Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

There may be no GDPR breach of course. It depends. GDPR is not quite the all encompassing bogie man it is sometimes feared to be.

 

How about the Captain of the Concordia ?

 

Or putting continuous brakes on carriages before the Armagh accident. Even the original L & B R had to comply with the 1890 Act that was rushed through Parliament following that one. oh! that we could generate Parliamentary action so swiftly without so many deaths to produce it.

 

There was a GDPR breach in, I think April, when an email was sent to around 60 members of an area group [edited: actually, almost 90, including the trustees!], but all the email addresses were CCd instead of BCCd. I haven't heard of any GDPR repercussions for that incident - one would have thought the Trustees would have acted on that in the same vein as they have perused Anne's alleged infraction...

 

The only thing I will say on this is that as far as I know the mistake was recognised, and as a first incident he has promised it will not be repeated, similar was I believe done with the first incident with Anne. Also, as far as I know, no complaints were made.
The newsletter also has very clear instructions on "unsubscribing" and having an email address removed from the list held which knowing the person involved I expect would be done almost on receipt of the request.

 

While we are on the suggestion of lists, there is of course a much simplier method to be used. As has been noted already, there are at least three Facebook pages related to the L&BR with a total contact base of 7,000+ names.

Now just how many of them are members remains to be seen, but I guess there would be more than enough for them to start to ask awkward questions that could make the postion of some trustees wriggle some what.

 

The thing is, the Facebook groups are also excellent adverts to the general public and tourists, not good for business to take it to there and isn't good for morale for those working at Woody Bay trying to make sure profits are made.

 

It is impossible to make an omelette without breaking eggs. There are however ways of using public forums to point to another place to get information. Not all the washing need be displayed.

 

dont forget that under S116 of the Companies Act, any person can request a copy of the membership list on payment of a reasonable fee.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/116

 

There is, to my knowledge, one L&B Page - mainly used for announcements and 1-2-1 correspondence, a few automatically-generated business pages created by FB, and two groups - the smaller one started recently to allow a more open discussion of L&B-related aspects without the fairly aggressive "censorship" that was occurring on the original group. Many of the FB group/page members are on more than one, the largest of which has 6.5k members, but how many of those are trust members? I have no way of knowing, but my guess would be less than 1000, so not a very reliable way to contact all. Having said that, awkward questions have been asked in various places online, but with little reaction from the Trustees, which is understandably the norm for most organisations.

I still firmly believe that the Trust should create and encourage full use of a members-only inclusive discussion platform open and uncensored to all for frank, honest and open discussions of the key issues at stake. I doubt it will ever happen though.

 

I personally believe that an open and frank forum would be a good thing, none of us can claim to know everything and more often than not, good ideas can and do come from them.

 

That link seems to suggest just a list of names can be requested. Does that include addresses, contact details etc?

 

Section 113 of the Companies Act requires the company to keep an up-to-date register of members and that register must include their names and addresses amongst other things. As said earlier, Section 116 requires that any person can request a copy of that register and, if you are a member of that company it is without charge. You must give the reason for requesting that copy. I am not aware that it can be refused providing the request is for a legitimate purpose.

 

Section 113 of the Act item (2) (a) specifies both names and addresses.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/113

 

The point is that personal information must only be used by an organisation for the purpose for which it was given. So using it for ANYTHING else would run foul of GDPR legislation. The organisation has a responsibility to keep it in a secure manner.

 

IIRC from previous experience in the WSRA, Company Law trumps the GDPR in this sort of situation, with the result that those who were seeking an EGM were able to access the register for that purpose, as that was deemed a valid purpose under the law.

 

The list I know about was sent to a supporter in the US. The US is not within the GDPR zone and thus someone based there could use that list. I know the regulations state that countries outwith the zone cannot use information for goods or services, but contacting 762 club members is neither of those.

 

This glosses over two rather important points @DaveE

First, any punishment must be in line with the disciplinary proceedure - I'd love to see where banning someone from the Trust Board for five years is in the proceedure, because I certainly can't see it.

The Board has to follow the rules, which I appreciate appears to be something new and unwelcome to Mr Miles and his friends, but they cannot do whatever they like. In proposing a penalty that is outside the rules, the Trustees are behaving lawlessly, and this action is therefore a nullity.

Second, Anne had a perfectly sound defence of 'public interest' which is explictly protected - see the ICO's guidance, here - which the East group case didn't have. Moreover, the question of an apology or not is immaterial to the "crime" - it is at best an argument in mitigation when considering the penalty.

So, in one case where a Member is gauging support for a Vote of No Confidence - a key part of the governance of any democratic organisation - the Trust Chairman and the Company Secretary:

- Attempted to rig the election by illegally excluding a valid nomination;

- Libelled the victim of this rigging in an email to me, in the Newsletter and on the Trust's own website;

- Launched a campaign of vilification and formal action (at what cost to the Trust...?); and

- Purported to impose a penalty that doesn't exist in the disciplinary policy.

In the other case - which had no public interest defence - they let one of their mates off.

Equality before the law? I don't think so. And people wonder why we have a governance problem.....

 

That is not a defence I’d like to run, and fails my personal sniff test.

If there is a GDPR breach, then that affects the organisation even if not the individual, and invites the charge that adherence to rules is only to be used where convenient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I really don’t think that the biggest issue preventing change is GDPR. There are quite legitimate ways to contact people.

We should be careful not to assume we know what is motivating the trustees. I am sure that from their pov they are being quite logical and reasonable and acting in what they think is the best interests of the trust. We might disagree, we might be able to see that things are not as the trustees perceive, but wilful blindness is a very real condition.

The way forward is to seek to influence. I shall be writing to the trustees in the next few days to express my concern. Of course this will do nothing on its own, but the more people who do write, the more likely that change will come.

in parallel creating momentum for an EGM would be no bad thing. Any volunteers to coordinate?