VoloGroup and law firm CFK partner to develop and launch VoloLegal a new platform for the legal community
VoloLegal has been created in partnership with Liverpool based law firm CFK in order to provide a platform that will encompass all aspects of the legal profession and publish information for those wishing to embark on a career in law. VoloLegal will feature professional services databases for the legal community, news from the world of law and also the client check list that will allow law firms to protect themselves from prospective clients who may have previous adverse dealings with other law firms.
VoloLegal will be free to join for all users and is open to lawyers, law firms, students, court staff, professional service providers, paralegals and other legal organisations such as law schools as well as consultants and marketing firms that work with the legal profession.
Whilst law firms currently undertake money laundering and ID checks on prospective clients as part of the pre-engagement audit process, until now there has been no central database enabling them to check on a client’s previous history when dealing with other law firms. The client check list offers a safe and structured database that will enable law firms to carry out a simple check to see if any prospective client has had adverse dealings with other firms. The database will be free to populate and has been designed to save law firms time & money by avoiding clients with previous adverse history that otherwise would be unknown to them through the other checks currently available.
The client check list is a further example of how web based collaborative tools can provide law firms with a valuable and controlled environment for both giving and receiving client information for the benefit of all involved.
Barrister’s chambers, international law firms, search / service agents, cost draughtsman & expert witnesses can all advertise within the professional services databases that will feature on the site. These databases will be searchable by region and will contain information on specialism’s and services offered by the various providers.
Private user groups can be created for secure communication using the forums by anyone registered to the site.
The news section will feature information from the law schools across the country and employers are also invited to post information about their recruitment activities as we enter the final semester when many students will be looking to find employment as they sit their year-end exams.
VoloLegal will also host a recruitment and free property section, details of which can be found on the site.
Commenting on the launch, Mark Forman of CFK said “We are delighted to have been involved in the development process of VoloLegal and are confident this will provide a valuable resource for the legal profession”
For further information about VoloLegal and details on how to contact VoloGroup please visit:
www.VoloLegal.com
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
MP's Expenses Cost the Government Dear
Perhaps today we discover the true meaning of cheque book journalism, because it is not the journalists that are waving the cheques at the individuals but the MP's who are waving the cheques for the journalists.
MP's are now tripping over themselves to come forward waving their cheques to whoever will listen, and more importantly photograph them, for the press coverage that is now at a level that can only be described as fevered.
The whole sorry saga has taken on an almost 'Children in Need' type format where politicians are trotted out by their respective leaders, smiling widely and holding up the cheque for all to see.
One of the most embarrassing of all of these pledges must be the admission and smiley cheque presentation by Hazel Blears, Labour's Communities Secretary.
Her payment of £13,000 for capitals gains tax that was not paid on the sale of her second property must be considered nothing less than disastrous for a government striving to close the loop holes on tax evasion.
Of course there will be more cheques, more smiley poses and more admissions, but Labour has made a great number of statements of intent concerning tax evasion and stood shoulder to shoulder with other world leaders in their joint quest to clamp down on the tax evaders. To find that one of their own would have avoided paying tax by allegedly 'flipping' one of their properties will have many political commentators reeling in disbelief.
None of the parties come out unscathed and with the daily revelations becoming ever more explicit we can expect to see a lot more political manoeuvrings in the coming weeks as parliament tries, somehow, to restore public confidence in a broken system that has been brutally exposed.
MP's are now tripping over themselves to come forward waving their cheques to whoever will listen, and more importantly photograph them, for the press coverage that is now at a level that can only be described as fevered.
The whole sorry saga has taken on an almost 'Children in Need' type format where politicians are trotted out by their respective leaders, smiling widely and holding up the cheque for all to see.
One of the most embarrassing of all of these pledges must be the admission and smiley cheque presentation by Hazel Blears, Labour's Communities Secretary.
Her payment of £13,000 for capitals gains tax that was not paid on the sale of her second property must be considered nothing less than disastrous for a government striving to close the loop holes on tax evasion.
Of course there will be more cheques, more smiley poses and more admissions, but Labour has made a great number of statements of intent concerning tax evasion and stood shoulder to shoulder with other world leaders in their joint quest to clamp down on the tax evaders. To find that one of their own would have avoided paying tax by allegedly 'flipping' one of their properties will have many political commentators reeling in disbelief.
None of the parties come out unscathed and with the daily revelations becoming ever more explicit we can expect to see a lot more political manoeuvrings in the coming weeks as parliament tries, somehow, to restore public confidence in a broken system that has been brutally exposed.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Condom Adverts Essential to Curb Spread of STD's
The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) are set to release proposals that will allow advertisements about condoms to be broadcast on the TV and radio prior to the nine o'clock watershed. Pregnancy advisory services will also be allowed to advertise on the TV and radio as part of the new proposals.
Under the current guidelines only Channel 4 are allowed to broadcast condom adverts from 7 o'clock.
The new proposals will be subject to a public consultation which is being overseen by both organisations and closed on June the 19th.
Figures now point to the fact that 11,000 under 16's were diagnosed with an STD between 2002 and 2006, with the UK being one of the worst in Europe in this age group.
The UK also has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. The rate of pregnancies for under 16's climbed 6.4% between 2006 and 2007 from 7.8 conceptions per 1,000 girls in 2006 to 8.3 conceptions per 1,000 girls in 2007.
There is no shortage of sexual health advice groups, support groups and funding to help lower these rates but the evidence suggests that message is still not getting through and that future statistics could point to more rises.
But as with the governments drug awareness initiative with the 'Talk to Frank' campaign, messages about sexual health and teenage pregnancy tend to get lost or relegated in importance in the lives of teenagers.
A report written by Fiona Bawdon for the campaign organisation Women in Journalism (WIJ), points to research by the government's Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV, Sex, Drugs, Alcohol and Young People.
It said: "The positive media coverage of "celebrity" behaviour involving sex, drugs and alcohol acts as an encouragement to young people."
Trying to combat these messages by aligning them to the consequences of such behaviour will be key to the success any wider initiative to try and lower the rates of STD's and teenage pregnancies in the UK.
Under the current guidelines only Channel 4 are allowed to broadcast condom adverts from 7 o'clock.
The new proposals will be subject to a public consultation which is being overseen by both organisations and closed on June the 19th.
Figures now point to the fact that 11,000 under 16's were diagnosed with an STD between 2002 and 2006, with the UK being one of the worst in Europe in this age group.
The UK also has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. The rate of pregnancies for under 16's climbed 6.4% between 2006 and 2007 from 7.8 conceptions per 1,000 girls in 2006 to 8.3 conceptions per 1,000 girls in 2007.
There is no shortage of sexual health advice groups, support groups and funding to help lower these rates but the evidence suggests that message is still not getting through and that future statistics could point to more rises.
But as with the governments drug awareness initiative with the 'Talk to Frank' campaign, messages about sexual health and teenage pregnancy tend to get lost or relegated in importance in the lives of teenagers.
A report written by Fiona Bawdon for the campaign organisation Women in Journalism (WIJ), points to research by the government's Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV, Sex, Drugs, Alcohol and Young People.
It said: "The positive media coverage of "celebrity" behaviour involving sex, drugs and alcohol acts as an encouragement to young people."
Trying to combat these messages by aligning them to the consequences of such behaviour will be key to the success any wider initiative to try and lower the rates of STD's and teenage pregnancies in the UK.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Tax chocolate, then tax sex.?
The Mark Collins column on VoloMed gives me a chance to muse about the state of the country, put a few facts on the table and generally throw up questions and some suggestions in an orderly and unbiased way; or at least I think it does.
Today, though, may be different, because today I listened in horror as Dr David Walker put forward an argument to tax chocolate as a way to combat obesity.
There are few pleasures that people can enjoy during these tough times without paying vast amounts to the Treasury already. If we take an overseas holiday we have taxes to pay all the way up to the point we sit on the plane. If we buy a car there are at least three taxes at the point of sale and then a never ending relationship with the Treasury every time we buy petrol, road fund licence and insure it.
We are already paying tax on our taxed income and to suggest, in these lean times, we should pay even more tax, will have Treasury bods running around the corridors of Whitehall in glee with spreadsheets and projected incomes for the next 20 years in order to provide more funds for Gordon & Alistair to give to the banks again.
In short, I think we pay enough taxes to this Government already and if they don't have enough funds to tackle obesity then they should raise some by selling off some more school playing fields.
Headline aside, there are some real issues attributed to the nations diet that go far further than taxing one particular food group. On a radio talk show this morning one woman text in to say her weight was actually caused by her love of pies, chips & crisps and that chocolate was not something she ate in any great quantity.
So should there be a universal tax on foods considered to be bad for the nation's health? Well, on that basis almost every food group we eat would fall into this category because unless eaten in moderation, they can all contribute to obesity.
It is the ingredients that make up food products that need to be evaluated. Ingredients like refined sugar are found in the majority of packaged food products that we buy and this ingredient is one of the big contributors to our obesity problem.
Refined sugar can be found in bread, canned foods, lunch meat, cereals, salad dressings and spaghetti sauces to name a few. Therefore targeting chocolate in isolation does not make sense as it is a far wider selection of food products that contribute to our overall sugar intake; many of which we may not realise contain sugar in the first place.
Research dating back to 2005 carried out in Italy suggested that eating dark chocolate actually helped reduce blood pressure and also lowered blood pressure; white chocolate however had no effect. So that research suggests that dark chocolate should not be taxed and milk chocolate should.
Dr David Walker will be putting his proposals in front of the Scottish BMA conference but it is not the first time this subject has been debated by the BMA. A similar motion was brought before them in 2003 and rejected on the grounds that it would not have any effect on obesity,be a bureaucratic nightmare and hit lower income groups the hardest.
By making this proposal public before the BMA conference Dr Walker has brought to our attention the wider issues of food groups and ingredients; whether this was his intention or not is not clear, but it has highlighted the issue and provoked debate which can only be a good thing.
And finally for those who love Monty Python may remember the sketch 'Tax Thingie' which is a reference to all the pleasures that have been taxed by the government except one; thingie. Let's hope the Treasury doesn't try and research how they can put that tax in place.
Written by Mark Collins for VoloMed
Healthcare Networking for the Healthcare Professional
Today, though, may be different, because today I listened in horror as Dr David Walker put forward an argument to tax chocolate as a way to combat obesity.
There are few pleasures that people can enjoy during these tough times without paying vast amounts to the Treasury already. If we take an overseas holiday we have taxes to pay all the way up to the point we sit on the plane. If we buy a car there are at least three taxes at the point of sale and then a never ending relationship with the Treasury every time we buy petrol, road fund licence and insure it.
We are already paying tax on our taxed income and to suggest, in these lean times, we should pay even more tax, will have Treasury bods running around the corridors of Whitehall in glee with spreadsheets and projected incomes for the next 20 years in order to provide more funds for Gordon & Alistair to give to the banks again.
In short, I think we pay enough taxes to this Government already and if they don't have enough funds to tackle obesity then they should raise some by selling off some more school playing fields.
Headline aside, there are some real issues attributed to the nations diet that go far further than taxing one particular food group. On a radio talk show this morning one woman text in to say her weight was actually caused by her love of pies, chips & crisps and that chocolate was not something she ate in any great quantity.
So should there be a universal tax on foods considered to be bad for the nation's health? Well, on that basis almost every food group we eat would fall into this category because unless eaten in moderation, they can all contribute to obesity.
It is the ingredients that make up food products that need to be evaluated. Ingredients like refined sugar are found in the majority of packaged food products that we buy and this ingredient is one of the big contributors to our obesity problem.
Refined sugar can be found in bread, canned foods, lunch meat, cereals, salad dressings and spaghetti sauces to name a few. Therefore targeting chocolate in isolation does not make sense as it is a far wider selection of food products that contribute to our overall sugar intake; many of which we may not realise contain sugar in the first place.
Research dating back to 2005 carried out in Italy suggested that eating dark chocolate actually helped reduce blood pressure and also lowered blood pressure; white chocolate however had no effect. So that research suggests that dark chocolate should not be taxed and milk chocolate should.
Dr David Walker will be putting his proposals in front of the Scottish BMA conference but it is not the first time this subject has been debated by the BMA. A similar motion was brought before them in 2003 and rejected on the grounds that it would not have any effect on obesity,be a bureaucratic nightmare and hit lower income groups the hardest.
By making this proposal public before the BMA conference Dr Walker has brought to our attention the wider issues of food groups and ingredients; whether this was his intention or not is not clear, but it has highlighted the issue and provoked debate which can only be a good thing.
And finally for those who love Monty Python may remember the sketch 'Tax Thingie' which is a reference to all the pleasures that have been taxed by the government except one; thingie. Let's hope the Treasury doesn't try and research how they can put that tax in place.
Written by Mark Collins for VoloMed
Healthcare Networking for the Healthcare Professional
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
RBS 'Wrekin' job prospects once again
It's a terrible pun but the headline is yet another indication of the sorry state British industry is in and how our banks, the ones owned by taxpayers, are contributing to the longevity of the economic downturn.
Telford based Wrekin Construction are yet another firm with a seemingly strong order book and good prospects that could now go to the wall due to the withdrawal of their £2.8m overdraft facility with RBS.
With a £40m order book and a further £10m secured through two additional engineering contracts Wrekin is still considered to be not worthy of what is effectively taxpayers money.
However details are coming to light that RBS is lending money to overseas businesses despite having pledged to lend British businesses £16bn this year in return for government support; geography does not seem to be a strong point for the bank as they have already pledged support to several overseas businesses.
The Wall Street Journal has published research suggesting that RBS is lending money to companies in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Australia for various projects and details of refinancing corporate loans to companies in Italy and Germany are also coming to light.
All this overseas lending continues despite Gordon Brown's statement in January suggesting that British banks overseas exposure had led to the current crisis.
Commenting on the banks decision to call in the overdraft facility an RBS spokesman said: “We have worked with the Wrekin Group to help them resolve their financial difficulties.
"We have given very careful consideration to their situation and regrettably concluded that the business was unsustainable due to the extent of creditor pressure. We take no decision like this lightly.”
One can only sit back and muse at this statement because the word 'unsustainable' was very much on everyone's lips when talking about RBS not so long ago and the subsequent results of their activities have been catastrophic; only a combination of £45bn of taxpayers' money and the hiving off of £325bn of toxic debts have saved it from oblivion.
It is understood that suppliers putting pressure on Wrekin to pay its bills has contributed to the problem; how much of this pressure has been as a result of these suppliers having their banking facilities withdrawn?
To have an apparently viable business brought to its knees by a bank 80% owned by the taxpayer is simply not acceptable.
In future these types of decision need to be monitored closely by the Treasury and even perhaps reviewed by a cross-party committee specifically set up to ensure that this sorry state of affairs does not continue.
The £16bn loan pledge is only to be reviewed at the end of the year by the Treasury should RBS fail to lend all of this money to British businesses, and even then they have to prove that there weren't enough applicants for these funds.
How many businesses will follow a similar fate to that of Wrekin by the end of the year and will it be too late to save the thousands of jobs and businesses at risk?
Written by Mark Collins for VoloMed
Healthcare Networking for the Healthcare Professional
Telford based Wrekin Construction are yet another firm with a seemingly strong order book and good prospects that could now go to the wall due to the withdrawal of their £2.8m overdraft facility with RBS.
With a £40m order book and a further £10m secured through two additional engineering contracts Wrekin is still considered to be not worthy of what is effectively taxpayers money.
However details are coming to light that RBS is lending money to overseas businesses despite having pledged to lend British businesses £16bn this year in return for government support; geography does not seem to be a strong point for the bank as they have already pledged support to several overseas businesses.
The Wall Street Journal has published research suggesting that RBS is lending money to companies in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Australia for various projects and details of refinancing corporate loans to companies in Italy and Germany are also coming to light.
All this overseas lending continues despite Gordon Brown's statement in January suggesting that British banks overseas exposure had led to the current crisis.
Commenting on the banks decision to call in the overdraft facility an RBS spokesman said: “We have worked with the Wrekin Group to help them resolve their financial difficulties.
"We have given very careful consideration to their situation and regrettably concluded that the business was unsustainable due to the extent of creditor pressure. We take no decision like this lightly.”
One can only sit back and muse at this statement because the word 'unsustainable' was very much on everyone's lips when talking about RBS not so long ago and the subsequent results of their activities have been catastrophic; only a combination of £45bn of taxpayers' money and the hiving off of £325bn of toxic debts have saved it from oblivion.
It is understood that suppliers putting pressure on Wrekin to pay its bills has contributed to the problem; how much of this pressure has been as a result of these suppliers having their banking facilities withdrawn?
To have an apparently viable business brought to its knees by a bank 80% owned by the taxpayer is simply not acceptable.
In future these types of decision need to be monitored closely by the Treasury and even perhaps reviewed by a cross-party committee specifically set up to ensure that this sorry state of affairs does not continue.
The £16bn loan pledge is only to be reviewed at the end of the year by the Treasury should RBS fail to lend all of this money to British businesses, and even then they have to prove that there weren't enough applicants for these funds.
How many businesses will follow a similar fate to that of Wrekin by the end of the year and will it be too late to save the thousands of jobs and businesses at risk?
Written by Mark Collins for VoloMed
Healthcare Networking for the Healthcare Professional
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
YouTube vs the PRS
YouTube stepped up the rhetoric with the PRS yesterday by announcing that it will withdraw 'premium' music videos for UK users starting from 6pm last night.
Steve Porter, head of the PRS, said he was "outraged... shocked and disappointed" by YouTube's decision. Patrick Walker, Director if Video Partnerships at YouTube felt this was their only option stating "we feel we are so far apart that we have to remove content while we continue to negotiate with the PRS."
The line that PRS is taking with negotiations will, according to Patrick Walker, lead to an increase of many factors in comparison to the current agreement. The new arrangement will also mean that You Tube faces a loss on every music video streamed on the site, again according to the You Tube director.
But this is now the latest in a series of high profile spats the PRS has been involved in, with small businesses recently coming under the spotlight for allowing staff to play radios whilst at work without paying the annual licence fee to do so.
Ultimately it will be You Tube's users that will lose out while the arguments continue in the public eye and the negotiations continue behind the scenes.
Whilst the headline makers will be the established acts, credit must be given to the PRS for collecting more than £600m last year on behalf of all of it's artists. This figure represents an 8% increase on 2007 and is crucial for some as falling CD sales further lower an artists potential income.
And it is not just the bands that make money from these royalties, it is also the writers, arrangers and producers who accumulate royalty 'points' that also derive income from the PRS' activities.
The PRS recently claimed that over 90% of their members earn less than £5000 per year and that this income is critical and they continue to create new music.
It will be interesting to see who comes out of this most public of rows in a better light; on the one side the PRS stands up for artists at all levels and their activities help provide musicians with a vital revenue stream in order to allow them to continue creating new music. On the other side YouTube has contributed to a greater awareness and accessibility for new music and is crucial to a bands promotional activities.
The relationship they have built up together has become so symbiotic that to suggest that the PRS can afford to walk away from this valuable promotional outlet for new music is pure folly. However You Tube are under pressure to provide a revenue stream for their owners and ultimately this may influence the outcome of the ongoing negotiations.
Written by Mark Collins for VoloMed
Healthcare Networking for the Healthcare Professional
Steve Porter, head of the PRS, said he was "outraged... shocked and disappointed" by YouTube's decision. Patrick Walker, Director if Video Partnerships at YouTube felt this was their only option stating "we feel we are so far apart that we have to remove content while we continue to negotiate with the PRS."
The line that PRS is taking with negotiations will, according to Patrick Walker, lead to an increase of many factors in comparison to the current agreement. The new arrangement will also mean that You Tube faces a loss on every music video streamed on the site, again according to the You Tube director.
But this is now the latest in a series of high profile spats the PRS has been involved in, with small businesses recently coming under the spotlight for allowing staff to play radios whilst at work without paying the annual licence fee to do so.
Ultimately it will be You Tube's users that will lose out while the arguments continue in the public eye and the negotiations continue behind the scenes.
Whilst the headline makers will be the established acts, credit must be given to the PRS for collecting more than £600m last year on behalf of all of it's artists. This figure represents an 8% increase on 2007 and is crucial for some as falling CD sales further lower an artists potential income.
And it is not just the bands that make money from these royalties, it is also the writers, arrangers and producers who accumulate royalty 'points' that also derive income from the PRS' activities.
The PRS recently claimed that over 90% of their members earn less than £5000 per year and that this income is critical and they continue to create new music.
It will be interesting to see who comes out of this most public of rows in a better light; on the one side the PRS stands up for artists at all levels and their activities help provide musicians with a vital revenue stream in order to allow them to continue creating new music. On the other side YouTube has contributed to a greater awareness and accessibility for new music and is crucial to a bands promotional activities.
The relationship they have built up together has become so symbiotic that to suggest that the PRS can afford to walk away from this valuable promotional outlet for new music is pure folly. However You Tube are under pressure to provide a revenue stream for their owners and ultimately this may influence the outcome of the ongoing negotiations.
Written by Mark Collins for VoloMed
Healthcare Networking for the Healthcare Professional
Friday, 6 March 2009
Can we control Big Brother?
The Consulting Association in Droitwich ran a database that contained details of more than 3,000 individuals with comments such as "lazy and a trouble stirrer", "Ex shop steward. Definite problems. No Go" and "Communist Party" as part of the information that its clients could find out when looking at prospective employees.
That this database was allowed to run for more than 15 years is only eclipsed by the revelations concerning the client base alleged to have been using it; Taylor Woodrow, Laing O'Rourke and Balfour Beatty were all found to be users of the database.
A statement issued by David Smith, the deputy information commissioner went as follows:
"The construction companies that were his customers, we have to investigate and find out just what their involvement is.
"But what we're looking to do there is issue enforcement proceedings against those that were involved and that'll put them essentially on notice that if they get involved in this illegal trade again, then they will face prosecution."
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of the building workers' union Ucatt, said: "Ucatt members know from bitter experience of being refused work that blacklisting exists in construction"
"However, the extent of the practice and the fact that most of the major companies in construction are involved in the practice is truly shocking"
Voicing further concerns on the database, Alan Ritchie, general secretary of building workers union Ucatt, said: “Take one of the issues that we have in the construction industry: we have just under two people killed every week through bad health and safety practices and if a whistleblower then raises these issues, then obviously he has found his name on this list. He has never had the chance to challenge it.”
It is the real world issues that are highlighted in Alan Ritchie's statement that make the usage of this database by these so called reputable companies of such concern.
The real culpability of the existence of this database will probably lie with both the provider and the user; after all a company will only provide services based on the need of it's customers.
The database accumulated by The Consulting Association also proved to be a substantial income earner with companies paying £3,000 per year to access it and £2.20 per individual search. Invoices of up to £7,500 in value to the construction firms were found during the raid on their premises making this illegal trade in data highly lucrative.
Strict guidelines exist on the nature of information that can be held on a database. To have defamatory remarks concerning an individual are not within these and to indicate that someone is either a communist or lazy or a trouble stirrer would negate any value derived by most people accessing it.
A data controller or employer, for example, can only collect data 'if this can be shown to be necessary to enable the employer to meet its legal obligations, for example in relation to the safety of its workers, in relation to others to whom it owes a duty of care, or to prevent unlawful discrimination'
This will once again re-open the debate concerning what data is actually available on the general public, both illegal and legal, and who is using it; apart from the companies named here.
It could also bring the ID card debate back into sharp focus with politicians like David Davis already voicing concerns about the perceived effectiveness in preventing crime. This new revelation about the data kept on individuals and how readily available it can be used for illegal purposes will only serve to antagonise those opposed to the scheme and ensure those in favour will face further scrutiny as we head for the Orwellian nightmare of a Big Brother state.
That this database was allowed to run for more than 15 years is only eclipsed by the revelations concerning the client base alleged to have been using it; Taylor Woodrow, Laing O'Rourke and Balfour Beatty were all found to be users of the database.
A statement issued by David Smith, the deputy information commissioner went as follows:
"The construction companies that were his customers, we have to investigate and find out just what their involvement is.
"But what we're looking to do there is issue enforcement proceedings against those that were involved and that'll put them essentially on notice that if they get involved in this illegal trade again, then they will face prosecution."
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of the building workers' union Ucatt, said: "Ucatt members know from bitter experience of being refused work that blacklisting exists in construction"
"However, the extent of the practice and the fact that most of the major companies in construction are involved in the practice is truly shocking"
Voicing further concerns on the database, Alan Ritchie, general secretary of building workers union Ucatt, said: “Take one of the issues that we have in the construction industry: we have just under two people killed every week through bad health and safety practices and if a whistleblower then raises these issues, then obviously he has found his name on this list. He has never had the chance to challenge it.”
It is the real world issues that are highlighted in Alan Ritchie's statement that make the usage of this database by these so called reputable companies of such concern.
The real culpability of the existence of this database will probably lie with both the provider and the user; after all a company will only provide services based on the need of it's customers.
The database accumulated by The Consulting Association also proved to be a substantial income earner with companies paying £3,000 per year to access it and £2.20 per individual search. Invoices of up to £7,500 in value to the construction firms were found during the raid on their premises making this illegal trade in data highly lucrative.
Strict guidelines exist on the nature of information that can be held on a database. To have defamatory remarks concerning an individual are not within these and to indicate that someone is either a communist or lazy or a trouble stirrer would negate any value derived by most people accessing it.
A data controller or employer, for example, can only collect data 'if this can be shown to be necessary to enable the employer to meet its legal obligations, for example in relation to the safety of its workers, in relation to others to whom it owes a duty of care, or to prevent unlawful discrimination'
This will once again re-open the debate concerning what data is actually available on the general public, both illegal and legal, and who is using it; apart from the companies named here.
It could also bring the ID card debate back into sharp focus with politicians like David Davis already voicing concerns about the perceived effectiveness in preventing crime. This new revelation about the data kept on individuals and how readily available it can be used for illegal purposes will only serve to antagonise those opposed to the scheme and ensure those in favour will face further scrutiny as we head for the Orwellian nightmare of a Big Brother state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
