Jeremy Corbyn's Traingate

[Tetchytyke]

ASLEF getting Corbyn into power? Conflict of interest maybe?

Not really.

ASLEF have done very well out of privatisation, playing the TOCs off against each other.

The profit margin is wafer thin

Of course it is.

Next you'll be telling me Saint Richard is just a gricer at heart, he does it for the love and not for the money. He doesn't make a dime.

 

[6Gman]

Does not say much for his support team that if they required seats, that they could not do what the rest of us do and book reservations when booking the tickets.

deleted - further information received

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps they woke up on Thursday morning and suddenly thought "let's go to Newcastle today".

No, they probably did what most busy business people do: "I need to go to Newcastle today, but it could be 9am or 11am or 2.30pm, not sure yet".

Whether you believe them or not is a different matter, but the Corbyn team have said they had reservations for a different train.

The point of a flexible ticket is, of course, flexibility.

 

[jon0844]

People weren't so exercised when Economics George Osborne upgraded himself to first class without paying for it. Funny that.

He didn't pay?

 

[6Gman]

No, they probably did what most busy business people do: "I need to go to Newcastle today, but it could be 9am or 11am or 2.30pm, not sure yet".

Whether you believe them or not is a different matter, but the Corbyn team have said they had reservations for a different train.

The point of a flexible ticket is, of course, flexibility.

Fair point - I have deleted my post.

Perhaps they will publish the reservation details to prove it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The ICO is looking into whether Virgin Trains have breached data protection guidelines.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ection-information-commissioner-a7206916.html

The Information Commissioner is looking into a possible breach of data protection rules after Richard Branson's Virgin Trains released CCTV footage of Jeremy Corbyn, in order to rebut his claims their service was "ram-packed".

The railway company released video and still images from one of its trains to show there were empty seats after Mr Corbyn complained of overcrowding.

Virgin published the timestamped pictures alongside a statement chiding Mr Corbyn, who had suggested that sitting on the floor was “a problem that many passengers face every day”.

One image initially released by the company had the faces of some other passengers visible; this was later withdrawn and replaced with a blurred version. Mr Corbyn was identified in all images and his face never blurred, however.

A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner’s Office told The Independent it was looking into the incident and that organisations should be aware of their legal responsibilities under the Data Protection Act.

“We are aware of the publication of CCTV images of Jeremy Corbyn and are making enquiries,” she said.

“All organisations have an obligation to comply with the Data Protection Act and must have legitimate grounds for processing the personal data they hold.

“Where there’s a suggestion that this hasn’t happened, the ICO has the power to investigate and can take enforcement action if necessary.”

Virgin Trains’ privacy policy has a section on CCTV in which is notes it must comply with data protection laws.

“In certain circumstances we may need to disclose CCTV images for legal reasons, the policy states.

“When this is done there is a requirement for the organisation that has received the images to adhere to the Data Protection Act.”

The Information Commissioner Office’s 2015 guidance on how not to break data protection law with a CCTV system warns against posting images on the internet or giving them to the media.

“It can be appropriate to disclose surveillance information to a law enforcement agency when the purpose of the system is to prevent and detect crime, but it would not be appropriate to place them on the internet in most situations,” the guidance states.

“It may also not be appropriate to disclose information about identifiable individuals to the media.”

It adds that release to the public “should not generally be done by anyone other than a law enforcement agency”.

In “severe cases” enforcement action would be launched by the Information Commissioner, it says.

Virgin Trains declined to comment, though a spokesperson indicated the firm was mindful of its obligations with regard to the Data Protection Act and pointed out it had pixelated passengers' faces.

Here's hoping the ICO throw the book at VTEC for showing unredacted images of passengers.

I wonder why Saint Richard has gone quiet all of a sudden? He normally can't wait to comment to the media.

 

[highdyke]

Not really.

ASLEF have done very well out of privatisation, playing the TOCs off against each other.



Of course it is.

Next you'll be telling me Saint Richard is just a gricer at heart, he does it for the love and not for the money. He doesn't make a dime.

Never argued anything of the sort, your words not mine. You are defending someone that has fabricated a film to get support for a left wing movement, that you have just admitted does very well out of it and is part of the problem.

Corbyn has a problem with

1. Honesty
2. Conflict of interest
3. Failure to understand the detail

Three big failings for a would-be leader.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Here's hoping the ICO throw the book at VTEC for showing unredacted images of passengers.

I wonder why Saint Richard has gone quiet all of a sudden? He normally can't wait to comment to the media.

The ICO can make all the noise they want, it makes you wonder if they are fit for purpose as this story is very much in the public interest.

 

[cuccir]

I think that this series of tweets provides a pretty credible timeline of the incident iteslf, w/o judgement as to rights and wrongs of what happened

 

[backontrack]

You moaning about "big business".

Erm, excuse me? Looks like a bit of sarcasm failure on your part. Either that or you're just reading what you want to read.

I was commenting that Corbyn fans won't believe Virgin because it's a big business, not complaining about it myself. If you're going to have a go at me, at least read my posts properly.

I think it's a bit like this, and it is comparable to the rise of Donald Trump:

Many people in the U.S.A want change. They think that Donald Trump means change (and there would be change, just terrible change), so they have started to turn to him. Trump represents something new to them, at least.

There are already the Trump fanatics who will make everything he says louder, and will use the powers of the mob and peer pressure to get people to support him

Now, Trump inevitably says lots of stupid things. And when he says said stupid things, the 'establishment' media tears into him.

But this doesn't affect the Donald. Why?

Well, he's already told his supporters that the media are against him and will lie about him whenever they can. His supporters believe him, and so, whenever anything comes out about Trump, they stick by him and even go into denial about these things if questioned.

Donald Trump's managed to create his own political bubble. It's simple. People want change, so they turn to Trump. Get your supporters to distrust everything that's said against you, and you can't lose. You can get away with anything.

That's exactly what Jeremy Corbyn is doing.

People voted for Corbyn because they wanted change. Corbyn represents something new to them, at least. There are the Corbyn 'fanatics' who help to drum up support for him...

...and if anyone says something against him, he and his supporters can stop people from believing it.

Why? Well, just like 'the media and establishment' are against Trump, 'the businesses and Blairites' are against Corbyn to them.

So, if someone reports your lies as lies, then get your attack-dogs, no, the mob, to attack and smear them! Simple, isn't it?

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to post-truth politics.

 

[Flamingo]

So he'd have to sit beside somebody he didn't know? Poor diddums.

Maybe he might have made a new friend...

 

[backontrack]

So he'd have to sit beside somebody he didn't know? Poor diddums.

Maybe he might have made a new friend...

Well, Communism is all about sharing, isn't it?

 

[Haydn1971]

I'll just leave up this here too....

 

[Tetchytyke]

The ICO can make all the noise they want, it makes you wonder if they are fit for purpose as this story is very much in the public interest.

Publishing unredacted pictures of passengers unrelated to Mr Corbyn or his entourage is "in the public interest"?

Right-o.

 

[highdyke]

Publishing unredacted pictures of passengers unrelated to Mr Corbyn or his entourage is "in the public interest"?

Right-o.

I could take pictures/makes films of anyone in a public place tomorrow (with some small exceptions) and publish them, it's not unlawful under UK law.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I could take pictures/makes films of anyone in a public place tomorrow (with some small exceptions) and publish them, it's not unlawful under UK law.

A train is not a public place, and there are different rules and regulations relating to the use of CCTV, even where that CCTV is in a public place.

And whilst a video in a public place may or may not be an infringement of privacy, providing additional information with that (like, say, putting a stonking great time stamp on the stills) could well be.

The makers of the documentary on East Coast a year or two ago got us all to sign disclaimers. There is a reason for that, and it isn't because they just love paperwork.

ETA: It's funny how you're bouncing around with arguments so much. We get you don't like Corbyn. It's OK. Accepting that Virgin should have treated the CCTV of their (other) passengers properly won't change that.

 

[Wolfie]

East Coast customers pay a sizeable amount to Virgin Trains East Coast. VTEC wouldn't be doing it if they weren't making money. The argument would go that if it were run by a state owned company, they would charge the same amount, but rather than pay 1% (10%, 0.1%, whatever) of the revenue as dividends, that money would go back to the treasury. Unless the entire rail network was operating without subsidy I think it's fair enough to say that the TOCs (mostly excluding open access ones) rely on subsidy to make a profit.

However his fundamental point that privitisaion would allow those dividends to be pumped back into the treasury, makes a massive assumption that a state owned company would be able to be as efficient as a private one. You could even argue that it would have been more efficient as the wage rises for railstaff (especially drivers) wouldn't have risen as much with the competition since 1994. However experience shows that it wouldn't be as efficient.

I'm much less concerned with "Professional liar caught lying" than I am with "Virgin Trains East Coast ignores data protection obligations"

A thoughtful and well balanced post. I agree completely except perhaps I would say "experience suggests that..." in the penultimate para as not all public sector is inherently inefficient and not all private sector massively efficient as your wording suggests.

So presumably a First Advance that's cheaper than Anytime Standard Return would be fine.

Yes for MPs but Civil Servants are told to travel Standard even if it costs more... media presentation!

Yes. Yes I do.

ETA it seems Virgin have now edited the photo from coach F to provide pixellation to passengers. So yes, I DEFINITELY think they released without checking and editing properly!

I suggest you read the guidance again. You could even read the bit I quoted, relating to publishing CCTV pictures on the internet. It's on about page 12.

Most data protection experts seem to be saying Virgin were wrong to release the unpixellated pictures of people. Virgin themselves seem to think they are wrong, because they pulled the pictures and pixellated them. Most data protection experts are saying the unpixellated pictures are a breach.

So if virgin can make such an elementary editing mistake then, no, I don't think their lawyers checked it. And it also makes me question their competence more generally.

Ho hum... they better start saving the pennies to compensate all of those people then...

I hope it's Virgin complaining at being stitched up by some idiot who is stuck in his own little 1960s world.

Disregarding the pathetic insult against Corbyn (I am not going to express my own party views but for balance would say that I have heard it said that the Tories are stuck in the 80s - the 1880s that is!) I would point out that Virgin have absolutely zero grounds to complain to the IC. Corbyn, any of his entourage, or any passenger who can be identified on the other hand...

Oh, for what it's worth I have handled disclosure to Courts, Public Inquiries, FOIs and DPA for the last 10 years or so for a rather large central Govt Dept....

Actually not. It is a sad reflection on current political discourse that many people think anyone who does not think like them is 'one of those' whichever faction they inhabit.

It will be a sad day if a global multinational can flout its own policy and the DPA and get away with it.

Perhaps a little off topic but agreed - something which started under Thatcher and has got systematicly worse since - Blair was particularly bad at this.

They haven't been a deterrent since Ronald Reagan because he was the last person mad enough to actually convince anyone that he would ever use them.

Anyone who did use Trident to kill a few million innocent Russians would only be 15 minutes further up the moral high ground than the person who fired their missiles first.

Completely off topic but I couldn't disagree more...and nor Could Donald Trump who has been reported as asking why the US keeps but hasn't used nuclear weapons - downright scary!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

 

[highdyke]

A train is not a public place, and there are different rules and regulations relating to the use of CCTV, even where that CCTV is in a public place.

And whilst a video in a public place may or may not be an infringement of privacy, providing additional information with that (like, say, putting a stonking great time stamp on the stills) could well be.

The makers of the documentary on East Coast a year or two ago got us all to sign disclaimers. There is a reason for that, and it isn't because they just love paperwork.

Keep digging, keep the story going..

 

[southern442]

I think it's a bit like this, and it is comparable to the rise of Donald Trump:

Since when was Jeremy Corbyn a racist, islamophobic psycho who clearly wants to start a nuclear war with other countries? And since when were his supporters idiots who can't think for themselves?

It is slightly comparable in some ways but the rise of Tony Blair or the Liberal Democrats in 2010 could also be seen as equally comparable.

You say that Corbyn supporters will dismiss anything the media says as lies, and there are a few who will, but you can't deny that many media outlets are viciously against Corbyn, and many of the media stories about him would never have been made about someone else, and a good few of them are absolutely pointless newspaper-fillers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Keep digging, keep the story going..

I quoted the ICO guidance on the use of CCTV. It's a good read, it says you shouldn't post images from CCTV on the internet.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

But Corbyn said something mean about Saint Richard, so everyone is fair game

 

[bnm]

The makers of the documentary on East Coast a year or two ago got us all to sign disclaimers. There is a reason for that, and it isn't because they just love paperwork.

Did the Corbyn camp have everyone they filmed on that train sign a disclaimer? None of their faces have been redacted in footage they've published.

I confidently predict there will no legal action against Virgin/Stagecoach. For the simple reason that no law has been broken.

 

[J-2739]

Since when was Jeremy Corbyn a racist, islamophobic psycho who clearly wants to start a nuclear war with other countries? And since when were his supporters idiots who can't think for themselves?

It is slightly comparable in some ways but the rise of Tony Blair or the Liberal Democrats in 2010 could also be seen as equally comparable.

You say that Corbyn supporters will dismiss anything the media says as lies, and there are a few who will, but you can't deny that many media outlets are viciously against Corbyn, and many of the media stories about him would never have been made about someone else, and a good few of them are absolutely pointless newspaper-fillers.

I think he was talking about how Jeremy C. represents change, similar to Donald Trump.

 

[Greenback]

Did the Corbyn camp have everyone they filmed on that train sign a disclaimer? None of their faces have been redacted in footage they've published.

I confidently predict there will no legal action against Virgin/Stagecoach. For the simple reason that no law has been broken.

I agree. I don't think that guidance saying that CCTV should not be put on to the internet is actually the same as there being a law that says you must not to do the same.

I'm prepared to be convinced that I'm wrong, if someone can point me towards the appropriate legislation, but please start a new topic!

 

[Phil.]

I'll just leave up this here too....

I'd think that he'd be bitter over the fact that Corbyn and his ilk want to destroy his company.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did the Corbyn camp have everyone they filmed on that train sign a disclaimer? None of their faces have been redacted in footage they've published.

I confidently predict there will no legal action against Virgin/Stagecoach. For the simple reason that no law has been broken.

Which is why I mentioned in my post that his aides are in a hole and just keep digging.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Did the Corbyn camp have everyone they filmed on that train sign a disclaimer? None of their faces have been redacted in footage they've published.

They didn't film anyone on the train?

I'm aware of a video that "Doctor" Eoin Clarke posted on Twitter. I hope they throw the book at that asshat too.

I confidently predict there will no legal action against Virgin/Stagecoach. For the simple reason that no law has been broken.

I agree. I don't think that guidance saying that CCTV should not be put on to the internet is actually the same as there being a law that says you must not to do the same.

There isn't a law that says THOU SHALT NOT PUT CCTV STILLS ON TEH INTERWEB.

Images of people are covered by the Data Protection Act. This says how that data should be treated- it should be accurate, it should be fair, you should have access rights, and it should only be processed for the purposes that it was obtained for.

The CCTV signs on VTEC says it is obtained for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety, and the data controller is East Coast Main Line Ltd. Therefore it should only be processed for that purpose and should only be processed by East Coast MainLine Ltd.

The fact that the images were provided to the media unredacted, and that the images were provided by Virgin Trains West Coast Ltd, is a double breach of the Data Protection Act.

VTEC don't refer to CCTV in their privacy policy, but VTWC do:

In certain circumstances we may need to disclose CCTV images for legal reasons. When this is done there is a requirement for the organisation that has received the images to adhere to the Data Protection Act.

I am unsure which "legal reasons" the purpose of "making the Leader of the Opposition look like a tit" comes under.

 

[southern442]

I think he was talking about how Jeremy C. represents change, similar to Donald Trump.

By that logic you can compare almost any political change to Donald Trump.

 

[Darandio]

I am unsure which "legal reasons" the purpose of "making the Leader of the Opposition look like a tit" comes under.

In all honesty, he has done that himself. If there are any grounds to think he hasn't done it personally, his team have.

 

[highdyke]

Who probably didn't have permission to film there...

As for me liking Corbyn Artic Troll, personally I suspect as a person I'd get on okay with him, I think just his politics are hopelessly naive...

Donald Trump? It's even more scary if he gets in.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In all honesty, he has done that himself. If there are any grounds to think he hasn't done it personally, his team have.

Indeed, and VTEC/VTWC could have made him look like a tit without publishing unredacted CCTV images of their customers. They could even let him open his mouth and he'll do it all by himself. Or if he doesn't, "Doctor" Eoin will do it for him.

So they don't even have "making him look like a tit" as a valid reason for processing the CCTV data

 

[matt_world2004]

They didn't film anyone on the train?

I'm aware of a video that "Doctor" Eoin Clarke posted on Twitter. I hope they throw the book at that asshat too.





There isn't a law that says THOU SHALT NOT PUT CCTV STILLS ON TEH INTERWEB.

Images of people are covered by the Data Protection Act. This says how that data should be treated- it should be accurate, it should be fair, you should have access rights, and it should only be processed for the purposes that it was obtained for.

The CCTV signs on VTEC says it is obtained for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety, and the data controller is East Coast Main Line Ltd. Therefore it should only be processed for that purpose and should only be processed by East Coast MainLine Ltd.

The fact that the images were provided to the media unredacted, and that the images were provided by Virgin Trains West Coast Ltd, is a double breach of the Data Protection Act.

VTEC don't refer to CCTV in their privacy policy, but VTWC do:



I am unsure which "legal reasons" the purpose of "making the Leader of the Opposition look like a tit" comes under.

Actually , there is a law that says that the protection of freedoms act 2012 requires the secretary of state to draw up a statutory code of practice for cctv use, and that says it would be inappropriate to out images on the Internet.

 

[thenorthern]

Regarding the release of CCTV I think someone who was shown in the CCTV would have to complain before the CPS would consider taking action and given that all the passengers featured bar Corbyn had their faces blurred its unlike they will complain.

In theory Corbyn could complain but what could he say? "I wanted to make a political point against a company so I went on a train and fabricated a story, in their defence Virgin Trains released a CCTV image of the train I was on which is wrong of them."

Jeremy Corbyn fabricated story though is similar to one that Labour made in the 90s, if we go by Labour's commitment with the railways they were already re-nationalised in 1997 just look at this quote. ''Labour's aim is clear to ensure a publicly owned, publicly accountable railway,'' John Prescott, 1997.

Just seen on the Information Commissioner's Office that they are making enquiries into Virgin Train's release of images under the Data Protection Act although I don't think they will take any action.