"JNugent" wrote in message
news:1_GdndPGXoj49L7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
> 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.
>
> But this only applies to convictions. Tittle-tattle about suspicions is
> only subject to the Data Protection Act.
That is complete rubbish, that 'Tittle-tattle' is malicious lies
unless you can prove otherwise.
"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either
defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your
comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've
got to prove it! "
You would be well advised not to put anyone on the list unless you can prove
the allegation is true.
IT is clearly libel absolutely no doubt about that.
|