Reg Barlow

On Jul 14, 6:52 am, "Duncan Heenan"
<pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> It is interesting that the police accept 'anonymous complaints'. I would
> have thought this opens them to abuse by every nutter in town.

They may not be anonymous, Duncan. Data Protection would prevent the
police from naming names, if it was known to them, but from the little
of the newspaper report I've read the police officers attending over
reacted. Or Lush's branch manager did. Either way the store chain got
its point across in Watford as elsewhere.

This, and many other protests and company reports using nudity in some
way, are all circumstantial evidence that public nudity is not the
shock horror it once was. But I don't see naturist groups (local and
national) using this low level acceptance to push the door of
acceptability a little wider, which is a pity I think.

Reg

Suzanne Piper

Reg Barlow wrote:
> On Jul 14, 6:52 am, "Duncan Heenan"
> <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It is interesting that the police accept 'anonymous complaints'. I would
>> have thought this opens them to abuse by every nutter in town.
>
> They may not be anonymous, Duncan. Data Protection would prevent the
> police from naming names, if it was known to them, but from the little
> of the newspaper report I've read the police officers attending over
> reacted. Or Lush's branch manager did. Either way the store chain got
> its point across in Watford as elsewhere.
>
> This, and many other protests and company reports using nudity in some
> way, are all circumstantial evidence that public nudity is not the
> shock horror it once was. But I don't see naturist groups (local and
> national) using this low level acceptance to push the door of
> acceptability a little wider, which is a pity I think.
>
> Reg
>
One of the points everyone has missed is that it was a Police Community
Support Officer who attended - these are council employees and have no
power of arrest.
Suzanne
www.shabden.co.uk
0870 777 6837

Duncan Heenan

"Reg Barlow" <reg.barlow@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:1184395935.119956.278320@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 14, 6:52 am, "Duncan Heenan"
> <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It is interesting that the police accept 'anonymous complaints'. I would
>> have thought this opens them to abuse by every nutter in town.
>
> They may not be anonymous, Duncan. Data Protection would prevent the
> police from naming names

Do you mean the Data Protection Act or general police confidentiality?

c-o

Suzanne Piper wrote:

>>
> One of the points everyone has missed is that it was a Police Community
> Support Officer who attended - these are council employees and have no
> power of arrest.
> Suzanne
> www.shabden.co.uk
> 0870 777 6837

No, PCSOs are employed by the local police force and have the powers
given to them by the local Chief Officer of Police (usually entitled
Chief Constable) from a list specified by Chapter 1 Part 1 of the
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and certain more recent legislation:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news...ing/csospowers

So what they can do may vary from one police force to another. But they
may be given power to issue Penalty Notices for section 5 of the Public
Order Act, the one about "Causing harassment, alarm or distress".

Richard Burnham

Reg Barlow

On Jul 14, 9:51 am, "Duncan Heenan"
<pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Reg Barlow" <reg.bar...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1184395935.119956.278320@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > On Jul 14, 6:52 am, "Duncan Heenan"
> > <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> It is interesting that the police accept 'anonymous complaints'. I would
> >> have thought this opens them to abuse by every nutter in town.
>
> > They may not be anonymous, Duncan. Data Protection would prevent the
> > police from naming names
>
> Do you mean the Data Protection Act or general police confidentiality?

Both, but mostly the former.

Reg

Richard T

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:36:04 -0000, Reg Barlow
<reg.barlow@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>On Jul 14, 9:51 am, "Duncan Heenan"
><pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Reg Barlow" <reg.bar...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184395935.119956.278320@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 14, 6:52 am, "Duncan Heenan"
>> > <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> It is interesting that the police accept 'anonymous complaints'. I would
>> >> have thought this opens them to abuse by every nutter in town.
>>
>> > They may not be anonymous, Duncan. Data Protection would prevent the
>> > police from naming names
>>
>> Do you mean the Data Protection Act or general police confidentiality?
>
>Both, but mostly the former.
>
>Reg

In what way does the Data Protection Act prevent the police from
naming names?

Richard T

Reg Barlow

On Jul 14, 10:36 pm, Richard T <r1chardth0rpeNOS...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:36:04 -0000, Reg Barlow
>
>
>
> <reg.bar...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 14, 9:51 am, "Duncan Heenan"
> ><pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Reg Barlow" <reg.bar...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1184395935.119956.278320@57g2000hsv.googleg roups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 14, 6:52 am, "Duncan Heenan"
> >> > <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> It is interesting that the police accept 'anonymous complaints'. I would
> >> >> have thought this opens them to abuse by every nutter in town.
>
> >> > They may not be anonymous, Duncan. Data Protection would prevent the
> >> > police from naming names
>
> >> Do you mean the Data Protection Act or general police confidentiality?
>
> >Both, but mostly the former.
>
> >Reg
>
> In what way does the Data Protection Act prevent the police from
> naming names?
>
> Richard T

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding
that the DPA prevents any data that can be attributed to an
identifiable person cannot be released to a third party. This would
include any one that complains. If you are charged or you was a
witness in a case, then the act would no longer apply of course,
because that would be contempt of court.

Reg

Richard T

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:06:30 -0000, Reg Barlow
<reg.barlow@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>On Jul 14, 10:36 pm, Richard T <r1chardth0rpeNOS...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:36:04 -0000, Reg Barlow
>>
>>
>>
>> <reg.bar...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 14, 9:51 am, "Duncan Heenan"
>> ><pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> "Reg Barlow" <reg.bar...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1184395935.119956.278320@57g2000hsv.googleg roups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jul 14, 6:52 am, "Duncan Heenan"
>> >> > <pleasenospammersduncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> It is interesting that the police accept 'anonymous complaints'. I would
>> >> >> have thought this opens them to abuse by every nutter in town.
>>
>> >> > They may not be anonymous, Duncan. Data Protection would prevent the
>> >> > police from naming names
>>
>> >> Do you mean the Data Protection Act or general police confidentiality?
>>
>> >Both, but mostly the former.
>>
>> >Reg
>>
>> In what way does the Data Protection Act prevent the police from
>> naming names?
>>
>> Richard T
>
>I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding
>that the DPA prevents any data that can be attributed to an
>identifiable person cannot be released to a third party. This would
>include any one that complains. If you are charged or you was a
>witness in a case, then the act would no longer apply of course,
>because that would be contempt of court.
>
>Reg

Hmmm. So how do newspapers get away with it then? Don't they spend all
their time releasing data (AKA information) about identifiable persons
(suspected criminals, celebrities, politicians etc) to third parties
(i.e. their readers)?

Richard T

Reg Barlow

On Jul 14, 11:37 pm, Richard T <r1chardth0rpeNOS...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> >I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding
> >that the DPA prevents any data that can be attributed to an
> >identifiable person cannot be released to a third party. This would
> >include any one that complains. If you are charged or you was a
> >witness in a case, then the act would no longer apply of course,
> >because that would be contempt of court.
>
> >Reg
>
> Hmmm. So how do newspapers get away with it then? Don't they spend all
> their time releasing data (AKA information) about identifiable persons
> (suspected criminals, celebrities, politicians etc) to third parties
> (i.e. their readers)?
>
> Richard T

Much of the material published in newspapers is either out in the
public domain anyway, or put there by the central figure - or their
representatives - for a reason. The information is never anything
really personal, which the DPA is designed to protect. But newspapers
(and magazines of course) have to be careful not to liable, and with
suspected wrongdoers, they use the word alleged.

Look, lets get back to the original question posed. Why would the DPA
come into force when a complaint is made to the police - or as Suzanne
pointed out - to a community supporter officer? If you make a
complaint, that is personal information to you and they will continue
to hold it unless you put it out into the public domain. The person
who complained about the Lush staff being naked under their aprons,
which BTW had the words "Ask me why I'm naked" on them, thought it was
worthy of a complaint and the CSO decided to back him or her up -
maybe they both thought it was gratuitous, I don't know, but we both
know that the complaint was pathetic and the reaction to it OTT. The
newspaper article took a fairly neutral line on the nudity in the
campaign and although the complainant would probably consider
themselves to be in the right, knowing that you were going to be
ridiculed as a killjoy, would you want your name to be known to all
and sundry?

As you pointed out elsewhere, technically the Lush staff were not
naked because the aprons were of a generous cut and who knows, perhaps
the slimmer of them were still able to wear their pants underneath!
The question we have got to ask is, if Lush decided that the volunteer
staff would be completely naked all day, with the words "ask me why
I'm naked" painted onto their chests, would they have got as many
staff to volunteer and would the number of complaints that would have
possibly generated be sufficient for the campaign to backfire and harm
the company?

Interesting as it is, I'm not sure why Steve Doerr flagged up the
campaign? I don't see what it is evidence of other than yet another
protest by a company using nudity to not only get a point they wish to
champion across, but their name in the public eye too.

Reg

Richard T

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 06:14:19 -0000, Reg Barlow
<reg.barlow@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>> Hmmm. So how do newspapers get away with it then? Don't they spend all
>> their time releasing data (AKA information) about identifiable persons
>> (suspected criminals, celebrities, politicians etc) to third parties
>> (i.e. their readers)?
>>
>> Richard T

>Much of the material published in newspapers is either out in the
>public domain anyway, or put there by the central figure - or their
>representatives - for a reason.

I think that's debatable!

>the information is never anything
>really personal, which the DPA is designed to protect.

So how would a complaint be considered "really personal"? Complaints
by their nature are outward expressions of opinion. You can't keep a
complaint to yourself because then it's not a complaint.

>But newspapers
>(and magazines of course) have to be careful not to liable, and with
>suspected wrongdoers, they use the word alleged.

A different issue altogether.

>
>Look, lets get back to the original question posed. Why would the DPA
>come into force when a complaint is made to the police - or as Suzanne
>pointed out - to a community supporter officer? If you make a
>complaint, that is personal information to you

No, I don't think it is. See above.

The DPA is trotted out by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons
but rarely, in my experience, for the right reasons. For example I was
recently told by a nationwide retailer's helpdesk that they were
unable to give me the full catalogue name of one of their products (a
camera) - which I required for insurance puposes - because it would be
in breach of the Data Protection Act.

> and they will continue
>to hold it unless you put it out into the public domain. The person
>who complained about the Lush staff being naked under their aprons,
>which BTW had the words "Ask me why I'm naked" on them, thought it was
>worthy of a complaint and the CSO decided to back him or her up -
>maybe they both thought it was gratuitous, I don't know, but we both
>know that the complaint was pathetic and the reaction to it OTT. The
>newspaper article took a fairly neutral line on the nudity in the
>campaign and although the complainant would probably consider
>themselves to be in the right, knowing that you were going to be
>ridiculed as a killjoy, would you want your name to be known to all
>and sundry?

If they were in the right I would assume that they felt they were
being public spirited in complaining - surely then attracting praise
not ridicule.

>As you pointed out elsewhere, technically the Lush staff were not
>naked because the aprons were of a generous cut and who knows, perhaps
>the slimmer of them were still able to wear their pants underneath!
>The question we have got to ask is, if Lush decided that the volunteer
>staff would be completely naked all day, with the words "ask me why
>I'm naked" painted onto their chests, would they have got as many
>staff to volunteer and would the number of complaints that would have
>possibly generated be sufficient for the campaign to backfire and harm
>the company?

Hmm. You're sounding like a BN EC member. Now, where's my voting slip.


Richard T

Alex Heney

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:01:30 +0100, Richard T
<r1chardth0rpeNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 06:14:19 -0000, Reg Barlow
><reg.barlow@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hmmm. So how do newspapers get away with it then? Don't they spend all
>>> their time releasing data (AKA information) about identifiable persons
>>> (suspected criminals, celebrities, politicians etc) to third parties
>>> (i.e. their readers)?
>>>
>>> Richard T
>
>>Much of the material published in newspapers is either out in the
>>public domain anyway, or put there by the central figure - or their
>>representatives - for a reason.
>
>I think that's debatable!
>
>>the information is never anything
>>really personal, which the DPA is designed to protect.
>
>So how would a complaint be considered "really personal"? Complaints
>by their nature are outward expressions of opinion. You can't keep a
>complaint to yourself because then it's not a complaint.

The complaint is to a specific person/organisation.

the complainant wants action to be taken, but that does not give the
organisation a reason to release personal information they have about
the complainant.

And the fact that they object to this "nudity" is personal
information, because it is information relating to their personal
opinions.



>>
>>Look, lets get back to the original question posed. Why would the DPA
>>come into force when a complaint is made to the police - or as Suzanne
>>pointed out - to a community supporter officer? If you make a
>>complaint, that is personal information to you
>
>No, I don't think it is. See above.

I am pretty sure you are wrong. (see above).


>
>The DPA is trotted out by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons
>but rarely, in my experience, for the right reasons.

While I agree with you here, in this particular situation, there is
not much doubt that the information *is* covered by the DPA.


> For example I was
>recently told by a nationwide retailer's helpdesk that they were
>unable to give me the full catalogue name of one of their products (a
>camera) - which I required for insurance puposes - because it would be
>in breach of the Data Protection Act.
>

Which was utterly ridiculous, even by the standards of lame excuses
using the DPA.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Have an adequate day.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Simon

Alex Heney wrote:
> While I agree with you here, in this particular situation, there is
> not much doubt that the information *is* covered by the DPA.
Starting Point = http://www.ico.gov.uk/
Now known as the Information Commissioner's Office

QUOTE
For organisations
All public and private organisations are legally obliged to protect any
personal information they hold. Public authorities are also obliged to
provide public access to official information.

If you handle personal information about individuals, you have a number
of legal obligations to protect that information. Find out more here.
/QUOTE

But the site is complex and MANY pages of explanation. Originally, the
DPA was about data stored on electronic systems - a card index of
clients was OK but a PC database was not. Now the coverage is wider.

Simon.

Alex Heney

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:39:05 +0100, Simon <Heysford@NotYahoo.com>
wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> While I agree with you here, in this particular situation, there is
>> not much doubt that the information *is* covered by the DPA.
>Starting Point = http://www.ico.gov.uk/
>Now known as the Information Commissioner's Office
>

Nope.

Starting point =
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm#aofs>
or for the consolidated version
<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=3190610&PageNumber =1&SortAlpha=0>


The ICO still only *interpret* the law. They are a very good guide,
but even they occasionally get it wrong (e.g. their initial guidance
on requirements for CCTV was found by the courts to be over
restrictive).

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Plagiarism prohibited, derive carefully.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

c-o

Simon wrote:

>
> QUOTE
> For organisations
> All public and private organisations are legally obliged to protect any
> personal information they hold. Public authorities are also obliged to
> provide public access to official information.
>
> If you handle personal information about individuals, you have a number
> of legal obligations to protect that information. Find out more here.
> /QUOTE
>
> But the site is complex and MANY pages of explanation. Originally, the
> DPA was about data stored on electronic systems - a card index of
> clients was OK but a PC database was not. Now the coverage is wider.
>
> Simon.

The usual interpretation of what the DPA covers is based on the 'eight
points', see for example:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/...he_basics.aspx

Newspapers publishing news, or the police revealing details of suspects
for operational purposes, for example, would seem to be fully allowable
under the DPA.

Richard Burnham