Missing Personal data..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7103566.stm




Ok, I will start it... 25 million records on one or two CDs..discuss/

(finally I see a benefit for not having had a family)

Bloody stupid.

It is really worrying at the best of times thinking about identity fraud, and we are really hot on shredding our post etc, and then you intrust your and your childs details with someone and they flipping go missing.

And what is even worse is that they have known about it for weeks.

Interestingly the value of this data for fraudalent means actually increases over time so it is not so much now you need to be checking your account but continuously over the years to come. If it also includes data on children this is even more vulnerable.

That is all assuming this data is actually stolen and not just lost sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

I don't see how it is the governments fault though, the correct process was in place but someone didn't follow it.

drewboy wrote:

I don't see how it is the governments fault though, the correct process was in place but someone didn't follow it.

Probably a slow/no news day and the press needed a story......

drewboy wrote:

I don't see how it is the governments fault though, the correct process was in place but someone didn't follow it.

Yeah I thought that.

The person who sent the disks was not in a very senior position at all and didnt send them recorded delivery

even thoght in the sceme of things this isnt a major issue and more about political point scoring it is an example of the duality of the security of this country. Anyone mentions "war on terror" and its the magic word that seems to allow draconian measures towards everyday people, additional searches at airports, the discussion of ID cards, etc etc. Any crime outside this magic phrase (except motor offences and smoking in public) seem to be unimportant.

If there really is a war on terror, why is it so easy for unchecked undesirable elements to enter the country and once in why is it so easy for them to stay. Are their human rights superior to mine? The government seem to be developing a climate of fear to implement any measures they want when the everyday safety and well being of the majority of us is at increasing risk.

Terrorism is obviously not to be tolerated but when you look at the amount of people affect by it compared to murder, burglary, mugging and even financial manipulation by corporate and government odies, isnt it being given undue status.

Mind you if they got rid of child benefit in the first place as it is a stupid benefit then they would not have this problem still no gov would have the balls to do that.

Good point. Why should tax payers fork out to support people with kids? I don't see anyone offering me 'cat support' payments.

I'm of the 'if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em' school of thought when it comes to kids (and dogs, cats, gerbils, stick-insects and so on). Why should procreation be tax-deductable when the tax payers are already forking out for the kids' education, healthcare, school dinners, books and blah blah blah blah blah.

Think I'd better go and lie down in a darkened room and think about Northern Rock to get it all back in perspective.

koshkha wrote:

I don't see anyone offering me 'cat support' payments.

I will send down a bag of IAMS

helencbradshaw wrote:

koshkha wrote:

I don't see anyone offering me 'cat support' payments.

I will send down a bag of IAMS

Oh, well, I suppose I could send a bag down as well.

Thank you for the donations offered. Do I need to send all my personal data? You can share it with that Nigerian princess who wants to pass her daddies millions through a UK account and pay well for the privilege.

That would certainly seem like a fair thing to do....after all it wouldn't be right to just use it for your own good, would it?

Ah if only we could pick and choose what our taxes were spent on eh

drewboy wrote:

I don't see how it is the governments fault though, the correct process was in place but someone didn't follow it.

Absolutely Drew - I thought exactly the same

Had a discussion last night with a bunch of people - all on high salaries and getting child benefit or whatever the hell they call it these days.

What's the point in taxing people and then giving it back again?

Even those with kids agreed that this particular benefit should be means tested. For some that need it most this is the difference between feeding their kids or not feeding them whilst for others it's little more than paying for frills they could easily do with out.

There are people paying £20k a year to send their little darlings to public school and still raking in their benefit. Where's the sense in that?

I'm all for the principle of taxation being 'from each according to their ability to pay - for each according to their need' but why do we all pay tax so that child benefits are paid to people who really don't need them?

I know in theory that yes people with no or little money should be the ones who get the £18.10 a week as I am sure it is a huge help to them, but I still can't help feel, and I know this is a VERY simplistic view on things, but if you can't afford kids then dont have them.

As per public school, I went to one as does my 10 year old sister at the moment and we both have/had our child benefit paid into a bank account for us that I had when I was 16 and so will my sister. But my parents would have done that regardless of any money the gov gave them.

My child benefit for Caleb goes into my account at the moment for his food/clothes etc but once he is older I will set it up to go into his account.

I'm glad we agree about child affordability. Whilst I think it's nice that your parents had a nest egg lined up for you - and you will do for Caleb - I don't really think that everyone else should pay for it.

And I hadn't realised it was as much as £18 a week - does that reduce with successive kids or do two kids get double, three triple and so on?

I have a colleague whose theory is that you should get benefit for the first two and then it should stop. If you can't afford more then 'tie a knot in it'.

sheesh, i didnt know it was 18 a week either, i thought it was moe like £12 or so



I do know it was more for the first kid then drops...for what that is worth. so not quite double and triple and so on

It seems to be a ridiculous non means tested benefit that we can afford to lose (unles you are a a parent, when it is probably a significant amount)


I would think 99% of parents do not line up the benefit for the actual offspring though, it just goes into normal day to day income

Before I knew how much you get per week I really didnt think anything of it but I was shocked that every parent gets it regardless of how much you earn.

Handy for parents and a pain for childless people.

It always stays at £18.10 for the first child until he is 17 or up to 19 if he is still in education but for any other children I think it is about the £16 mark.

ah but at least we now have all the names of recipients on a single CD or 2 thanks to TNT and so they will be bombarded with spam and identity fraud for hereinafter...!!!

Kidding...I know my mother was very greatful of child benefit...in fact I am sure it is the only reason I have A levels today..

I resent paying for a nestegg for kids turning 18 to use it for their first holiday away from home.

Sorry, but I know that is what the vast majority of my mates did with it (well, those who's parents did the same thing and put it aside for them).

my parents just saw it as day to day income and it was spent accordingly. None of us saw 1p of it personally as it were.

that said we were a family of six, working class, hard to believe someone on say £70K-£100K a year income or even a third of that (i.e. above the average) needs £18 a week...so a daft benefit for sure, but an old one and hard to remove.

Why hard to remove? If a family's income is more than say £2500 a month, they don't need an extra £78. So many women in my office (on well paid salaries) tell me that they put this in an account and it goes towards their holiday each year.

Sorry, but I don't want the money going to that.