h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.stm

Basically, a database has been set up where employers can check if a prospective employee has ever been fired for dishonesty, theft, damage etc. Interestingly, there is no burden of proof required. Someone's name can be added purely on the say-so of the employer.

Unsurprisingly, this has been with the connivance and funding of our control-freak government.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Anybody know a good libel lawyer

I think it serves for nothing. A person can be fired unfairly, even (s)he can be innocent. And in any case, that goes againts the rehabilitation. A person can change. It's just crazy. YOu should protest strongly.
I'm amazed with that Labour Party of yours.

If ideas are to be respected by the people who represent them...

I strongly suspect there will be more than a few legal challenges to this if people are refused jobs without any proof of misconduct other than what appears to be hearsay evidence.

Health and care staff as well as social workers, teachers and lawyers are already regulated in this way.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/SocialCare/Deliveringadultsocialcare/Vulnerableadults/index.htm
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/familyandcommunity/childprotection/poca/
http://www.gtce.org.uk/aboutthegtc/faqs/parents_faq/
http://www.nmc-uk.org/aDefault.aspx
http://www.gmc-uk.org/
http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/

...and so on.

We in the UK live in a 'free' society. We are watched, monitored, regulated and recorded in everything we do.

As the thread says 'If you've nothing to hide...' the implication being that you have nothing to worry about although not implied by SWL.

As far as I am concerned there is a great deal to be worried about, particularly given the cavalier attitude to data shown by those in possession of it and the lack of teeth of the regulator.

This list in post one is private (i.e. not governmental) and unconstitutional. What we need is a couple of high-profile court challenges to financially cripple it.

t.

Generally speaking the big difference is that only a court can order the placing of somebody on the lists you referred too.

On the contrary. For POVA and POCA one could be listed without appeal until quite recently ( http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2006/11/20/115423.html ). After this case one has the right to challenge a provisional listing but this is a legalistic and long-winded process that is well nigh impossible without legal and trade union support. Also if one is provisionally listed one cannot work in healthcare until the matter is resolved. Once listing is confirmed one has a right of appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal.

From the 12th October this year it all changes with the implementation of the Independent Safeguarding Authority ( http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/ ). The rules governing this have been drafted such as to partially defeat the ruling in the Wright case.

There are hearings for other registering bodies but not in a court of law. They are done by a committee of the registrants peers.

t.

It comes as no surprise to me.

Novo

Currently in view of a CCTV camers, rightoutside our office!

"a legalistic and long-winded process that is well nigh impossible without legal and trade union support"
which why I always pay my union (GMB) dues.

"if one is provisionally listed one cannot work in healthcare until the matter is resolved"
quite right too - if for some reason there was a question mark over my three yearly enhanced CRB check I would not expect to work until it had been resolved.

------


I don't have a problem with protecting those that are vulnerable as long as that "protection" can when the need arises be made subject of judicial review - which is the case I think in your examples. In the case of this "National Staff Dismissal Register" as I understand it is that it has no statuary mandate and such most of its decisions could not be made subject of judicial review in the way that decisions by those bodies that get their power by statute could. That said, I wasn't joking in my first post about libel lawyers.

Wrong wrong wrong

Unfortunately the union affected USDAW is not a large or strong wone - the TUC should take this up - NOW !

Hmmm, obviously being a union rep I know a thing or two about people being dismissed.

My worry is the standard of proof to be able to lawfully dismiss someone for dishonesty is really low. "Reasonable grounds for suspicion" I think.

And given that employers are not obliged to reinstate people, even when ordered to do so by an employment tribunal, I worry about this.

On the other hand, if someone has been sacked for stealing and is bang to rights, I can understand why employers would want to know about it.

I'm not the only one who thinks libel lawyers will love this new register...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/09/national_staff_dismissal_register/

It's perhaps not about having nothing to actively hide, but about not realising you have anything to disclose.

I'm thinking about the health care system in the USA. Now, my only experience of this is anecdotal and the film Sicko, by Micheal Moore, but in these situations it seems that the insurance companies will dig for *anything* to get out of paying the bill for care. If this representation is very wrong I'm willing to be corrected.

Surely a company that wants to not employ a person for whatever reason is going to search and search to find a viable excuse for refusing employment or terminating a contract.