Reply to: On what basis can an agent be sacked?

[cojak]

The matter is several steps ahead of what's being posted here.

You may find yourself without the means of posting however...

[eek]

I am I wanna know what OP cannot provide them with. I suspect that will explain the whole matter and that is why they are being so coy about it.

3 months on remand you mean....

[SueEllen]

FrankBigBird.

Is this why this thread is crazy?

You knowing sacking an agent is pointless. It doesn't stop them turning up somewhere else.

[SpontaneousOrder]

FrankBigBird.

[tractor]

...

I was thinking this. We've had two threads where the OP asks what to do about agents actions and then flogs a dead horse through the whole thread despite everyone saying the same thing.

You've had our thoughts, you've got some possible actions, you don't agree with us so just get on with whatever you want. We aren't interested anymore.

I am I wanna know what OP cannot provide them with. I suspect that will explain the whole matter and that is why they are being so coy about it.

[northernladuk]

Haven't we had similar tales of woe where the OP wants to set right numerous perceived wrongs from agents? I've a feeling that they proved to be less than truthful.
.

I was thinking this. We've had two threads where the OP asks what to do about agents actions and then flogs a dead horse through the whole thread despite everyone saying the same thing.

You've had our thoughts, you've got some possible actions, you don't agree with us so just get on with whatever you want. We aren't interested anymore.

[TykeMerc]

No the real cynic is those like me who believe none of this stuff and just think-

this boat has sailed, time to find another contract...

Think the FaQQer is implying that I don't actually believe a word of the OP's story and spam posting in this thread because it follows the typical blueprint of a certain type of sockpuppet acct. I of course would never make that claim since I was told off by the CUK authorities for pointing it out in the past.

[eek]

Oh you cynic

No the real cynic is those like me who believe none of this stuff and just think-

this boat has sailed, time to find another contract...

[TheFaQQer]

Haven't we had similar tales of woe where the OP wants to set right numerous perceived wrongs from agents? I've a feeling that they proved to be less than truthful.

I'm not one for jumping to the defence of the agents, like most experienced contractors I don't believe the majority of their tales, but the one thing they will consistently do is place business as quickly and profitably as they can, tales of favouring a "chum" while holding stuff up don't seem overly credible to me.

Plus the OP's previous posting history has been deleted by the OP as of the other day.

Oh you cynic

[TykeMerc]

Haven't we had similar tales of woe where the OP wants to set right numerous perceived wrongs from agents? I've a feeling that they proved to be less than truthful.

I'm not one for jumping to the defence of the agents, like most experienced contractors I don't believe the majority of their tales, but the one thing they will consistently do is place business as quickly and profitably as they can, tales of favouring a "chum" while holding stuff up don't seem overly credible to me.

Plus the OP's previous posting history has been deleted by the OP as of the other day.

[TheFaQQer]

It does as the individual can be identified from it. Call the ICO to discuss this if you don't believe me.

Well, that's not what they told me

[I just need to test it]

Dear all,
In the last 2 years I have been lied to by agents. Even worse, they've lied to clients about me.

How many are we talking about altogether? How many agents? How many clients?

[DTexas]

An email saying "Crappy Ltd have withdrawn [their candidate] from the process" wouldn't class as personal data because it does not relate to the individual.

It does as the individual can be identified from it. Call the ICO to discuss this if you don't believe me.

[TheFaQQer]

The matter is several steps ahead of what's being posted here.

Step 1 - apply for an SAR
Step 2 - get a response within 40 calendar days
Step 3 - (optional) chase for late information once the 40 days have passed
Step 4 - review the information
Step 5 - (optional) chase for missing information
Step 6 - (optional) review new information
Step 7 - (optional) report to ICO for not providing information
Step 8 - Discuss information with client

That's the summary from the ICO says you should do. If I've missed any out, please elaborate. So - where are you in the process?

[TheFaQQer]

No, with respect you're not reading that right.

ICO says

The definition also specifically includes opinions about the individual, or what is intended for them.

An email saying "Mr Smith has withdrawn from the process" could not be reasonably argued that this includes an opinion about the individual (although if they said "he's a tw@t" afterwards then it obviously would), nor does it include anything of what is intended for you (unless they added "if I ever meet him, I'll hit him in the face with a kipper" or similar) in which case it did.

An email saying "Crappy Ltd have withdrawn [their candidate] from the process" wouldn't class as personal data because it does not relate to the individual.