the most recent record on the top so when you opened the file you saw the most recent entry first. Test results were kept in a separate part at the back of the file. We had one family who spent 6 months in our village and the other half of the year elsewhere in Scotland. Every time they moved we sent their files to the other Practice who took them apart and put them back together because they kept their files in date order with the test results amongst the other stuff. 6 months later when we got them back we would take them apart and rearrange them and add all the new entries to our database because we used a different computer system than the other practice and there was no way of transferring date electronically. :eek:

Originally Posted by Domino (Post 10436754)

Sorry Rose but the DPA covers not only computerised but written records.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisati...finitions.aspx

as to the second part - obviously you don't wonder why I have no faith in the NHS bumbling, the £billions wasted on totally disparate systems in towns next to other. And they want more money, but thats alright its Public Money.
You wouldnt do it at home so why do it at work.

Imagine buying your son a computer that isnt compatible with the systems at school and then buying another computer for your daughter that isnt compatible with either of the other two.

:frown:

Originally Posted by dunmovin (Post 10437049)

Domino & Rose.....why has any of these ramblings about the NHS,the data protection act or whatever else,to do with the original point?

The prank call was deliberate action to invade someone's privacy, done to boost ratings and their earnings.

If the wife of a member of the royal family is deemed an acceptable target for such an invasion, where does that leave the rest of us?

Originally Posted by Domino (Post 10437139)

Where have you been for the past few years ?
Invasion of privacy is alive and kicking - whether it is the people themselves making announcements, people dig for it, ask "friends" to dish the dirt.
The way the press and every prurient individual looking for a bit of salacious titbits to run around and make comment about.

So you have a shouting match on the bus or fall over drunk in the High Street and someone records it on their mobile and the next thing you know it is all over the internet - you have no control over it.

TV and Radio Stations, just like the guy in a greasy mac with Press on his homburg, have for decades been trying to get to speak to people of public interest, and succeeded.

This affair has been blown up because someone involved has taken their own life, but I don't think in the long term it will stop people with long lenses and vibration microphones trying to find out something that can be sold for a few quid or be used to improve their personal and employer's standing in the News Media, even just for their own personal 15 minutes of fame.

`

Originally Posted by dunmovin (Post 10439047)

Just because it "has been around for a while" doesn't make it acceptable. Just as murder, theft, fraud, etc have been alive and kicking for centuries. Does that make them acceptable?
"This affair has been blown up because someone involved has taken their own life," Do you think that this is acceptable from people who broadcast to the public? or do you think the loss of her life was just collateral damage?

Why blame the NHS?

Why not lay the blame on the two that done it? or the morons that think this was a fun prank?
Think about it, if you were a victim of such an invasion or caught up in the media storm,would YOU not want some form of protection from what these people can do to your life?