West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Would sharing the information on the way people voted break GDPR laws?

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

The last paragraph is of note, how will the PLC, board find out who voted what way? surely that would be a breach of the data protection act, if it is shared with the PLC

 

It might be the only way,

 

The reality will be in an organisation as small as the WSR that, unless there is a genuinely secret ballot with confidentiality guaranteed for who votes how, who supports whom in the vote will become apparent. That's not a question of data protection law, but of the simple mechanics of those involved having overlapping roles and, dare I say it, interests. What matters is not the legal small print of whether GDPR is breached (as an aside, the £163m fine for BA's breach has just been reduced to £20m, despite BA being utterly negligent in their management of the systems), but the possible willingness of individuals to use their privileged information in this disgraceful way.

It speaks volumes about the current leaderships of WSR plc and WSSRT that there may be individuals who feel that behaviour like this could be in any way appropriate.

 

I'll probably regret posting this, but. . . . there have been several similar posts about the HRA getting involved (or more to the point not getting involved) over the lengthy course of this thread, so I think it worth pointing out that the HRA exist to represent their members in many ways, but they are not there to dictate how those members behave. They do offer advice and information about how best to run heritage railways and official/legal requirements from third parties (e.g. ORR) but do not get involved in internal disputes without an invitation (and even this usually limited to arbitration between involved parties).

DISCLAIMER: I have work for the HRA as a volunteer for many years on various admin tasks, but have never served on the Board and the above opinion is therefore entirely my own and does not represent the HRA in any way. My involment has however given me a little more insight into their work than many posters here probably have.

 

I can't speak for the HRA as it has not been consulted on the goings on around WSSRT elections.
On a personal level I believe that continued internal strife at the WSR tarnishes the image of whole heritage railway sector.
Again it's purely personal view but the latest developments confirm that the intended use of the WSSRT shareholding to force change in the PLC, (which is the stated ultimate objective) is succeeding in raising tension and distrust. Quite the opposite of what is needed.
It's also an example of double standards. Those that advocate the merger of the WSSRT and WSRA are ready to accept that encouraging like minded people to join the WSSRT, to ensure the vote goes their way, cry foul when those that disagree deploy the same tactic. Sauce for the goose etc.
I could never condone threats or bullying but the target of the plan making clear to those affected by it what its effect may be seems wholly reasonable. WSSRT voters can then make up their minds fully informed.
All that have seen coming out of West Somerset recently confirms my view that, far from being a simpler, quicker way of achieving the cohesion and healing that is so desperately needed, the plan has served only to ratchet up division, distrust and, in my case, despair.

 

There's a fine line between encouraging people to join an organisation to try to achieve a result, an issue on which you are commendably neutral in your contempt for vote touting of any kind. However, I note rather a difference from the approach of "the 10", who ask for people to join them and promote a vision, and that of their opponents, who are leaving people concerned for their futures at the WSR by their approach to requesting support.

 

It's easy to say that things will be better with different management, but how are the new candidates going to deal with the obvious and huge disagreements within their railway?

If they are elected, the new management's actions and decisions are going to criticised by others who feel equally justified in their views. Members aren't going to leave because of a single AGM vote. They're still going to be there, undermining and criticising the actions of others - just like they do now. These people may well be in positions of authority within the railway.

I'm not supporting either "party" in the saga. Just interested to know how things might be improved.

 

If you consider that those who have joined the WSSRT to support the ten for change were subject to threats, coercion and bullying to make them join then your point of sauce for the goose etc might be valid, however I don't recall any such allegations being raised against the 10 for change. I therefore reject your view that double standards are being employed.

 

"I could never condone threats or bullying but the target of the plan making clear to those affected by it what its effect may be seems wholly reasonable. WSSRT voters can then make up their minds fully informed."

Unfortunately, your post does just that:

"Those that advocate the merger of the WSSRT and WSRA are ready to accept that encouraging like minded people to join the WSSRT, to ensure the vote goes their way, cry foul when those that disagree deploy the same tactic. Sauce for the goose etc."

Even if the PLC board feels threatened by the possibility of being faced by a consolidated wssrt/wsara shareholding (and why should they, if their way of doing business is good enough that it should be defensible against shareholder criticism?) it remains wholly unethical and immoral for it interfere in the democratic process and you should be ashamed of yourself for tacitly giving them your approval for doing so.

 

It would take a whistleblower I assume.

I wonder what the HR policies say about the threats etc...

 

How do you determine that "...the latest developments confirm that the intended use of the WSSRT shareholding to force change in the PLC." ?
What "...latest developments..." are you referring to anyway?

But it's not the same is it? Asking for support is not the same as demanding that people vote in a certain way.

"...the target of the plan making clear to those affected by it what its effect may be..." please explain, this does not appear to make sense.
"...seems wholly reasonable. " Are you suggesting that the Plc Boards response is reasonable? In a matter that is none of their business? In a manner that appears to be so disgustingly reminiscent of a dictatorship?

Which plan would that be? The WSSRT members democratically seeking change or the WSSRT and Plc Boards plans to resist any change in whatever way they can think of?
I have yet to see any objectivity in your comments when comparing the actions of the two Boards with the actions of the members. It appears you feel the two boards can do no wrong and that the members can do no right. I suggest to you that it appears that you are not a completely independent observer.

 

...and who will be counting the votes ?

 

Is it too simplistic to suggest the Steam Trust, sell their PLc shares to the highest bidder which will get them some income to progress their causes and rid them of the 'problem' of their 'power' over the plc which they presumably don't want?

 

Well I had hoped that they were starting to spend the grant money already. Two RRV and a group of orange suits at Williton this morning. Stood chatting on the platform for a couple of hours... must have gone off for tea now...

 

There are two sides to every story: on NP, as far as the WSR is concerned, it usually has meant only one side posts their version, so it is not easy to come to any firm opinion as far as I see. A lot of posts seem to assume the facts given, without any apparent proof, I believe.
Most of us, that post here, will not be affected directly by anything that occurs for the future of the line.
I agree with lineisclear regarding his comments about sauce for the goose etc., I would not condone coercion to become members of the WSSRT by the PLC but neither do I support any coercion to merge the WSSRT with the WSRA when the core Membership of the WSSRT have stated that they do not want that. By core Membership I mean those who have been Members for some or a long time and not recently joined to support a campaign.
It took a few years for the WSRA to settle down and start to support the PLC after their Ex6 affair and just as long to start to implement the Coombes Report. Sadly I think this 'merger' event will have deep and maybe equally as long ramifications for the WSR.
For the record I am not a WSSRT Member and at present I see no good reason to join, there seems to be far too many dogs in the fight!

 

I Agree

 

That is just whataboutery. There is a world of difference between recruiting people of their own free choice and threatening in order to get them to join and vote in a certain way.

 

Perhaps it's time for the HRA to relieve the WSR of HRA membership or doesn't the HRA have any rules or basic decency ? It looks to me, as an outsider, that the WSR is controlled by some rather unsavoury characters ( to put it mildly ) and I agree with you re the tarnishing of the whole heritage railway sector.