 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Personally I think there is only one expression that really its this whole saga - "You couldnt make it up!!!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@SkiPresto
Subject Access Request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@SkiPresto, I know that they were handed over freely.
If for example. I was to sue you for something: you would ask what evidence I had?
You would then have all the evidence if I disclosed it. If I declined what case could I make against you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Dunk, you are way closer to this than me and have indicated'how' they have come in to the public domain. However, as I said above I would not need to sue someone to get all the data that is held on me. If I knew, or strongly suspected, that there had been any form of complaint about me and it was stored by the organisation in question, a simple SAR would be all I need. If the tried to deny that the documents existed then a complaint to the ICO would be necessary and the organisation would be in serious shit if they were found to have withheld data I was legally entitled to receive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Gaza, the exact method I do not know. But I guess there were probably requested and the holding body obliged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
A Subject Access Request is part of the Data Protection Act.
I would be very surprised if that act applied to BASI as a Company Limited by guarantee and not a public company; to the extent that an individual can make a SAR.
Certainly, a court could demand to see documents, but I'd expect the documents would be confidential to the court and not available to witnesses to publish.
I'll look it up, or maybe someone else already has.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 20-01-16 15:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SkiPresto, why on earth would you believe BASI to be exempt for a SAR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I checked it up with the ICO, who were very helpful and without mentioning the name I was informed that companies like BASI are subject to the data protection act and SARs. So I stand corrected about that.
An SAR would apply, and it would cover emails.
However BASI wouldn't be subject to the freedom of information act, as far as I can make out.
Whether emails that didn't concern directly the requestor would have to be disclosed is another matter.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 20-01-16 15:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
No-one mentioned a FOI. 
If SB made a SAR then he would have in his possession all the correspondence. If he chose to share that with others then that would be his perogative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gaza wrote: |
| No-one mentioned a FOI. . |
I mentioned FOI in case, like me, someone had conflated the two things. (I'm not claiming to be an expert).
| Gaza wrote: |
| If SB made a SAR then he would have in his possession all the correspondence. If he chose to share that with others then that would be his prerogative. |
Wouldn't the Data protection act apply to him too if he published emails, or if someone else got hold of copies of emails and published them?
Who do you consider owns the emails that BlubaBluba has allegedly published on Facebook?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@SkiPresto, why are you getting so upset about a couple of emails? I am more concerned that an organisation I am a member of had to stand up in court and apologise for abusing a fellow members Human Rights.
What's your thoughts on that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
Wouldn't the Data protection act apply to him too if he published emails, or if someone else got hold of copies of emails and published them?
Who do you consider owns the emails that BlubaBluba has allegedly published on Facebook? |
No, the DPA would not apply as SB would not be the holder of the data from DPA purposes. There may be a question of copyright infringement but there are so many loopholes and get-outs that pursuing that route would be a near certain dead-end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stewart woodward wrote: |
@SkiPresto, why are you getting so upset about a couple of emails? I am more concerned that an organisation I am a member of had to stand up in court and apologise for abusing a fellow members Human Rights.
What's your thoughts on that? |
Well, I think that is extremely regrettable, and it is bad for the membership.
I'm not at all "upset" about the emails, I simply want to understand how the Association's emails apparently became public property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
| I simply want to understand how the Association's emails apparently became public property. |
Probably the same way my email was disclosed to a company offering accommodation in a resort where I had booked a BASI course
Never been to the resort before, never heard of the company but they suddenly start sending me emails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@SkiPresto, I think we have explain how the emails got into the public domain.
However BASI do not yet seem to be pursuing an internal investigation and disciplinary action about their conduct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stewart woodward wrote: |
| SkiPresto wrote: |
| I simply want to understand how the Association's emails apparently became public property. |
Probably the same way my email was disclosed to a company offering accommodation in a resort where I had booked a BASI course
Never been to the resort before, never heard of the company but they suddenly start sending me emails. |
Confused:
When I say "Email" I mean an electronic letter.
If I want to say "Email Address" then that is the recipient's address for the piece of email.
So my question earlier related to how did The Association's company confidential email documents become public property.
The answer seems to be that anyone can put in a SAR under the Data Protection Act even on behalf of a third party and demand a copy of any document relating to a person. This information must be released within 40 days and the recipient can then publish it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
| The answer seems to be that anyone can put in a SAR under the Data Protection Act even on behalf of a third party and demand a copy of any document relating to a person. This information must be released within 40 days and the recipient can then publish it. |
Not as simple as that. I cannot contact BASI (or any organisation) and make a SAR for your personal data. If I did I would be committing an offence. There are circumstances where someone is acting on your behalf and you have provided your written authority, or if you were incapacitated then someone acting as a Power of Attorney, where a SAR could be made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
why when you freely admit
| Quote: |
SkiPresto wrote:
(I'm not claiming to be an expert).
|
would you make such a bold and incorrect statement as
| Quote: |
SkiPresto wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, they're company confidential and "handing them over freely" is the same as "stealing" and whoever was the recipient is "receiving stolen property".
Or maybe you know more than you are letting on 😉
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| geeo wrote: |
why when you freely admit
| Quote: |
SkiPresto wrote:
(I'm not claiming to be an expert).
|
would you make such a bold and incorrect statement as
| Quote: |
SkiPresto wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, they're company confidential and "handing them over freely" is the same as "stealing" and whoever was the recipient is "receiving stolen property".
Or maybe you know more than you are letting on 😉
|
|
Not entirely incorrect. Perhaps not incorrect at all.
Email documents in the association system belong to the association.
They shouldn't become public property.
The person publishing these email documents doesn't own them and isn't addressed in them.
He certainly doesn't seem to have the membership's interest at heart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
A Subject Access Request under the DPA must be made by the individual whose data is being sought. The data which must then be released is that which constitutes personal data (ie relates to that individual, is personal to that individual and by which that individual can be readily identified). The next hurdle is that the data must be that which is held in a "relevant filing system". This has been described in some learned circles as data which could be readily recovered by, for example, a temp in an office so the data will need to be in a file which can be located by reference to the name or other identifying characteristic of the data subject, so far example a file in a cabinet bearing the individuals name and where files are retained in alphabetical order would be fully disclosable. Similarly a file carrying a membership number where the number was in sequence and there was a separate record of the names associated with each membership number or even where the data subject could provide the membership number. Emails which have not been printed off and retained in hard copy are a tougher call, you can search a system for "sender", "recipient" and also "subject" but emails which do not bear the name of the data subject either as sender, recipient or subject may be much harder to retrieve and generally would tend to fall outside data which must be recovered and provided under an SAR. However, an electronic filing system would be disclosable so even if emails and other documents and correspondence were not kept either as hard copies or in original hard copy but were copied and transferred/stored into a single folder which can be identified as attributable to the data subject then the whole of that folder would be disclosable. So, as you can see it isnt that straight forward but once a dispute like this arises it is difficult to see how any party to it would not be retaining a disclosable file in whatever format. It is quite correct to say that the FOI would not apply, BASI is not a public/government body, it is a private enterprise so the FOI does not apply. To sum up then the only person who has a right to copies of all the personal data or information held by him in a "relevant filing system" is SB. If he chooses to share that information himself is a matter for him (in this instance I would think guided by his lawyers)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
He certainly doesn't seem to have the membership's interest at heart. |
Who died and made you arbiter of what the membership's interest is? I can see that a great number of members might be interested in what lengths their senior leadership might go to besmirch them if they fall out of grace or how petty such people are. If you're saying its because they bring BASI into disrepute then I'd argue again it's not the publishing of these docs that is the prime factor in that but rather the content and the originators of the schoolboy vindictiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is hilarious.
These letters are to do with a disciplinary action that i was named in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| SkiPresto wrote: |
He certainly doesn't seem to have the membership's interest at heart. |
Who died and made you arbiter of what the membership's interest is? I can see that a great number of members might be interested in what lengths their senior leadership might go to besmirch them if they fall out of grace or how petty such people are. If you're saying its because they bring BASI into disrepute then I'd argue again it's not the publishing of these docs that is the prime factor in that but rather the content and the originators of the schoolboy vindictiveness. |
I simply post my point of view. Obviously I am no arbiter apart from stating the obvious that publishing damaging material is not in our interests as members.
So - your point is that being sued for £500K is in your interest, and the interest of the Association's members? (Surely not?)
What's illegal business in France doing for the Association's standing in the world? -- It's costing us members money, maybe not directly, but people could be better employed.
Do people here think that if the SB case goes against BASIL, ther'll be instructor jobs for all in France? I very much doubt it.
Even if everything changes, and people don't need a L4 to teach in La France, the Brits will be at the back of a 2 Million person queue of newly liberated French people for work, and it will be priced accordingly. It would be a disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@SkiPresto, illegal business? Some of SB's (and BlubaBluba's etc) convictions were overturned on appeal last year, with the rest suspended pending investigation, by the Administrative Court, of potential illegality by the Rhône-Alpes prefecture.
Your scenario sounds as if more lessons will be sold, with the customer the arbiter of quality. That's got to be a good thing all round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Not entirely incorrect. Perhaps not incorrect at all.
Email documents in the association system belong to the association.
They shouldn't become public property.
|
So now you are an expert? look it's clear you don't know what your talking about so save the inaccurate sweeping statements for the pub
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Laundryman
| Quote: |
| Your scenario sounds as if more lessons will be sold, with the customer the arbiter of quality. That's got to be a good thing all round. |
Thanks for that positive thought upon which to wrap this up until something else occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Something good is going to happen real soon, the next letter is coming.[/img]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
| geeo wrote: |
why when you freely admit
| Quote: |
SkiPresto wrote:
(I'm not claiming to be an expert).
|
would you make such a bold and incorrect statement as
| Quote: |
SkiPresto wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, they're company confidential and "handing them over freely" is the same as "stealing" and whoever was the recipient is "receiving stolen property".
Or maybe you know more than you are letting on 😉
|
|
Not entirely incorrect. Perhaps not incorrect at all.
Email documents in the association system belong to the association.
They shouldn't become public property.
The person publishing these email documents doesn't own them and isn't addressed in them.
He certainly doesn't seem to have the membership's interest at heart. |
I think you really need to work out your priorities you seem more concerned of these emails and the right to or not to have them and publish them than you do over some BASI members acting like thugs/spoilt brats and abusing their position of trust and authority to remove another member.
Surely if you really are concerned over something it should be the abuse these board members demonstrated against your fellow BASI member SB so please explain why you are not crying out for their heads if a few little emails get you so worked up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
Obviously I am no arbiter apart from stating the obvious that publishing damaging material is not in our interests as members.
|
I'm not a member of BASI, just an interested customer for ski instruction, but it strikes me that the real harm to BASI's public reputation lies with those who created the damaging material in the first place.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| speed098 wrote: |
| A judge will always look to see if there is remorse or will to change |
It's a civil case not a criminal one. Remorse doesn't come into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| speed098 wrote: |
...
Surely if you really are concerned over something it should be the abuse these board members demonstrated against your fellow BASI member SB so please explain why you are not crying out for their heads if a few little emails get you so worked up. |
For your information...
These emails are separate issue in my view.
If I have a problem with BASI HQ, I have proper channels over which to communicate.
I certainly wouldn't go public with that on this site or any other social media forum.
For a start, I suspect this site isn't read by BASI HQ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
For a start, I suspect this site isn't read by BASI HQ. |
Well nobody likes bad reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
| speed098 wrote: |
| A judge will always look to see if there is remorse or will to change |
It's a civil case not a criminal one. Remorse doesn't come into it. |
For awarding costs the judge will look at all matters ie are BASI fully to blame is SB fully to blame or percentages there of. How the one found in the wrong is punished has the judges discretion. If BASI are found at fault and the judge perceives they have had ample opportunity to address what they did wrong the judge may award closer to the max amount claimed. If SB is found to be not entirely blameless this will reduce the pay out that BASI are ordered to pay etc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| SkiPresto wrote: |
| speed098 wrote: |
...
Surely if you really are concerned over something it should be the abuse these board members demonstrated against your fellow BASI member SB so please explain why you are not crying out for their heads if a few little emails get you so worked up. |
For your information...
These emails are separate issue in my view.
If I have a problem with BASI HQ, I have proper channels over which to communicate.
I certainly wouldn't go public with that on this site or any other social media forum.
For a start, I suspect this site isn't read by BASI HQ. |
The emails are insignificant to trying to destroy someones livelihood. Maybe the people who wrote them should have used their brains and thought about the consequences first, but hey someones career is not important to you is it, lets nail the poster of the emails to the cross or should they just be burnt as heretics because they stood against the idiots who wrote these emails and think they can do whatever they want.
I would be very surprised if BASI HQ are not aware of this thread and do look in occasionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| speed098 wrote: |
| dogwatch wrote: |
| speed098 wrote: |
| A judge will always look to see if there is remorse or will to change |
It's a civil case not a criminal one. Remorse doesn't come into it. |
For awarding costs the judge will look at all matters ie are BASI fully to blame is SB fully to blame or percentages there of. How the one found in the wrong is punished has the judges discretion. If BASI are found at fault and the judge perceives they have had ample opportunity to address what they did wrong the judge may award closer to the max amount claimed. If SB is found to be not entirely blameless this will reduce the pay out that BASI are ordered to pay etc etc etc. |
Yes but that's not "remorse".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@SkiPresto, I saw plenty of computers at Grantown last time I visited, but alas did not look closely at the screens. On my next visit I will look to see how many are on snowHeads or FB BASI community hub!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Good on Don, policing the slopes for the French.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
