(December 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: No there isn't.Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether there is a difference.
The onus is on the data holder to handle the request correctly but the Djs must have known that they were asking for stuff they weren't entitled to.
Suffice to say, knowing they were asking for stuff they weren't entitled to and knowing they were asking the nurse to break the DPA are different things. It's one thing to know you aren't entitled to something, but quite another to know there is an act of parliament protecting that something.
Quote:Course you can.Right, but it's not certain they knew they were breaking any specific law.
They knew they were being "naughty" I bet that was half the fun.
Quote:Did they say why not?I haven't read anything about why they aren't disciplining her. I'd imagine it's partly at the insistence of the palace (not much personal information was actually disclosed, just her condition).
She had after all breached an act of parliament with rather stringent punishments for breaching, (not the dead one the other one).
(December 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: That is the ultimate irony/tragedy of this case, no one is blaming the poor woman who killed herself, she did nothing wrong.I'm afraid technically she did. It would be against hospital policy to put a call through like that without at first verifying the identity of the caller. Indeed, the first nurse, by not running the proper security checks, inadvertently caused the second nurse to break the DPA (I'm assuming the first nurse told the second that it was family on the phone).