Wedding vendor goes ballistic.

Harika · 08-04-2016 01:39PM

I had to think of the vice series "Cry Baby of the month"
https://www.vice.com/read/cry-baby-of-the-year-2015

Basically all could have been avoided by the manager by simply doing nothing. The bride would have received the answer that this is unusual but that is her contract that she signed. End of story. Even if people looked up the facebook stream of the bride for the venue, the only information they gathered was that the castle has a policy of charging the full amount 90 days in advance. But there seems to be a back story as the bride was already in stress and didn#t wanted to name the castle beforehand, so I assume she already negotiated or was in discussion with them before.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 01:39PM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Why would the venue name/ references to the venue be on her Facebook?

Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't and don't know anyone that would have that information up. That's for the invites!

Well where I worked previously the hotel would be tagged in posts along the lines of " just booked my wedding in XXXX for such and such a date".

Frynge · 08-04-2016 01:40PM

Harika wrote: »

I had to think of the vice series "Cry Baby of the month"
https://www.vice.com/read/cry-baby-of-the-year-2015

Basically all could have been avoided by the manager by simply doing nothing. The bride would have received the answer that this is unusual but that is her contract that she signed. End of story.

I agree with everything you have said.

tinpib · 08-04-2016 01:50PM

Frynge wrote: »

I would be willing to guess that there is no data protection issues at all, as the bride probably (just like so many) had posted such details online previously, therefore allowing anyone to be able to match up her info with the venues pricing structure and as such be privy to what the venue manager posted.

No I don't think you are right there.

Of course the bride can post data about HERSELF all she likes. I can post my deepest darkest secrets publicly online if I like.

But I can't post YOUR deepest darkest secrets online.

That's what data protection is all about.

And also again you are talking about extra effort and investigation. I don't think that is relevant.

jimmycrackcorm · 08-04-2016 01:54PM

Frynge wrote:

I acknowledge that the bride said "don't want to name venue as this can cause more conflict" on Facebook, but my point was if someone was to click into her profile page I'm sure they would see many references to the venue in question, most likely around June last year. Making it very obvious what venue she was talking about.

You are just making wild assumptions about what someone might see.

tinpib · 08-04-2016 01:54PM

Also Frynge just another analogy.

I can post this:

Hi guys I pay €1200 in VHI as I suffer from kidney disease, is this expensive?

That is very different from VHI posting: "Hi everyone in this group. Our customer tinpib pays €1200 a year and has kidney disease"

Frynge · 08-04-2016 01:59PM

tinpib wrote: »

No I don't think you are right there.

Of course the bride can post data about HERSELF all she likes. I can post my deepest darkest secrets publicly online if I like.

But I can't post YOUR deepest darkest secrets online.

That's what data protection is all about.

And also again you are talking about extra effort and investigation. I don't think that is relevant.

If I have already posted my deepest darkest secret online the yes, you can also post it.

tinpib wrote: »

To any reasonable armchair legal eagle with a flawless character and perfect life such as myself :pac: you would be getting into dodgy data protection areas.

If the information is already in the public domain I.e. Online, albeit requiring effort and investigation then there is no data "dodgy data protection areas".

Data protection is becoming the new " I was discriminated against".

Anyhow, I think it is time for me to bow out as I've become "that guy" that I hate in this thread.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:01PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You are just making wild assumptions about what someone might see.

Are we not all making wild assumptions about what the truth here is.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:03PM

tinpib wrote: »

Also Frynge just another analogy.

I can post this:

Hi guys I pay €1200 in VHI as I suffer from kidney disease, is this expensive?

That is very different from VHI posting: "Hi everyone in this group. Our customer tinpib pays €1200 a year and has kidney disease"

Different, yes;
Unprofessional, yes;
Morally reprehensible, yes;

Anything to do with data protection, absolutely not.

tinpib · 08-04-2016 02:03PM

Frynge wrote: »

If I have already posted my deepest darkest secret online the yes, you can also post it.

Gotya, I see what you mean. True.

But in this case it appears the bride hasn't done that.

Sinister Kid · 08-04-2016 02:06PM

She was bang out of order posting that she had to lower the deposit amount to €700 because the bride couldn't afford the full deposit.

tinpib · 08-04-2016 02:09PM

Frynge wrote: »

Different, yes;
Unprofessional, yes;
Morally reprehensible, yes;

Anything to do with data protection, absolutely not.

Dear Frynge.

I shall have you know that I have studied The Data Protection Laws in the UK extensively, in fact for at least 45 seconds over the past 5 minutes on wikipedia :pac:

Anyway, it seems that consent is a keyword.

The bride did not consent to the manager posting that information.

But as you say she may have posted it before. But none of us know that. Unless we put in some effort and investigation.

Which of course changes the whole point.

Keane2baMused · 08-04-2016 02:10PM

Frynge wrote: »

Different, yes;
Unprofessional, yes;
Morally reprehensible, yes;

Anything to do with data protection, absolutely not.

I would highly doubt she posted the venue had to reduce the deposit for her because she couldn't afford it.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:13PM

tinpib wrote: »

Gotya, I see what you mean. True.

But in this case it appears the bride hasn't done that.

Appearances can be deceiving, and every effort is being made to attack the venues and it's clearly unprofessional manager.

But I would put more weight in a statement from a manager that a business owner allows go onto the front page of their website than a bunch of random people on social media with what in my opinion is nothing better to do. (I am aware of the irony in that)

Speedwell · 08-04-2016 02:15PM

Frynge wrote: »

Appearances can be deceiving, and every effort is being made to attack the venues and it's clearly unprofessional manager.

But I would put more weight in a statement from a manager that a business owner allows go onto the front page of their website than a bunch of random people on social media with what in my opinion is nothing better to do. (I am aware of the irony in that)

Oh, I'd put a lot of weight in their statement, all right. To me it spells, "this place is trouble".

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:16PM

tinpib wrote: »

Dear Frynge.

I shall have you know that I have studied The Data Protection Laws in the UK extensively, in fact for at least 45 seconds over the past 5 minutes on wikipedia :pac:

Anyway, it seems that consent is a keyword.

The bride did not consent to the manager posting that information.

But as you say she may have posted it before. But none of us know that. Unless we put in some effort and investigation.

Which of course changes the whole point.

It would be fair to assume that the bride did not give consent to the manager directly, but if having posted any details of it online that would be considered indirect consent via proxies.

Graham · 08-04-2016 02:17PM

Frynge wrote: »

Anything to do with data protection, absolutely not.

Absolutely to do with data protection in several areas:

The Data Protection Principles
Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met
Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.
Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.
Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under this Act.
Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.
Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data.

Source: http://www.gov.scot/About/Review/kerelaw/About/Review/data-protection

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:18PM

I reckon that something was brewing in the venue long before this and the bride in question was the straw that broke the camels back.

Keane2baMused · 08-04-2016 02:18PM

Frynge wrote: »

It would be fair to assume that the bride did not give consent to the manager directly, but if having posted any details of it online that would be considered indirect consent via proxies.

But she had not named the venue. I'm failing to understand how this gives the manager the right to reveal all?? Including the number of guests and her reduced deposit!!

tinpib · 08-04-2016 02:19PM

Frynge wrote: »

But I would put more weight in a statement from a manager that a business owner allows go onto the front page of their website than a bunch of random people on social media with what in my opinion is nothing better to do. (I am aware of the irony in that)

I generally put more weight in a statement made by a person in a calm and reasoned manner. Even online.

I'm less inclined to believe the version of events from a hysterical person having a meltdown.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:22PM

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely to do with data protection in several areas:

Source: http://www.gov.scot/About/Review/kerelaw/About/Review/data-protection

That is correct only under the assumption that the bride had made no personal disclosures of any such information online at any point, which seeing as all this stemmed from some online discussions from the bride seems, on the balance of probabilities, unlikely.

It could make for a very good thread over in the legal discussion forum.

tinpib · 08-04-2016 02:23PM

Frynge wrote: »

I reckon that something was brewing in the venue long before this and the bride in question was the straw that broke the camels back.

Although I'm speculating I would agree 100%. She is having a meltdown and that was the straw that broke the camels back.

I put in some effort and investigation myself and she posted on her own FB page about having issues at 4 other weddings, I think.

4 seems like a very high number. Can you be that unlucky to have the guests from hell that many times?

anothernight · 08-04-2016 02:24PM

Frynge wrote: »

Are we not all making wild assumptions about what the truth here is.

You're assuming the bride must have posted all the details of the venue she'd booked, including that she couldn't afford the deposit. Considering that many people don't even post the name of the venue when they book it, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that she definitely made public all the information that the venue owner revealed without her consent.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:24PM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

But she had not named the venue. I'm failing to understand how this gives the manager the right to reveal all?? Including the number of guests and her reduced deposit!!

But we do not know that, all we know is that she didn't name the venue in that one instance.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:26PM

tinpib wrote: »

I generally put more weight in a statement made by a person in a calm and reasoned manner. Even online.

I'm less inclined to believe the version of events from a hysterical person having a meltdown.

True, and the statement is very hostile.

Graham · 08-04-2016 02:27PM

Frynge wrote: »

That is correct only under the assumption that the bride had made no personal disclosures of any such information online at any point, which seeing as all this stemmed from some online discussions from the bride seems, on the balance of probabilities, unlikely.

It could make for a very good thread over in the legal discussion forum.

I see no provision in the Scottish Data Protection Legislation that permits 3rd party disclosure of an individuals financial information regardless of whether the individual has released details of related transactions or not.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:30PM

tinpib wrote: »

Although I'm speculating I would agree 100%. She is having a meltdown and that was the straw that broke the camels back.

I put in some effort and investigation myself and she posted on her own FB page about having issues at 4 other weddings, I think.

4 seems like a very high number. Can you be that unlucky to have the guests from hell that many times?

I assume you are talking about the venue manager having issues at 4 other weddings, and if it was only issues at 4 then they are most likely not doing many wedding a year or not doing wedding too long.

Yes, unfortunately you can be that unlucky with guests from hell.

Frynge · 08-04-2016 02:34PM

Graham wrote: »

I see no provision in the Scottish Data Protection Legislation that permits 3rd party disclosure of an individuals financial information regardless of whether the individual has released details of related transactions or not.

If it had been already online then it wouldn't actually be a 3rd party disclosure.

I really wouldn't have the required knowledge or expertise but that would be my take on things and I may be wrong.

Sunny Dayz · 08-04-2016 02:37PM

I think someone had linked a facebook post on this thread from the hotel manager/wedding coordinator who said that they have had a number of issues with weddings and functions in the venue. I think this query or slight was the straw which broke the camel's back.
I feel sorry for the bride to be. When you are planning your wedding it is quite often your first and only wedding and you don't always know the right way of doing things so it is definitely helpful to bounce things off other brides. She was only questioning with other brides if a few things were standard with weddings, she didn't seem to be giving out too much, just annoyed but it didn't seem from her post as something she was going cancel over or anything... Now I doubt very much she is going to want to have the wedding there so (I'm assuming) faces into looking for another venue at short notice, possibly being short financially and under more stress.

weldoninhio · 08-04-2016 03:10PM

I had a look at trip advisor to see if they had had any poor reviews etc previously.

A guy complained last year that the food was not great. Her reply was that he knew it would be home cooked food and they didn't have a professional chef. You were offered outside caterers, but you could not afford this.

She is like something off Ramsey's Hotel Nightmares.

Wedding vendor goes ballistic.

Comments