News1 min ago
Information Commissioner
22 Answers
Let's hear it for the Info Commissioner
who has come out of his Data Protection cubby hole and said basically the act doesnt apply here (over riding public interest )
and I dont say lets hear it for...... very often
as I have to say the service of some of his underlings is / was pretty scabby
oops "here" is in the case of the anonymity of Messrs A - J in the Furness Report by Grant Thornton
We already know Dame Jo ( 'its been a difficult year....') was chair
Cynthia Bowers was chief exec
Kay Sheldon ('I have been treated disgracefully') is the Whistleblower
The first two have shifted at the first sign of trubble with mega pay outs of course. Dame Jo ('I have a duty of care' hahahaha [ laughter added ] ) is the one who tried to have KS removed from the Board on the grounds of insanity. Andrew Lansley wouldnt.
I have applied to the CQC for a copy of the 'deleted report'
under the F O I . It sort of wasnt deleted by everyone - of course they are civil servants - but I dont know what to do with it once I get it.
who has come out of his Data Protection cubby hole and said basically the act doesnt apply here (over riding public interest )
and I dont say lets hear it for...... very often
as I have to say the service of some of his underlings is / was pretty scabby
oops "here" is in the case of the anonymity of Messrs A - J in the Furness Report by Grant Thornton
We already know Dame Jo ( 'its been a difficult year....') was chair
Cynthia Bowers was chief exec
Kay Sheldon ('I have been treated disgracefully') is the Whistleblower
The first two have shifted at the first sign of trubble with mega pay outs of course. Dame Jo ('I have a duty of care' hahahaha [ laughter added ] ) is the one who tried to have KS removed from the Board on the grounds of insanity. Andrew Lansley wouldnt.
I have applied to the CQC for a copy of the 'deleted report'
under the F O I . It sort of wasnt deleted by everyone - of course they are civil servants - but I dont know what to do with it once I get it.
Answers
Hiding behind the Data Protection Act has become a favourite for many organisation
10:45 Thu 20th Jun 2013
I am not entirely sure why anybody thought that the Data Protection act was in any way involved in the first place.
These people who committed this stupid and in my opinion criminal act of suppressing the report were Public servants, so how can it be wrong to name them ? Their names weren't a secret before they got into trouble and I am puzzled how anybody could say that the situation is changed now.
I heard the new CQC chief executive David Behan being interviewed on the Today program yesterday morning and he seemed to be a very sensible person, who candidly admitted that a grave mistake had been made. But on Newsnight last night he didn't really do himself any favours whatsoever::
http://
When dealing with affairs like this there is no better disinfectant than daylight...publish and be damned !
These people who committed this stupid and in my opinion criminal act of suppressing the report were Public servants, so how can it be wrong to name them ? Their names weren't a secret before they got into trouble and I am puzzled how anybody could say that the situation is changed now.
I heard the new CQC chief executive David Behan being interviewed on the Today program yesterday morning and he seemed to be a very sensible person, who candidly admitted that a grave mistake had been made. But on Newsnight last night he didn't really do himself any favours whatsoever::
http://
When dealing with affairs like this there is no better disinfectant than daylight...publish and be damned !
"But on Newsnight last night he didn't really do himself any favours whatsoever".
I'm not so sure. Normally, I agree with Paxton's interviewing techniques, but in this case I think he was unfairly aggressive. It seems to me that David Behan acted in good faith on the advice he was given.
The Information Commissioner's comments "this case it certainly looked as if data protection really wasn't the issue", don't amount to new legal advice.
Behan has said that he is asking for a review of the advice he was given. To me, that seems eminently reasonable.
I'm not so sure. Normally, I agree with Paxton's interviewing techniques, but in this case I think he was unfairly aggressive. It seems to me that David Behan acted in good faith on the advice he was given.
The Information Commissioner's comments "this case it certainly looked as if data protection really wasn't the issue", don't amount to new legal advice.
Behan has said that he is asking for a review of the advice he was given. To me, that seems eminently reasonable.
"I think he was unfairly aggressive."
Me too - Paxman seemed to want to shout at him to force the issue into being the focal point of the discussion, when really it's not all that important, especially when the names will be released at some point in the near future.
I think Behan didn't do himself many favours though by trying to do the "repeat my lines" game. He could have engaged a little better.
Me too - Paxman seemed to want to shout at him to force the issue into being the focal point of the discussion, when really it's not all that important, especially when the names will be released at some point in the near future.
I think Behan didn't do himself many favours though by trying to do the "repeat my lines" game. He could have engaged a little better.
thanks for : http://
Dr A says there is a letter from the CQC to the Police saying dont investigate us !
Dr Ashton is worth listening to. He was the one in the stands in Hillsborough disaster and then because he was a public health doctor was sl+gged off in the inquiry.
Dr A says there is a letter from the CQC to the Police saying dont investigate us !
Dr Ashton is worth listening to. He was the one in the stands in Hillsborough disaster and then because he was a public health doctor was sl+gged off in the inquiry.
http://
the first thing to say Jeremy is that we are committed to open......
ow!
we have published it warts and all...... 'well you havent have you?'
I dont think Paxo was aggressive - there was no badgering or barracking at all.
the first thing to say Jeremy is that we are committed to open......
ow!
we have published it warts and all...... 'well you havent have you?'
I dont think Paxo was aggressive - there was no badgering or barracking at all.
"there was no badgering or barracking at all."
Ah, clearly we watched different clips.
By 35 seconds in Behan has said that he was given legal advice, acknowledged that (in the light of the IC's remarks) the advice may have been correct, and that they are reviewing the advice. The remaining minute and three quarters are taken up with Paxton constantly badgering for an answer to a question that has already been answered.
Ah, clearly we watched different clips.
By 35 seconds in Behan has said that he was given legal advice, acknowledged that (in the light of the IC's remarks) the advice may have been correct, and that they are reviewing the advice. The remaining minute and three quarters are taken up with Paxton constantly badgering for an answer to a question that has already been answered.
Hiding behind the Data Protection Act has become a favourite for many organisations and is also my pet hate. The Act is being misused and misquoted by people who know little or nothing about it, have never read it and have just been told to quote it by their superiors.
In this particular case the CQC was instructed to compile a report on alleged malpractices at an NHS hospital. It was obvious that the report, whatever its findings, would identify senior managers who were in control of the hospital and whose directions would perhaps be criticised. It was never the intention of the DPA that such people should retain anonymity in these circumstances.
So, to look at the specifics:
Section 10 (1) (of the DPA) requires data controllers
“…to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—
(a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another,
and
(b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.
So it could be reasonably argued in this case that the damage or distress was warranted. Serious errors were made which resulted in patient deaths.
However, if that was not sufficient, in addition, Section 10 (2) goes on to say:
Subsection (1) [that is the one above] does not apply [among a few other circumstances] —
[where] The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.
So it could be fairly argued that the composer of the report had a legal obligation (as part of his terms of reference) to include in the report details of the individuals involved.
There is widespread abuse of the DPA to excuse people not carrying out their jobs properly. It needs to be made very clear that the Act was not designed as a blanket protection to secure anonymity in almost any circumstances and certainly not in those in this case.
In this particular case the CQC was instructed to compile a report on alleged malpractices at an NHS hospital. It was obvious that the report, whatever its findings, would identify senior managers who were in control of the hospital and whose directions would perhaps be criticised. It was never the intention of the DPA that such people should retain anonymity in these circumstances.
So, to look at the specifics:
Section 10 (1) (of the DPA) requires data controllers
“…to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—
(a)the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another,
and
(b)that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.
So it could be reasonably argued in this case that the damage or distress was warranted. Serious errors were made which resulted in patient deaths.
However, if that was not sufficient, in addition, Section 10 (2) goes on to say:
Subsection (1) [that is the one above] does not apply [among a few other circumstances] —
[where] The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract.
So it could be fairly argued that the composer of the report had a legal obligation (as part of his terms of reference) to include in the report details of the individuals involved.
There is widespread abuse of the DPA to excuse people not carrying out their jobs properly. It needs to be made very clear that the Act was not designed as a blanket protection to secure anonymity in almost any circumstances and certainly not in those in this case.
Even more sensible Kev would be not to hide behide the Data Protection Act in the first place. A little baby died in the Furness hospital and probably more besides. We had the same problem with the Mid Staffs affair.
I am getting just a tad pissed off by public servants cocking up big time and then running away to hide. This is the NHS we are talking about, not some dodgy spiv off the Watchdog program. Get the idiots on Newsnight and let Paxo have a go at them...we will soon have the truth !
I am getting just a tad pissed off by public servants cocking up big time and then running away to hide. This is the NHS we are talking about, not some dodgy spiv off the Watchdog program. Get the idiots on Newsnight and let Paxo have a go at them...we will soon have the truth !
Three cheers for Paxo and Humphries....where would we be without them ?
Perhaps Behan should have been on one of those daft sofa-programs, interviewed by a lot of dim second-raters. He should have known what to expect when he agreed to be interviewed by Paxo. He is employed by the BBC to bring people to account. The point is that Behan should not have withheld the names in the first place. That is clear from this mornings interview with the Data Protection chap. If Behan had consulted the correct person in the first place, he would have got it right first time, instead of having the truth dragged out of him like some naughty schoolboy.
I agree with Peter Pedant and Barney here. These public servants are supposed to be protecting us, after all that is what they are paid their considerable salaries for.
Ed...I wish I had your confidence that the names will be released soon. Its now 13:20 and still no sign of any naming that I can see.
Perhaps Behan should have been on one of those daft sofa-programs, interviewed by a lot of dim second-raters. He should have known what to expect when he agreed to be interviewed by Paxo. He is employed by the BBC to bring people to account. The point is that Behan should not have withheld the names in the first place. That is clear from this mornings interview with the Data Protection chap. If Behan had consulted the correct person in the first place, he would have got it right first time, instead of having the truth dragged out of him like some naughty schoolboy.
I agree with Peter Pedant and Barney here. These public servants are supposed to be protecting us, after all that is what they are paid their considerable salaries for.
Ed...I wish I had your confidence that the names will be released soon. Its now 13:20 and still no sign of any naming that I can see.
Ministers are saying names will be revealed - lets hope its the big ones (we know who they are anyway). CQC still dragging its heels though, saying no decision reached. There hand will be forced though i reckon.
http://
http://
Lzy Gun and Barney
The report details are on the other thread
http://
and also the details of Mr B, C, D etc
The report details are on the other thread
http://
and also the details of Mr B, C, D etc
We must be grateful that QCC has, at last named the officials alleged to have been involved in the cover up :::
http://
What a pity that this information took so long to come out. I have heard the QCC being interviewed by three employees of the BBC in the last 24 hours ...Humphries on Today, Paxo on Newsnight and just a few minutes ago, Eddie Mair in PM. These BBC interviewers have been castigated by some here on AB, for being "too aggressive" Heaven only knows what would have happened if these interviews had not taken place. The BBC has done all a very good turn here indeed, for which we should be grateful.
I have every sympathy for the present chairman of the CQC, David Prior, as all this happened before he was appointed. But he, and others must now take the blame for faffing about and not publishing the names of the people responsible right from the start of this sorry affair. The truth had to be dragged out of them by the BBC people named above, and others. The Data Protection Act was a complete red herring, and anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen that straight away.
I would fully expect that the names that have at last been released are brought before the relevant Commons Select Committee and made to give an account of their actions. It would also not seem unreasonable for the Police to start investigations, as what has transpired would seem to be on the verge of fraud at the very least.
http://
What a pity that this information took so long to come out. I have heard the QCC being interviewed by three employees of the BBC in the last 24 hours ...Humphries on Today, Paxo on Newsnight and just a few minutes ago, Eddie Mair in PM. These BBC interviewers have been castigated by some here on AB, for being "too aggressive" Heaven only knows what would have happened if these interviews had not taken place. The BBC has done all a very good turn here indeed, for which we should be grateful.
I have every sympathy for the present chairman of the CQC, David Prior, as all this happened before he was appointed. But he, and others must now take the blame for faffing about and not publishing the names of the people responsible right from the start of this sorry affair. The truth had to be dragged out of them by the BBC people named above, and others. The Data Protection Act was a complete red herring, and anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen that straight away.
I would fully expect that the names that have at last been released are brought before the relevant Commons Select Committee and made to give an account of their actions. It would also not seem unreasonable for the Police to start investigations, as what has transpired would seem to be on the verge of fraud at the very least.
#as expexted here come the denials and selective memories:
It emerged that Bower, who left the regulator last year with a £1.4m pension pot, resigned on Thursday as a non-executive director of Skills for Health, an organisation which acts as the voice of healthcare employers in the skills system. Finney, now chief operating officer of internet company Nominet, was "not in the office today". Both Bower and Finney deny the allegations.
Bower said that she "gave no instruction to delete" the internal review, but added that as the former boss of the healthcare watchdog: "The buck stops with me."
The political pressure had been mounting on the health regulator to reverse its decision to redact names from a damning report by the City consultants Grant Thornton after the information commissioner said the data protection act was no barrier to being transparent.
In the letter to Hunt, the CQC says it had reviewed the issues and that "in the light of this further consideration, we have come to the view that the overriding public interest in transparency and accountability gives us sufficient grounds to disclose the names of the individuals who were anonymised in the report".
It can now revealed that the head of regulatory risk and quality, Louise Dineley, raised the critical internal review at a meeting on 12 March last year at the regulator's London office.
She confronted Bower, Finney and Jefferson with evidence she had gathered of how the organisation had failed. However, Dineley says she was given an instruction by Finney "to delete [her] report and that Bower and Jefferson supported her in this".
The Grant Thornton report said the reason for Finney "giving this instruction was that the report was damaging for the CQC and posed an FoI [freedom of information] risk". Dineley claimed that Finney said to her "'Read my lips' when [she] gave [her] the instruction".
In the report Bower said she had no recollection of the meeting. Jefferson told Grant Thornton that "she could not say whether the instruction was given but if it had been [she] could not think why [she] had not acted upon it". In interviews Finney claimed she could not remember as far back as March 2012.
But Dineley produced a handwritten contemporaneous note of the meeting to support her allegations. Grant Thornton said that "of the four accounts we were given during the course of the of our enquiries, we find [Dineley's] version the most reliable".
http://
It emerged that Bower, who left the regulator last year with a £1.4m pension pot, resigned on Thursday as a non-executive director of Skills for Health, an organisation which acts as the voice of healthcare employers in the skills system. Finney, now chief operating officer of internet company Nominet, was "not in the office today". Both Bower and Finney deny the allegations.
Bower said that she "gave no instruction to delete" the internal review, but added that as the former boss of the healthcare watchdog: "The buck stops with me."
The political pressure had been mounting on the health regulator to reverse its decision to redact names from a damning report by the City consultants Grant Thornton after the information commissioner said the data protection act was no barrier to being transparent.
In the letter to Hunt, the CQC says it had reviewed the issues and that "in the light of this further consideration, we have come to the view that the overriding public interest in transparency and accountability gives us sufficient grounds to disclose the names of the individuals who were anonymised in the report".
It can now revealed that the head of regulatory risk and quality, Louise Dineley, raised the critical internal review at a meeting on 12 March last year at the regulator's London office.
She confronted Bower, Finney and Jefferson with evidence she had gathered of how the organisation had failed. However, Dineley says she was given an instruction by Finney "to delete [her] report and that Bower and Jefferson supported her in this".
The Grant Thornton report said the reason for Finney "giving this instruction was that the report was damaging for the CQC and posed an FoI [freedom of information] risk". Dineley claimed that Finney said to her "'Read my lips' when [she] gave [her] the instruction".
In the report Bower said she had no recollection of the meeting. Jefferson told Grant Thornton that "she could not say whether the instruction was given but if it had been [she] could not think why [she] had not acted upon it". In interviews Finney claimed she could not remember as far back as March 2012.
But Dineley produced a handwritten contemporaneous note of the meeting to support her allegations. Grant Thornton said that "of the four accounts we were given during the course of the of our enquiries, we find [Dineley's] version the most reliable".
http://
And Paxman forgets the first rule of cross-examining. Cross-examining is not examining crossly ! He has the material. All he has to do is put it politely and then ask that most dangerous question "But why?" And never let the witness not answer: the second most dangerous question is always "Yes,very interesting, but what is the answer to my original question?" Otherwise, the audience or jury begins to concentrate on the cross-examiner's anger and manner and ignore the witness.
