"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
news:68h94dF2t0jr0U1@mid.individual.net...
> 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.
I think you need a little more than *likely* after all it is like
that Lord Luvy (no reletion) was sucking the member of a male
menber of staff, but you cacn't say it in the UK.
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> Remote Viewing classes in London
|