West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Can you clarify exactly which Facebook page is being referred to and whether it is visible freely to all

 

It would not surprise me at all if, in some parts of West Somerset, some people are capable of twisting a communication which advises that, "...if all else fails, legal action may be a final resort..." into something more like "...we are gonna set the police on you..."

Given the amount of twisting of facts and distortions coming from those in office, this recent, so called, 'threat' can carry no credence until such time as a full and complete explanation is given

 

I have no reason to doubt that the statement is honestly meant. I also know that many do not have detailed knowledge of the finer points of legal process, and may therefore not make what are to others obvious distinctions.

The chairman resigned after finding that the aggressive tactics he was using were drawing return fire, and the burden became too much. He has my limited sympathy. Another trustee, who did not as far as I am aware take a leading role in this dispute, has resigned, because he has been caused distress by this matter, and who had plenty to continue offer the WSSRT. Wherever we sit on the politics of the WSR, that is to be regretted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You make a fair point. I am not going to put complete email trails on a public forum, as indeed i didn't expect the ten to do so. In outline:
On 20 October the Trust mistakenly released the contact details of three of the ten. A private apology was issued and on 23 October a public retraction was issued. The trust takes privacy seriously and this breach was not good.
One of the ten who posts on here then wrote to us "demanding" (his words) details of our registration with the ICO and asking who our data controller was. This was confusing as (a) as a not-for-profit organisation who only holds data to support membership (to produce mailing lists etc) we are under no requirement to register. and (b) a data controller is a function of an organisation, not an individual appointed. The person demanding the information gave us 24 hours to comply. This email threatened a report to the Charity Commission with evidence that would be "robust".
it is obvious that the person demanding the info does not fully understand GDPR, the registration process nor the term "data controller".

I consulted the ICO and was advised that the breach we had committed was minor and was not reportable to them. They were just not interested.

The 24hr timeframe was unachievable given the other issues we were dealing with and I told the person that.
We then received an email on 23 October from the same individual. It starts "Collectively the ten of you clearly do not understand the gravity of the criminal offence you have committed. ". it goes onto say "Failure to provide this statutory information when requested is a further serious criminal offence compounding those you have already committed." This is said despite this being a non-reportable breach as categorised by ICO and a question that did not make sense.
It concludes by saying "You need to attend to these matters immediately. I have no wish to involve the Police but neither can I condone your criminal actions, therefore I will have no alternative but to do so in the event these matters are not resolved to my satisfaction my midday on Saturday 24th October 2020. I will be passing your contact information as listed here to the relevant authorities (here he gives a link to our home addresses). I urge you to take this seriously. This is a final warning."

However you read the words, this is a clear threat to report us all to the police for an incident that the ICO were not interested in. It was this threat of police action that has led to the resignations.

I have not given the name of the person who sent these emails, but that person is one of the ten and does post on here. I will leave it to that person to justify their words if they are willing to own up to them.

I am not looking for any kind if sympathy here and i fully expect you to come back and say "well volunteers were threatened so what do you expect". I do not support breaking the GDPR rules and we have publicly made amends. I am just reporting the facts as requested by posters on this forum. You may draw your own conclusions.

Ian Coleby

 

Doing nothing? Keep up Brian the apology was issued yesterday Don't you all talk to each other?

 

I hope they come forward, not impressed.

 

I don’t know whether you have to be a member of Facebook to see these links but here are the two posts relevant to the recent resignations:

https://www.facebook.com/144955566307085/posts/808003216668980/

https://www.facebook.com/144955566307085/posts/808742536595048/

 

Dare we ask if this person has followed through with their threat?

 

This looks to be something different to me Al. On the face of it, like @Mike S I'm not terribly impressed. I think at this stage it is worth nothing the fact that although the ten (/other number) are standing on a common platform and have put forward a joint motion, their candidatures will be voted on individually.

 

I asked about the RRV activity at Williton Station earlier in the week, and was told both vehicles were being used in re-familiarization and certification renewal exercises for PW staff. The station's Waiting Room was also used for lectures.

 

Alleged Breach of Data laws/rules. Nothing has been proven yet.

 

Given the fact that personal data was promulgated to unauthorised third parties in documents seen by many on this list, and that the former WSSRT Chairman has apologised for the error, then what further proof is needed that a breach of the GDPR did indeed take place?

 

It seems not. Just when it appears everything on the WSR at least appears to resemble an 'even keel', bang - we are off again. It is all getting a tad irksome, in fact down right infuriating.

 

Frankly, I care not either way. This 'issue' is just another example of 'the usual culprits' and their bunch of well know trolls playing in the cess.

It has to stop!

The Quiet Volunteer, may yet rise and surprise these individuals and deprive them of their playing field.

 

Thank you, Ian. That is indeed illuminating. Perhaps the @WSSRTcandidates would like to comment. 'Tis only fair.

 

In the heat of the moment, things get done and said, that clearly shouldn't be, I'm not condoning this persons actions, but its understandable, when you think on the abuse that's been thrown at them, people saying they should be thrown off the railway etc, pressure from existing trustees not to stand, pressure from others clearly having been put up on, by members who are not involved, such as the PLC. everyone has their own limits, some are made of sterner stuff than others, Had the Charity not pursued such an aggressive campaign against the ten, this might not have happened, or there might have been some common ground found, this has happened because of the actions of the WSSRT's friends and members and is a reaction to whats gone on.

 

Deleted

 

Sorry Martin, but I can't agree with your interpretation of this.
This threat of police action in a civil matter is unbelievably crass, especially as it comes after Chris Austen chose to resign, which as he was the architect of the GDPR event, should have been the end of the matter. I do not understand the fine points of GDPR rules, and cannot understand why such a deliberate breach of confidence is not of interest to ICO, but heavy handedness by the injured parties is not going to do anything to resolve matters. Thus far, the matter had been handled discreetly on both sides. Threatening police action is on a par with the famous invitation to roll around on Minehead platform, and such publicity could only further damage the WSR.