I believe that this is refering to a request to the Police from Croydon
Council for the names of individuals caught by the police for daubing walls
with grafitti so that the Council could get the individuals to clean the
walls. The Police refused saying that they could not give the information as
it would be a breach of the DPA. Jack Straw overode this decsion. This was
reported in the local press about ten days ago. I have not heard one normal
person suggest that it is wrong to hand over this information.
I have to say that I find that some people are trying to take the Act to the
Polilitically Correct 'nth degree. Some people seem to think that they have
a 'Right' to have Rights without also taking Responsibility for their
actions.
Tony Angel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Welton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 03 November 2000 22:23
Subject: Re: comments from colleagues?
> Were the offenders juveniles? Had they been convicted?
>
> Juvenile courts are normally held 'in camera' so from advice received,
> disclosure could be a contempt of court.
>
> The police can only use the data in accordance with the purpose it is
> collected, the same as any other organisation. (barring exemptions)
>
> If the police disclosed 'caution' (adults) or 'reprimand' / 'final
warning'
> (juveniles) data about individuals, outside those provided legal bases, so
> they could be sent on 'training
> courses', would they not be exceeding their powers?
>
> Can a training establishment lawfully disclose details of graduating
> students to libraries or book shops so they may receive further training?
>
> Ian W
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Broom, Doreen" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 11:30 AM
> Subject: RE: comments from colleagues?
>
>
> > Does this not come under Secondary Use of Personal Data and I would
> presume
> > the Police have obtained the personal details for one specific purpose
and
> > therefore are not entitled to disclose for another purpose such as
> > "training". Perhaps if the offenders went through the Court process one
> of
> > the options could be to send them on these training courses as they do
> with
> > "Domestic Violence" etc.
> > Doreen Broom
> > Data Administrator
> > Scottish Borders Council
> > Council HQ
> > Newtown St.Boswells
> > Melrose
> > Borders TD6 0SA
> >
> > Tel: 01835 824000
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 02 November 2000 09:57
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: comments from colleagues?
> > >
> > > I read in my local paper last week that the police who have
> > > a list of known graffiti artists (who have been told off by
> > > the police and knuckled racked etc) are refusing to give out
> > > the names of these offenders and claiming DP immunity. It is
> > > community services department who want them so that they can
> > > try and train these people not to do this and give them
> > > community work to help them etc.
> > >
> > > Do you think this is helpful? I would say they are trying to
> > > prevent crime and that anything to stop these people should
> > > be considered?
> > >
> > > Sally Justice
> > ________________________________________________________________
> >
> > This e-mail is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright.
> > Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.
> > The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily
> > be the views held by the Scottish Borders Council.
> > _________________________________________________________________
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|