Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

More Project Fear Old Boy. It will be just fine on 25th May. I've seen it at first hand in both large and small organisations. Sounds like a consultant is having a banquet at someone's expense! A single set of rules will apply to all EU member states which simplifies matters, for example. We can't uninvent digital rights and the predecessor Data Protection Directive was from 1995!

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You seem completely blind to the additional burden on small organisations.

As I said, I don't have a problem with the principle of the legislation, but the kack handed way it expects the law to be applied. This 'single set of rules' could be applied simply by setting out what is expected of us all rather than have everyone chasing their tails putting in place privacy notices, etc.

Even if that was justified, why has the ICO not made models available? Instead, everybody has to draft from scratch. Do the EU think we have nothing better to do with our time?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Your issue is with how the UK chooses to implement GDPR, not in the privacy and protection that GDPR provides consumers in this new digital age. Your GDPR Project Fear will not come to pass. If some organisations choose to over-engineer their data protection that's their look-out.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You seem to be underestimating the impact of the GDPR, and in fact I wonder if you are perhaps being a little complacent about it.

Small organisations did not need privacy agreements until this beast from the EU East came along. Once again, you have ignored the point that all organisations are having to put in place documentation which could have been clauses in the legislation instead.

It's a fine example of EU red tape and I sincerely hope that a future UK government unravels it. If we are to be successful outside the EU, we need less regulation and red tape, not more.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Where does it state that it needs to be written down? Organisations will take a proportionate approach. The UK has said that this is best practice legislation that will continue in the future. If a consultant has sold you an over-engineered solution and you chose to blame the EU for your buyer remorse there's little I can do.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Not a good answer, Andrew. If it's not written down, how do you communicate the privacy policy to those whose personal data you are using? Thought transfer, perhaps?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Not a wise use of finances one must say..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-2017-election

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

In this day and age when companies like Cambridge Analytica misuse personal data, it's only right that every company guarantees only to process the data for the purpose for which it was given. The size of the company is irrelevant, that should be a basic right.
If you're a small company, internal procedures can be straightforward and proportionate. A standard privacy policy will suffice.
A GDPR industry has crept up, a bit like the millennium bug industry in 1999 with many scare-mongers prophisising gloom and doom to line their pockets. Bad news GDPR consultants, I wasn't fooled in 1999 and I won't be fooled now.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Good grief, Andrew, that EU bubble you are in still shows no sign of bursting! You have completely ignored my point that organisations are having to set out in documentation stuff that should be laid down in law, avoiding massive duplication by every organisation - even tiddlers like residents' associations and clubs.

There is not a problem with protecting personal data. It is the problem of laying down laws in a scattergun manner which ties everyone in knots.

Maybe you should talk to one of the small organisations affected by this and see how happy they are with the GDPR - if they even understand it.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4...about-the-GDPR

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Nothing in your link supports your wilder assertions and no one would be more surprised than me if ever you did find such a link!! If anything, that link shows what a sensible piece of legislation it is as the excerpt below highlights. I know many small organisations who don't fear progress and know the benefits of having legislation appropriate for the 21st century without over-engineering a solution.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The UK data protection and rights as it stands is incredibly lax compared to other countries in Europe. I have German and Belgian colleagues and the hoops that need to be jumped through are much harder than here in the UK.

In Germany, any employee data collected has to have a reason as to why this data is collected and what it will be used for. For example, if you wanted to measure a call centre performance but not measure individual performance, very strict measures must be taken to anonymise the data so there is no way of tracking back how many calls each individual has taken. If individuals data is captured, the reasons for this data capture is run by the company works council (union) representatives before it can be done.

In Belgium, we had big issues as a number of my companies data servers are based in the US. Our US data servers had to be audited by the Belgian government before this was allowed under Belgian law.

Interestingly, for most personal data, the US isn't very stringent on data protection. The one case I know where there is an exception to this is hospital patient data. This is covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which is incredibly stringent. Offshoring US patient data is very, very difficult.

GPDR is trying to put a 'one size fits all' approach to data protection which is an admirable aim I suppose. I understand it can be a pain to small businesses to set up compliance and did have the thought if there could be exemptions but then realised what about small law firms, insurance brokers, financial advisors, etc.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Once again, you've missed my point completely. It is the unnecessary burden on small businesses I am talking about.

As for your link, it talks about businesses being advised to use simple language in their (quite unnecessary but legally required) documentation. Pity they couldn't have used simple language and straight forward means of implementing the requirements in the legislation.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Tories heading for 'record all-time low' in London local elections according to new analysis.

https://news.sky.com/story/tories-he...tions-11297224

https://www.ft.com/content/f4cc8a98-...a-7e7563b0b0f4

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

It's necessary and Jon has explained to you why this is so. We're now in the 21st century, not the 19th. Even the week's revelations about Cambridge Analytica should have made you consider your posts more laterally as they could be classified as a small organisation.
Stating on your website in plain language why you are collecting information and the purpose for what it will be used for is not a burden, it's common sense and people are entitled to dealing with organisations that operate in this way. Your suggested approach of telling people that your data is being collected and they should refer to sub-section 7.1.2 of a particular regulation is unfair to most people who are not legally-trained.
Once again, you start off with the the objective of trying to criticise the EU and trying to get the facts to fit your thesis. Like a square peg in a round hole, they don't.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

CA only deals with commercial organisations and political organisations so your reference to them is spurious as they do not have dealings with the public.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

They have subsidiaries which apparently do. They are a very secretive billionaire-owned company but it looks like more information will be coming out in the public domain in the next few days.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The requirements on the subsidiaries would have no affect on the parent company so nice try at obfuscation Andrew.

If you want a lesson on parent/umbrella companies you just need to look at the now gone (amalgamated) Grand Metroplitan's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Metropolitan

Makes interesting reading for those who don't know how companies with subsidiaries operate. The parent/umbrella company may own the subsidiary but each one is run as it's own independent concern. Where the profits eventually end up is a different story.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Not sure how a potted history lesson from Wikipedia on a specific drinks company that ends in 1997 is relevant to this debate but if sarcasm is your thing then you'll appreciate me thanking you for taking part anyway. ;)
When people talk about say Ford or Cambridge Analytica they generally mean the whole of the company including its subsidiaries.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Thank you for showing your ignorance "Grand Metropolitan plc was a leisure, manufacturing and property conglomerate" some drinks company.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Thanks for showing a lack of courtesy and respect. They were a brewer (Websters, Watneys Red Barrel). pub owner, spiriits company (Baileys, Gilbeys). They owned different companies throughout their existence but latterly were a drinks company.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

They were never a brewer but bought some breweries.

Wrong again Andrew.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I believe that your reply omits three things imho:
1) Courtesy. Please disagree away but "wrong again" is not courteous. Why the antagonism mate?
2) Accuracy. Brewing was one of their core businesses so it makes them a brewer.
3) The fact that no one ever said they were a brewer from day one.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

4) 2 contradicts 3

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I am not saying that data shouldn't be protected, Andrew, I am saying that the legislation should set out how organisations deal with personal data.

For example, rather than have every organisation having to state that they will only use personal data for the purposes for which it was collected, the legislation itself should say something like:

'Where an organisation collects personal data by consent, it shall not use such data for any purpose that has not been agreed by the subject.'

It really is that simple, and it is a good example of how the EU seems to prefer always to tie everyone up in red tape.

Contrary to what you say, it certainly is a burden for small businesses, particularly when you remember that if you select the wrong category for describing the data usage, you cannot subsequently put it into a more appropriate category as you will be deemed to have breached the regulation. So you have to report yourself immediately you realise and face a huge fine!

This regulation is oppressive and should never have been enacted in its present form.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You need to speak to the Information Commissioner's Office Old Boy. You've either been mislead or you don't understand its approach. It's taking a carrot approach so don't expect fines, it will take places like yours a bit of time before they understand what's required so you won't be taken to the cleaners just yet.
The legislation is all about giving power to the people and encouraging companies to handle data in the way that they would want their own personal data handled.
I can't see an issue with companies having a privacy statement that confirms data will only be used for the purpose for which consent was given. legal good practice wording is to state a positive, not a negative so your wording fails that basic test.
Remember, a company's legitimate interest in processing data overrule's an individual's consent.
What precise circumstances do you mean? Can you provide an example?
But GDPR probably requires a separate thread itself as I'm seeing lots of intelligent people like you bamboozled and led to the nearest cashpoint by consultants and lawyers. ;)

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Thank you for making my point for me so explicitely, Andrew!

Sledgehammer. Nut. :D

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Nope, it's proportionate and sensible but like the Y2K bug, people will choose to believe otherwise to make it fit their beliefs. Sales people have sown the seeds of doubt in those predisposed to seeking the negatives in anything EU-related and I suspect you may have been at the buying end of such a person. One called them low-hanging fruit to me. Tell them that the EU is as bad as they think it is, flatter them for being right in 2016 and they'll open their cheque books before you can say Jacques Robinson!
Don't use customers' data for the purpose it wasn't intended for. Put yourself in the customer's shoes. Destroy customer data when it's no longer needed.
The issue is effective communication to people like you who try and find negatives in anything from the EU from the UK ICO and not the regulations themselves. That should change in May when their consumer campaign starts.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Interesting article on Cambridge Analytica.

http://adage.com/article/media/cambr...tstorm/312798/

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

:erm: not sure I like the sound of that, just what would constitute a legitimate interest . . or is it too broad a subject?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Proportionate? Sensible? Andrew, this legislation applies not only to medium and large size organisations, it applies to all organisations - even local football clubs and organised litter pickers. I have already found myself trying to dissuade some very active people from giving up their voluntary activities due to this ridiculously over the top piece of law.

For those who don't understand what this is all about, here is a very straight forward guide to what every organisation now has to do. Now just think what is involved to put something together which is going to be compliant with this. The full horror starts to dawn on you when you read this.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4...about-the-GDPR

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

So, in summary..

Someone has to allow you to keep any info that can personally identify them, and you need to record that assent.
You can’t use their info for any purpose other than what you said you would.
The info has to be accurate and kept securely.
Have a named person responsible for this info
You have to delete their info when requested.

Sounds fair to me...

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Yes, it is. However, that is not my point!
:banghead:

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

But how is that a huge overhead?

Surely, this is the minimum we should expect - we don't want our personal information to be misused, so the collectors of this information have a responsibility to make sure any info they have on us is relevant, necessary, and secure.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

It doesn't.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I am not questioning the need to keep personal data securely. I am questioning why every organisation, large and very small, have to justify their compliance with all this paperwork.

As I said a few times, the requirements to keep data safe should be set out in law, and that's it. No need for privacy statements and the like.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Because you have to prove that you are following the rules so have to demonstrate the data is secure and you have processes to prevent it's misuse. And misuse would include using it other than intended not just securing it from access.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

'If it's not written down, it didn't happen', a phrase used in many, many regulated industries.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Why do you have to prove it? Why can't it simply be that if you break the law, you are prosecuted?

I'm not a burglar, but I don't have to prove it with tons of documentation setting out my respect for other people's property!

Can nobody see what a nonsense this is?.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Because prevention is better than cure? (especially when the cure means that personal data is still out there - a fine won't make the data suddenly disappear from the wrong places).

And with most home insurances, if you don't have window locks and appropriate door locks (and can prove it), you won't be covered.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Are we looking for the phrase 'due diligence' here?
Proof that, even if it all goes wrong, you were aware of it and taking steps to prevent it :shrug:

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You could say that about everything. The law works well enough in other areas without tying everyone in knots.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Why is having a privacy policy tying anyone up in knots? It's just being fair to customers? If you've got pages of procedures written Old Boy then you're gold-plating things.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Why not start with 'Because it's not necessary to enforce the law'.

Unfortunately, bureaucratic minds love complication and making life difficult.

And that's not good for business, which works best with straight forward processes and light regulation. You can get absolutely the same result on data protection without requiring organisations to produce all this paperwork.

However, I don't think you will ever understand the concept, Andrew, judging by the responses you have given on this subject.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I think you'll find that you've failed in convincing anyone of your unusual views on this subject. Hugh, tweetiepooh, Carth, jonbxx have all challenged your interpretation. I'm not sure what you mean by paperwork, I suspect you have been sold a lemon by a consultant.

Hugh gave a great summary, it really isn't as hard as you make it out to be, and if anyone hands over their personal data they're entitled to know the purpose that it will be used for in plain English. This is pretty straightforward stuff, Old Boy.

It sounds as if you have a 20th century view on the value of personal data and only see the costs and not the benefits in keeping it secure and demonstrating this value to potential clients. That's an uncommercial and outdated approach to 21st century business challenges.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Once again, you are failing to grasp the point I am making. Of course personal data should be protected. Where have I said it shouldn't be? What I said was that the obligations of organisations should be set out in law, and not repeated in documentation issued by every organisation. That is efficient and effective and seems to work perfectly well in other areas of law.

By the way, a privacy notice is paperwork, Andrew, as is the millions of letters or emails sent to all service users to say what good, responsible people we are in getting your consent, despite the fact that you already knew why we were collecting your name and address in the first place.

Not every organisation is another Facebook or Cambridge Analytica. Talk about sledgehammers and nuts!

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I've not said that you've not said it shouldn't be protected. Where have I made such a statement?

The obligations for organisations are set out by the GDPR. But a privacy notice for Facebook will vary from that for a local snooker club, for example. That's sensible, proportionate and not a sledge hammer by any wild stretch of the imagination.

There is legitimate use of customer data, you don't need to get customers' consent if this is the case. If you're sending millions of emails it sounds like you're the consultants' favourite customer and are gold-plating things unnecessarily as your prejudices are overly-shaping your implementation.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You questioned my appreciation of the value of having personal data, Andrew. I do not misunderstand that.

But you certainly appear to misunderstand the impact of this regulation on small and medium sized organisations if you believe that you don't need to get customer consent to use their data.

I am secretary of an organisation that collects names and addresses simply for the purpose of collecting subscriptions and sending information to our members. That is perfectly legitimate, but we still have to write to all 1000 odd subscribers and get their written consent to the collection of this data, and tell them how we use it, although they already know. We also have to give them all our privacy document.

This is simply unreasonable, short and simple. Apart from the time taken to compile all of this, we have to spend money on printing this lot, and train everyone on their duties under the regulations even though they already comply. We cannot risk a fine for not doing any of this properly.

I think you need to read the regulation again, Andrew, because I don't think you have taken the full implications on board.

Just read the ICO site and consider how a small organisation gets its head around all of this. It's a flaming nightmare. And totally unnecessary to tackle the problem this way.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I'm afraid you have misinterpreted the regulations Old Boy and tied yourself up in knots. Legitmate use over-rules consent. I suggest you speak to the ICO.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I think you are very complacent about this, Andrew.

The ICO makes it clear that if you collect personal data by consent, you have to tell every person affected for what purposes it will be used (even though it may be obvious) and get their informed consent. They have to be given a copy of your privacy notice as well. On consent, this is one of six 'lawful bases for processing' and by processing, they mean even simply keeping names and addresses. You have to tell people what the lawful basis is for collecting their data, and if you get it wrong, you have to grass on yourself by owning up to the ICO immediately, for which you will be subject to a huge fine.

From the ICO site itself:

What are the lawful bases for processing?

The lawful bases for processing are set out in Article 6 of the GDPR. At least one of these must apply whenever you process personal data:

(a) Consent: the individual has given clear consent for you to process their personal data for a specific purpose.

(b) Contract: the processing is necessary for a contract you have with the individual, or because they have asked you to take specific steps before entering into a contract.

(c) Legal obligation: the processing is necessary for you to comply with the law (not including contractual obligations).

(d) Vital interests: the processing is necessary to protect someone’s life.

(e) Public task: the processing is necessary for you to perform a task in the public interest or for your official functions, and the task or function has a clear basis in law.

(f) Legitimate interests: the processing is necessary for your legitimate interests or the legitimate interests of a third party unless there is a good reason to protect the individual’s personal data which overrides those legitimate interests. (This cannot apply if you are a public authority processing data to perform your official tasks.)


Why the need for all this? Because the EU is a huge bureaucratic organisation that likes to control people by getting them to jump through their hoops. We will be well out of it when we leave, and my hope is that legislation like this (eg the Acquired Rights Directive, Working Time Directive, etc) will be simplified in UK legislation after we leave the EU.

You can achieve what you want to achieve without making legislation so complicated and time consuming for everyone.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

You're misunderstanduing things to match your strong prejudices and this inefficiency is costing your members in wasted admin costs.This is your typical anti-EU Project Fear manifesting itself again Old Boy even if its subliminal.
GDPR is about protecting individuals from the state and corporations. Standing up for the little guy.
You put your privacy notice on your website, destroy data when it's not required and advise people why you need their data and the purpose it will be used for. I'm fully conversant with the ICO's stance on fines and it's very much a carrot approach not a stick one. It's a UK upgrade to better privacy and the ICO knows things won't be picture perfect on 25th May but they will be seeking good practice starting with large organisations not small clubs. All your costly gold-plating ane mail-outs neeeds a rethink and I urge you to seek advice before spending more unnecessary time and money on this.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Many small organisations don't have websites, Andrew, so they have to resort to printing and delivering door to door. You cannot deny with any credibility that we have to be able to prove consent, and this means we have to get people to accept in writing.

I am livid about this whole thing and I dare say that I have alerted people reading this thread to the insidious way in which EU bureaucracy is creeping into our lives, making innovation seem to be more trouble than it's worth.

It's not sticking up for the little guy. It's making life a misery for voluntary and charitable organisations, clubs and SMEs. The little guy gets bombarded with conditions every time he/she signs up for a service. I know for a fact that most people sign up without reading these terms because they are pages and pages long. All the bureaucracy achieves nowt.

Anyway, you are never going to admit that this is OTT, but I hope I have got my point across to others. And if anyone reading this finds that they may be affected by this because they hold personal data, don't just accept Andrew's soothing words. Don't be complacent - go to the ICO website and read it for yourself.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Maybe think in 21st century manner and put it on a Google doc and make it public. Think creatively and try and reduce the costs for your members. Don't gold plate your privacy statement, a few sentences will do.
Everyone else has tried to point out your misinterpretation so I'm quite happy if you take Hugh's word or Jon's instead.
You're livid because you're misunderstanding things. Please save your members time and money by connnecting more with the ICO and less with your anti-EU prejudices.
You also seem to have forgotten that legitimate use over rules consent. Or is this an inconvenient truth?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Sorry OB but I agree with the others, you are reading too much into what you think is required as opposed to what actually is.

I would suggest you contact the ICO and get the relevant advice before taking action which may prove expensive and unnecessary.

https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Well, I can read the ico website as well as anyone, and if People Management believe there is a problem for small organisations, people will be advised to take this seriously.

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/n...nto-GDPR-abyss


Ann Bevitt, partner at law firm Cooley, said a reported lack of preparation for the GDPR could be the result of smaller businesses that have been outside previous EU directives on data protection. “There are a lot of smaller companies and tech start-ups that are not caught by existing EU law, but will be caught by the GDPR,” she told People Management.

“Within that population, the vast majority are just waking up to it, purely because they did not anticipate that the GDPR would apply to them. Those small companies will also have to grapple with a steeper learning curve than larger organisations, because they do not have that base of directive compliance to build on, so will have to get to grips with the terminology and legal bases.”

According to the report, companies could be forced to spend eight hours a day, or 172 hours a month, on data searches after the implementation of the GDPR, with more than one in three (39 per cent) UK-based directors saying they were concerned about their ability to be compliant. More than one in 10 (13 per cent) UK companies said they were not confident they knew where their data was housed, while 12 per cent reported that they had not accounted for all databases.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

For fear of pointing out the obvious, none of that magazine's reproduction of a law firm's press release justifies the way that you are expensivley gold plating GDPR for a small club.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

What, that we have to contact everybody to explain our policy and construct a privacy notice? In the end, that's what it has meant for us. That is why small organisations have got a problem. In order to do this, you have to read and understand all the ico guidance, and unfortunately they have failed to produce models so that you can just fill in the blanks.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

As others have said, you are doing far, far more than you need to. Having some lateral thoughts like those I've suggested will save you a ton of money.
To consider it another way, how many councils, organisations or companies have contacted you to inform you of their privacy policies?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The larger companies probably don't rely so much on the 'consent' justification, have web sites and a great deal of in house expertise on data protection.

Smaller organisations have not previously been covered by the data protection regime and normally do rely on consent to gather their data, which is often only names and addresses.

I still say, however, that whatever you say about this, there are better ways of passing laws that should not need to require a level of organisational bureaucracy to enforce.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The ICO has some useful information on its website about what you need to do. I think you will find it good news and will hopefully reduce the work which you have envisaged, thereby allowing you to put your feet up this Easter and watch some more telly. :)
https://ico.org.uk/media/1624219/pre...r-12-steps.pdf

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Section 7 in that PDF resolves OB's main complaint.

As I said he's reading more into it than is what is required.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Unfortunately, it doesn't. If you just look at the summary paragraphs, this doesn't look too bad, but read the detail behind it, and the reality becomes clear.

Anyway, let's move on. We are not getting anywhere here. If the amount of denial on this forum is reflected throughout organisations, there will be a lot of panicking going on further down the road.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The Conservatives are bracing themselves for disaster in next month's local elections.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/...e-the-capital/

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Jewish population in London is huge, they would not vote in a Anti-Semitic party by any shot.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Not surprised one iota, Theresa May's pandering to Brextremists may go down well outside London but not in it. Whilst the Brexit vote was seen by some as a protest vote, the local council elections are being seen by some as a protest vote against the Government's extreme interpretation of the protest vote. Interesting times. I feel sorry for local councillors fighting for local issues who are set to be unseated by national issues, but I guess it has always been so.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Yes it has and shows the stupidity of a large part of the electorate.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

l think you are overestimating the influence of Brexit on voters Andrew when its comes to them voting at the ballot box as there are many other important issues affecting this country currently.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

London's different from the rest of the country, Den. This is not my insight, it's come from research conducted by Conservative Central Office. The ousting of the Conservatives in Wandsworth would have not even been thought possible two years ago.

To quote from the article that you posted "The two biggest problems on the doorstep are Theresa May, who seems to embody a Shires Toryism, and Brexit, which three-in-five Londoners voted against."

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Is it as significant cuts to council spending budgets affect the populace on a daily basis Andrew with services which has been cut significantly to the bone so much so that many councils are just about managing a very basic service while many of our important services like the NHS , etc , etc are having widespread day to day problems just keeping their head above the water.


https://www.citymetric.com/politics/...d-numbers-3773

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-43451926

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

That should boost the struggling Liberal Democrats, as many Jews detected anti-semitism in Theresa May's "Citizen of the World, citizen of nowhere speech."
https://www.thejc.com/blogs/the-jc-b...g-here-1.51278

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Anyone that votes acertain way in local elections because of brexit is stupid the hint is in the title "local" and if they haven't come to terms with brexit by now that's their problem but voting a certain way because of brexit in local elections shows that stupidity is present on both sides of the issue.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Brexit has really nothing to do with it. There has always been a majority who use the local elections as a protest vote for whatever reason against whichever party in power.

That is where the stupidity arises.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Yes and those same people will complain they are not listened too on local matters when they waste a big part of their say with irrelevant reasoning.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I wouldn't describe it as "huge". 172,000 from a population of around 8.8 million, just under 2%.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Er - the voters voted for Brexit, Andrew. Theresa May didn't. So why is this a protest against Theresa May?

The world's gone mad!

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Yes it's a shame the economy was left in such a mess by the last Labour Government. Had it not been for their 13 year spending spree, we would be in a much better place now.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The 9 years of ineptitude, infighting, EU obsessed Tories since then might also be a factor. How long can they keep blaming Labour?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

We all know Labour trashed the economy 9 years ago but its a rather easy and simplistic to blame them totally for all todays deep ills as both parties have to take their share of blame IMO.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Infighting? I think you have the wrong party.

Infighting is occurring in Labour!

The Tories can keep blaming them while there is an incompetent, pathetic and weak leader when it comes to racist and anti-Semitic actions within the Labour Party, as far I am concerned.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

No I've got the right party they've been infighting and obsessed with the EU for 40 years. Meanwhile domestic issues can go hang.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:29 ----------

Well they may need to take some of the blame, but the (B)ankers seem to have got off scott free. The financial crisis was Worldwide.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

There is more infighting going on in Labour, because the party is being ripped apart by far left Corbinites.

Obsessed for the right reasons because we never should have joined!

They remedied that by finally giving the people the choice to leave the corrupted EU.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Well, if it hadn't been for Labour's ineptitude, there would have been no need for austerity, so they are right to still be blaming Labour.

The fighting is because a comfortable majority does not exist. The same happened with the 1970s Callaghan government.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Looks like Corbyn's peaked.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Well, it seems they've been proved right, and at last the electorate have caught up. They have been 'obsessing' because they could see the damage the EU would do and was doing to our country.

After 10 years outside the EU post Brexit, I think the vast majority will agree that this was a good move, provided that Corbyn's lot don't get in and make a huge mess of things, as they would.

---------- Post added at 11:23 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

Let's hope so, for the good of the country and certainly for our future security.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

BREAKING: Amber Rudd has resigned as Home Secretary following the Windrush Scandal.

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-m...ation-11353254

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Her position was pretty untenable IMO as the Windrush Scandal unfolded.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

She could have weathered the Windrush stuff. It was misleading Parliament that got her, even if it was (possibly) unwittingly. In the eyes of MP's that's worse than acid bath murderer.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Yeah Windrush wasn't really her fault apart from responding slowly when she learned of it.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I still want to know who set the targets..

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Are not the targets set by the PM?.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Yep.

And lets remember here, so far, Conservative MPs who have accepted wrong doing in the cabinet have resigned when faced with tough pressure.

In the Labour Party, where Antisemitism is rife, so far there is a leader who won't deal with the problem properly despite being under pressure, i.e by sacking Ken Livingston or resign.

And also lets face it, those people calling Rudd out on the left, want Labour to be in control, that would be cannot count, Diane Abbott as Home Secretary.... who had a previous history of supporting the IRA along with her previous lover boy, Corbyn.

It was also in the news yesterday that Russia influenced last years snap election to get Jeremy Corbyn elected, the Putin appeasing he has been doing of late, makes total sense now. :rolleyes:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...Election-Putin

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 ----------

There should be targets set to control illegal immigration. The UK is a small Island, we cannot sustain 300K immigrants per year, we already have a chronic housing shortage...

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

If her colleagues had rallied around her, she would have survived and doubtless learnt from her mistakes. But the Brexit-Remaion split in the party ensured that many Brexiters did not support her.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

l am not saying there should not be targets set but there are fair and reasonable targets which are perfectly fine but what is not fine is treating people who have worked here , lived here . paid their taxes here , etc , etc inhumanely and cruelly as that is appalling and unacceptable in anybody's mind....

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Sajid Javid has replaced Rudd as Home Secretary.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The problem is that there isn't a clear legal/illegal status for many people and when you add targets that staff are compelled to meet then in those situations the default position would be deportation rather than caution and that is what happened here.

The position should be that all illegal immigrants are deported when found but there isn't any point being a arbitrary number on it. For a start we don't have definitive numbers on how many of them there...

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Exactly what May has said on Sky news earlier.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

The logical target would be a percentage, not a value. So, deport 95% of illegal immigrants in 12 months for example not deport 100,000 illegal immigrants.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

For all I or you know the target could be expressed as a percentage.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

This article suggests a number. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3826551.html

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I was responding to your post that a percentage was a logical way of setting a target. The 2,800 quoted was for enforced repatriation. Neither add up.

Their cannot be a percentage set as a target for illegal immigration as the total figure is an unknown. For every one illegal immigrant there are possilbly another 5 unknown That is the nature if illegal immigration, no-one ever know the true figure. Many may never be detected.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Smart move, put someone who isn't white in charge of kicking other non white people out of the country, we won't see through that

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I think this is unlikely but interesting that it's even being mentioned nonetheless:
Subscription link: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...lock-3ppzg9l3r
Also see non-subscription link https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...ef=uk-homepage