4 ms·

Firs things first: the rules on UK directors personal addresses changed a few years ago so that you can use a service address, but it must be a correspondence a

Firs things first: the rules on UK directors personal addresses changed a few years ago so that you can use a service address, but it must be a correspondence address to which you will receive any and all material sent so that people can write to you. You do not have to give your home address out on the Companies House website. However, I'd argue you probably should. A company is a legal entity with special powers, privileges and and responsibilities. There is little doubt its concept has been abused and misused by those who seek to do harm within society. The vast majority of successful investigative journalism pieces into fraud, tax-avoidance, links to other criminal activity, etc. have come about from being able to follow the paper trail including names, addresses and so on. The intent is not just to make sure a company is "above board", but to open the ability to hold a company and its officers to account to anybody who wishes to. In a capitalist democracy, transparency of this form is essential. For example, (moving away from the UK example), it's the reason why so many people are so keen to see Donald Trump's tax returns and - presumably - why he doesn't want to make them public. What we know publicly already tells us a great deal about the most powerful person in America, so what would the private information tell us? In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy.

Silhouette 6y ago
In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy. I respectfully submit that becoming an officer of a limited company is far from the powerful, glamorous position you suggest here. Limited companies aren't some sort of magical entity. They're a simple economic and legal construct, with what was supposed to be a very specific purpose. Should those responsible for running companies be known to the legal authorities, so that they can be held accountable for the actions of those companies if they break the law? Sure. But that's still the case anyway. Should those responsible automatically lose all right to the privacy of personal details that would normally be protected by law? I don't see any moral or practical argument for that. We have those privacy laws for a reason, and there is little doubt that personal information that people have been forced to publish has been abused and misused either. I don't think the Trump analogy is particularly compelling. Someone starting a little business here in the UK is hardly the same as someone running to be literally the most powerful person in the world, in a public vote, where their campaign and credibility is fundamentally built upon achievements for which they are unwilling to show supporting evidence.
- PaulRobinson 6y ago
  Companies are powerful, not their officers. Officers control that power by consensus, and must be held accountable. And you still haven't realised that officers are not required to lose all right to the privacy of personal details. They haven't needed to give their home address out publicly since 2018 in the UK. Finally, someone starting a little business here in the UK has an unknown future - as do we all - and in 10 years time they could be running for political office, they might have established a monopoly, they might have started laundering money. Your straw man argument is that starting a business is always honourable and what you do now is irrelevant to journalists in 10, 20, 50 years...

Silhouette 6y ago

In general I think people have a default right to privacy, but when you want to create and control a new legal entity more powerful and privileged than any human, I think it's right that you should surrender some of that privacy. I respectfully submit that becoming an officer of a limited company is far from the powerful, glamorous position you suggest here. Limited companies aren't some sort of magical entity. They're a simple economic and legal construct, with what was supposed to be a very specific purpose. Should those responsible for running companies be known to the legal authorities, so that they can be held accountable for the actions of those companies if they break the law? Sure. But that's still the case anyway. Should those responsible automatically lose all right to the privacy of personal details that would normally be protected by law? I don't see any moral or practical argument for that. We have those privacy laws for a reason, and there is little doubt that personal information that people have been forced to publish has been abused and misused either. I don't think the Trump analogy is particularly compelling. Someone starting a little business here in the UK is hardly the same as someone running to be literally the most powerful person in the world, in a public vote, where their campaign and credibility is fundamentally built upon achievements for which they are unwilling to show supporting evidence.

PaulRobinson 6y ago
Companies are powerful, not their officers. Officers control that power by consensus, and must be held accountable. And you still haven't realised that officers are not required to lose all right to the privacy of personal details. They haven't needed to give their home address out publicly since 2018 in the UK. Finally, someone starting a little business here in the UK has an unknown future - as do we all - and in 10 years time they could be running for political office, they might have established a monopoly, they might have started laundering money. Your straw man argument is that starting a business is always honourable and what you do now is irrelevant to journalists in 10, 20, 50 years...