Deputy John Young has been very busy, and failed to reply to an email, which prompted one
individual to post this on Facebook.
"Why do we vote for anyone in the elections??? You email them and not only do they not respond but they don’t even acknowledge your email. I will be thinking very carefully before I vote for someone again 😡 this was approximately 6 weeks ago and I only sent 1 email, what a waste of time and he’s my deputy in my parish!!!!!"
Notice that this criticism was made in a group which is open to members only to post, but open to the general public to view any postings. It is in the public domain. It would seem sensible then, as long as he didn’t mention specifics about the email – which he didn’t – that the Deputy might make a response online, and indeed he did.
But they were not best pleased because he had made a response in the public domain, albeit in general terms which mentioned nothing about the content of their email, and they claimed he was breaking Data Protection.
There is a lot of misinformation and sheer nonsense floating around on Data Protection. I was asked, in all seriousness, by Reg Langlois whether our Parish Magazine should not show names of births, marriages and deaths in the Parish. I did point out that no other Parish magazine does that, but we do publish the odd obituary of notable Parishioners.
But I also pointed out there is a Data Protection issue – if we published names of births and marriages, we would be breaking Data Protection. Reg pointed out that the JEP did so. And this is where the Data Protection Law comes in to our first story, because the JEP can publish those (which they do so for a fee) because they are contracting to do so – a family member involved sends them details to put in. If you do that, you waive your right to Data Protection – you are putting the names in the public domain.
And so the fact that this constituent sent an email to John Young is no longer subject to Data Protection, because she has put that information in the public domain. This is not about the content of the email, but the fact. She complained that “A public forum is NOT for replying to emails!!!”, but he didn’t give a reply involving details (which would be a breach), just an apology, and she was the run who raised the matter.
In the end, she lost interest and told me “I am not continuing with this as actually it’s nothing to do with you!” which is a strange attitude to take when she was the one to put the matter up on Facebook, in the public domain, for everyone to see. If you put something there for anyone to view and comment on, it is, I am afraid, very something to do with me and anyone else. If you don't want a public comment, don't post it in a public place.
I suspect that what she was after was some point scoring, not a measured response which took the wind out of her sails, and that was why she was so aggrieved.
And what of John Young’s apology? Having mentioned it, I think it only fair that it gets an airing here too:
“Mea Culpa I owe you and others an apology. Since taking Ministerial office three months into what is arguably the widest states portfolio covering all Planning , environment functions right across the island I have found difficulty in keeping up with and managing constituency business because of extreme workload and the conflicts created by my role - I cannot be the arbiter of independent planning decisions and represent either applicants or objectors in planning applications which I have always done and worked hard for both , and be the person who has the legal responsibility of deciding the appeals. “
“In the first three months my diary has been absolutely logged every day jammed with meetings requested by many interest groups on policy matters. I am not alone in this effect of our ministerial system. However It particularly effects single constituency members where there no backup. In addition our civil service has been completely reorganised in the new structure and it is no secret that gaps are opening in the administration.”
“But all of that is no excuse, only an explanation. You are entitled to better service and I am seeking to put in place new arrangements which will help. Once again my apologies. I hope to do better when things settle.”
individual to post this on Facebook.
"Why do we vote for anyone in the elections??? You email them and not only do they not respond but they don’t even acknowledge your email. I will be thinking very carefully before I vote for someone again 😡 this was approximately 6 weeks ago and I only sent 1 email, what a waste of time and he’s my deputy in my parish!!!!!"
Notice that this criticism was made in a group which is open to members only to post, but open to the general public to view any postings. It is in the public domain. It would seem sensible then, as long as he didn’t mention specifics about the email – which he didn’t – that the Deputy might make a response online, and indeed he did.
But they were not best pleased because he had made a response in the public domain, albeit in general terms which mentioned nothing about the content of their email, and they claimed he was breaking Data Protection.
There is a lot of misinformation and sheer nonsense floating around on Data Protection. I was asked, in all seriousness, by Reg Langlois whether our Parish Magazine should not show names of births, marriages and deaths in the Parish. I did point out that no other Parish magazine does that, but we do publish the odd obituary of notable Parishioners.
But I also pointed out there is a Data Protection issue – if we published names of births and marriages, we would be breaking Data Protection. Reg pointed out that the JEP did so. And this is where the Data Protection Law comes in to our first story, because the JEP can publish those (which they do so for a fee) because they are contracting to do so – a family member involved sends them details to put in. If you do that, you waive your right to Data Protection – you are putting the names in the public domain.
And so the fact that this constituent sent an email to John Young is no longer subject to Data Protection, because she has put that information in the public domain. This is not about the content of the email, but the fact. She complained that “A public forum is NOT for replying to emails!!!”, but he didn’t give a reply involving details (which would be a breach), just an apology, and she was the run who raised the matter.
In the end, she lost interest and told me “I am not continuing with this as actually it’s nothing to do with you!” which is a strange attitude to take when she was the one to put the matter up on Facebook, in the public domain, for everyone to see. If you put something there for anyone to view and comment on, it is, I am afraid, very something to do with me and anyone else. If you don't want a public comment, don't post it in a public place.
I suspect that what she was after was some point scoring, not a measured response which took the wind out of her sails, and that was why she was so aggrieved.
And what of John Young’s apology? Having mentioned it, I think it only fair that it gets an airing here too:
“Mea Culpa I owe you and others an apology. Since taking Ministerial office three months into what is arguably the widest states portfolio covering all Planning , environment functions right across the island I have found difficulty in keeping up with and managing constituency business because of extreme workload and the conflicts created by my role - I cannot be the arbiter of independent planning decisions and represent either applicants or objectors in planning applications which I have always done and worked hard for both , and be the person who has the legal responsibility of deciding the appeals. “
“In the first three months my diary has been absolutely logged every day jammed with meetings requested by many interest groups on policy matters. I am not alone in this effect of our ministerial system. However It particularly effects single constituency members where there no backup. In addition our civil service has been completely reorganised in the new structure and it is no secret that gaps are opening in the administration.”
“But all of that is no excuse, only an explanation. You are entitled to better service and I am seeking to put in place new arrangements which will help. Once again my apologies. I hope to do better when things settle.”
Posts
1 comment:
You may have missed Reg's point. If I send a letter to the Editor, the JEP insist on publishing my name and my address (they tell me that if I refuse consent, they will not publish). But this is a prima facie breach of data protection regulations, which state that this is my personal data, and it is my right to decide how it's used.
Post a Comment