Gang Stalking World » The use of violent warning markers
The use of violent warning markers
Most are not informed that they are on a list.
Woman sues for libel after council labelled her 'potentially violent' for complaining about a vandalised flowerbed | Mail Online
The use of violent warning markers
This guidance explains to those working with the public how best to manage the use of violent warning markers.
Employers have a duty of care to their staff to protect them in the workplace.
Violent warning markers are a means of identifying and recording individuals who pose, or could possibly pose, a risk to the members of staff who come into contact with them. We understand that, in practice, a flagged piece of
text is attached to an individual’s file. These markers should be used very carefully and should contain the reasons for identifying individuals as being
potentially violent. They are likely to record information relating to:
• the apparent mental stability of an individual; or
• any threatening actions, incidents or behaviour they have or are alleged to have committed.
This means personal data, and often sensitive personal data, will be included in a violent or potentially violent warning marker and so must comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act).
Compliance with the Act – fairness
The first data protection principle requires that the processing must be fair and lawful. This means that a decision to put a marker on an individual’s file must
be based on a specific incident or expression of clearly identifiable concern by a professional, rather than general opinions about that individual. The individual should pose a genuine risk and the decision should be based on
objective and clearly defined criteria and in line with a clear and established policy and review procedure. The criteria should take into account the need to
accurately record any incident.
For consistency, you should make sure a senior nominated person in the organisation is responsible for making these decisions. Decisions should be reviewed regularly. When making a decision this person should take into
account:
• the nature of the threat;
• the degree of violence used or threatened; and
• whether or not the incident indicates a credible risk of
violence to staff.
For the processing to be fair, you should normally inform individuals who have been identified as being potentially violent soon after you make the decision to add a marker to their record. It should be part of your procedure to write to the individual setting out why their behaviour was unacceptable and how this has led to the marker.
V2.0
21.12.06
2
Most are not informed that they are on a list.
Jane Clift and her story.You should tell them:
• the nature of the threat or incident that led to the marker;
• that their records will show the marker;
• who you may pass this information to; and
• when you will remove the marker or review the decision to add the marker.
There may be extreme cases where you believe that informing the individual would in itself create a substantial risk of a violent reaction from them. For example, because of the nature of the incident or the risk to another individual. In these cases it may not be sensible to inform the individual as described earlier.
Woman sues for libel after council labelled her 'potentially violent' for complaining about a vandalised flowerbed | Mail Online
Last edited: