Hibernian to shift admin to India. I won't insure with them in future.

gixerfixer wrote: »

Lol.Id make a smart comment here but there is no point.You already have made enough of a fool of yourself.Lol

how so?

data protection issues ?
see http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewprint.asp?DocID=37&StartDate=1+January+2006

Transferring Personal Data to Non-Approved Third Countries


The Nine Alternative Measures
If a country does not appear on the EU Commission’s “approved list”, then Irish data controllers must normally enter into approved contractual arrangements which guarantee the rights of the individuals concerned. In certain limited circumstances – especially where the individual data subject has clearly given her or his consent – transfers of personal data may take place even if the level of protection to be afforded to the transferred data cannot be guaranteed in law. The narrow scope of these circumstances is spelled out in the Article 29 Working Party document WP 114 of 25 November 2005. The full list of available options, as set out in Section 11 (4) of the Data Protection Act, is as follows:

If a data controller can point to one or more of the following eight alternatives, then the transfer of personal data to the third country may proceed:

(i) the transfer of personal data is required or authorised by law

Comment: If a data controller is subject to a requirement under Irish law to transfer personal data to a third country, or is clearly authorised by Irish law to make the transfer, then the transfer may proceed.


(ii) the data subject (i.e. the individual to whom the personal data relates) has given his or her consent to the transfer

Comment: If you wish to transfer a database containing records about many individuals to a third country, then – in order to rely on this provision – you need to obtain the consent of each one of these individuals before you can transfer their data. In interpreting what is meant by the word ‘consent’, the Data Protection Commissioner will have regard to relevant provisions of the 1995 EU Directive, which refers to the ‘unambiguous consent’ of individuals in this context. The Directive also requires that 'consent' must be freely given and informed. Data controllers should therefore be extremely cautious about relying on consent as a basis for data transfer since, in practice, demonstrating that such consent is clear, unambiguous, freely given and specific is likely to be problematic.

(iii) the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party; or the transfer is necessary for the taking of steps – at the request of the data subject – with a view to his or her entering into a contract with the data controller

(iv) the transfer is necessary to conclude a contract (or to perform a contract) between the data controller and someone other than the data subject, in cases where the contract is entered into at the request of the data subject, or where the contract is in the interests of the data subject

Comment: Data controllers should be cautious about relying on provisions (iii) and (iv) since the “necessity” test rules out use of these provisions other than in very specific circumstances. For example, it would not be prudent to rely solely on these provisions for the transfer of employee data within a multinational company.

(v) the transfer is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest

Comment: this basis is only likely to be relevant to public sector data controllers and only in circumstances where they can show that there is a substantial Irish public interest in the transfer of personal data


(vi) the transfer is necessary for obtaining legal advice or for legal proceedings

Comment: This provision appears to be of relevance only in two situations. The first situation is where a data controller wishes to obtain legal advice from a legal adviser located in a third country, and where the data controller needs to make personal data available to the adviser for this purpose. The second situation is where a data controller in Ireland is involved as a party in legal proceedings in a third country, and the data controller needs to make personal data available in that third country for the purpose of the legal proceedings.

(vii) the transfer is necessary to prevent injury or other damage to the data subject’s health, or to prevent serious damage to his or her property, or to protect his or her vital interests in some other way – provided that it is not possible to inform the data subject, or obtain his or her consent, without harming his or her vital interests

Comment: Naturally, data protection considerations are sometimes outweighed by other considerations, such as the protection of life and limb. This provision allows data controllers to transfer personal data to third countries in such situations. However, before relying on this provision, data controllers must first establish whether it is possible to obtain the person’s consent. Only if this is not possible – for example due to urgency of time – can this provision be invoked.

(viii) the personal data to be transferred are an extract from a statutory public register, i.e. a register established by law as being available for public consultation, or as being available for consultation by persons with a legitimate interest in its contents. In the latter case, the transfer must be made to a person having such a legitimate interest, and subject to compliance by that person with any relevant conditions

Comment: It is permissible to make personal data, derived from a public register, available in a third country. It is not permissible to transfer the whole of such a register to a third country. If a statutory register is available for inspection by persons demonstrating a legitimate interest, then this condition – and any other conditions – must be fully complied with before the personal data can be made available.

or

(ix) the transfer is authorised by the Data Protection Commissioner where the data controller can point to adequate data protection safeguards, such as approved contractual provisions. The EU Commission has approved “model contracts” to assist data controllers in this regard, and such contracts would automatically fall under this provision. The Data Protection Commissioner also has the power to endorse “model contracts” specific to Irish circumstances, as well as the power to approve particular contracts or other arrangements that provide satisfactory safeguards. In practice, it is likely that most transfers to ‘unapproved’ third countries will be on the basis of model contracts.

In the case of multinational companies with operations inside and outside the EU, the use of so-called binding corporate rules – legally enforceable privacy/data protection codes of practice – can offer an alternative or complementary mechanism for approved international transfers within the global corporate entity. A company interested in this option should apply for approval of its rules to the data protection authority of the EU Member State where its headquarters, or main EU centre of activity, is based. Further information and guidance on this mechanism are available in the Article 29 documents WP 74 (3 June 2003), WP 107 (14 April 2005) and and WP 108(14 April 2005).

Prediction : very few will care, if Hibernian quote cheaper

Like Ryanair.

shock horror "Company tries to lower costs and make more money" world exclusive!

utick wrote: »

tbh i think the oposite is more likely to happen, because people who dont make claims dont worry about someones accent when they never have a need to call them

True, and not all Indian call centres provide a bad service or have staff that are difficult to understand. And if this is the case people won't care.

I'm moving house next week and got quotes from a few different companies.
Hib were the cheapest (I won't go near Quinn after previous dealings with them).
We had the dd mandate filled out, after seeing this on the news, we filled in boi's mandate and are going with them for a few more quid.
SUPPORT IRISH JOBS!