Intriguing!

Got one of these yesterday: 

So I had a look at what five year old page they were hiding from eager searchers in Europe, and it turned out to be a 'Post Of The Month'. This one:

 *baffled face*

Remember When 'Data Protection' Was All The Rage?

Social media firms such as Facebook and Instagram should be forced to hand over data about who their users are and why they use the sites to reduce suicide among children and young people, psychiatrists have said.

I guess if it's 'For the chiiiiillllldreeeennnnn!' we shouldn't worry that our data is being harvested then?

And who is going to use it?

The college, which represents the UK’s 18,000 psychiatrists, wants the government to make social media platforms hand over the data to academics so that they can study what sort of content users are viewing.

Oh.

Well, giving the sort of people that tell you it's perfectly fine for a man to 'identify' as a woman more data can't be a mistake, can it?

The government plans to set up a new online safety regulator and the college says it should be given the power to compel firms to hand over data. It is also calling for the forthcoming 2% “turnover tax” on social media companies’ income to be extended so that it includes their turnover internationally, not from just the UK.

What's that got to do with mental health? It's just a money grab!

Naturally, other State agencies want their piece of flesh too:

NHS England challenged firms to hand over the sort of information that the college is suggesting. Claire Murdoch, its national director for mental health, said that action was needed “to rein in potentially misleading or harmful online content and behaviours”.

They are talking about data, Claire, not what use they'd put it to. You've just blown their cover.

She said: “If these tech giants really want to be a force for good, put a premium on users’ wellbeing and take their responsibilities seriously, then they should do all they can to help researchers better understand how they operate and the risks posed. Until then, they cannot confidently say whether the good outweighs the bad.”

Crucially, nor can you. And I don't think the jury's in yet on whether the good that the NHS does outweighs the bad, hmmm?

The demands have also been backed by Ian Russell, who has become a campaigner against social media harm since his 14-year-old daughter Molly killed herself in November 2017.

Hard cases used to make bad law. Oh. Wait. They still do.

Well, There's Always A First Time....

Thanet Councillor Suzanne Brimm faces three charges related to Freedom of Information requests for details about a dog DNA scheme including getting rid of records so that they could not be disclosed.

It is believed to be the first time that anyone has been charged under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act.

 One to watch!

Cllr Brimm, who previously who held a Cabinet post in the council as a UKIP member before quitting the group to become Independent, has denied the charges and will go on trial at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on September 3.

 And what about that scheme? Well....

Thanet's dog DNA scheme used high-tech testing to try and work out which owners had failed to pick up after their dogs as part of a zero tolerance approach.

The scheme was launched last July but later abandoned.

 Yeah, there's a lot of that going around....

The charges allege that she blocked, concealed or destroyed records held by Thanet council “with the intention of preventing the disclosure by TDC of information” in response to FOI requests between July 31, 2017, and September 2 and 5, 2017.

A further charge says that between her election on May 7, 2015 -and February 9, 2018, Cllr Brimm “being a data controller, processed personal data without having entry in the register maintained by the Information Commissioner.”

The Campaign for Freedom of Information said that this there (sic) has "never been a s77 FOI prosecution before."

It's going to be interesting to see what the real issue is here, isn't it?

Moving Pictures...

Laureen Shaw, councillor for Roche North and Rural, asked whether members of the Rayleigh speedwatch group could pass on details of motorists using their mobile phones so police could send out a warning letter.

Well, why not? It does seem as though it's considered useful in other initiatives.

She said: “I have been advised that we can’t take the registration numbers because there is no video to prove it. Is there any way you could send a letter to say ‘stop it’?”

Wait, what? Not because of privacy and data protection, then?

Mr Westley said he would look into whether the force would be allowed to send the letters.

Shouldn't he know?

"The revelations will add to the already serious questions about South Yorkshire Police’s handling of the investigation..."

You're not kidding!

Amongst the documents to vanish from the police evidence room at Rotherham police station are a teenager’s diary which chronicled her years of sex abuse at the hands of grooming gangs, a victim’s original interview notes with officers and a 14-year-old’s DNA evidence.

 Jesus wept!

Lizzie, who was groomed by a gang of Asian men from the age of 15, also raised fears that a corrupt officer told her abuser she had contacted the police.

She said: "I can remember ringing the police when I got attacked by one of them and somehow he found out and then he was messaging me, threatening messages. Now how did he find out, because nobody knew I'd been to do the interview and the statement?”

You won't be too surprised to find this story isn't in this morning's 'Guardian', will you? They are still busy taking out an onion for Kadiza Sultana or fretting about minor contract disputes.

Bet your life they'd be all over South Yorkshire Police statements with a fine tooth comb if this was a complaint from Black Lives Matter, though...

Express.co.uk wrote to South Yorkshire Police presenting the allegations to them and setting out a series of questions for them to answer.

We asked the force whether it has launched an internal investigation into the disappearance of material from Rotherham police station, and whether it is considering bolstering security around the secure evidence room.

We also requested details of how many reports of evidence relating to child sexual exploitation going missing the force has received in the last six years.

The force declined to comment on the issue.

Did they lose their boilerplate 'nuffin' to do wiv us, guv' prepared statement too?

H/T: Battsby via Twitter

Oh, I Know Why He’s Contacted The Newsshopper…

…it’s because sunlight is the best disinfectant for your sort:

A proud father who took photographs at a school production has received a worrying letter from the head teacher about his intentions.

Mr Flynn is a professional photographer, but was there to take snaps of his own son in an unofficial capacity. A fellow parent asked him to take some shots of his child.

And that raised alarms, it seems…

… the head teacher of Bromley Road Infant School, Karen Minnis, wrote to the dad with concerns – noting a possible breach of the Data Protection Act.

Mr Flynn explained she intervened and removed the image after he had left it at reception for the parent to pick up. He said: "The letter says ‘I have grave concerns with the manner in which the photo was taken and the purpose in using the photo.

"I was there as just a parent. I was there to see my son. I wanted to get some pictures of him as a memory."

He said: "I didn’t do anything wrong. Parents are allowed to take photos for personal use – I didn’t use it for anything else."

Guilty until proven innocent Mr Flynn! Times have changed...

The head teacher told News Shopper it was "perfectly permissible for a parent to take a photo of a school production for their personal use," adding that other children appearing in shots can be acceptable. However, she declined to comment on policy further.

She added: "I don’t know why he’s contacted you."

Yes. you do.

The 'Caring' Profession...

Receptionists at a GPs’ surgery refused to call one of eight doctors working there after an 84-year-old woman collapsed in agony in the waiting room, it was claimed today.

Shocking. Not surprising, though...

Prabhavati Kachra was close to passing out with chest pains and thought she was dying but her grandson said staff would not let him call 999 from their desk phone — citing concerns over patient confidentiality.

But one of them offered to send GPs an email, said Viral Padharia, a 33-year-old council worker.

Oh, good grief!

Mr Padharia said it had echoes of the Little Britain “computer says no” sketch. He said: “They were more keen on trying on their new earrings.”

Well, it seems no-one really wants to do their jobs any more. They'd rather you did all the heavy lifting instead. They'll just take the pay, thanks very much...

Mr Padharia, a father-of-one, said: “They said I would have to call 999 myself because I have all the details. But I told them my phone was in the car.”

He claims reception staff refused to let him call the ambulance from their desk phone and he was forced to get his mobile and ring 999.

Even the paramedics were a little bit surprised at this:

It was only after paramedics arrived that Mr Padharia said a GP appeared to understand what the commotion was about.

According to Mr Padharia, one paramedic told the GP as he examined Mrs Kachra on the reception room floor: “You should have been out here 10 minutes ago.”

And what does the NHS, that Wonder Of The World, have to say about this? Well, predictably, it's 'No report via official channels? Didn't happen...':

NHS North Central London said it had not received the family’s complaint, but was “concerned to hear” of their claims and urged them to call the PCT’s Patient Advice and Liaison Service.

Comments throw up two interesting wrinkles, though. First there's the 'I blame the Tories!' line:

Anonymous21 hours ago

Funny how the family found it easier to bring in the press than the local health authority, which confirms that the chaos and second class NHS service which was clearly signposted right up to the moment Lansley managed to get the NHS signed over to his rich backers.

This is just the beginning because the act does not officially start taking effect until mid-June.

And then there's the 'We should do something!' line:

Anonymous21 hours ago

These staff should be sacked.

It's yet another example of why it should become a criminal offense to fail to seek medical assistance for a person in need of it. I once thought it was needed only to jail hit-and-run drivers, but it's becoming apparent that the need is much wider.

Errr, no. It really isn't...

"No I'm not supposed to, but everybody does it"

A man has won £18,000 damages after his ex-girlfriend probed his...

Whoa! This is a family blog!

...medical records while working at Derriford Hospital.

Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust was ordered to pay the sum to Sean Grinyer, aged 33, of Crownhill, at a county court civil hearing.

Whew!

The court heard the data protection breach and its aftermath significantly affected Mr Grinyer's mental health, aggravating an existing paranoid personality disorder...

I thought you weren't paranoid if they were out to get you?

He said the woman first used the information to challenge him about his mental health history when they were together in 2007.

Mr Grinyer told the hearing she had stated: "No I'm not supposed to, but everybody does it".

Indeed..?

The court heard the health care assistant was informally verbally disciplined, but that information was not released to Mr Grinyer as it was stated to be confidential.

Ironic, eh?

Did You Need Further Evidence That They Are ‘Not Fit For Purpose’..?

A report into failings which allowed a rapist to re-offend just months after being freed from prison is to be kept secret - to protect his privacy.

Yes, you read that right. His privacy…

Fabian Thomas, 23, had served just half of an eight-year sentence for raping a teenager in Taunton, Somerset, when he was released to live in a bail hostel in Plymouth in October last year.

Four months later, Thomas attempted to rape a 19-year-old woman in a supermarket car park while brandishing a hunting knife and wearing a balaclava.

The case raised serious questions about measures to protect the public from violent sex offenders who are being monitored in the community.

Yes, I’ll just bet it did!

However, the Devon and Cornwall Probation Trust refused to disclose any details of a 'serious further offence review' looking at what went wrong.

It said any review would 'necessarily consist of sensitive personal data' and blocked its release, saying it would breach the Data Protection Act.

Nice…

Your Data, Safe In Their…

…oh, I just can’t keep a straight face any more:

Details of police informants stored on a computer memory stick have been stolen in a burglary at the home of a Greater Manchester Police officer.

/facepalm

Still, at least the thieves will have to crack the sooper-dooper top secret government encoding, won’t they?

The stick, which is not thought to be password protected, was taken from the house in Oldham on 17 July.

/doublefacepalm

Why would a government-issued memory stick not have any security?

A spokesman said the matter had been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Information Commissioner.

Police said the stick does not belong to Greater Manchester Police but does contain sensitive information relating to the force.

Ahhh. Perhaps it wasn’t a government-issued data stick after all?

Methinks chummy has some explaining to do…

Yet Another Unnecessary Fine

Southampton hospital bosses have been fined more than £2,000 for breaching single-sex ward rules.

Of course, we know it’s not true. The money comes out of the hospital budget, not directly out of their pay packets. Which, given it’s not their first offence, is what should happen:

This is triple the number of breaches the hospital was fined for in April.

No matter who wins, the taxpayer loses. When are we going to learn that, to have an effect, the fines should be docked from the chief exec's wages?

Well, There Is Another Alternative…

Surrey County Council has been fined £120,000 after a series of blunders in which it emailed sensitive, personal information about hundreds of individuals to the wrong people.

Such as..?

The first breach occurred on May 17 last year when a member of staff working for one of the council’s adult social care teams emailed details relating to 241 individuals’ physical and mental health to the wrong group email address.

Recipients included a number of transportation companies including taxi firms, coach and mini bus hire services and as the information was not encrypted or password protected could have been viewed by a large number of unauthorised people.

After attempts to recall the e-mail failed, the council were later unable to confirm that all recipients had destroyed it.

A second blunder occurred on June 22 last year when confidential personal data relating to a number of individuals was mistakenly e-mailed to over one hundred unintended recipients who had registered to receive a council newsletter.

The last incident took place on January 21 this year when the council’s Children Services department sent confidential information relating to an individual’s health to the wrong internal group email address.

While the data did not leave the council’s network the breach led to sensitive and private information being circulated to individuals who should not have received it.

Ah. Yes, well, when you flout the law and fail to learn from your repeated mistakes, you can expect someone to come along and issue you with a stonking great fine.

A spokesperson for Surrey County Council said: “These incidents should never have occurred and we have apologised to the people involved.

“Immediate action has been taken to prevent this happening again.

“Measures have already been taken to reduce the risk of sensitive personal data being wrongly addressed and extra training on handling data securely has been given.

“We accept the commissioner’s findings but feel the money we were fined by another public sector organisation would have been better spent making further improvements in Surrey."

You know what? You’re quite right. It is indeed unfair that the taxpayer is once again on the hook.

So, let’s have sackings instead. You’ll do, for a start.

Let Me Save You Some Time…

Social services are investigating how a confidential report was sent to the wrong family.

Because you’re idiots.

Next question?

Sophie O’Reilly, 22, has lodged a formal complaint with Essex County Council after the report was mistakenly sent to her home in Great Knightleys, Basildon.

She had written to the local authority raising concerns about lack of support provided by a social worker for her daughter Ruby, aged three.

Miss O’Reilly expected the package from social services to contain an apology letter…

Awwww, bless!

… but was left shocked by what was inside.

She said: “I couldn’t believe it when I opened it up and saw a report about completely different people.

“I obviously haven’t gone through it in detail, but could see it was about something pretty terrible involving a family.

“It makes me frightened to think they might have sent my report to someone else.

“It’s an absolute disgrace and you wonder how many other people have been sent wrong reports.”

It’s impossible to say, until they also go to the local newspaper…

A spokeswoman for the local authority said: “Essex County Council takes very seriously any potential cases where sensitive information is mishandled. Officers are investigating this matter and we will liaise with the families involved.”

And then ignore any potential security issues this raises, no doubt.

Your Data, Safe In Their Hands!

The personal details of hundreds of elderly and vulnerable people have been found discarded in a street.

A 133-page document with the names, date of birth, address and social security numbers of around 800 people, being looked after by Carewatch Essex, was found on a pavement in Vicarage Close, Canvey.

Whoops! Bit of a problem for a company that '...prides itself on the quality of its services to people in South East Essex'...

The resident who found the book contacted Carewatch using an e-mail address on the firm’s website, as soon as she found the document on Saturday.

But the primary school teacher, 41, who asked not to be named, handed over the file to the Echo on Monday, after hearing nothing from the company.

Ah. That must be why they are advertising on their website for 'reliable caring individuals with good communication skills'.

Jan Reed, general manager of the Hadleigh-based branch of Carewatch, which cares for people throughout south-east Essex, initially said she was unaware of the lost document.

She later confirmed an employee had reported the loss on Sunday.

It doesn't pay to lie to the press...

She said: “This is being dealt with internally.

“All I can say is thank you to the person who handed it in.

“We can only assume, if it was found on the street, the care worker slipped, but we are continuing our investigations.”

Hey, aren't there other people skilled in investigation who could help?

The loss was not reported to police.

Ah.