Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>> "James Hammerton" wrote in message
>> news:68h136F2stlmsU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Yet more guilt by accusation in Britain. From the BBC
>>> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.stm):
>>>
>>> "To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare.
>>>
>>> An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty,
>>> regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime, which
>>> bosses can access when vetting potential employees.
>>>
>>> But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National
>>> Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.
>>>
>>> Organisers say that major companies including Harrods, Selfridges
>>> and Reed Managed Services have already signed up to the scheme. By
>>> the end of May they will be able to check whether candidates for
>>> jobs have faced allegations of stealing, forgery, fraud, damaging
>>> company property or causing a loss to their employers and suppliers.
>>>
>>> Workers sacked for these offences will be included on the register,
>>> regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them.
>>> Also on the list will be employees who resigned before they could
>>> face disciplinary proceedings at work.
>>>
>>> Note the vague "causing loss to their employers" bit of this.
>>>
>>> And who’s behind this? The AABC, a group set up under a partnership
>>> between the Home Office and the British Retail Consortium (i.e. a bit
>>> of corporate statism):
>>>
>>> The register is an initiative of Action Against Business Crime
>>> (AABC), which was established as a joint venture between the Home
>>> Office and the British Retail Consortium “to set up and maintain
>>> business crime reduction partnerships”.
>>>
>>> To be fair to the Home Office they say they stopped funding the AABC
>>> this year.
>>>
>>> I wonder whether AABC could be sued for libel by someone wrongly
>>> accused via this database?
>>
>> Seems to be punishment without trial, which is forbidden by the human
>> rights act.
>>
>> And yes it does appear to be libelous.
>>
>>
>> Mind you so many business these days are run by criminals that
>> they might very the the fact that you are percieved to be a criminal
>> as a positive attribute, someone who would fit in well with the crooks
>> already working there.
>
> And what of the Data Protection Act?
>
Good question! Do employers have the right to pass on unproven
allegations against their employees to other employers without the
consent of the employees concerned?
James |