Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Snow Garden

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I find it extremely odd that people batting for FG don't want the CCTV footage to be aired.

I find that very odd too.

Idbatterim

Probably waiting for king rats investigation of fg into fg, to declare everything a ok! Then bang release the footage and cause consternation!

Stop moaning ffs

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Do you want to answer the questions or just throw insults?

There is no conversation here just people throwing insults about people been FG shills or getting paid for FG.

Zero discussion, as I said it’s pointless.

I didn’t insult you at all. I asked you honest questions. Which to nobody’s surprise at all, you refuse to answer.

Colour me shocked.

Stop moaning ffs

markodaly wrote: »

But it is. Its the law, you may not like it but it is.

You are saying that this CCTV footage is not covered by GDPR, which is of course false.

https://dee.ie/it-blog/gdpr-and-cctv/

By those lights could I sue the Gardaí or shops for filming me on cctv on the street without my consent? Genuine question not disputing your post.

McMurphy

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

By those lights could I sue the Gardar shops for filming me on cctv on the street without my consent? Genuine question not disputing your post.

Blatantly obvious he or she didn't even read the article they linked to.

Suckit

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

By those lights could I sue the Gardaí or shops for filming me on cctv on the street without my consent? Genuine question not disputing your post.

Gardaí have permission to release CCTV footage. I'm not sure if it only covers exceptional circumstances, but I know that they can.


What I don't understand about the CCTV footage laws (and apparently the laws in Ireland were even stricter before the EU GDPR laws were introduced) is, does every individual company require Garda permission to release the CCTV footage if they want the public to help them catch somebody, especially in the cases where the Garda hands are tied or they are dragging their feet or any other reasons (I'm sure there are plenty) that somebody may require help from the public.

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The text within your own link is contradicting you.

There are many parts within the link that absolutely contradict you, but let's start with the one you copied and pasted into the thread.

.

Your comprehension of English is poor to be fair. I never stated that the Hotel is not within their rights to use CCTV on their property, only that there are laws and regulation governing it, like GDPR.

There are also laws and regulation on who has access to said recordings.

You are under the false impressions that there are no laws and regulations governing CCTV recording and their subsequent storage. If I am wrong please tell me.

Or are you going to engage in your court jester persona in order to squirm away from the point I am trying to make?

markodaly

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

By those lights could I sue the Gardaí or shops for filming me on cctv on the street without my consent? Genuine question not disputing your post.

I think people are being deliberately stupid and ignorant to a point. But feel free to act in that manner.

The data protection reform package also includes a separate Data Protection Directive for the police and criminal justice sector[5] that provides rules on personal data exchanges at national, European, and international levels.

National police forces are exempt from GDPR.

Again, please educate yourself on GDPR before making false claims.

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Blatantly obvious he or she didn't even read the article they linked to.

Blatantly obvious you do not have a notion what you are talking about.

You think GPDR is optional for private businesses. Now that is a laugh.

Stop moaning ffs

Jaysis. I just asked a question.

What are you missing in life if having to be right and nobody question you on the Internet is all you have.

It was a genuine question. You seem to want to bash us all over the head with your GDPR skills but we’re not allowed ask you about an aspect within your in-depth knowledge?

Snap out of it

Snow Garden

Did we ever figure out where Bailey was the week before the disastrous radio interview? She said at first she couldn't go home because the media were camped at her house. Then she said she had to work from home all week.

Plumbthedepths

Against the law or not, i can see this footage becoming public.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Blatantly obvious you do not have a notion what you are talking about.

You think GPDR is optional for private businesses. Now that is a laugh.

I do? Where did I say that?

Can you please explain to others who "have no notion what they're talking about" with regards the seemingly magic bullet of GDRP, as to why or how Supermacs airing their CCTV footage of someone trying to gouge them in a phony insurance claim, not unlike Maria Bailey differ from the Dean hotels footage?

No over convoluted dismissive horse shyte, dumb it down for us oh all knowledgeable one.

Then when you've did that, can you answer who Bailey might have legal recourse with if a copy finds its way on to the internet?

This happened pre GDRP, we can assume the hotel staff have seen it, security staff (possibly external contractors), and as it was due to be defended in court, defence lawyers have also seen it.

How many duplicated copies exist at this stage?

Also, the hotel recently handed a copy over to an investigation team on behalf of FG.....

surely if it's as water tight a no no for the hotel to show or share the footage to third parties, bailey has a case against the hotel/FG for starters?

Mark, please go away and shyte.

Snow Garden

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Against the law or not, i can see this footage becoming public.

Correct and I for one cannot wait to see it. Timing is everything though.

_blaaz

Snow Garden wrote: »

Correct and I for one cannot wait to see it. Timing is everything though.

Ive seen screenshots of emails from coveney about the kids hospital....idk if they ever be realeased


What would be gdpr story around them?

markodaly

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Jaysis. I just asked a question.

And I pointed out your error. Take your liking like a man and stop moaning.

It was a genuine question.

And I have educated you.

Moving on...

markodaly

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I do? Where did I say that?

You implied it numerous times in your previous posts. GDPR and CCTV are optional or to your words, bolloxology.

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to admit it, well shows us all your colours.

Its OK JD, like a good dog, you will be here waiting for some CCTV footage of this to emerge while the rest of us go on with our lives. Everyone must have a dream to aspire to.

markodaly

Snow Garden wrote: »

Correct and I for one cannot wait to see it. Timing is everything though.

The fact it has not come public so far, means that with every passing day, its unlikely to become so.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

You implied it numerous times in your previous posts. GDPR and CCTV are optional or to your words, bolloxology.

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to admit it, well shows us all your colours.

Its OK JD, like a good dog, you will be here waiting for some CCTV footage of this to emerge while the rest of us go on with our lives. Everyone must have a dream to aspire to.

Didn't even fancy taking a stab at the questions asked?



Worst-shill-ever.

Snow Garden

_blaaz wrote: »

Ive seen screenshots of emails from coveney about the kids hospital....idk if they ever be realeased


What would be gdpr story around them?

I don't give a fiddlers about GDPR, I just cant wait to see the video.

Snow Garden

markodaly wrote: »

The fact it has not come public so far, means that with every passing day, its unlikely to become so.

Oh we will see it alright...

KikiLaRue

If I’m understanding this link right, if Josepha Madigan was in the video, her face will need to be blurred out.

The hotel were within their rights to have CCTV in place, and to use it in a legal case.

Leaking it would seem to be a breach of GDPR.

https://netwatchsystem.com/blog/cctv-gdpr-data-protection/

_blaaz

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If I’m understanding this link right, if Josepha Madigan was in the video, her face will need to be blurred out.

The hotel were within their rights to have CCTV in place, and to use it in a legal case.

Leaking it would seem to be a breach of GDPR.

https://netwatchsystem.com/blog/cctv-gdpr-data-protection/

What is the gdpr stance on leaking email.screeshots?

salmocab

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If I’m understanding this link right, if Josepha Madigan was in the video, her face will need to be blurred out.

The hotel were within their rights to have CCTV in place, and to use it in a legal case.

Leaking it would seem to be a breach of GDPR.

https://netwatchsystem.com/blog/cctv-gdpr-data-protection/

If only the hotel have it it would be s breach, if they have given it to other parties like FG for the internal review then it’s still a breach but it would be unlikely that anyone could be caught as once there are multiple copies it becomes very hard to find the source of the leak.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

The fact it has not come public so far, means that with every passing day, its unlikely to become so.

Or.... The time to get out the torpedo hasn't yet come.

Imagine the harm it'll do if released in the days after FG try and whitewash the whole thing away?

Madigans fingernails must be like stumps at the minute.

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Or.... The time to get out the torpedo hasn't yet come.

Imagine the harm it'll do if released in the days after FG try and whitewash the whole thing away?

Madigans fingernails must be like stumps at the minute.

I think the problem for those who hold the CCTV is that they know that Bailey is a litigious individual. No court will be interested in defending the public appetite for her private activities, such as they are, and there would be great scrutiny of any mechanism which allowed the footage to become public.

Now that the footage is not relevant to any court proceedings, it's difficult to imagine how it might become public.

smurgen

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think the problem for those who hold the CCTV is that they know that Bailey is a litigious individual. No court will be interested in defending the public appetite for her private activities, such as they are, and there would be great scrutiny of any mechanism which allowed the footage to become public.

Now that the footage is not relevant to any court proceedings, it's difficult to imagine how it might become public.

Absolutely easy. Anonymous snapchat footage of the tape.no link to the hotel.

banie01

smurgen wrote: »

Absolutely easy. Anonymous snapchat footage of the tape.no link to the hotel.

The hotel as the data controller would be liable even if the video was released via anonymous account.

Precedent for this was already set in a case against Aldi IIRC.

FrancieBrady

banie01 wrote: »

The hotel as the data controller would be liable even if the video was released via anonymous account.

Precedent for this was already set in a case against Aldi IIRC.

The tape has left their control though has it not?

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The tape has left their control though has it not?

I would hope for the sake of the hotel it hasn't.
Unless it's been passed on to the Gardaí in conjunction with a criminal investigation.

Edit: And of course the hotel's legal team when their defence against the claim was being drafted.
Their is no inkling as to whether it was passed to the litigant's legal team however.
As such it would still very much be the Hotel's baby.