CIF rewards Parlon Policies?

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

We've already been through this.
Yes some companies legally enforce contracts of employment in that way but it's really only an ego protection issue as sensitive information doesn't stay unknown - what contract of employment has Parlon breached ?
secondly,my point is relation to the futility of barring appointments soley to try to stem that information flow-thats futile.
As for preventing nest feathering-thats a tad communist but to each their own I suppose.

Well I disagree that it is ego protection but as you say to each their own

For example do you think if apple prevented someone from the Iphone team moving to Nokia for example prior to the launch of the iphone that they would only protecting their ego once the IPhone is out then the situation changes but prior to that Apple would be protecting the company.

I never suggested that Parlon has breached anything merely that in the future these type of moves should need government approval.

Tristrame wrote:

No Parlon was not on the other side of the case,if it's not before the courts yet.

Actually once a barrister has been briefed on one side he is prevented from acting for the other

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

I never equated Murder with freedom of speech as freedom of speech does not come into this at all other than you keep trying to drag it in.

You did.
You brought it in in an attempt to say my assertion that people talk and information moves regardless of any legal bar on positions was nonsense.

You suggested that there was no point in banning people from taking up positions because it would not stop information from moving the point is that no law prevents an act from happening it sets out that the act is not in the interest of society as a whole and sets a penalty for those who commit the act.

No my point is it's worthless doing that,it's pointless and it can never be equal as you ban the job move but you can't ban the information move.

No it is about preventing people from feathering their nests or indeed acting on behalf of their future employer rather than their current one.

Your "feathering their nest" comment appears to be betraying your begrudgery at someone using their knowledge and experience to get on in the world.
How very communist of you.

So Tristame knows better than the highly paid lawyers that advise companies to have these agreements in their contracts you should perhaps share this with the thousands of multinational companies that insist on such clauses.

There can indeed be company specefic reasons for those contracts in specefic cases but they're useless in the broader sense as the companies customer can and does find many ways around them in order to do business with the leaving party.

Then why do corporations insist on it yes information can still move but that does not mean that you make it easy and legal for people to operate in this manner.

Some do, and some don't.It's actually extremely easy for information to move and it's extremely easy for that information to be used.The only real tight tool is copyright of an idea,of something physical,you can't copyright someones abilities or experience though.

And again the issue is not whether Mr Parlon could or could not talk or associate with anyone it is that he is in paid employment. If Mr Parlon met members of the CIF in his local of course he might tell all he knows over a few pints but why would he this is completely different he is being paid.

I'm afraid it's the entire issue.Parlon is free to talk to or advise anyone that he wants and have his nest feathered anyway he wants discretely.That can never be stopped bar we put him in Gitmo.
In actual fact as you know he's also free to do so publically.
Closing that down is the impracticallity that I'm expressing here and telling you it's worthless and futile.

It might make you feel better of course but,it seems highly illogical to me to be imposing a synthetic top layer useless barring order when the rest of the tiers,potentially thousands and millions of them across every section of government company and society are riddled with information sharing whether the source of the information is approved or not.

TDs do not work for parties they are members of parties they work for the people.

So? They can switch legally to another party if they want and bring the whole campaign background with them.
Close that down while you are at it.

And I never said no one should not work for a competitor it depends on the employee and the nature of the knowledge etc and obviously what agreements are in place

You never said a lot of things because you don't seem to care as to where your logic takes you from what I can see.

For example do you think if apple prevented someone from the Iphone team moving to Nokia for example prior to the launch of the iphone that they would only protecting their ego once the IPhone is out then the situation changes but prior to that Apple would be protecting the company.

Thats a copyright issue.I'm sure apples competitors were making their business to find out as much about the iphone prior to its unveiling as they could and working on a slightly different but potentially potent competitive product.
And yes it would be an ego issue to try and keep the iphone as secret as possible prior to its launch.Of course it would.

Actually once a barrister has been briefed on one side he is prevented from acting for the other

Parlon is not privy to whatever the OPW's legal team are thinking on this one,thats if they've engaged one yet.
Secondly,a Barrister is quite free to use his knowledge/experience as a defense attorney to try a similar case but different individual from the other side.

Ironically given that it's your example thats effectively what you are accusing Parlon of doing and they are both legally entitled to do this obviously.

Rock Climber

Lads less of the circle wagoning.
If theres something new worthwhile discussing that you haven't brought up already by all means start another thread.

Otherwise get a room and be it as far away from the rest of us as possible thanks.

Thread closed.