Quote:
Originally Posted by Aardvark
My opinion, and I am subject to correction by a practising lawyer, is that all data on named individuals gathered by the party is subject to the DPA. That appears to be the law.
|
Thank you Aardie.
I await any further research/comment from the lawyers here on this forum on the rules of the DPA vis. a vis. ownership and dissemination of owned material subject to DPA rules.
Steamer:- I am not aware of any
public comment from those directly involved with the issue in the party having to deal with it (J.Whittaker, chairman; or M.Zuckerman, secretary). The only comment of that nature was in a
private communication to the NEC members, which was leaked by some cad. I am aware of much public noise made by J.West however.
As I said before, whilst it is fully understandable for him to be very annoyed .... to go to the length of threatening litigation is in my opinion for someone who is after all still within the party and a chairman to boot - a disproportionate response.
Why not leave the party first if one feels
that bad about it -
then threaten legal action. To stay within the party and yet threaten the party with potential serious damage does not seem very sensible action to me.
I can only try to put myself in the same situation and think to myself what would
I do. I certainly would be very annoyed too; but certainly would
not take his course of action if it was likely to damage the party, with the only gain being my own personal satisfaction.
Sorry, but I just see a storm in a teacup. The party, the cause and what it represents is infinitely more important than the hurt and bruised ego of one man caught up in an unfortunate melee caused by one rogue/mischeavous person. The party might be legally/technically responsible under DPA, (perhaps? not yet proven!), - but is certainly not morally so as there was no intent to do harm to West by the party.
As my mum used to say:-
Two wrongs don't make a right.
DED.
-