Quoting POPLA Assessors' names - beware it will be edited out

Half_way

For a (very) short while i was involved with something where my name would be published for clarity openness and traceability However this was not my real name but a company assigned name. I would not be surpsed in the slightest if POPLA were using corporate names, for instance Stephen Adams may be a (POPLA assessors real name, but his decisions are signed under Gregory Jhones

hoohoo

I suggest that we use abbreviations. That way we can still tell if one particular assessor is going off the rails. We all know their names anyway.

Edna_Basher

It would be useful for MSE to clarify exactly where the boundary lies with regard to their interpretation of "personal details".

For example, does this really extend to the name of anybody employed in a public-facing role in any organisation (be that in the public or private sector)?

Does this really mean that we cannot give posters on this Forum the e-mail addresses of the CEOs at Asda, Lidl, DVLA etc.?

Does this really mean that we cannot name sole trader parking operators such as W****n W*****s (t/a Premier Parking Logistics) even though they are required by Law to identify themselves wherever they trade?

pappa_golf

Edna_Basher wrote: »

It would be useful for MSE to clarify exactly where the boundary lies with regard to their interpretation of "personal details".

For example, does this really extend to the name of anybody employed in a public-facing role in any organisation (be that in the public or private sector)?

Does this really mean that we cannot give posters on this Forum the e-mail addresses of the CEOs at Asda, Lidl, DVLA etc.?

Does this really mean that we cannot name sole trader parking operators such as W****n W*****s (t/a Premier Parking Logistics) even though they are required by Law to identify themselves wherever they trade?

W****n W*****s (t/a Premier Parking Logistics) is now a IPC member so fair game for gladstones


sorry I meant , gladstones welcomed him to the IPC whilst handing him the gladstones solisitor brochure

HO87

Why is anyone surprised?

This forum is privately owned and as a consequence we either play by their rules or not. That means:

They can run off with the ball if they feel like it.
There is no right of reply.
We can lump it.

But then we did agree to the t's and c's when we signed up and if we didn't read them through then more fool us.

HO87

Edna_Basher wrote: »

It would be useful for MSE to clarify exactly where the boundary lies with regard to their interpretation of "personal details".

For example, does this really extend to the name of anybody employed in a public-facing role in any organisation (be that in the public or private sector)?

Does this really mean that we cannot give posters on this Forum the e-mail addresses of the CEOs at Asda, Lidl, DVLA etc.?

Does this really mean that we cannot name sole trader parking operators such as W****n W*****s (t/a Premier Parking Logistics) even though they are required by Law to identify themselves wherever they trade?

It would seem so.

Don't forget as this is a privately owned forum they can redefine "down" as "up" if they so choose - to draw a slightly and hopefully ludicrous analogy.

However, I make the point that had it not been for the freedom to name individuals (where their details appeared in the public domain) on this forum in the past several scams - that in one case resulted in an individual voluntarily handing himself in to the police - would not have been exposed and appropriately dealt with.

I accept however that it is the owners right to curtail any privilege they extend to us as members.

henrik777

Wonder what Martin Lewis thinks :cool:

Fruitcake

henrik777 wrote: »

Wonder what Martin Lewis thinks :cool:

Don't tell him Pike!

The_Deep

Whilst it is all very well saying that it is their ball, they can make the rules, in a consumer oriented board such as this, the owners have a responsibility to ensure that certain facts, including the naming of MPs, Hight Court Judges, Adjudicators, and Company Officers guilty of wromgdoings are not protected.

HO87

The_Deep wrote: »

Whilst it is all very well saying that it is their ball, they can make the rules, in a consumer oriented board such as this, the owners have a responsibility to ensure that certain facts, including the naming of MPs, Hight Court Judges, Adjudicators, and Company Officers guilty of wromgdoings are not protected.

I suggest that any such responsibility is likely to be only a moral one and that their overall responsibility to maintain the forum as a whole (in the face of a libel accusation, for example) is likely to be far greater. To think otherwise would be a mistake.