Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Orwellian nightmare?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
I think so.

Companies signing up to this should be blacklisted and boycotted.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Disillusioned wrote: »
    I think so.

    Companies signing up to this should be blacklisted and boycotted.

    Agreed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not in the least surprised ...if you work for a wage your owned ...just like a slave but with a few more benefits than of old but you are owned.
    Companies being able to do random drug testing did it for me ...totaly owned.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its interesting to note that they say people could get their records changed if they are wrong, but how would you even know if you were on there?!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are clear working situations where accusations of previous crimes are relevant - working with children, vulnerable adults and so on.

    Selling some shite from Harrords isn't one of them - 'accusations' of previous crimes is a disgraceful way to make decisions.

    What's really fucking appalling - and a total disgrace - is the idea that the Home Office can work with private business to introduce what is effectively an unregulated privately run blacklist system.

    Shame on them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Selling some shite from Harrords isn't one of them - 'accusations' of previous crimes is a disgraceful way to make decisions.

    What's really fucking appalling - and a total disgrace - is the idea that the Home Office can work with private business to introduce what is effectively an unregulated privately run blacklist system.

    Shame on them.
    Another nail in the Labour coffin?
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    budda wrote: »
    Its interesting to note that they say people could get their records changed if they are wrong, but how would you even know if you were on there?!

    Exactally. Just being accused of it?

    Orwellian Nightmare is the usall hyperspin of the media. But this is crap - so a co-worker with a thing against you just has to say "I think he is stealing boss, wtf fire him plox lololol" and you are screwed forever.

    Unfair or what.

    Convicted, yes. Accused? no.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can see both the good and bad in such a scheme but either way I think it shouldn't in an ideal world be a scheme run by a private company

    However we've also seen government departments are pretty bad at being able to hang on to people's private data.

    A private company is probably easier to sue if they mess up so at least they're more likely to be careful with the information they hold.

    It looks like the system would only say bad things about a person if previous employers could also be allowed to use the same system to report good previous employees then maybe it would be a lot more balanced.

    There should also be a similar system though for employees to rate their employers if they want to be totally fair.

    It's all very tricky - I can see why employers need to be more careful these days in hiring people - especially with the no win no fee culture developing in the UK.

    There's no easy answer to this particular problem.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    While I can understand the frustration of managers as shop employers steal from the counter, it doesn't justify the creation of a blacklist.

    Like Jim states, there are some jobs you need to prove your innocence, for example when working with children you have to prove that you're not convicted of sex related crimes. But this is a registers maintained by the government and on the basis of a court conviction.

    What is most frightening is the "upon accusation part". Should there not least be a valid conviction?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    might not be a totally bad idea apart from the word "accused". Adding people to a list purely on the basis of accusation is totally wrong, if i had worked at aplace and my name was put on a list when i was innocent i would be very cheesed off. Probably hurt someone.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the trouble may also be people get put on the list and never know about it. So they get turned down for jobs and don't know why.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    A private company is probably easier to sue if they mess up so at least they're more likely to be careful with the information they hold.

    Like the many banks who have had to admit they've lost information about people.

    If the information is in private hands you've probably got less access to it and less ways of redressing false information.
Sign In or Register to comment.