Amberexile wrote:Maybe so but you are still wrong about Article 6.1(f).

If you would forward me the case whereby an appellate court engaged in the statutory interpretation of 6.1(f) and found in favour of your analysis I will gladly concede.

As shareholder names are given on Companies House annual returns, I'd assume Registered Societies (in this case Newport County AFC Supporters Society Limited) are required to make names of shareholder names public (exempt from GDPR requirements).

Art 6.1(f) requires a strong reason, and if Companies House and (I think) the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 both shield individual home addresses and email addresses from the public, the reason for the info would need to be better than just 'election canvassing'.

amberexile is right, the existing system of the trust forwarding election material would be less intrusive. But as in my original post, I think the club ought to start pushing members to provide their consent to publishing their name.

I'm all for transparency, but playing devil's advocate, there is the real risk that a list of trust members would descend into blanket criticism fans for not being in the trust. For some, £60 is a lot of money. For others not so much. It shouldn't become the sole measure of whether you're a true fan or not.

Can o' worms, eh?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:Maybe so but you are still wrong about Article 6.1(f).

If you would forward me the case whereby an appellate court engaged in the statutory interpretation of 6.1(f) and found in favour of your analysis I will gladly concede.

As I said you are so sure you are right and I am wrong. All you have to do is sent on the citation of the case which proves your point and I will gladly concede.

Still waiting Paul. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Touche

I am surprised you wish to revisit your embarrassment over this subject and believe that landinho's response more than adequately put you back in your box. Toodle pip.

Amberexile wrote:I am surprised you wish to revisit your embarrassment over this subject and believe that landinho's response more than adequately put you back in your box. Toodle pip.

Try reading what Landinho says. His view is that contact details of an electorate being made to those seeking election are not a strong enough reason to invoke 6.1(f). I believe he is wrong. But as I stressed that is only an my opinion. And having spent 20 years in working statutory interpretation I would never be so stupid to say that I am right and he is wrong. Unless or until the Court of Appeal or perhaps the Supreme Court give a decision on this only a complete idiot would make such a pronouncement.

Now you made an unequivocal statement about my view. Let me quote you. '..you are still wrong about Article 6.1.(f).

Clearly as you are not a complete idiot, you would not have made such a statement unless a higher court had ruled on this. So please just forward me the citation. Unless of course you are a complete idiot and no such citation exists.

Ha ha, you really do seem to be enjoying making a tit of yourself today Mr Pedant.

I have tried to point out to you how the regulations workin the real world and give you the benefit of my knowledge of this area.

If you cannot accept that without getting into childish my dad's bigger than yours nonsense I think that rather says a lot about you.

I am confident that those with knowledge of the regulations will agree with my assessment. Whether you do or not I really couldn't care less as I hold my peer group in higher regard. You are wrong about 6.1(f) that's my informed opinion, you can like it or lump it.

Another piss poor attempt to divert attention away from answering the question? I know I'm getting bored of it and I'm pretty sure others are as well.

Amberexile wrote:Ha ha, you really do seem to be enjoying making a tit of yourself today Mr Pedant.

I have tried to point out to you how the regulations workin the real world and give you the benefit of my knowledge of this area.

If you cannot accept that without getting into childish my dad's bigger than yours nonsense I think that rather says a lot about you.

I am confident that those with knowledge of the regulations will agree with my assessment. Whether you do or not I really couldn't care less as I hold my peer group in higher regard. You are wrong about 6.1(f) that's my informed opinion, you can like it or lump it.

Another piss poor attempt to divert attention away from answering the question? I know I'm getting bored of it and I'm pretty sure others are as well.

So I take it there is no case you can cite?

A little unfair of me, I know there is no such case. So to help you I presume you will have at the very least done your Pepper v Hart research. If you haven't I suggest you do. Read the case, [1992] UKHL 3. You will then need to do some fairly long research using Hansard.

Hope this helps.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:Ha ha, you really do seem to be enjoying making a tit of yourself today Mr Pedant.

I have tried to point out to you how the regulations workin the real world and give you the benefit of my knowledge of this area.

If you cannot accept that without getting into childish my dad's bigger than yours nonsense I think that rather says a lot about you.

I am confident that those with knowledge of the regulations will agree with my assessment. Whether you do or not I really couldn't care less as I hold my peer group in higher regard. You are wrong about 6.1(f) that's my informed opinion, you can like it or lump it.

Another piss poor attempt to divert attention away from answering the question? I know I'm getting bored of it and I'm pretty sure others are as well.

So I take it there is no case you can cite?

A little unfair of me, I know there is no such case. So to help you I presume you will have at the very least done your Pepper v Hart research. If you haven't I suggest you do. Read the case, [1992] UKHL 3. You will then need to do some fairly long research using Hansard.

Hope this helps.

Just proves what a tit you are making of yourself really.
YAWN

I take it having run out of argument you are now going to resort to insults. If repeatedly calling me a tit makes you feel better about yourself be my guest.

But just so as you are clear, I don't think that disagreeing is bad, I don't say you are wrong. What I do find unfortunate is your certainty and that those who have the temerity to disagree with you are tits and pedants.

As you say that others can read this and make up their own minds. Unlike yourself I don't know what other people think.

I will happily educate you by answering your questions about the implementation of GDPR in the real world if you wish to become more conversant with how the regulations work in reality. I won't even charge the usual consultancy fee.

Just fire off your questions and I'll do all I can to help you within my sphere of knowledge.

However, if your answer to everything is going to be "and has that been proven in the Supreme Court" before you accept it, I expect you will be wasting your time and mine.

If you would like to understand the practice of the regulations as relevant to the club, it may be best to focus your questions on the example at hand of trust election canvassing. What is your first question?

Brendan, my answer to your deleted(?) post was

That our legal system is so debased as to be worthless.

Do you want to learn something about GDPR in practice in relation to Newport County?

Amberexile wrote:Brendan, my answer to your deleted(?) post was

That our legal system is so debased as to be worthless.

Do you want to learn something about GDPR in practice in relation to Newport County?

I decided to let you have the last word. Your last few posts have been nothing but insults and frankly you bore me.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:Brendan, my answer to your deleted(?) post was

That our legal system is so debased as to be worthless.

Do you want to learn something about GDPR in practice in relation to Newport County?

I decided to let you have the last word. Your last few posts have been nothing but insults and frankly you bore me.

I'll take that as a compliment

I always considered myself somewhat of a narcissist who could not handle being wrong, would never accept guidance from others and had an ego bigger than any individual person in whatever room I was in.

Then I came across Stan Einstein.