Beardo Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 Exposed: RSPCA drills into cops' databases, harvests private info Animal charity gets its paws on police data - and nobody appears to be watching Exclusive British animal welfare charity the RSPCA enjoys unique access to confidential information on the Police National Computer (PNC) - the extent of which has not been disclosed before. Civilians who claim to work for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can access criminal records and carry out vehicle checks by making requests to the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office (ACRO), which charges the charity for the information. It's an unusual arrangement because the RSPCA can gain access to an individual's full criminal history (from warnings and reprimands to convictions), details of upcoming prosecutions, and "other information as deemed relevant by ACRO". Police information may only be disclosed to "non statutory bodies" under strict criteria: each individual disclosure must be proportionate and necessary for the purpose for which it is being shared. Blanket disclosures are not legal. The RSPCA is widely believed to have special powers to prosecute individuals - but it has none, and instead relies solely on common law rights. It does however have a large financial war chest to take out private prosecutions. Although the number of animal cruelty investigations has fallen in recent years the charity has arguably used these resources much more aggressively. And it's claimed the taxpayer has footed the RSPCA's court prosecution legal bills - even when the charity failed to proves its case or the action was withdrawn. The anti-cruelty organisation agrees to only request information about people it is actively investigating; to treat the data as restricted; and to handle it according to government guidelines – i.e. deleting it when it is no longer needed. In addition, the Leveson inquiry into press ethics published a Police National Computer User Manual[PDF, 618 pages] that specifically states the auditing requirements (paragraph 12.4, page 83) for sensitive information. So where's the audit? Who's checking this? The answer, a series of Freedom of Information requests have established, is "nobody". full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/30/rspca_runs_wild_with_police_national_computer/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 As far as I'm concerned, police records, and medical records for that matter, should never be disclosed to any non-statutory body without a court order. In fact a good many statutory bodies shouldn't have access either without a court order. I wish I was astonished that charities and political lobbying groups (which is what the RSPCA is) should be granted by the State privileged access to private personal records, but I'm not. That is the way this wretched country is going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 I find that more than a little annoying,but for some reason unsurprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty7247 Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 The RSPCA and their double standards, nothing surprises me. How any sound minded person still donates to this 'Charity' is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkella Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 I find this disturbing and quite worrying about information getting into the wrong hands or heads should I say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulpicide Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 You do Know that ACPOS is a private company and has quite a lot of money in the bank I have heard it earns it by selling info off the police database. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
la bala Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 there is getting more and more big brothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 We get audited every few months to ensure that our checks are legal etc and to learn that ACPO is selling off this information to Tom **** and Harry is absolutely disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFC Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 Information has long been a commercial commodity and just about every body that holds a database will seek to maximise its profitability by selling the information that it holds. Regardless of any Data Protection legislation, they all have some kind of catch-all condition that means they can and will sell to anyone willing to pay. I don't believe that privacy exists any more and many organisations exceed their legal powers because, even if anyone objects, nothing will happen anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 So what can we do about it? Is it illegal, and if not why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 We get audited every few months to ensure that our checks are legal etc and to learn that ACPO is selling off this information to Tom **** and Harry is absolutely disgusting. Off topic but this forum has excelled itself by blanking out the abbreviated name for Richard surely? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 Off topic but this forum has excelled itself by blanking out the abbreviated name for Richard surely? LOL I quite agree, I typed my brother's name in a post and a little while ago and was amazed and a little peeved that it was censored !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 So what can we do about it? Is it illegal, and if not why not? I quite agree, I think I will ping off an email to my MP and the Charity Commissioners. I really have had quite enough of this sort of thing, it's outrageous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 I quite agree, I think I will ping off an email to my MP and the Charity Commissioners. I really have had quite enough of this sort of thing, it's outrageous. Charity Commissioners. Hadn't thought of them;they would be a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 I quite agree, I typed my brother's name in a post and a little while ago and was amazed and a little peeved that it was censored !! It wasnt censored-the word was stolen by the goverment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secretagentmole Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 It wasnt censored-the word was stolen by the goverment. Perhaps they can sell it to the RSPCA for an extortionate amount of money as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) I wonder how you go about petitioning HM the Q to revoke their "Royal" warrant. They overstep the mark too often imho and without the Royal warrant would have MUCH less credibility, especially when it comes to grabbing the grey £ Edited July 30, 2013 by spanj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 I quite agree, I think I will ping off an email to my MP and the Charity Commissioners. I really have had quite enough of this sort of thing, it's outrageous. Good luck with the Charities Commission. The former head, Suzi (now Dame Suzy) Leather was a blatant political placement by New Labour at the head a blatantly political quango whose purpose was to co-opt the charitable sector into advancing socialist policy by default. New labour identified the public affection for and trust in charities as perfect cover for a programme of reorientating public discourse in a leftward direction. Leather was installed as a fifth columnist acting as part of a government-in-exile to continue the New Labour agenda after the party fell from power. It was she who abused her position to launch a political hate camaign against independant schools. The coalition government finaly got rid of this poisonous woman a year ago, but though she is gone I'd be hugely surprised if much has changed. The poison will have been injected right into the heart of the institution. Do let us know how the CC respond. I would like to see them carpet bombed them with emails in the same way that WH Smiths were bombarded over their age restriction policy. Likewise a petition to government demanding the revocation of the RSPCA's charitable status. It is not a charity, it is a political lobbying group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted July 30, 2013 Report Share Posted July 30, 2013 Chuffing hell, that explains why battersea wouldn't let me have that jack russel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 Some years ago a member of our club's car was hit by somebody who didn't stop. He asked another member of the club, who was a copper, if he could find out who owns the car. The copper said he wouldn't be allowed to do that. Another member who worked for the Council said "give me the number, I'll find out for you" and he did! Data Protection Act? what Data Protection Act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.