Quote:
Originally Posted by mrabody
Right, you make it sounds so simple. Why don't you design a system that is foolproof against the acts of a rogue employee if you are so smart. It's impossible. The fact is, in the end it all comes down to trust. Yes you can take precautions by doing background checks on potential employees and having data protection systems in place. You can have your employees read and sign statements about data protection. I think it was probably clear to all involved that this was sensitive information - it was apparently only in the possession of two people, one of whom appears to have put it on youtube.
|
It isn't simple and nowhere did I state as much.
Actually, if you read the thread properly, you'll find i wrote "Whilst it is conceivable she acted as a maverick, the employer should have systems and management in place to prevent actions, and where these fail and where the acts are illegal, the party should pursue with the utmost vigour. To say 'shes left' and wash hands of the whole affair is basically weak management. "
Quite simply, the party has not followed up on this whole thing well at all. If what fuller did was illegal, then the party should follow up - by not doing so they risk looking like they condone the issue. And if JW's acts were malicious against the party, he should be subject to disciplinary.
You go on and on about me supporting JW - I don't - but what i am saying is that if JW has brought the party into disrepute, then the party should deal with it. The fact it didn't, straight away, has led to this whole mess. And the party looks weak because of it.
So lets be clear.
Point 1 - why hasn't UKIP put JW to a disciplinary? Deal with him.
Point 2 - when the video was posted, fuller was an employee. Deal with her also.
Anything less is just weak and makes the party look complicit.