... even if you had nothing to hide.
Let's say, for example, that you were a police officer. A police officer who had no history of racist behaviour. A police officer who had not joined the BNP. A police officer who, therefore, had nothing to hide. A police officer who, presumably, had nothing to fear.
Well, it seems that such an officer does in fact have quite a lot to fear from the publication of data about him. Leg-Iron has the story. Someone signed this officer up for the BNP. Whether they did this as a joke or maliciously, he has now lost his job following the publication of the BNP list, and the media are reporting the story selectively to give the impression he is an out-and-out racist.
Those who tell us that the database state is just fine and dandy, and that the collection and sharing of information should not worry people who are not trying to fiddle anything, always make one huge great howling mistake. A mistake that no-one who knew what they are talking about would make. A mistake that can have serious consequences for those it affects.
They assume their databases are accurate.
I agree with your main point, but are you sure the officer had no idea he was on the BNP list? He was sacked for "knowingly" being a member. I will not click through to Leg-Iron so I can't read "the full story". Perhaps you would clarify for me?
ReplyDeleteBlue Eyes - PC Pinkstone covered this story too. The point is that there's no proof he knew. There's only the implication of him being on the list. That's enough to suspect him, but not to sack him without further evidence of his involvement with the BNP.
ReplyDeleteStu - how do we know there was no proof he knew? I haven't read any report of this story apart from on the blogs and I am just not convinced that he was sacked *only* for being on the list. If he was the police service would be leaving itself open to all sorts of actions. The key word is "knowingly" here.
ReplyDeleteA fair point, BE, but the quote:
ReplyDeleteA spokesman for Merseyside Police Federation said: "We are disappointed with the finding and sanction of the misconduct panel and do not believe that there is any evidence presented to the panel which would indicate that he was knowingly a member of the BNP."
goes far enough for me. It shows that the decision to sack him - to end his career - was based purely on an entry in a database, not on any evidence of what kind of person or copper he was.
(This is also the reason why I have refrained from posting anything unpleasant to the two people local to me who were included on the BNP list...)
ReplyDeleteIf that is indeed the case then
ReplyDeletea) it is outrageous
b) he has good grounds for appeal
It is not that easy to sack people!!
For a tribunal its great. However employment law is based on reasonable belief.
ReplyDeleteThe full quote of the relevant section from Yahoo News was
ReplyDelete"Merseyside Police Federation, which represented Pc Bettley at the misconduct hearings, said he accepted his name was on the BNP list but he denied being a member of the party.
He said he was enrolled in the party by a family member without his knowledge and he planned to appeal against the dismissal.
A spokesman for Merseyside Police Federation said: "We are disappointed with the finding and sanction of the misconduct panel and do not believe that there is any evidence presented to the panel which would indicate that he was knowingly a member of the BNP.""
I am guessing that the tribunal considered that his story about a member of his family enrolling him without his knowledge was simply not believable. That is the only way that they could sack him for "knowingly" being a member.
That said, there are several things about this incident that are worrying. We all have plenty to fear.