DISGRACEFUL BULLY-BOY TACTICS BY PUBLIC SERVANTS - THE POLICE IN LIVERPOOL -

and for a start, I don't believe in "shapeshifting reptilians"...that's just daft...



SHAPESHIFTING REPTILIAN POLICE OFFICER CAUGHT ON CAMERA LIVERPOOL UK MUST SEE
      

spacecowboy1954

"WHY ARE YOU SO EDGY?"  -  what a daft thing  to say!!

 

Published on 27 Feb 2014

Lee gets pulled over by Mersyside Police BUT he not dealing with a normal Police Officer as I found out whilest editing this footage.
In fact he is dealing with an evil, obnoxious, shapeshifting reptilian, dressed as a Police Woman.
If you were ever in doubt about the existence of these creatures, then this video will prove without any doubt that they do exist!
They Live!
For those who think this has been faked, here's the original footage

Lee Stopped by officers on 26th February at 9 45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLHXrM...

from TERRY ARMSTRONG - RAY WINSTONE - "SWEET REVENGE"

from   Terry Armstrong on fb

RAY WINSTONE - SWEET REVENGE

"As a survivor of sexual abuse as a child I speak from experience and agree with the NSPCC in the main children are sexually abused by someone they know. I was abused up until the age of 10 and kept the secret until I discovered a paedophile in my extended family abusing his 5 year old granddaughter and sharing her with his perverted friends. I assaulted him, he got legal aid, took me to court and won, see this short video: 

 

 http://www.the-reposses...sed.com/AV/unclearry.wmv   

Being in the multimedia business I decided to co-write a film script based on my experience, working title ‘Sweet Revenge.’ I come from the east end of London and a huge fan of Ray Winstone who is also an eastender so I decided to send Ray the script because if he decides to make the film, with his rough diamond personality, I firmly believe the film would have a huge impact in reducing child abuse. 

 Using my Twitter address @terryarmstrong I have hooked up with Ray (@MrRaywin) and believe he is reading the script. Find me on Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/bankbusterterry

 PLEASE LIKE AND SHARE "

 

Ray Winstone - superstar!!

 

Ray Winstone warns fans over fake Twitter account

RAY WINSTONE has warned fans not to follow him on Twitter.com because the account is run by an imposter.

Published: Fri, January 25, 2013       

               

The actor insists he does not use social networking websites such as Twitter or Facebook, but he is aware of a fake account on the microblogging site which has attracted nearly 33,000 fans.
The Sexy Beast star admits he has seen the fraudster's tweets and concedes he is "very good", but insists fans should be aware that he doesn't endorse the page.
He tells the Daily Mirror newspaper, "That ain't me! I don't twit-t**t-twot. He's very good, the geezer (man), but it's fake"

source:  http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/373213/Ray-Winstone-warns-fans-over-fake-Twitter-account

 

TALBOT MEDICAL CENTRE,,WALLISDOWN + "GETTING YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS" - FAT CHANCE WITH LIARS AROUND!!

 Dr. M.H. at "Talbot Medical Centre", 68 Kinson Rd, Bournemouth, BA10 6BX [and a few of the other GP's at that location on very rare occasions during the near 3 year period when Dr. M. H. was away "on holiday"]  gave me what turned out to be a seriously dangerous drug for nearly 3 years, without once monitoring this prescribing, or assessing myself to see if this drug even needed being given - not even mentioning it once during every fortnightly appointment, nor even checking its compatibility with the other drugs I was being prescribed by him at the  time. This is the utter negligence of the GP, and to an extent those colleagues of his I had to see also at the time - this entire shambolic behaviour leading to my collapsing 6 times because my heart stopped beating at the end of the near 3 years of prescribing - each collapse making me fall to the floor, literally dead [as my heart had stopped pumping blood to by brain - hence my passing out - it all caused by the very lack of checking the drug this GP's been prescribing me with no checks during the 34 month period. Utter professional negligence.

After collapsing 5 times over a 6 week period because ones heart has stopped beating, collapsing dead and falling to the floor in the middle of the night, en route to the bathroom, I came around each time, freezing cold, on my floor, however much later and shortly after each time I went straight to the surgery the following morning when it had opened for an emergency appointment, but each GP I saw, after telling each one what happened hours previously when I had collapsed said: "you're fine, go home!" without giving any tests or anything - apart from 1 solitary occasion when a routine blood pressure test was given on my left arm before I was told to "go home"]. NOT ONCE were any checks done on the drugs I was being prescribed - none of that was ever checked at anytime as to the compatibility of the Respiridone with anything else prescribed, nor was the length of time I'd been on the drug checked either. All GPs seen failed impeccably to do their jobs properly. To me, this just shows the utter scandal of the incompetence shown by government employees whose luxurious and ever-rising salaries are funded by the taxpayer and are so high I doubt if any of them can put an accurate figure on what they actually receive in their yearly earnings - what with all the perks they get from drugs companies, plus the "bonuses" we hear about them getting - some of these GPs are a burden on the public, and nothing less.

After my final collapse, in late October 2007 and approximately 6 weeks after this nightmare began, very fortuitously for me I happened to have the emergency appointment at the GP's surgery with a particularly bright student GP on a training placement, who saw something wrong straightaway - I was looking very ill [as I did after collapsing previously before, but no GP I saw on those emergency appointments took any notice] and after I recounted the tale again, this female trainee GP took notice and sent me to the hospital there and then. I collapsed whilst in the hospital 2 days after arriving there as my heart had stopped yet again, but i was rigged up to the hospital's heart rhythm system whilst in the hospital bed and got assistance immediately. The following day I received a heart pacemaker, effectively saving my life - the collapsing being the direct result of nearly 3 years of being prescribed that drug without the proper supervision by "Dr. M----n H-----s", along with the other GPs I saw during those emergency appointments who also failed miserably to do their jobs properly at the time who also did absolutely nothing when I saw each of them during the 6 weeks I was collapsing and visiting them on emergency appointments.

And apart from that, other serious and some life-threatening ailments also arrived as a result of this GP's  negligence - S.A.D.S. [Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome] , and a "long QT syndrome", with Diabetes2 thrown in, and probably more too that I don't even know about, or haven't been told - but, worst of all - the shortening of one's very life due to having to have the pacemaker and all that goes with that...including dieing in one's sleep any night, any time, such is the nature of "S.A.D.S." combined with a "long QT syndrome". The type of pacemaker I was given can do nothing if the heart speeds up too much as it tends to do now, for no apparent reason [some pacemakers can counter this event], so if my heart speeds up randomly, even if I've just woken up from sleep - my heart can literally just burn itself out with the overactivity of it, and there is no remedy from the type of pacemaker I have, and I'm given a beta-blocker to take daily too, which is supposed to counter this life threatening side effect of the heart malfunctioning, but even though that's being taken, still the overspeeding happens, and I believe its only pure luck that it has ceased each time, or my meditating at the time - when I'm saying prayers, incidentally, as, at the times it's happening and my heart and palpitations are banging away and going crazy I know very well these could be my final moments. There is no "good side" to this GP's incompetence. It is, in fact, a death sentence, and there's nothing that can be done about it.

And then, just to top it all off - every agency one turns to for some kind of recompense regarding mainly the appalling negligence of a GP refuses to acknowledge anything that's happened. They, in effect, are condoning the GP's negligence by their inaction. When one's GP - who's supposed to treat properly the citizens he's paid so highly to oversee, even taking a "Hippocratic oath" in the process - is so negligent, effectively doing the opposite of what he's supposed to do by nearly killing one on at least 5 occasions too, no less, by not doing his job properly ONCE in nearly 3 years - isn't something very seriously wrong here? People have said some government agencies such as the IPCC and CQC are a complete joke anda complete waste of taxpayers hardearnt money - well I see the GMC, the ICO, NHS UK, and Dorset Healthcare, and Dorset Advocacy also as public scandals - all fronts for something they profess to be, but aren't. These frauds are a burden on every citizen - except those who reap the high salaries that goes with those jobs - another public scandal when that money could be put to good use elsewhere, rather than being wasted as it is with these quangos.
Google "Common Purpose" to see the extent of the mammoth scam that's engulfing the nation, its proponents all condoning each others treacherous behaviour, deceiving the nation wholesale in something that is a massive public scandal that few citizens even hear or know about - until something very serious happens to them, and then they find there's no remedy whatsoever to their predicament - least of all from the people they've been paying their taxes too for all their lives! 

And, taking things a tiny stage further - suppose, just suppose: are there more who have been in a similar circumstance to myself, in any shape or form - who didn't make it through and stay alive? After all, Dr. Harold Shipman got away with killing his patients for years - 240+ of them it now transpires!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman 
- how many other patients, if any - have fallen, and not lived to tell their tale? Are there any more? If so, how many??

Something is seriously wrong...and no prizes for guessing WHERE!!...

Do I sound bitter?...well, I'm not. But I do very much resent  the fact that citizens trust their GP, and sometimes that is a very very bad mistake, because charletans are everywhere and are not exempt from those claiming to provide a service at a doctor's surgery. Far from it - my GP
H---hes let his patient down so badly that he nearly killed me by failing to do his job properly once over a massive 3 year period, leaving this patient with a life sentence after practising his gross negligence. And then everyone covers up for this disgrace of a GP?
What a joke!
----------------------------------------------------------

Update 01/08/17 - this surgery in the bottom 25 [no. 78] out of 100 of: 

REVEALED: The best and worst GP surgeries in Dorset

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15445344.Revealed__The_best_and_worst_GP_surgeries_in_Dorset/?ref=ebmpn

-------------------------------------------------------------


more:

2]  I had to write to someone recently about what I had experienced - this is what I wrote:

" I also have had my life shortened my medical negligence, by those prescribing me the drug and by my local gp - prescribing me the drug Respiridone from late December 2004 until October 2007 when I was taken off it after this drug had caused my heart so much damage I needed a pacemaker to replace the parts of my heart this drug had rendered useless. The top chambers of my heart had become redundant due to the over-prescribing of this drug - and I was unmonitored throught the approx. 3 years by this GP, when he should have been monitoring me properly. The Respiridone was never mentioned ONCE during those 3 years, and I picked up a repeat prescription time after time after time.  The GP was continuing the prescription from 1996 and never questioned anything at all, not even once. I have no idea why I was prescribed this in the first place - originally a Pakistani doctor from an earlier catchment address telling me I should be on it after a 10 minute conversation with him  - surely is no basis to prescribe such a dangerous medication. Had my latest GP even checked my history when continuing the prescription? Of course he hadn't. Did he monitor me after in the ensuing weeks? Of course he didn't. My local gp had taken over, and clearly renaged on his professional responsibilities to check whether he should be prescribing me a drug which, I was told by hospital heart doctors at the time of the pacemaker implant, was seriously unsafe to take after being on it already for too long.
Nobody in those 11 years told me about the dangers of the drug Rispiridone I was being prescribed - no matter which GP is saw at the surgeries I was attending.
 The person who told me I shouldn't have been on this drug for so long [if at all] was a doctor I saw in the hospital whilst  awaiting the heart operation in 2007 and I was removed from the drug that day, along with the Prozac I had been prescribed from 1996 also, and was still taking! I found out far too late people are only supposed to be on this drug Rispiridone, an anti-psychotic, for a matter of weeks. I was on it for 11 years - from 1996 - 2007, without supervision or monitoring until finally my heart packed up and I collapsed 6 times, over an approximate 6 week period, each time my heart stopping, and my dropping unconcious.
Somehow, I came around however longer later, and went to my local surgery each following day upon its opening at 8.30am each time - each time I was sent home, being told I was fine. I think once a blood pressure test was taken, but that was it. This is utter medical negligence also by the surgery and the particular doctors I saw - most of whom are still practising their "stuff" to this very day there.

After the final collapse I went to the surgery immediately, as I had on each previous occasion, except this time luckily I saw a new student dr., in training, who, before I could say anything, told me I wasn't well, sent me to hospital, and 3 days later, when I had proved I was passing out because my heart was stopping, was given a pacemaker set at 70 b.p.m., raised to 80 a matter of weeks later.

Later, I tried to  get my medical records from my G.P. but was unsuccessful, due to general stonewalling and lies from a receptionist at the surgery who claimed I had made no application with her in Nov. 2011 for my medical records, despite taking a photograph of the form at the time I filled it in and gave it to her, and despite making an audio recording - actually speaking with her about my records - then. All this was to be ignored by the GMC and the ICO when pursuing trying to get my medical records from this surgery - my interractions with the surgery, GMC and ICO taking a phenomenal 18 months, and as letters would mysteriously "not arrive" [as I would be told by the ICO] at their location after too many times - everything had to be sent via Recorded Delivery Royal Mail.

I had tried to get my records in 2011 after finally coming to terms with what had actually happened in late 2007 - little did I know many forces would be working against me trying to get justice regarding a GP's professional negligence.

I went to the GMC at first, who took the dr's side and refused to do anything about the irregularities I was subjected to, and after getting no satisfaction with them I went to the ICO, the next stage in the process if previous efforts with government agencies - the GMC in this case - this proved a particularly exhausting and timewasting exercise. I was completely wasting my time as my case was deemed a "fait accompli", and I wasn't to get anywhere. 
After more months of stonewalling and prevarication, and many letters having to be sent to them by recorded delivery [or someone there would claim they didn't arrive] , and also having to wait while my so-called "caseworker" returned from a seemingly endless amount of "holidays", the ICO also defended the doctor, denying my evidence of a photograph taken on my mobile phone on the day of my F.O.I.A. request for my medical records, and the audio recording of my visit to the surgery that day. 

This is a true sworn statement by myself, John Graham"

"I sent  in numerous letters to the GMC - all the evidence and relavent facts I had, by recorded delivery Royal Mail, as my initial letters to the GMC "didn't arrive" I was soon to find out a fortnight after sending them. They completely ignored the subject of my communicating with them - about the surgery refusing me my records, and fobbed me off completely - as did the Information Commissioners Office, I was to find out. The ICO is the next step to go to if ones approaches to the GMC are a waste of time. Interracting with the Information Commissioner's Office was a particularly unpleasant experience. Everything had to be sent by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery or it "wouldn't arrive" either, weeks would pass before I got a reply to a letter, and when the reply did arrive it was full of factual errors, and twisted versions of what I'd said, with no progress being made in any way. In general the hedging and evading the subjects at hand were remarkable and a real eye-opener. Not having dealt with any of these agencies before in this way I naturally assumed they would be of some assistance if one had a genuine problem such as I had. Not a chance. I was treated like an idiot, with contempt and with indifference The character I had to interact with at the ICO would disappear "on holiday" for weeks at a time, and phone calls made to him would only ever reach an ansaphone every time id call, each call remaining unanswered. 
The entire episode became ridiculous, and so obvious I was being played for something I wasn't, the plan being to wear me out by not letting me get anywhere with them so I'd hopefully "go away".

I have umpteen letters from both these agencies - the GMC, and the ICO,  filled with repetitionary nonsense, the final communications stating that, according to this lieing receptionist, I did not fill the appropriate forms at all in at the surgery and I had no case to put forward, nor did I give the forms in to her, and nor did I speak with her at the time as the recording proves, nor did I offer to pay their fees there and then - but what about the CCTV camera recording footage  in the surgery reception - surely this would show this receptionists account of the event as a total lie? Don't tell me - the cameras weren't switched on on that day. Of course not.

 How does a surgery get away with such dishonesty?
Quite easily.
And these characters are in charge of one's health? And what else is covered up and going on?
Surely this is a cause for concern.

Below, a typical exchange of emails between myself and an ICO employee sending me their final "findings" on my case with them.
The ICO seem to hinge great importance to the fact that I did not have a receipt given to me by the surgery, when in fact the surgery offered no receipt whatsoever. Therein lies another fault by the surgery if such a receipt is supposed to be given when handing in F.O.I.A. forms.
The ICO claim my copy of the photograph of the form I filled in and handed to the woman receptionist [who denied receiving it] was "illegible" when, in actual fact, it is not and it is as clear as day to read.
This entire message from the ICO is pure and utter misleading rubbish - something they had to concoct in order to defend their appalling bias supporting a doctor who is guilty of professional misconduct by not monitoring his prescribing to me a seriously dangerous drug I shouldn't have even been on for anywhere remotely like the period of time I was prescribed it by him - for nearly 3 years. Bias was also shown by their taking the word of a lieing receptionist against the truth of what happened that day in November 2011.

Excerpt from the email received from the ICO: 

from:		casework@ico.org.uk
to:		me
date:		15 November 2013 15:27

"Our Findings

The chronology of the case

Your original complaint to the ICO was received on 12 August 2013, stating that you had attempted to obtain a copy of your medical records. You included a copy of a letter from a doctor (which does not appear to directly relate to the request) and a CD containing an audio file where you discuss how to make a request with the medical centre.

You sent a further letter on 24 August 2013 confirming that you had still not received a copy of your medical records and enclosing correspondence sent to the General Medical Council about your treatment. There was also what appeared to be an incomplete copy of a form sent to a Talbot Medical Centre, but the copy was incomplete and of such poor quality as to be largely unreadable.

A case officer, S A, contacted you on 6 September 2013 requesting further supporting documents – specifically, a full copy of your request, confirmation of the identity of the organization involved, any acknowledgement received and any other related correspondence.

On 7 September 2013 you wrote to Mr A stating that you had already provided this information, but also confirming that the request had been taken from you by the medical centre and that you had not been given a receipt.

You then wrote to the ICO on 10 and 11 September 2013 asking how to make a service complaint, stating that, “I see this Mr. "A"s actions of being either to take an extortionate and unnecessary amount of time over processing my application to the ICO - simply to make me wait as long as possible, or, failing that, amongst other reasons I could include I believe his actions are meant to cause me unnecessary stress, and to generally mess me around.”

Mr A sent a copy of our Case Review and Service Complaint form on 17 September 2013.

On 20 September 2013 you left a voicemail with Mr A and rang our helpline saying that you did not wish the service complaint to be pursued.

You asked for another copy of the service complaint form on 23 September 2013. Mr A sent this on the same day, reiterating the further documents required.

You wrote to Mr A again on 27 September 2013 saying that your solicitor would like to speak with him and asking when it would be convenient to ring.

Mr A replied on 4 October 2013 saying that he would call your solicitor on provision of a telephone number and authorisation to discuss the case.

On 8 October 2013 you wrote to us again reiterating your complaint in more detail. In this letter you confirmed that you had taken a photograph of the request form with your mobile phone.

You asked for a manager to review your case on 26 October 2013.


The actions taken by the case officer

First I feel that I should explain that the ICO is an evidence-based organisation – without proof of a request having been received by an organisation is it difficult to make an assessment against them.

I consider that Mr A was correct to ask for further evidence in support of your initial complaint. Neither the documents provided or the audio CD showed details of the request made, nor did they show proof of receipt. Asking for copies of these to be provided follows our standard procedure and ensures we have the best quality of evidence available to present to the organisation when we approach them.

The address of the medical centre provided to Mr A in your second letter did not match that in your original complaint, which itself was incomplete. As you will appreciate, it is important that we are certain which organisation is the subject of the complaint. I note your comment that, “I filled in your form with information from the internet”, but no ICO complaint form was included with the documents sent in August.

After sending this letter you requested a case review. If the complaint is about the case officer handling the complaint, the correspondence would automatically be passed to a manager for a review of the actions taken up to that point, and Mr Anderson therefore ceased work on the complaint and sent the case to me for review, as advised on 28 October 2013.

Having reviewed the documentation, there are two specific areas in which our service could have been improved.

Mr A did receive your message of 20 October 2013 and responded within his letter to you of 23 October, rather than calling you back. Although I do not believe he intended to cause deliberate inconvenience, we would generally expect case officers to return calls made to their direct dial lines. I therefore apologise that this did not happen.

In this letter he made a further request for a copy of your original subject access request. However, you had already informed him that you do not hold one as it was taken from you by the medical centre.

As part of my review of your case, I have contacted Talbot Medical Centre to ask them whether they have a record of receiving your subject access request. I can confirm that they have no record of a subject access request from you. The evidence you have supplied does indicate that you have made an approach to Talbot Medical Centre regarding a subject access request; however you have been unable to provide a copy of your request.


On 22.11.2013 22:03, butlincat wrote [full email]:

Dear all,

Regarding this email received from the ICO, stating: "You have asked that I provide you with a copy of ‘a letter from a doctor (which does not appear to directly relate to the request)’. I have attached a copy of this document." - of course you haven't attatched any document with the email as you claim. What are you going to say - that my email system isn't working as it should? It doesn't surprise me one bit theres no attatchment as you claim as my entire case I presented to you has always been treated completely unsatisfactorily.

As far as I am concerned the rest of the email sent is to be treated with that which it deserves - contempt. I did not give you permission to discuss my case with anybody - simple as that, but you have, and now you bandy words and quote small print to justify your actions.

Put simply, if you receive a complaint about an FOI request being ignored by whoever and the complaint is not to your liking the person making the complaint is treated like an idiot. For example my having to deal with the bizarre interractions with a "Mr. Anderson" there at the ICO who seems to send the same letters over and over again asking for the same information hes been sent over and over again with spaces of weeks in between each request from him so as to browbeat the subject who needs his case looked at, and also to drag the whole thing out - perhaps to wear down the complainee, hoping he'll simply "go away" and give up.

Well I didn't and I find also you deliberately misinterpret what is written to you, and in general make a mockery of the entire proceedings of dealing with anyones complaint  if it doesn't suit you, or somebody connected to you or you are ordered to.

 My dealings with you I feel have been most unsavoury and completely biased against me - yet you quote your "rulebook" and other get-out clauses and find reason for this and that in order to show you are whiter than white when the whole world and his brother knows us small fish are in no way going to get any justice from these bigger fish such as the "ICO". The way my matters have been dealt with, from my unanswered call to this "Anderson" employee earlier that was ignored that i wrote to you about, to the fact that its claimed I made no such FOI request to the surgery in the first place when I can take you to the very person at the surgery i gave the form to after being given it by her and filling it in there and then, and recording the conversation with her after filling it in [which i sent to you months ago along with photocopies of photographs of the filled in parts of my FOI request made on that day Nov. 14 2012] is unacceptable. Your very email im answering here claims to have attatchment but doesn't - all this and more I find completely unacceptable and you are not fit for purpose, and it sickens me the way you deal with things, especially dragging things out and treating people as if they don't exist - all done in order to protect the people who have done the wrong in the first place - my surgery and its lieing employee who claimed I made no FOI request. It is truly disgraceful how you act and get away with things.

We know the reason for my being denied my medical records is because it contains the evidence that I was prescribed a drug for too long - years - and I was wrongly unmonitored whilst being given it too - not having any conversation or anything with the prescribing doctor about this medication during the approx. 2 years of his prescribing, this drug being prescribed for so long it caused my heart to malfunction to the extent that a pacemaker was needed - thus shortening my lifespan as a result.[kindly do not get me wrong - when one has to go one has to go, no problem - but to be forced into a situation because of a dr's failure to keep to a specified code? No way!]. This is why the receptionist at the surgery has said, as you claim, that I never made any FOI request for my medical records on the 14 Nov. 2012 - to cover things up. Really? I restate I have photographs of the filled-in parts of the form taken on 14 Nov. 2012 when filling the form in, along with a recording of the receptionist speaking to me made directly after giving her back the filled in form at the surgery on the 14 Nov. 12. Yet you take this receptionists words over mine.

And you keep asking for a receipt im supposed to have been given from the surgery for my handing in of the form. I repeat - no such receipt was given to me then or after, [and I do not even believe this is standard practice for any receipt to be given to a claimant and I was being misled by the ICO by being asked for it - if a receipt was supposed to have been given then the surgery, and this woman, is in the wrong yet again as no receipt was ever given to me!] and on 3 occasions I was told I would be hearing from the surgery regarding my request when I enquired about it - the 1st occasion being on the 14 Nov. 2012, and the further 2 occasions this year when I enquired at the surgery about what was happening to my request to them] Never has anybody from this surgery contacted me ever as they said they would. Yet you protect these neer'do'wells by dismissing my bona fide complaint. 

 I told the receptionist at the time on the 14 Nov 2012 I would pay the £50 fee she quoted there and then, if I may. I was told I couldn't pay then and I would be hearing from the surgery within days, but nobody from the surgery has ever contacted me about my request.

It is strange I was told on the 14 Nov 2012 by this receptionist there would be a £50 fee for my records, but when I enquired at the surgery last week about fees when  obtaining a new FOI request form the figure of £10 was mentioned by a different female employee by the name of "Jo".

Could it be my interraction with you and your interraction with the surgery has caused them to quote the proper fee, that of £10,

 and has your interraction caused the surgery to stop telling members of the public who wish to see their records the off-putting figure and grossly exagerrated fee of £50?

Could it be that I was being "put off" from getting my records in the first place on the 14 Nov. 2012 by being told there would be a £50 fee, but to their horror I offered to pay this ridiculous sum there and then? All would be fiercely denied by the surgery and one wonders about it all but I know which id put my money on. 

And I already have stated I want no compensation of any kind other than these characters who are causing my early death never be able to act as they have again - from this "doctor" who gave me the offending  medication without any monitoring of any kind and the receptionist who lies who is part of this denial for me to have my medical records, to you - the ICO - who dismisses bona-fide cases such as mine because a] they are either ordered to or b] because you don't like my face and wish to protect irresponsible characters, or c] because its all too much for you.  All mentioned are in the public pay, of course shown. 

 My very first letter to you regarding my case you claim you didn't receive, or at least somebody there told me after I enquired by phone about it approx. 2 weeks later after sending the letter, this female telling me to send letters by recorded delivery only from then on. I knew then it would be an uphill struggle to be heard at all, and that every letter to you would have to be sent via recorded delivery, which they have been. Another "off-putting scenario here? - having to lay out £2 a time to answer letters id already replied to and sent the required information for? No wonder "Mr. Anderson" was making me reply to his constant letters asking for the information id supplied on so many occasions - each by recorded delivery, but no, I did not "go away".

Each time I called "Mr. Anderson" by phone it was impossible to talk with him - he was either "on holiday" or not available, or "at lunch", and the message i left on his ansaphone wasn't answered at all - yet you claim it was, by letter, 6 days later. The phone system you have whereby you give the phone no. and extension no. for the person - in my case "Mr. Anderson" looks good - but of course is completely meaningless and  doesn't actually work as my recordings show.

J. Graham 

On 22 November 2013 15:55, <casework@ico.org.uk> wrote:

PROTECT

  22 November 2013
 

Case Reference Number RCC0518260

  Dear Mr Graham,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 16 November 2013.

Our correspondence to you of 15 November marked the end of our review procedure. I can assure you that the confirmation of our assessment contained within that letter represents a full endorsement of our decision in your case, and follows ICO guidance.

You have asked that I provide you with a copy of ‘a letter from a doctor (which does not appear to directly relate to the request)’. I have attached a copy of this document.

You have also stated that you did not give permission for the ICO to communicate with the surgery. I would like to draw reference to the complaint form you completed which clearly states ‘I understand that during any necessary investigations, the ICO may need to share the details I have provided so they can investigate. I have indicated any supporting documents that I do not want the ICO to share.’
 You also sent a Freedom of Information request to this office on 12 November. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 must be answered within 20 working days. In response to your request I can confirm that clarification of our current service standards can be found here
/ http://www.ico.org.uk/about_us/how_we_work/service_standards.
In addition, as specified in correspondence to you on 28 October 2013, we informed you that a detailed response to the Case Review would be provided to you within 28 days.  As outlined previously, in the event that you are dissatisfied with the service you have received from us or feel that we have not acted properly or fairly, you are entitled to raise this matter with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through your MP.  If you are not satisfied with the way in which we have interpreted the law you should consider seeking legal advice.   Yours sincerely,                             
Team Manager – Access Rights
01625 545220

------------------------------------------------------------

DO NOT LET YOUR SURGERY MAKE MONEY OUT OF YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS, UNLIKE THE DRUGS THEY PRESCRIBE...[allegedly, of course].

Anyone can get your health data

http://optout.care-data.info/

 Opting out of care.data
optout.care-data.info
How to opt out of care.data

How to opt-out of care.data

If you have decided to opt out of care.data then it's very easy to do so.

But do not delay, because once your data is uploaded you can never get it removed from the HSCIC databases.
First, download an opt-form:

• Here is a .pdf leaflet, which can be printed double-sided and folded (fits in a DL envelope)


• Here is a .doc leaflet, which can be filled in on your PC and either printed or emailed to your GP surgery (if they allow you to email them)


• An opt-out form available in .pdf, .doc or .rtf format is available from medConfidential


• Your GP surgery may have its own opt-out form downloadable from its website.

There is no "official" or mandatory opt-out form that you are obliged to use, whether produced by the HSCIC or anyone else.

It doesn't matter which form you use.

Make sure that you haven't been given, or downloaded, a Summary Care Record opt-out form by mistake.
Fill a form in, and hand it into, post it to, or fax it to your GP surgery.
If you prefer, you can just write a letter to your surgery.

• State that you wish to opt-out of care.data
• Request that both the 9Nu0 and 9Nu4 codes are added to your GP records
• Remember to include full names and dates of birth (and your address if you are happy to)

That's it. Simple.
The two opt-codes (9Nu0 and 9Nu4) will be added to your GP record by your surgery.
Remember to opt-out your children, or those for whom you have parental responsibility, as well.
Your children's medical records will be uploaded too unless you opt them out.
If you think that your GP surgery might not be fully aware of their obligations under care.data then add this to your letter:
"Please see the 'BMA FAQs - care.data guide for GP practices' document, at www.tinyurl.com/cdgpfaqs , for information about care.data and the relevant read codes"

---

Please:

• Do not make an appointment with your GP
• Do not arrange to see your GP surgery's Practice Manager
• Do not ring your GP or GP surgery

just to opt-out.

You do not need to.

---

Remember: if you opt-out now you can opt-in at any time in the future - if you are happy to, when you are happy to, and at a time of your choosing. There is no deadline to opt-in by.
It's your data, you should be in control.
The NHS England care.data leaflet entitled "Better information means better care" that all households were supposed to receive by junk mail deliberately did not include an opt-out form.
Do print off copies of an opt-out form and give to your family, friends and colleagues, or email it to them, send them the link to this site (or to medConfidential), or share this information on social media sites.
This site is also available as a simple Facebook page.
It should be as easy as possible for everyone who wishes to opt-out of care.data to do so.

---

This non-commercial website was written by Dr Neil Bhatia, a GP and Caldicott Guardian in Hampshire.

Detailed information about care.data can be found at care-data.info

The bare essentials about care.data can be found at brief.care-data.info

The "I'm still really confused" flowchart.

Last updated: 26.02.14

---

source:  http://optout.care-data.info/

This website does not accept or host any advertising.

This website does not use cookies.

WIKILEAKS UPDATES 28 FEB. 2014 - WILDLEAKS

NEWS
	International Business Times UK Julian Assange's Ecuadorian Embassy Asylum Costs Met Police £5m-Plus International Business Times UK The cost of policing the Ecuadorian embassy while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been holed up inside has exceeded £5m, according to ... Flag as irrelevant
	Press TV UK splashes out £5.3mn to monitor Assange Press TV ... (USD8.3 million) for policing the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been holed up for almost two years. Flag as irrelevant
	Business Standard Media on trial Business Standard ... there's always a bad reaction" says Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks - the activist organization that publishes secret documents and classified ... Flag as irrelevant
	New website WildLeaks invites whistleblowers in Asia-Pacific to report wildlife crime ABC Online WildLeaks, created by California-based NGO Elephant Action League, is a secure online platform similar to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.