Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

The police are taxpayer funded.
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for security at the Labour party conference?

I think it's pretty important that something like Her Majesty's Opposition can determine an opposition policy platform. There's a pretty reasonable argument party conferences are a public good for the functioning of our political system; even if you're a Conservative taxpayer there are benefits to have a strong opposition to make sure your ideas are tested as well as they can be. I'd have no real objection to allowing party conferences police access.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think it's pretty important that something like Her Majesty's Opposition can determine an opposition policy platform. There's a pretty reasonable argument party conferences are a public good for the functioning of our political system; even if you're a Conservative taxpayer there are benefits to have a strong opposition to make sure your ideas are tested as well as they can be. I'd have no real objection to allowing party conferences police access.

Well, Her Majesty's Opposition aren't having a conference, the Labour Party are.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Well, Her Majesty's Opposition aren't having a conference, the Labour Party are.

Yep, it's a partisan party conference which should be paid for by the party.

Hardly vital for policymaking, conferences are glorified fundraisers.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, Her Majesty's Opposition aren't having a conference, the Labour Party are.

As much as it can be nice to pretend otherwise, democracy is parties and partisan are democracy. The Opposition is just a function of their party.

Political parties are not well understood as private organizations, really. They're more like appendages of the state.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

It should all be state funded. Would cut out a chunk of lobbying and probably save more money then it costs in the long run

 

[Kuros]

I'm not sure who football marshals work for technically (whether they're "in house" or outsourced) but they're paid for by the clubs, that's for sure. The police are only outside the stand (on their pretty horsies) and only enter the stadiums if there is an actual public disorder thing going on. Ie a massive fight or pitch invasion or whatever. As Maledict said, they aren't responsible for providing security to provide property but they are responsible for stopping crimes in progress.

Edit: Incidentally, they will often make sure there aren't too many home games for multiple clubs in the same city on the same day due to policing resources. This is especially the case for London where you have so many big teams all under the Met.

There are police in the stadium. Every ground has a Police control room and they run the security of every game. This tab is picked up by the club.

The police employed outside the ground are not paid for by the clubs though and they should be.

 

[War Peaceman]

Weren't the police heavily involved with the last Conservative party conference? I was trying to google it, but it wasn't very clear.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The police are taxpayer funded.
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for security at the Labour party conference?

Yeah, I can see the argument that these are basically "clubs", but at the same time over the years they've become a big part of the political calendar. I think it's basically in the public interest that party conferences go ahead. And I'm not exactly a Labour voter by nature! But I would still like to see them set out their vision for the UK.

 

[Jezbollah]

I think it's as Kuros said - the security internally is by a private company, but externally its the police (and as we all remember there were demonstrations outside the venue at the last conference....)

 

[CyclopsRock]

As much as it can be nice to pretend otherwise, democracy is parties and partisan are democracy. The Opposition is just a function of their party.

Political parties are not well understood as private organizations, really. They're more like appendages of the state.

Well as long as they're an "appendage" that's charging money for entry, they can pay for the security too.

There are police in the stadium. Every ground has a Police control room and they run the security of every game. This tab is picked up by the club.

The police employed outside the ground are not paid for by the clubs though and they should be.

I see!

Weren't the police heavily involved with the last Conservative party conference? I was trying to google it, but it wasn't very clear.

Only in the sense that they're all shagging kids in the "fringe", yeah.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well as long as they're an "appendage" that's charging money for entry, they can pay for the security too.

All in favour of getting rid of this, but you'd need to give parties state funding if so.

 

[tomtom94]

All in favour of getting rid of this, but you'd need to give parties state funding if so.

Do UK parties not get a certain amount (small, but an amount nonetheless) of state funding as it is?

 

[Nicktendo86]

Do UK parties not get a certain amount (small, but an amount nonetheless) of state funding as it is?

Opposition get short money, yes. Don't think parties in gov do though. Not sure.

 

[Jackpot]

Do UK parties not get a certain amount (small, but an amount nonetheless) of state funding as it is?

They also get a chunk of funding from the EU. Even UKIP.

 

[Hazzuh]

Greens' Caroline Lucas proposes Labour election pact


Someone needs to tell the Green party that there already is a "progressive alliance" in the UK and it's called the Labour party.

 

[JonathanEx]

The whole 'progressive alliance' thing bugs me because it's a thing that a bunch of people on Twitter say will be amazing and Corbyn will do it and it'll bring in the left future, despite the fact Corbs never said he's for it, it'll never work and shut up it it's a rubbish idea. Like, what do Labour have to gain from this election pact idea? Save a bit of money from Brighton? Outside of that, what?


Just noticed our new title too. Incredible.

 

[Lagamorph]

I don't think the word "alliance" can be used in any description of the Labour party right now.

 

[Mindwipe]

The whole 'progressive alliance' thing bugs me because it's a thing that a bunch of people on Twitter say will be amazing and Corbyn will do it and it'll bring in the left future, despite the fact Corbs never said he's for it, it'll never work and shut up it it's a rubbish idea. Like, what do Labour have to gain from this election pact idea? Save a bit of money from Brighton? Outside of that, what?


Just noticed our new title too. Incredible.

It also relies on the idea that the public are willing to vote for a different party just because a prospective MP tells them to.

They're probably not. I voted Green at the last election as a protest against the Labour Party, and I suspect I'm not uncommon.

The Greens and the Labour party are not super close policy wise.

(Edit: this further cements my position that Lucas does not deserve her positive reputation in the slightest.)

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Watched the news and saw some Corbyn apologist saying this was inconclusive evidence manafactured by Virgin trains, there could be small people in those seats, who knows....

 

[8bit]

When did it become OK for a private company to release CCTV images into the public?

 

[Garrett Hawke]

The dumbest thing about this stupid train scandal is if he'd taken probably one more train he would've been on and seen an actually packed train.

Why on earth you would have to fabricate a packed train is beyond me.

 

[Lagamorph]

When did it become OK for a private company to release CCTV images into the public?

When was it ever not OK? The images are taken in what is essentially a public place.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Today he's launched an arts policy, with specifics listed that show he doesn't understand arts policy at all as it covers devolved matters that he cannot interfere with. Amateur hour.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Just noticed our new title too. Incredible.

I have my "jammy git" post all queued up for when he wins the leadership contest. So no-one steal that pls.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Someone needs to tell the Green party that there already is a "progressive alliance" in the UK and it's called the Liberal Democrats

Hey buddy, I fixed your post for you.

Labour conference not going ahead would be a hilarious capstone to the Corbyn affair.

Also I expect if Lucas wins for competent leafleters across the UK will view her desire for a pacts as gold - it's a good quote to destroy the Greens with. Here in Liverpool we can print it as the Greens here basically supporting Joe Anderson!

 

[EmiPrime]

When did it become OK for a private company to release CCTV images into the public?

It's a breach of the data protection act that is politically motivated because Virgin obviously don't want the railways to be renationalised.

I've long since fallen out of love with Corbyn but I didn't particularly like Smith either. Smith is winning me over however because he's going to defend the UK's EU membership so I hope he wins (not that I can vote).

 

[QuicheFontaine]

It's a breach of the data protection act that is politically motivated because Virgin obviously don't want the railways to be renationalised.

I've long since fallen out of love with Corbyn but I didn't particularly like Smith either. Smith is winning me over however because he's going to defend the UK's EU membership so I hope he wins (not that I can vote).

Lolwut? No it's not. It's a video taken on a train.

 

[StayDead]

Lolwut? No it's not. It's a video taken on a train.

It's a breach of privacy though of the people on the train.

 

[EmiPrime]

Lolwut? No it's not. It's a video taken on a train.

You're not allowed to release CCTV footage because somebody said something mean about your company.

When can CCTV images be disclosed?

You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system.

CCTV operators are not allowed to disclose images of identifiable people to the media - or to put them on the internet - for entertainment. Images released to the media to help identify a person are usually disclosed by the police.
An organisation may need to disclose CCTV images for legal reasons - for example, crime detection. Once they have given the images to another organisation, then that organisation must adhere to the Data Protection Act in their handling of the images.
Public authorities are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2000. This Act allows members of the public to request official information by writing to the public authority, who must respond within 20 working days. If the images are those of the person making the request, then the request would be handled under the Data Protection Act as a Subject Access Request. If, however, other people are identifiable in the CCTV pictures, then the images would be considered personal information and it is likely they would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

 

[Kuros]

Today he's launched an arts policy, with specifics listed that show he doesn't understand arts policy at all as it covers devolved matters that he cannot interfere with. Amateur hour.

You have a link? I've seen it on Twitter but no articles about the devolved part.

 

[Jezbollah]

With regards to the legality of what Virgin have done (specifically the CCTV captures), I saw this interesting blog entry

This chap was a Data Protection / FOI Officer in local government and the NHS for nearly ten years and worked for the UK Information Commissioner.

https://2040infolawblog.com/2016/08/23/virgin-berth/

 

[QuicheFontaine]

It's a breach of privacy though of the people on the train.

You're not allowed to release CCTV footage because somebody said something mean about your company.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

But someone could have taken the exact same footage from the exact same angle with their iphone and put it on youtube. Quelle est la différence?

 

[EmiPrime]

But someone could have taken the exact same footage from the exact same angle with their iphone and put it on youtube. Quelle est la différence?

Maybe I should know better than to ask this of you Quiche but is this a serious question?

 

[8bit]

But someone could have taken the exact same footage from the exact same angle with their iphone and put it on youtube. Quelle est la différence?

That would have been fine, CCTV is for a specific purpose though and usage of such should adhere to existing privacy restrictions.

(I don't care about Corbyn, the train or the shitshow that's going on, but this a dangerous precedent for a company to do what it likes with CCTV footage without repercussion.)


Hmm : https://www.theguardian.com/technol...a-protection-inquiry-over-corbyn-cctv-footage

 

[JonathanEx]

There is an argument about it being in breach of data protection - it comes under their policy of what they collect on you and how they can use it. ICO are going to look at it - https://www.theguardian.com/technol...iry-over-corbyn-cctv-footage?CMP=share_btn_tw

This by no means means it is a breach obviously, and there's probably an argument it's okay.

I would question if their motivation is about thinking Corbyn wants to renationalise. I think it's much simpler - he made a Virgin trains service looked bad, and they didn't like that. I saw someone make the point that if they thought Corbyn actually had a chance of power, they wouldn't do this at all as they would need a better working relationship.

Edit: I wrote this about 5 minutes ago and forgot to his post so yes some of this has been covered.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I spot some defection tactics here. Virgin releasing or not releasing the footage is nothing to do with JC ineptly engineering a publicity stunt.

 

[Jezbollah]

That would have been fine, CCTV is for a specific purpose though and usage of such should adhere to existing privacy restrictions.

(I don't care about Corbyn, the train or the shitshow that's going on, but this a dangerous precedent for a company to do what it likes with CCTV footage without repercussion.)


Hmm : https://www.theguardian.com/technol...a-protection-inquiry-over-corbyn-cctv-footage

FYI in the link I just shared, it's up to the terms and conditions of the Train Operator on how to use CCTV footage. If Virgin put into their contract that CCTV can be used to resolve disputes and claims, then they have the right to reply to Corbyn's claim by publishing CCTV footage, and blurring out the faces of any other third parties (passengers).

 

[TheCrackInTime]

You're not allowed to release CCTV footage because somebody said something mean about your company.

When can CCTV images be disclosed?

You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system.

CCTV operators are not allowed to disclose images of identifiable people to the media - or to put them on the internet - for entertainment. Images released to the media to help identify a person are usually disclosed by the police.
An organisation may need to disclose CCTV images for legal reasons - for example, crime detection. Once they have given the images to another organisation, then that organisation must adhere to the Data Protection Act in their handling of the images.
Public authorities are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2000. This Act allows members of the public to request official information by writing to the public authority, who must respond within 20 working days. If the images are those of the person making the request, then the request would be handled under the Data Protection Act as a Subject Access Request. If, however, other people are identifiable in the CCTV pictures, then the images would be considered personal information and it is likely they would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

As tragically hilarious as this sorry saga has been, I'm not sure that refuting false claims counts as entertainment.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

That would have been fine, CCTV is for a specific purpose though and usage of such should adhere to existing privacy restrictions.

(I don't care about Corbyn, the train or the shitshow that's going on, but this a dangerous precedent for a company to do what it likes with CCTV footage without repercussion.)

According to that blog post linked to by Dan27, it's there for a variety of reasons. Not just crime prevention, but civil purposes such as verifying the veracity of claims.

I don't think this sets a dangerous precedent. It's not like Virgin released the images unprompted, you know? Corbyn made a specific claim about a specific train, and Virgin looked into it and found it to be false.

 

[8bit]

Corbyn made a specific claim about a specific train, and Virgin looked into it and found it to be false.

Fair enough, that's reasonable. Maybe he should have researched which trains were actually busy and took one of them instead.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Just reading that Guardian piece some of you have linked to, a thought occurs to me:
So, Jezza's reason for not taking one of the available seats that he passed is that he wanted to sit next to his wife. Well, how does sitting on the floor in the vestibule help that? I don't see his wife near him in that footage his team shot. Did she have sense enough just to take one of the solo seats and let him go off to film his publicity stunt at the end of the carriage?

 

[tomtom94]

The whole 'progressive alliance' thing bugs me because it's a thing that a bunch of people on Twitter say will be amazing and Corbyn will do it and it'll bring in the left future, despite the fact Corbs never said he's for it, it'll never work and shut up it it's a rubbish idea. Like, what do Labour have to gain from this election pact idea? Save a bit of money from Brighton? Outside of that, what?


Just noticed our new title too. Incredible.

A coalition of the left (Lib Dems / SNP / Labour / maybe Green) is the only chance for the Labour party to obtain meaningful power unless they can somehow win back Scotland, basically.

 

[GamingKaiju]

So what's going on with Labour then?

Last I heard there was a vote or something??

I don't know it all got to technical for me with plp something or other.

Thought Corbyn had to go something?

 

[Maledict]

A coalition of the left (Lib Dems / SNP / Labour / maybe Green) is the only chance for the Labour party to obtain meaningful power unless they can somehow win back Scotland, basically.

New Labour won in 97, 01 and 05 without the Scottish vote. It's hard but doable.

 

[Maledict]

Just reading that Guardian piece some of you have linked to, a thought occurs to me:
So, Jezza's reason for not taking one of the available seats that he passed is that he wanted to sit next to his wife. Well, how does sitting on the floor in the vestibule help that? I don't see his wife near him in that footage his team shot. Did she have sense enough just to take one of the solo seats and let him go off to film his publicity stunt at the end of the carriage?

It's a load of crap. You don't go sit on the floor because you can't get a seat next to your wife. That's rubbish, and anyone who travels on public transport will know what an utter idiotic excuse that is. Amazingly it manages to make him look even more clueless and out of touch.

 

[JonathanEx]

A coalition of the left (Lib Dems / SNP / Labour / maybe Green) is the only chance for the Labour party to obtain meaningful power unless they can somehow win back Scotland, basically.

I guess there's a big difference though between going into coalition, and campaigning as some form of alliance where you stand aside etc. The hint that Labour might work with the SNP seemed toxic last time.

 

[Kuros]

New Labour won in 97, 01 and 05 without the Scottish vote. It's hard but doable.

Without the Scottish vote they need Middle England to go for them hard. Corbyn can't do that.

 

[Maledict]

Without the Scottish vote they need Middle England to go for them hard. Corbyn can't do that.

Oh absolutely. But I don't think a progressive alliance can win with Corbyn either. The guy is just toxic to the centre left. I know life long labour voters who won't be voting in the next election because of him. The party seems utterly split.

 

[tomtom94]

Oh absolutely. But I don't think a progressive alliance can win with Corbyn either. The guy is just toxic to the centre left. I know life long labour voters who won't be voting in the next election because of him. The party seems utterly split.

FWIW, Smith has also said that there's no chance he would be involved in any sort of alliance.

 

[Xun]

Looks like Corbyn just beat up Branson: