Kay Easton wrote in news:gN3pT0EGZg6$Ewx2
@scarboro.demon.co.uk:

In article , Bob Hobden
writes

I thought it was only relevant to businesses like David's not to private
individuals or we would all be in trouble with our Christmas Cards lists
etc. which cannot be the idea of the act.

DPA is applicable to everyone, but you don't need to register simple
address lists. If you keep additional information, you should register,
so in theory you're all right if you just keep names and addresses, but
as soon as you start marking who sent you a Christmas card this year you
have to register ;-)

According to the guide at http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/, you
don't need to register if your data is for 'domestic or recreational'
purposes. Christmas card lists are explicitly mentioned.

And the list of exemptions says that you also don't need to register if you
are a small company that uses the data only for its own PR, advertising,
accounts and payroll.

I have heard that the actual legal drafting of the two acts involved leaves
something to be desired, but the website presumably at least indicates who
is likely to get taken to court ;-).

Victoria

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:10:21 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"David Hill" wrote in message
...

Just remember that this whole mess was foisted onto us by Europe,

I doubt it. I had to deal with it nearly two decades before the time of
the
Maastricht Treaty.

but it's easier to blame the EU for everything and hope people haven't
long memories.

Yes. Quite a pastime
If we don't start associating more closely with the folk on the other side
of the Channel, the folk on the other side of the Pond will eat our culture
lock, stock and barrel, if cultures have edible locks, stocks and barrels

Franz

In article , Zizz
writes
Most people would have read the previous post and then read responses to
them.

They would? How do you work that out, then?
I will have read the previous post, but that may have been yesterday,
and I will have read about 60 other posts on various ngs since then. You
expect me to remember the minute details of all of those posts?

I imagine most frequent posters are like me.

Bit like the etiquette between top posting where you don't have to trawl
through 40 odd responses to get to the latest response.

Where do you have to trawl through 40 responses to get to the latest
post?


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"Zizz" wrote in message
...

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Zizz
writes

So you didn't read the original post!
Maybe you should go back to that and read it.
L

Quoting context means we wouldn't have to. If you don't quote context,
your post will only be understood by those who feel your post is of
sufficient interest to be worth going back to the previous post to read
what the context was.

Most people would have read the previous post and then read responses to
them.
Bit like the etiquette between top posting where you don't have to trawl
through 40 odd responses to get to the latest response.

But then you get the response at the item to which it refers. If all the
responses are bunched at the top, the responder has to guess which of the 40
original remarks it refers to.

Franz

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Rather than bottom posting when people can't be bothered to snip the
context!

I think enough has been said on this, it's a garden newsgroup not a net
nanny site let's get back to garden topics!

L

Go stuff yourself you obviously know sod all!!

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Roy Jones" gobbled a top posted unedited
oneline insult

Idiot!
(snip)

Turkey! I recommend a hot oven and frequent basting. You probably
don't need reminding to stuff yourself first.

Janet.

Mike wrote in message ...
The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.


Like I said waaaaaaaaaaaaay back ...


The Data Protection Act is very 'wooly' and has more holes in it than a
worn
out cardigan,



And the toerags responsible for this defective legislation have stepped
forward, admitted responsibility, vowed never to be
involved in passing legislation again, and gone off to a
monastery or convent as applicable.

Ho ho ho.

--
Anton

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly, thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it means.

In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message . 11,
Victoria Clare writes
Kay Easton wrote in news:gN3pT0EGZg6$Ewx2
:

In article , Bob Hobden
writes

I thought it was only relevant to businesses like David's not to private
individuals or we would all be in trouble with our Christmas Cards lists
etc. which cannot be the idea of the act.

DPA is applicable to everyone, but you don't need to register simple
address lists. If you keep additional information, you should register,
so in theory you're all right if you just keep names and addresses, but
as soon as you start marking who sent you a Christmas card this year you
have to register ;-)

According to the guide at http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/, you
don't need to register if your data is for 'domestic or recreational'
purposes. Christmas card lists are explicitly mentioned.


You are not *governed* by the act in these circumstances
And the list of exemptions says that you also don't need to register if you
are a small company that uses the data only for its own PR, advertising,
accounts and payroll.

You do not have to *register* BUT you are still governed by the Act in
this example

I have heard that the actual legal drafting of the two acts involved leaves
something to be desired, but the website presumably at least indicates who
is likely to get taken to court ;-).

There are a lot of people making a lot of money by spreading FUD about
the DPA. It is also another easy way of filling of 24 hour news
programs.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:42:50 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly, thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it means.

In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

Good.













**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

Good.


Funny, I don't have any problem with that either.
Or carrying an I.D. Card

Mike

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:31:01 +0000 (UTC), "Mike" wrote:


In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

Good.


Funny, I don't have any problem with that either.
Or carrying an I.D. Card

nor me.
--
Martin

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:31:01 +0000 (UTC), "Mike" wrote:


In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

Good.


Funny, I don't have any problem with that either.
Or carrying an I.D. Card

nor me.
--
Martin

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

[snip]

In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

I am quite happy about that. What would worry me is if the insurance
companies started wanting DNA samples from prospective life insurance
clients.

Insurance is a gambling game, and I don't want the cards stacked in favour
of the insurers if it can be avoided.

Franz

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

Thats good, there are two sides to the DNA coin and many people have been
absolved of crimes due to DNA, as well as convicted. The very first DNA case
involved (AFAICR) someone who confessed to the crime and was proved not to
have done it leading the police to catch the real murderer.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

Thats good, there are two sides to the DNA coin and many people have been
absolved of crimes due to DNA, as well as convicted. The very first DNA case
involved (AFAICR) someone who confessed to the crime and was proved not to
have done it leading the police to catch the real murderer.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)