Jump to content
blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

 

To give you an example, are you honestly telling me that answering the following question is not allowed under GDPR:

How many unique visitors visited my website in the last hour?

I have not seen or heard anything to suggest that website owners (private or govt) are not allowed to conduct this analysis using reasonable means. (I also do this for a living, but perhaps I am cruising towards a massive fine, so point me in the right direction if I'm wrong.)

You haven't read much that was correct then. Fortunately, you aren't on the verge of a massive fine purely because this issue is so far down the list of priorities that the ICO are unlikely to get round to enforcement any time soon. They've already received 1200 complaints regarding cookies and done zip.

Quote

Organisations have to provide clear and comprehensive information about the way they use cookies, and ensure that for any cookie not strictly necessary for their website, they give you an appropriate means of consenting to that cookie being set on your device.

ICO but that doesn't explain the full position. I have some other stuff I can send you but that will have to wait until I get to work as I'm deffo going to bed now

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bickster said:

You haven't read much that was correct then. Fortunately, you aren't on the verge of a massive fine purely because this issue is so far down the list of priorities that the ICO are unlikely to get round to enforcement any time soon. They've already received 1200 complaints regarding cookies and done zip.

ICO but that doesn't explain the full position. I have some other stuff I can send you but that will have to wait until I get to work as I'm deffo going to bed now

Please do - I was genuinely advised that temporary session IDs and the like did not require consent, so would be keen to at least have some conclusive information either way.

I'd love to know what the potential consequences would be of running a simple analysis of (e.g.) unique visitors to various pages on your own website, and then one of those visitors complaining that this had been achieved by tracking sessions without their consent. Is this really GDPR / DPA / ePrivacy territory?

If so, I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Please do - I was genuinely advised that temporary session IDs and the like did not require consent, so would be keen to at least have some conclusive information either way.

I'd love to know what the potential consequences would be of running a simple analysis of (e.g.) unique visitors to various pages on your own website, and then one of those visitors complaining that this had been achieved by tracking sessions without their consent. Is this really GDPR / DPA / ePrivacy territory?

If so, I stand corrected.

Useful tool - 2gdpr.com bung any website in there and watch it give you a warning for GA telling you the website is non-compliant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, desensitized43 said:

Well it depends if the ruling means that as of right now Parliament isn't suspended?

Fair point.

Didn't the Queen approve the request? I'd have thought she was the overall authority on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.

A panel of three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move.

The decision overturns an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week Mr Johnson had not broken the law.

But it will not immediately affect the current suspension of Parliament, which started in the early hours of Tuesday.

This is because no order has been given by the court to cancel the suspension ahead of a full hearing at the Supreme Court which starts on Tuesday of next week.

In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said that the suspension of Parliament was motivated by a desire to "stymy Parliament".

They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

Their full judgment will be released on Friday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Genie said:

Fair point.

Didn't the Queen approve the request? I'd have thought she was the overall authority on it.

If the courts rule she was misled - ie, they told her proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit - then they can be recalled.

But to be honest, the Govt aren't helping themselves. 

You have cabinet ministers mentioning Brexit when explaining why the prorogation is happening and even in their response to the 'Don't Prorogue Parliament' petition, they mentioned it.

They can't, with a straight face, state prorogation is normal and nothing to do with Brexit, then keep mentioning Brexit in the same sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Genie said:
Quote

it will not immediately affect the current suspension of Parliament, which started in the early hours of Tuesday.

This is because no order has been given by the court to cancel the suspension ahead of a full hearing at the Supreme Court which starts on Tuesday of next week.

...

They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

Not quite sure about the above - isn't 'immediately' doing a lot of work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

If the courts rule she was misled - ie, they told her proroguing parliament had nothing to do with Brexit - then they can be recalled.

But to be honest, the Govt aren't helping themselves. 

You have cabinet ministers mentioning Brexit when explaining why the prorogation is happening and even in their response to the 'Don't Prorogue Parliament' petition, they mentioned it.

They can't, with a straight face, state prorogation is normal and nothing to do with Brexit, then keep mentioning Brexit in the same sentence.

Proroguing parliament can be pretty convincingly argued as being normal. This parliamentary session has run much longer than usual and a new PM is a good reason to reset it.

It’s the length of time it’s been prorogued that is (pretty obviously) done to stifle parliament. It is up for debate as to whether it’s legitimately necessary to shut down parliament for this long.

The Scottish court seems to have come to a common sense decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LondonLax said:

Proroguing parliament can be pretty convincingly argued as being normal. This parliamentary session has run much longer than usual and a new PM is a good reason to reset it.

It’s the length of time it’s been prorogued that is (pretty obviously) done to stifle parliament. It is up for debate as to whether it’s legitimately necessary to shut down parliament for this long.

The Scottish court seems to have come to a common sense decision. 

For sure. But when they've given the bolded as the official reason, both to the Public and to Queen, then banged on about Brexit in relation to it, it's pretty clear what the real reason is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Genie said:

Fair point.

Didn't the Queen approve the request? I'd have thought she was the overall authority on it.

The queen has zero authority, certainly no overall authority on anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StefanAVFC said:

For sure. But when they've given the bolded as the official reason, both to the Public and to Queen, then banged on about Brexit in relation to it, it's pretty clear what the real reason is.

The irony of it is that the oppoisition parties probably (privately) want parliament to stay prorogued at this point rather than face an election vote every day.

He's legally boxed in right now and opening parliament could conceivably be his route out of the mess of his own making. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure how true the figures are.... but it's interesting reading if true. Not that anyone will be surprised by it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

The queen has zero authority, certainly no overall authority on anything.

She has overall authority on everything, she is the head of state and commands a position similar to the President of the United States. 

The irony is however that if she ever decided to exorcise that power to overrule parliament she would likely be the last sitting monarch. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading with the rest of the world is great and all, but for perishables and essential stuff, getting it from the continent is just better for everyone.

I just don't get what No Deal'ers think happens post 31st October. To get a deal with the EU, we'd need to agree to terms similar to the WA, with our same red lines. The same shit happens again, only this time our GDP goes off a cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â