trivia

[Ross Anderson]

Quentin:

> It seems to me that a confrontation between a majority of GPs and the
> Government is a more threatening situation than the one postulated by
> Ross Anderson in an earlier posting (on possible applications of the
> Terrorism Act in medical contexts).
   
To the UK government, sure; but to the Government of Iceland, the IMA
boycott (in which I was involved as a technical adviser) was more serious
than GP shroud-waving in the UK would be. There was an election coming 
along; there were allegations floating around of improper finanical deals
between the database company and the Prime Minister's family; most 
doctors disapproved of the scheme, as did most scientific researchers;
11% of the pupulation had opted out; the company's stock price bubble had
significant effects on the Icelandic economy; and so on. It was a much
bigger deal than anything the BMA is likely to get up to.

Part of my point was that by helping the IMA hold the flames to the feet
of the Prime Minister of Iceland, by supporting their action at a 
conference in Phoenix where my speech was absolutely protected by the US
constitution, I was committing a serious criminal offence in the UK.

BTW I recycled this example on Tuesday when we had a debate in the
University's Regent House about email. A new and clueless personnel chap
had sent round a circular saying that if we sent email that contained
anything criminal, or that could get the University sued, or even annoy
anyone, then this could be interpreted as gross misconduct and we could
be sacked. Apparently it was a warmed-over version of a standard letter
used at his previous employer, a local council. I pointed out that this
would stop me exchanging email about Iceland - and much else besides. In
fact, given that science is about falsification and the humanities about
critique, it's probably fair to say that an academic who has never
annoyed anyone should never have been hired in the first place :-)

Ross