Fuming over accident

wiogs

I wasn't talking about third party data.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

wiogs

hollydays wrote: »

Right so to help the op are we saying the swimming pool wouldn't have had an accident book?

Has anyone suggested that?

hollydays

hollydays wrote: »

Right so to help the op are we saying the swimming pool wouldn't have had an accident book?

Answer the question..
I pretty sure all you experts would know that it would be a suggestion that an accident book be provided..

Blackpool_Saver

Indie_Kid wrote: »

How rude. Age has nothing to do with it.

:rotfl:

I am so sorry, I apologise unreservedly

hollydays

Who did mention this third party data then?

wiogs

hollydays wrote: »

Answer the question..

I would have hoped the pool has some means of accident/incident reporting.

Not that anyone has suggested otherwise

DevCoder

hollydays wrote: »

Right so to help the op are we saying the swimming pool wouldn't have had an accident book?

It probably would have, but there is no legal right to record the full name and address (or indeed anything) of any accident. RIDDOR came into effect, to ensure the legal responsibility of employers to report accidents involving employees.

to recap

1. You insisted that CCTV footage could be disclosed of a third party to a fellow third party (alluding to the OP's post 14) . This is incorrect
2. You insisted that the CCTV footage could be gained under DSAR. This is incorrect.
3. You insisted that DSAR trumps the CCTV disclosure and DPA regulations. This is incorrect.
4. You insisted that the full name and address needs to be recorded in an accident book for non employees (i.e. non RIDDOR). This is incorrect. This is considered best practise (only for customer service, if they really care about that) but is not legally binding.
5. You insist that CCTV footage can be "edited" to comply with CCTV regulation (they may do this but they probably won't, its not a legal entitlement). In reality it would require repeated HSE complaint (from multiple parties) or a criminal complaint (as the police don't get involved in civil matters) for this footage to be released to the relevant authorities who may (not would) go to the expense of video editing (or just drop the CCTv evidence from any case).

wiogs

hollydays wrote: »

Who did mention this third party data then?

The OP, originally

Fishcake_Random

Kris - thank you for your reply. Your outline is pretty much what I want - an acknowledgement of what happened and an apology to DD. I would dearly hope they would put things in place to stop a reoccurrence or ensure their staff are made aware of what they should actually do.

Hollyday - thank you for your continued support with all the personal attacks. Your wonderful x

hollydays

wiogs wrote: »

The OP, originally

Ok . So we've established it's not me., despite all the attacks saying it is..

Are we not here to support and advise the op?