C_steam

Interesting points DeD. However, I do not think the issue can be described as a storm in a teacup - the basic principle broken here, putting aside all legal niceties, is one of trust.

Effectively, UKIP was going through a 'recruitment process' of sorts and it is reasonable and fair to expect such a process to not permit material involving the assessment of a candidate to be put into the public domain.

If a business did that during recruitment to a candidate, and posted a video on U-yube entitled 'how not to perform at interview' or similar, they'd be fried by a good lawyer.

Whatever you or I may think about JW, he had a reasonable expectation of trust and privacy regarding the material he contributed to during the selection process. That expectation and that trust was broken REGARDLESS of what JW may or may not have done in the eyes of the party previously.

The problem UKIP has with this issue is that members of the party involved and at more senior level have publicly stated all of the 'wrong things' that JW did and yet no action was brought by the party against him. Then the video was released. I think UKIP may have a hard time persuading people that the leak was not deliberately intended to hurt JW as some form of retribution.

Not a good place to be, regretfully. So, not a storm in a teacup, I think.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

Aardvark

From the site of the Information Commissioner:

I am still researching the various links I have found, but I found a clear case where a video was covered by DPA, or so the authority holding it acknowledged, but I want a more solid reference as they refused to disclose it as it was used for law enforcement. There is a mass of information out there, but the owners of the video didn't claim copyright, but an exemption. I only have so much time to research all this as I have to look after 2 law cases of my own before I go away for a few weeks.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

SponPlague

Try this, Doug:

Cheat Sheet: Data Protection Act 1998 - Software - Breaking Business and Technology News at silicon.com

So: Did MEP candidates give specific, informed consent for their interviews to end up on YouTube titled How not to do it?

douglas denny

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.
-

devilskitchen

Reposted from another thread, but here's my take...

Now, it's been a while since I read the Act and I do need to refresh my memory, but IIRC the Data Protection Act only applies to certain quite closely defined categories of data. These are broadly called "personal details" and include e.g. names, addresses, transaction details, medical records, etc. Further, the reason for which these details were taken can also be relevant to whether the DPA applies.

(Note that naming someone is not enough: the name has to be associated with other pieces of "personal data" to be applicable under the Act.)

Whether or not data is held in a database or not is irrelevant, e.g. the DPA applies to written records too.

Now, as I say, it's been a while, but I don't think that you will find that the John West video is covered under the Data Protection Act. Unless, of course, UKIP signed a contract with Mr West saying that it would be entirely private. Even then, it would not be a criminal case, but a civil case.

As I say, I might be wrong but, as I recall, there are no published details of John West on that video material that would fall under the DPA.

__________________
Unio Europaea delenda est

Aardvark

Check s55 DPA for potential offences is the data is covered.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

douglas denny

Spongy:
Thanks. It seems to echo the copyright rules whereby anyone having a photo taken for use by the photographer later (for business use perhaps?) has to give consent for use of the photo. Usually written consent is accepted. The type of use is not usually specified and is usually unlimited as far as I know unless resricted specifically by the person having the photo taken at that time.

It reminds me of an incident at Sir Patrick's house.

I remember Lembit Opik who had been invited getting very 'shirty' and rather unpleasantly embarassing with an inoccuous photographer who was just an ordinary guest wandering around with his camera at the BBC anniversary 'Sky at Night' party of Sir Patrick Moore. Lembik was in the background of a photo he took. He agressively demanded to know what the photographer was going to do with the photo, and he did not want his photo in the press and specifically vetoing such use. The poor recipient of this unwanted unnecesary blast explained he was only taking photos for his own use and had no intention of publishing anything. I think Lembit was very sensitive at the time as he was I think with his 'cheeky' girlfriend and was a favorite of the paparatzi for a while. He left soon afterwards.

If he had thought for a second or two instead of diving-in, and had looked more carefully at the camera he would have seen it did not have a six foot long lens, nor lots of them hanging from the shoulders a la press photographers - but was a simple little digital job. Also, it seemed to escape him that there were at least a couple of dozen people with cameras wandering around, which is what they always do at Sir Patrick's parties - one of which was indeed a professional who I know - but he would never have taken a photo of Lembit for business use without gaining permission -as he knows the law.

DED.
-

Richard Allen

Although I am not a lawyer I would tend to agree with DK on this. No doubt videos can be subject to the DPA but I fail to see what data is contained in this video that would make it so.

mrabody

The DPA is concerned with the protection of "personal data" which is defined as:

2 Sensitive personal data In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information as to—
(a) the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,
(b) his political opinions,
(c) his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,
(d) whether he is a member of a trade union (within the meaning of the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992),
(e) his physical or mental health or condition,
(f) his sexual life,
(g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or
(h) any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.

So theoretically there may have been a breach of the DPA. Except of course, John West's political opinions are not a private matter as he is the chairman of a UKIP constituency association, and a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, and he was applying to become an MEP candidate. And since his physical and mental health or condition seems pretty average (although some might argue that membership in UKIP raises questions concerning ones mental health ) I don't think it is particularly sensitive. In any event he already had a public role as PPC and was seeking a further public role as MEP so I can't quite see how he was entitled to privacy since he could reasonably expect that various facets of his life would be exposed to the public.

tamashi

There are several characters in this play. The individual, the client company and the limited company set up by the individual as a vehicle for working for the client company.

If an individual is retained on a self employed basis by the client company then they are paid gross and make their own tax and NI arrangements. This has advantages to the individual keeping them out of PAYE and advantages to the client company who avoid employer’s taxation and National Insurance requirements. The looser is the Inland Revenue who loose PAYE Income, Employers NI and Class I National Insurance contributions. IR35 was brought in to stop client companies using self employed contracts to avoid employer’s liabilities.

However, if an individual registers a limited company then they become an employee of that company and hence liable for PAYE, plus employers liabilities for tax and NI are taken one by the limited company. The Inland Revenue therefore get what they feel they "deserve" and so they are happy. The client company continue to pay gross and avoid the liabilities of employing an individual. The individual retains the flexibility of being self employed as they own the limited company but they loose the financial advantages of true "self-employed" status.

So under IR35 the state wins, the big employer Client Companies win and the individual gets tied up in more red tape, incurs more costs, looses flexibility but retains at least the appearance of freedom, all be it at a considerable bureaucratic cost. (Oh yes and Tax Accountants, Solicitors, Companies House, etc all required to maintain the legal framework of a limited company, they win as well under IR35).