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?

James

"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
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.



James

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
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?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
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

On 8 May, 20:03, James Hammerton wrote:
I wonder whether AABC could be sued for libel by someone wrongly accused
via this database?


It's very worrying.

I used to own a restaurant. One night we had a breakin and some money
was stolen from somewhere only a few people would know - nothing else
was touched.

The police were called but found nothing notable.

At the time I was convinced I knew who'd done it - an employee whose
performance had been poor and whose attitude had always seemed a bit
'wide'.

I'm now not so sure.

I happen to hate that employee - but I have no solid grounds to
believe she was a thief - just a lousy employee. While *I* wouldn't
wish to destroy her career prospects, I can imagine some people who
would just.... she was a total cow - a face you'd never tire of
slapping - but would I want to blacklist her? Of course not!

How many people could say the same?

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.

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?

James

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

On 8 May, 21:40, James Hammerton wrote:

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?

Isn't it meant to be legally dubious to give a 'bad' reference, hence
most employers now just confirm where, when and as what someone worked?

"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
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?

Nope, nor does the company distributing the data.
Any unpoven accusations are libel.
If I was on the list I would be sueing left right and centre.





James