I think anyone else would employ proper PR professionals rather than Emma from Momentum to handle their message so that he doesn't make so many gaffes. ......
Meanwhile, Owen Smith tweeted that his campaign "remains on track". However, by the end of the day news emerged that during a campaign event, he had said:
“At a hustings a few weeks ago, Jeremy Corbyn said, ‘Yes we’ve got to get some of the people who contemplated voting Tory in the past to vote Labour.’ Rubbish! We’ve got to get two million people who actually voted Tory, 12 months ago, to vote Labour, in 106 seats.
“And what you won’t get from me, is some, you know, lunatic at the top of the Labour Party, you’ll have someone who tries to form a coherent narrative about what’s wrong with Britain.”
This was somewhat embarrassing, because Owen had pledged a few days' earlier to put mental health at the top of Labour's agenda if he were elected. The Labour campaign for Mental Health immediately issued a statement expressing that they were "... saddened to see the term "lunatic", a term with a long history of abuse toward those with mental illness, has been used in this contest as a term of derision against a colleague" and urged Owen to apologise.
Owen did, indeed, apologise- whilst he had wanted to “smash” Theresa May “back on her heels” only a month earlier, on this occasion we were assured that he was talking about himself and not implying that the Party Leader was a "lunatic".
Indeed, when Jeremy & Owen met at the Labour Party hustings 2 days' later, Owen was still sorry. In his defence he advised the audience, Jeremy had used the word 23 years' ago.
Can you tell me the name of the PR Professionals who have admitted to advising Owen Smith how to handle this matter? ;-)
Meanwhile, Owen Smith tweeted that his campaign "remains on track". However, by the end of the day news emerged that during a campaign event, he had said:
This was somewhat embarrassing, because Owen had pledged a few days' earlier to put mental health at the top of Labour's agenda if he were elected. The Labour campaign for Mental Health immediately issued a statement expressing that they were "... saddened to see the term "lunatic", a term with a long history of abuse toward those with mental illness, has been used in this contest as a term of derision against a colleague" and urged Owen to apologise.
Owen did, indeed, apologise- whilst he had wanted to “smash” Theresa May “back on her heels” only a month earlier, on this occasion we were assured that he was talking about himself and not implying that the Party Leader was a "lunatic".
Indeed, when Jeremy & Owen met at the Labour Party hustings 2 days' later, Owen was still sorry. In his defence he advised the audience, Jeremy had used the word 23 years' ago.
Can you tell me the name of the PR Professionals who have admitted to advising Owen Smith how to handle this matter? ;-)
I dunno who advises Smith, possibly no-one. He is just a backbencher so he has no taxpayer funded staff to manage PR for him. Corbyn on the other hand employs Seamus Milne his Director of Communications at c£93,000 per annum, I believe.
I don't think Corbyn is getting his money's worth is he?
Though if your point was that Smith is a numpty, I agree wholeheartedly!
I don't think Jeremy is a lunatic but he does have a short fuse and can be very passive aggressive and sarcastic. Some have compared him to The High Sparrow....I couldn't possibly comment ^_^
He was just the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions until he resigned.
He was, that is true. But now he is just a backbencher, as are all the household names. No idea who does that job now, but whoever it is needs to make their mark very quickly.
- Virgin Trains "seek to defuse the row":
-Jeremy Corbyn "right to point out the need to introduce more trains on our route"
- seating capacity out of King’s Cross to increase by 28% at peak times from 2018.
-leaked document warns that CCTV images will only be made available to the media in connection with criminal investigation or railway safety.
Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/28/virgin-broke-rules-releasing-corbyn-cctv-document?CMP=share_btn_tw
..............-leaked document warns that CCTV images will only be made available to the media in connection with criminal investigation or railway safety.
...............
Someone had better warn Channel 4. They make what they claim is a genuine show, not scripted, called, I believe "Hunted".
They have a team of experts trying to find a set of volunteers who get a start, and can then go anywhere they want.
One of their "tools" is that this team has live access to all the CCTV feeds in the UK (plus the cameras at every ATM) . Not only that, but they can find their wanted individuals within a few minutes of their appearing on a feed.
How many viewers of the programme will now believe that it's genuine?
If the Tories suggested anything that could be interpreted as censorship the world would go mad.
But now we have people saying Virgin shouldn't be allowed to produce CCTV evidence (with faces pixilated, which I know didn't happen at first in this case) as it harms democracy etc.
Virgin should be allowed to use evidence to protect its reputation IMO. It must, however, prevent a repeat of the issuing of photos without protecting others. That could land it in trouble, but it shouldn't mean it can never do the same thing again.
Still, it seems some people don't mind censorship if it suits them.
Virgin should be allowed to use evidence to protect its reputation IMO. ......
The principle of being allowed to protect your reputation isn't in dispute, but we're all restricted in the methods that we can use. The question is a much narrower one, as to whether passing CCTV footage/information to the media and/or posting it on the internet is a lawful method of doing so- as opposed to, say, a libel or defamation claim in a court where a judge might permit the CCTV footage as evidence. The Information Commissioner's Office will consider that, as they're the independent authority responsible for upholding the legislation.
As I posted earlier, the ICO normally only take enforcement action in "severe cases", so the most likely outcome is advice, which may be published to clarify to others, whether it is ever likely to be acceptable for a data controller to release CCTV footage/information in such circumstances.
The issue of others being identifiable is a clear breach, in my view, but the probability of enforcement action quite low- especially if there is no evidence that it caused actual damage to any of the individuals.
I wouldn't have thought Sugar would have much time for Smith but it might have sowed the seed in Smith's mind. He has a habit of shooting from the lip, which does him no favours.
.................The issue of others being identifiable is a clear breach, in my view, but the probability of enforcement action quite low- especially if there is no evidence that it caused actual damage to any of the individuals.
This is something I've never understood about the DPA and CCTV. In what way are the passengers identifiable? We've no idea who they are, so how is the fact that they're on a train 'personal data'?
Not to mention that, if the judgement in Durkin v FSA (2003) still stands, data isn't 'personal' simply because it's about a person. The database (used in a loose sense) needs to be searchable by identity. This is clearly not the case with CCTV.
This is something I've never understood about the DPA and CCTV. In what way are the passengers identifiable? We've no idea who they are, so how is the fact that they're on a train 'personal data'?
Not to mention that, if the judgement in Durkin v FSA (2003) still stands, data isn't 'personal' simply because it's about a person. The database (used in a loose sense) needs to be searchable by identity. This is clearly not the case with CCTV.
BIB, we might not know them but there will be people somewhere who will.
What if one of those passengers had booked a day off work because they were supposed to be ill ?
Being shown on that train could lose them their job.
BIB, we might not know them but there will be people somewhere who will.
What if one of those passengers had booked a day off work because they were supposed to be ill ?
Being shown on that train could lose them their job.
While that's true (and it hadn't actually occurred to me until today) , that still relies on someone who knows the individual, and cares about them being on the train, actually seeing the tape.
And recognising them, of course. The recording wasn't of particularly high quality, which is what you'd expect of CCTV. (Unless it's for reading car number plates, of course, then somehow it's high resolution).
However, it's a valid point, and supports why the DPA applies to CCTV.
While that's true (and it hadn't actually occurred to me until today) , that still relies on someone who knows the individual, and cares about them being on the train, actually seeing the tape.
And recognising them, of course. The recording wasn't of particularly high quality, which is what you'd expect of CCTV. (Unless it's for reading car number plates, of course, then somehow it's high resolution).
However, it's a valid point, and supports why the DPA applies to CCTV.
IMO with all the publicity that has surrounded these tapes and photos I would think it quite possible that there is a very good chance that the people in them will be recognised, especially in the unpixilated images.
BIB, we might not know them but there will be people somewhere who will.
What if one of those passengers had booked a day off work because they were supposed to be ill ?
Being shown on that train could lose them their job.
It would show that one lie revealed another lie. They could blame Corbyn.
This is something I've never understood about the DPA and CCTV. In what way are the passengers identifiable? We've no idea who they are, so how is the fact that they're on a train 'personal data'?
Not to mention that, if the judgement in Durkin v FSA (2003) still stands, data isn't 'personal' simply because it's about a person. The database (used in a loose sense) needs to be searchable by identity. This is clearly not the case with CCTV.
Did you mean Durant v FSA, which was about whether the mention of a person in documents made them the data subject if they were not the the focus of attention?
In which case, the distinction is between a right of access to data by an individual and the release of data to the media and/or a public audience, rather than whether they are the "data subject"?
The CCTV Code of Practice has been designed, in my opinion, to reflect a specific public concern about privacy; so that footage may only be used for a narrow set of purposes, such as crime prevention, public safety etc.
I agree with the points made by gummy mummy. The wider something is circulated, the more likely it is that somebody is identifiable to another person, and the example is a good one- an employer identifying the whereabouts of an employee, when the employee does not want that to be known.
Legislation isn't always straightforward to understand; however, in this instance, Virgin Trains could have made their point about Jeremy Corbyn without anybody else being identifiable; so good practice (effective blurring of other people) would have avoided the question about others in the images being raised, with little effort on the part of Virgin Trains.
Comments
Even nationalised trains wouldn't manage that
This was somewhat embarrassing, because Owen had pledged a few days' earlier to put mental health at the top of Labour's agenda if he were elected. The Labour campaign for Mental Health immediately issued a statement expressing that they were "... saddened to see the term "lunatic", a term with a long history of abuse toward those with mental illness, has been used in this contest as a term of derision against a colleague" and urged Owen to apologise.
Owen did, indeed, apologise- whilst he had wanted to “smash” Theresa May “back on her heels” only a month earlier, on this occasion we were assured that he was talking about himself and not implying that the Party Leader was a "lunatic".
Indeed, when Jeremy & Owen met at the Labour Party hustings 2 days' later, Owen was still sorry. In his defence he advised the audience, Jeremy had used the word 23 years' ago.
Can you tell me the name of the PR Professionals who have admitted to advising Owen Smith how to handle this matter? ;-)
I dunno who advises Smith, possibly no-one. He is just a backbencher so he has no taxpayer funded staff to manage PR for him. Corbyn on the other hand employs Seamus Milne his Director of Communications at c£93,000 per annum, I believe.
I don't think Corbyn is getting his money's worth is he?
Though if your point was that Smith is a numpty, I agree wholeheartedly!
" everything must be clean, very clean"
As a clean freak, I approve
Cleanliness is next to godliness after all
He was, that is true. But now he is just a backbencher, as are all the household names. No idea who does that job now, but whoever it is needs to make their mark very quickly.
-Jeremy Corbyn "right to point out the need to introduce more trains on our route"
- seating capacity out of King’s Cross to increase by 28% at peak times from 2018.
-leaked document warns that CCTV images will only be made available to the media in connection with criminal investigation or railway safety.
Full article:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/28/virgin-broke-rules-releasing-corbyn-cctv-document?CMP=share_btn_tw
Someone had better warn Channel 4. They make what they claim is a genuine show, not scripted, called, I believe "Hunted".
They have a team of experts trying to find a set of volunteers who get a start, and can then go anywhere they want.
One of their "tools" is that this team has live access to all the CCTV feeds in the UK (plus the cameras at every ATM) . Not only that, but they can find their wanted individuals within a few minutes of their appearing on a feed.
How many viewers of the programme will now believe that it's genuine?
But now we have people saying Virgin shouldn't be allowed to produce CCTV evidence (with faces pixilated, which I know didn't happen at first in this case) as it harms democracy etc.
Virgin should be allowed to use evidence to protect its reputation IMO. It must, however, prevent a repeat of the issuing of photos without protecting others. That could land it in trouble, but it shouldn't mean it can never do the same thing again.
Still, it seems some people don't mind censorship if it suits them.
In fact I've just found a photo of one of his rallies: http://static.tumblr.com/d0120b88a8c46350e1e5aae5cdbcf8b4/epryms9/iZdmsimrc/tumblr_static_mil_akview.jpg
He was late arriving for that rally too, as the roads were just as ram-packed: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq--Uy8WIAEA6mS.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01216/g2_1216027i.jpg
If that happens, I'm sure it will be spun that Corbyn and Co came out victorious.
The issue of others being identifiable is a clear breach, in my view, but the probability of enforcement action quite low- especially if there is no evidence that it caused actual damage to any of the individuals.
Possibly Lord Sugar?
Who said "In an article for the Sunday Times, he wrote: ‘Under Corbyn, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556934/You-loonies-Lord-Sugar-blasts-Corbyn-s-Labour-claiming-lunatics-truly-taken-asylum.html#ixzz4IgVldWlO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I wouldn't have thought Sugar would have much time for Smith but it might have sowed the seed in Smith's mind. He has a habit of shooting from the lip, which does him no favours.
This is something I've never understood about the DPA and CCTV. In what way are the passengers identifiable? We've no idea who they are, so how is the fact that they're on a train 'personal data'?
Not to mention that, if the judgement in Durkin v FSA (2003) still stands, data isn't 'personal' simply because it's about a person. The database (used in a loose sense) needs to be searchable by identity. This is clearly not the case with CCTV.
BIB, we might not know them but there will be people somewhere who will.
What if one of those passengers had booked a day off work because they were supposed to be ill ?
Being shown on that train could lose them their job.
While that's true (and it hadn't actually occurred to me until today) , that still relies on someone who knows the individual, and cares about them being on the train, actually seeing the tape.
And recognising them, of course. The recording wasn't of particularly high quality, which is what you'd expect of CCTV. (Unless it's for reading car number plates, of course, then somehow it's high resolution).
However, it's a valid point, and supports why the DPA applies to CCTV.
IMO with all the publicity that has surrounded these tapes and photos I would think it quite possible that there is a very good chance that the people in them will be recognised, especially in the unpixilated images.
It would show that one lie revealed another lie. They could blame Corbyn.
In which case, the distinction is between a right of access to data by an individual and the release of data to the media and/or a public audience, rather than whether they are the "data subject"?
The CCTV Code of Practice has been designed, in my opinion, to reflect a specific public concern about privacy; so that footage may only be used for a narrow set of purposes, such as crime prevention, public safety etc.
I agree with the points made by gummy mummy. The wider something is circulated, the more likely it is that somebody is identifiable to another person, and the example is a good one- an employer identifying the whereabouts of an employee, when the employee does not want that to be known.
Legislation isn't always straightforward to understand; however, in this instance, Virgin Trains could have made their point about Jeremy Corbyn without anybody else being identifiable; so good practice (effective blurring of other people) would have avoided the question about others in the images being raised, with little effort on the part of Virgin Trains.
Actually the people responsible for this thread are Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum