James Hammerton wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> James Hammerton wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> They could be sued for libel (or slander, as the case may be) by
>> someone *correctly* accused, as long as the incident had been to court
>> and was old enough (and eligible for becomiing "spent"). The
>> Rehabilitation of Offenders Act contains provision for exactly that -
>> a person with a spent conviction can sue if that conviction is
>> revealed without lawful authority - and the operation of a private
>> database is not such lawful authority.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>>
>> But this only applies to convictions. Tittle-tattle about suspicions
>> is only subject to the Data Protection Act.
>
> How would the DPA help other than in terms of finding out what the
> tittle-tattle consists of? Is such tittle-tattle "personal information"
> that cannot normally be shared without consent?
If it is shared then it becomes libel.
Of course, what they are relying on is that the burden of proof in a
civil court is less than a criminal court. Hence they can argue that
despite no criminal conviction it is *likely* that XXX committed the
crime and we are only reporting that fact.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London |