And rightly so, all for the good of the peepul and pore lil’ childrens, not to mention the minorities and empowered wymyn.”

And Thank God for it.

If the employers associated and agreed to anything related to business, from fuck all to fuck nothing, they’d all be gaoled for some conspiratorical crime or other, now, wouldn’t they?

And rightly so, all for the good of the peepul and pore lil’ childrens, not to mention the minorities and empowered wymyn.

Here are examples of employers asociating freely with each other – the CBI, the Chambers of Commerce, and the SMMT. I challenge you to dispute that, and to admit that your previous comment was rubbish.

The Information Commissioner doesn’t have too much power, he just has the wrong powers.

touche.

And given Tim W’s views on tax incidence, it could be argued that Trade Union raising of wages is in essence a conspiracy against the public if we are getting all Smithian about it…

“You may not particularly like trade unions Tim (and if I were an employer I’m not sure I should either), but I reckon freedom of association is more important, particularly given the limitations on what trade unions can do.”

Actually, about the only people who aren’t afforded freedom of association are employers.

It didn’t just keep employment-related data, such as whether a particular employee was a pro-union-agitator and such like. It also kept a record of such (seemingly) irrelevant things as extra-marital affairs.

That, at least, is what the/an Officially Official Person said when interviewed on the Today programme this morning.

I don’t see it would be worse if it were the state doing it, in which case we’d all be up in arms.

The issue here is that this list was apparently being used to vet job applicants. As Kay Tie says, if the person was unable to challenge the accusations, then that’s not good at all.

i don’t suppose that any of the people listed are the fluffiest little darlings, but if the rule of law is to protect Fred Goodwin, it should also protect this rabble.

The DPA is a necessary framework for protecting us all – it limits the data stored to that which is necessary and gives rights of remedy when the information is wrong.

In your view how do you prevent the injustice of false accusations persisting and propagating? Libel laws?

As to your comment about it being OK if only kept on paper, agreed absolutely. I remember when the original legislation became law there was a flurry of databases being dumped to paper by some of the “less reputable” credit agencies.