Coroners and Justice Bill

[David Hansen]

On 1 Feb 2009 at 19:58, Mary Hawking wrote:

> The background appears to be a determination to realise the commercial 
> and research value of the NHS cradle-to-grave record
> The Cooksey report (commissioned by the Treasury)
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/cooksey_review_index.htm
> was followed by the Data Sharing Review led by Mark Walport of the 
> Welcome Trust - well known for his view that researchers have a divine 
> right for access to NHS medical records: in effect, to GP records.

They tried to do the same thing with medical records in Iceland, 
without bothering with the "minor detail" of getting consent from their 
victims. That company was failing nicely the last time I checked.

There are similar criminals in the UK, Biobank is an example.

> *Should* this type of legislation be placed into an unrelated Bill with 
> sufficient problems earlier in the Bill to ensure that there will be 
> little or no time for debate?

That depends on who you are. If you are a Labour Party bod, keen to 
bung money to your business friends and with no concern about plebs, 
then the answer is yes. A good way of burying something, another 
example being the sneaking out of MPs trying to exempt themselves from 
FOI by the shifty Ms Harman. On the other hand if you are interested in 
decency, truth, honesty and so on, in other words you are not a Labour 
Party bod, then the answer is no.

Another example is attacking the Icelandic government via so-called 
anti-terrorist laws. While the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism 
Act 2000 means that the actions of UK forces and those who directed 
them in Iraq are definitely terrorism, it is not wide enough to apply 
to the actions of the government of Iceland with regard to banks.

-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54