The Tories have said that if they win the next election they will scrap Contactpoint, the government's child-surveillance database which was due to be up and running this year (Telegraph). This database would contain details on every child under 18.
Apart from being another intrusive, expensive and unnecessary project, it also poses security problems - data security not being one of the government's strong points. And, given that its purpose is to help prevent cases such as that of Victoria Climbie, isn't it a bit odd that they decided not to include contact details of children with violent parents?
The Tories say they'll also scrap polyclinics (or super-surgeries, or whatever term the government comes up with this week). The government have consistently lied about polyclinics, at one point saying they would only be introduced in London first as a trial, then immediately forcing every Health Trust in the country to set one up. And other lies, as well.
The question is: will the Tories actually do this if they get into power? Or will they make the promise then quietly forget about it, as often happens?
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Monday, 29 September 2008
New Labour is More than just a Pain in the Arse
This morning I received a letter from my dentist telling me my next appointment in October (made months ago after my last check-up) has now been cancelled and moved to May 2009. A six month extra wait will make it a year between check-ups. When I spoke to the receptionist she said it was down to the fact that two of their dentists had left and they had been unable to find replacements.
This cancelling and postponing of appointments has become more frequent over the last four or five years. As has the change in dentists. Twenty years ago, when I moved to Lincoln, I had no problem in registering with a dentist and seeing him or her every six months. Ten years ago I had no problems registering with a new practice after my previous dentist upped sticks and vanished. In the last five years, the situation has deteriorated.
The government would have us believe that they are improving NHS dental services, especially since they introduced new contracts back in 2006. In Lincolnshire things have got worse, because it's big and rural - travel is expensive and public transport almost non-existent. When the new contracts came in dentists left the system in droves. I seem to recall that the then minister in charge (possibly Rosie Winterton - another characterless non-entity from the political classes) claiming it would all be a success, despite the fact that something like 10% of dentists had quit the NHS.
Looking at the newly-released figures from the NHS itself, it appears that despite the fact that 'the number of dentists has increased in every SHA between 2006/07 and 2007/08' and 'that in England, the population per dentist has decreased between 2006/07 and 2007/08 decreasing from 2,518 to 2,439', it is now becoming almost impossible to register with an NHS dentist. Even when you are registered, your troubles still aren't over - you may end up waiting a whole year for an appointment.
It's no wonder that millions of people - adults and children - are not going to a dentist at all. Again, the government's own figures show this decline: 10 million fewer adults saw a dentist in the 24 months up to March 2008 than in the two years leading up to March 2007; and 198,000 fewer children for the same periods. Mind you, the NHS managed to increase its revenue from those patients by £56 million. Pay more, get less is New Labour's strategy.
The system isn't working properly and it's falling apart.
This cancelling and postponing of appointments has become more frequent over the last four or five years. As has the change in dentists. Twenty years ago, when I moved to Lincoln, I had no problem in registering with a dentist and seeing him or her every six months. Ten years ago I had no problems registering with a new practice after my previous dentist upped sticks and vanished. In the last five years, the situation has deteriorated.
The government would have us believe that they are improving NHS dental services, especially since they introduced new contracts back in 2006. In Lincolnshire things have got worse, because it's big and rural - travel is expensive and public transport almost non-existent. When the new contracts came in dentists left the system in droves. I seem to recall that the then minister in charge (possibly Rosie Winterton - another characterless non-entity from the political classes) claiming it would all be a success, despite the fact that something like 10% of dentists had quit the NHS.
Looking at the newly-released figures from the NHS itself, it appears that despite the fact that 'the number of dentists has increased in every SHA between 2006/07 and 2007/08' and 'that in England, the population per dentist has decreased between 2006/07 and 2007/08 decreasing from 2,518 to 2,439', it is now becoming almost impossible to register with an NHS dentist. Even when you are registered, your troubles still aren't over - you may end up waiting a whole year for an appointment.
It's no wonder that millions of people - adults and children - are not going to a dentist at all. Again, the government's own figures show this decline: 10 million fewer adults saw a dentist in the 24 months up to March 2008 than in the two years leading up to March 2007; and 198,000 fewer children for the same periods. Mind you, the NHS managed to increase its revenue from those patients by £56 million. Pay more, get less is New Labour's strategy.
The system isn't working properly and it's falling apart.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Light Touch For Them, Heavy Hand For The Rest Of Us
While Gordon Brown backtracks furiously on his 'light touch' approach to the finance system, the rest of us continue to receive the heavy hand of his Stalinist practices when it comes to the ID card, National Register project.
The writer Cory Doctorow (Canadian-born therefore a Commonwealth citizen, UK resident, married to a British citizen and now father of a British child) is one of the first Johnny Foreigners to have to carry an ID card. Read his own response here.
Foreigners first, then airport workers and teachers, then students, then the rest of us.
The writer Cory Doctorow (Canadian-born therefore a Commonwealth citizen, UK resident, married to a British citizen and now father of a British child) is one of the first Johnny Foreigners to have to carry an ID card. Read his own response here.
Foreigners first, then airport workers and teachers, then students, then the rest of us.
Friday, 26 September 2008
Bloggers Beware Bastards
On Thursday the clones of Brussels discussed the fate of blogs and how they might extend their dictatorial grasp over them. Click here to go to actual document.
Various bloggers have drawn attention to the desire of some in the EU to demand some kind of 'registration' for bloggers - presumably so they (the clones) can keep them in line. See the Bruges Group blog, for example, or Charles Crawford.
Some points to think about from the execrable document itself:
AD. whereas the proliferation of new media (broadband internet, satellite channels, digital terrestrial television, etc.) and the varied forms of media ownership are not sufficient in themselves to guarantee pluralism in terms of media content,
- what on earth do they mean by 'pluralism' in the first place? The media are already 'plural' - just like the word. And who has the right to demand that new media, or any media, for that matter, should 'guarantee' anything to do with content beyond what is already legally required? Content and quality are the business of the people owning and employing the media, not of bureaucrats.
AU. whereas there are a growing number of conflicts concerning freedom of expression,
AV. whereas, in the information society, media education is an essential means of empowering citizens to make an informed and active contribution to democracy,
AW. whereas the increased supply of information (particularly thanks to the internet) is making the interpretation and assessment thereof increasingly important,
AX. whereas the promotion of media literacy among the citizens of the European Union needs much more support,
- please note the presumptuous and authoritarian nature of these words: the idea that the state or the EU are the arbiters in determining how citizens should be 'empowered' to do anything that is basically their private business and that they are expected to make an 'active contribution to democracy'. I don't want to mkae an active contribution, I want to be left alone. Interpretation and assessment of information is the individual's business, not the state's. And who says we, as citizens, need any kind of 'support' from the EU to improve our 'literacy' in new media and making up our own minds about the information it provides?
The rat that you can smell is the rat who pretends to be protecting your freedom whilst actively depriving you of them.
16. Considers that the rules on media concentration should govern not only the ownership and production of media content, but also the (electronic) channels and mechanisms for access to and dissemination of content on the internet, such as search engines.
- consider that - content and means of access. In other words, all of it. And search engines! Is there nothing they don't want to control?
25. Encourages an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs;
- that's an outright lie.
There's plenty more of this bilge.
The one thing that is certain is that all governments and legislative bodies such as the EU are determined to bring the internet under their control.
Various bloggers have drawn attention to the desire of some in the EU to demand some kind of 'registration' for bloggers - presumably so they (the clones) can keep them in line. See the Bruges Group blog, for example, or Charles Crawford.
Some points to think about from the execrable document itself:
AD. whereas the proliferation of new media (broadband internet, satellite channels, digital terrestrial television, etc.) and the varied forms of media ownership are not sufficient in themselves to guarantee pluralism in terms of media content,
- what on earth do they mean by 'pluralism' in the first place? The media are already 'plural' - just like the word. And who has the right to demand that new media, or any media, for that matter, should 'guarantee' anything to do with content beyond what is already legally required? Content and quality are the business of the people owning and employing the media, not of bureaucrats.
AU. whereas there are a growing number of conflicts concerning freedom of expression,
AV. whereas, in the information society, media education is an essential means of empowering citizens to make an informed and active contribution to democracy,
AW. whereas the increased supply of information (particularly thanks to the internet) is making the interpretation and assessment thereof increasingly important,
AX. whereas the promotion of media literacy among the citizens of the European Union needs much more support,
- please note the presumptuous and authoritarian nature of these words: the idea that the state or the EU are the arbiters in determining how citizens should be 'empowered' to do anything that is basically their private business and that they are expected to make an 'active contribution to democracy'. I don't want to mkae an active contribution, I want to be left alone. Interpretation and assessment of information is the individual's business, not the state's. And who says we, as citizens, need any kind of 'support' from the EU to improve our 'literacy' in new media and making up our own minds about the information it provides?
The rat that you can smell is the rat who pretends to be protecting your freedom whilst actively depriving you of them.
16. Considers that the rules on media concentration should govern not only the ownership and production of media content, but also the (electronic) channels and mechanisms for access to and dissemination of content on the internet, such as search engines.
- consider that - content and means of access. In other words, all of it. And search engines! Is there nothing they don't want to control?
25. Encourages an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs;
- that's an outright lie.
There's plenty more of this bilge.
The one thing that is certain is that all governments and legislative bodies such as the EU are determined to bring the internet under their control.
DVLA FLOG YOUR DETAILS TO ANYONE FOR £2.50
Although it's been around the blogosphere for a few weeks, this scandal concerning DVLA has now entered mainstream media.
The DVLA regularly flog our details to any Tom, Dick or Harry saying they're a proper company for £2.50 a shot, making millions for themselves and exposing us all to the possibility of fraud and intimidation. So much for the government's real concern over identity security, a major plank in their drive for ID cards and the National Database.
Note the following unintentional irony in the following, extracted from a document by IBM. who are the government's partner in developing and producing driving licence cards:
The new driving licence is probably the most secure form of non-chip card in the world. It meets the relevant EU Directorate standards and its security has been checked and verified by the UK government National Document Fraud Unit (NDFU). The future addition of a chip would not only improve security further but would potentially provide a range of significant remote authentication benefits – increasing privacy assurance for personal data for the public during transactions with DVLA. In collaboration with emerging government gateway facilities, this should be achievable quickly and at marginal cost.
Privacy assurance is obviously not a concern, otherwise they wouldn't be flogging our details to make a quick and easy buck.
The DVLA should not be providing this data to anyone except the Police and possibly insurance companies.
Somewhere in all this there may possibly be an EU directive lurking, since all driving licence legislation is now controlled and set by the EU (of course).
The DVLA regularly flog our details to any Tom, Dick or Harry saying they're a proper company for £2.50 a shot, making millions for themselves and exposing us all to the possibility of fraud and intimidation. So much for the government's real concern over identity security, a major plank in their drive for ID cards and the National Database.
Note the following unintentional irony in the following, extracted from a document by IBM. who are the government's partner in developing and producing driving licence cards:
The new driving licence is probably the most secure form of non-chip card in the world. It meets the relevant EU Directorate standards and its security has been checked and verified by the UK government National Document Fraud Unit (NDFU). The future addition of a chip would not only improve security further but would potentially provide a range of significant remote authentication benefits – increasing privacy assurance for personal data for the public during transactions with DVLA. In collaboration with emerging government gateway facilities, this should be achievable quickly and at marginal cost.
Privacy assurance is obviously not a concern, otherwise they wouldn't be flogging our details to make a quick and easy buck.
The DVLA should not be providing this data to anyone except the Police and possibly insurance companies.
Somewhere in all this there may possibly be an EU directive lurking, since all driving licence legislation is now controlled and set by the EU (of course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
