The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

99% sure that some one has to physically visit to disconnect a gas or
electricity supply, no valve that can be remotely operated. Of course
if there is an external gas meter cupboard then they might not need
physical access into the building. One reason I don't like external
utility cupboards, they aren't lockable so any Tom, Dick, or Harry can
get to "your" supply.

Why aren't they lockable? Our gas meter hatch has a lock, as did the one
at my parents house when I was a kid.

They are lockable - ish. But the key is in the possession of the
relevant services providers, I think.

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

In article , martin
writes:

Subject: OT Data protection Act
From: martin
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:42:47 +0100

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:06:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:19:26 +0100, martin wrote:

I suspect that it's all done by computer and other than the victims
no human beings are involved.

99% sure that some one has to physically visit to disconnect a gas or
electricity supply, no valve that can be remotely operated. Of course
if there is an external gas meter cupboard then they might not need
physical access into the building. One reason I don't like external
utility cupboards, they aren't lockable so any Tom, Dick, or Harry can
get to "your" supply.

All the letters, demands for payment etc and scheduling of the
engineers job sheet probably doesn't have any human intervention.

That's the bit I meant. A manager from the gas company said that 10
attempts had been made to contact the couple, I assumed that this was
10 computer generated letters threatening to cut off the gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/3342059.stm
"Police found the pair on 18 October in their lounge.

Mr Bates had died from hypothermia, emphysema and coronary heart
disease and his wife from coronary heart disease.

British Gas had twice visited their home, in June and August, about
the outstanding £140.62 balance.

On the second occasion the supply was cut-off, the inquest heard.

Cash found

Harry Metcalfe, general manager of communications at British Gas, said
10 attempts were made to contact the couple before the supply was
switched off, as is procedure.

He said since the introduction of the Data Protection Act, British Gas
was prohibited from passing information to social services as they
were not allowed to disclose information on debt without the
customer's consent.

Later in the inquest, it emerged that when the house was searched
officers found £277 in cash on a small table in the lounge and
£1,116.70 in a purse in a shoe."

I don't understand why the gas company couldn't have contacted the
social services, to tell them that
a) the gas company had cut the gas off
b) the couple needed somebody to keep an eye on them.

Both could have been done without mentioning the debt.

The bloke turning the gas off is just a contractor with no
responsibility. The gas was turned off in August according to the BBC
report. It was still abnormally warm in August. I doubt if the guy
turning the gas off even thought that doing so would kill somebody.
The couple still had the option to pay the bill and have the gas
turned back on again.

--
Martin

I think I have to agree with Martin. I think that it is easy to cast BG as the
villian. Most of us will only know of this case because of the scanty details
put out on the radio/TV. What about neighbours? Did they think that this
couple needed help? Perhaps they had been abused in the past when they tried
to help.

I believe that the man who cuts of the supply is not allowed to accept payment.
That was done (I believe) to stop people who could pay simply delaying
payment, making BG go through the admin procedures (which the rest of the
customers pay for), until the guy arrived with his apanner.

At the same time I would be surprised if BG could not have told the couple that
they would inform social services if they did not opt out.

A tragedy however you look at it, and whatever the circumstances.

Peter Bridge

In article , martin
writes:

Subject: OT Data protection Act
From: martin
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:42:47 +0100

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:06:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:19:26 +0100, martin wrote:

I suspect that it's all done by computer and other than the victims
no human beings are involved.

99% sure that some one has to physically visit to disconnect a gas or
electricity supply, no valve that can be remotely operated. Of course
if there is an external gas meter cupboard then they might not need
physical access into the building. One reason I don't like external
utility cupboards, they aren't lockable so any Tom, Dick, or Harry can
get to "your" supply.

All the letters, demands for payment etc and scheduling of the
engineers job sheet probably doesn't have any human intervention.

That's the bit I meant. A manager from the gas company said that 10
attempts had been made to contact the couple, I assumed that this was
10 computer generated letters threatening to cut off the gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/3342059.stm
"Police found the pair on 18 October in their lounge.

Mr Bates had died from hypothermia, emphysema and coronary heart
disease and his wife from coronary heart disease.

British Gas had twice visited their home, in June and August, about
the outstanding £140.62 balance.

On the second occasion the supply was cut-off, the inquest heard.

Cash found

Harry Metcalfe, general manager of communications at British Gas, said
10 attempts were made to contact the couple before the supply was
switched off, as is procedure.

He said since the introduction of the Data Protection Act, British Gas
was prohibited from passing information to social services as they
were not allowed to disclose information on debt without the
customer's consent.

Later in the inquest, it emerged that when the house was searched
officers found £277 in cash on a small table in the lounge and
£1,116.70 in a purse in a shoe."

I don't understand why the gas company couldn't have contacted the
social services, to tell them that
a) the gas company had cut the gas off
b) the couple needed somebody to keep an eye on them.

Both could have been done without mentioning the debt.

The bloke turning the gas off is just a contractor with no
responsibility. The gas was turned off in August according to the BBC
report. It was still abnormally warm in August. I doubt if the guy
turning the gas off even thought that doing so would kill somebody.
The couple still had the option to pay the bill and have the gas
turned back on again.

--
Martin

I think I have to agree with Martin. I think that it is easy to cast BG as the
villian. Most of us will only know of this case because of the scanty details
put out on the radio/TV. What about neighbours? Did they think that this
couple needed help? Perhaps they had been abused in the past when they tried
to help.

I believe that the man who cuts of the supply is not allowed to accept payment.
That was done (I believe) to stop people who could pay simply delaying
payment, making BG go through the admin procedures (which the rest of the
customers pay for), until the guy arrived with his apanner.

At the same time I would be surprised if BG could not have told the couple that
they would inform social services if they did not opt out.

A tragedy however you look at it, and whatever the circumstances.

Peter Bridge

In article , martin
writes:

Subject: OT Data protection Act
From: martin
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:42:47 +0100

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:06:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:19:26 +0100, martin wrote:

I suspect that it's all done by computer and other than the victims
no human beings are involved.

99% sure that some one has to physically visit to disconnect a gas or
electricity supply, no valve that can be remotely operated. Of course
if there is an external gas meter cupboard then they might not need
physical access into the building. One reason I don't like external
utility cupboards, they aren't lockable so any Tom, Dick, or Harry can
get to "your" supply.

All the letters, demands for payment etc and scheduling of the
engineers job sheet probably doesn't have any human intervention.

That's the bit I meant. A manager from the gas company said that 10
attempts had been made to contact the couple, I assumed that this was
10 computer generated letters threatening to cut off the gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/3342059.stm
"Police found the pair on 18 October in their lounge.

Mr Bates had died from hypothermia, emphysema and coronary heart
disease and his wife from coronary heart disease.

British Gas had twice visited their home, in June and August, about
the outstanding £140.62 balance.

On the second occasion the supply was cut-off, the inquest heard.

Cash found

Harry Metcalfe, general manager of communications at British Gas, said
10 attempts were made to contact the couple before the supply was
switched off, as is procedure.

He said since the introduction of the Data Protection Act, British Gas
was prohibited from passing information to social services as they
were not allowed to disclose information on debt without the
customer's consent.

Later in the inquest, it emerged that when the house was searched
officers found £277 in cash on a small table in the lounge and
£1,116.70 in a purse in a shoe."

I don't understand why the gas company couldn't have contacted the
social services, to tell them that
a) the gas company had cut the gas off
b) the couple needed somebody to keep an eye on them.

Both could have been done without mentioning the debt.

The bloke turning the gas off is just a contractor with no
responsibility. The gas was turned off in August according to the BBC
report. It was still abnormally warm in August. I doubt if the guy
turning the gas off even thought that doing so would kill somebody.
The couple still had the option to pay the bill and have the gas
turned back on again.

--
Martin

I think I have to agree with Martin. I think that it is easy to cast BG as the
villian. Most of us will only know of this case because of the scanty details
put out on the radio/TV. What about neighbours? Did they think that this
couple needed help? Perhaps they had been abused in the past when they tried
to help.

I believe that the man who cuts of the supply is not allowed to accept payment.
That was done (I believe) to stop people who could pay simply delaying
payment, making BG go through the admin procedures (which the rest of the
customers pay for), until the guy arrived with his apanner.

At the same time I would be surprised if BG could not have told the couple that
they would inform social services if they did not opt out.

A tragedy however you look at it, and whatever the circumstances.

Peter Bridge

In article , martin
writes:

Subject: OT Data protection Act
From: martin
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:42:47 +0100

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:06:33 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:19:26 +0100, martin wrote:

I suspect that it's all done by computer and other than the victims
no human beings are involved.

99% sure that some one has to physically visit to disconnect a gas or
electricity supply, no valve that can be remotely operated. Of course
if there is an external gas meter cupboard then they might not need
physical access into the building. One reason I don't like external
utility cupboards, they aren't lockable so any Tom, Dick, or Harry can
get to "your" supply.

All the letters, demands for payment etc and scheduling of the
engineers job sheet probably doesn't have any human intervention.

That's the bit I meant. A manager from the gas company said that 10
attempts had been made to contact the couple, I assumed that this was
10 computer generated letters threatening to cut off the gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/3342059.stm
"Police found the pair on 18 October in their lounge.

Mr Bates had died from hypothermia, emphysema and coronary heart
disease and his wife from coronary heart disease.

British Gas had twice visited their home, in June and August, about
the outstanding £140.62 balance.

On the second occasion the supply was cut-off, the inquest heard.

Cash found

Harry Metcalfe, general manager of communications at British Gas, said
10 attempts were made to contact the couple before the supply was
switched off, as is procedure.

He said since the introduction of the Data Protection Act, British Gas
was prohibited from passing information to social services as they
were not allowed to disclose information on debt without the
customer's consent.

Later in the inquest, it emerged that when the house was searched
officers found £277 in cash on a small table in the lounge and
£1,116.70 in a purse in a shoe."

I don't understand why the gas company couldn't have contacted the
social services, to tell them that
a) the gas company had cut the gas off
b) the couple needed somebody to keep an eye on them.

Both could have been done without mentioning the debt.

The bloke turning the gas off is just a contractor with no
responsibility. The gas was turned off in August according to the BBC
report. It was still abnormally warm in August. I doubt if the guy
turning the gas off even thought that doing so would kill somebody.
The couple still had the option to pay the bill and have the gas
turned back on again.

--
Martin

I think I have to agree with Martin. I think that it is easy to cast BG as the
villian. Most of us will only know of this case because of the scanty details
put out on the radio/TV. What about neighbours? Did they think that this
couple needed help? Perhaps they had been abused in the past when they tried
to help.

I believe that the man who cuts of the supply is not allowed to accept payment.
That was done (I believe) to stop people who could pay simply delaying
payment, making BG go through the admin procedures (which the rest of the
customers pay for), until the guy arrived with his apanner.

At the same time I would be surprised if BG could not have told the couple that
they would inform social services if they did not opt out.

A tragedy however you look at it, and whatever the circumstances.

Peter Bridge