SOTCW Future Offer

[Richard B.]

Guys Mark writes:

"posts by Bannockburn Buoy, Kalinovsky and Richard Babers barely concealed dislike are cases in point. I don't know, but suspect posts like these are doing a lot to keep the silent majority, well, silent really"

I think I am being accused of bullying

To the rest of you reading vote as you wish, I don`t feel the society owes me anything, I won`t take it personally if friends of mine think differently to me - honest But also I feel I have the right to speak my mind on an open forum where I have posted regularly and am not banned (yet)

Richard

[Kalinovsky]

Mark I don’t know you and I neither like you nor dislike you. But I certainly don’t like how you have gone about things and I see no merit in your proposals. You asked for my views and I’ve given you them. I don’t think you can complain because I don’t agree with you.

[magnification]

Kalinovsky,

I appreciated your views, well, the ones I understood. I had to look up the term 'reverse Tango' though to get a full picture of your assessment of me, or the Society..........

Sorry, confused again. Could you expand on the phrase in the context of the Society please.

[Kalinovsky]

Reverse Tango is not connected to you in any war.

I am still waiting for your explanation of why you kept hold of personal information provided by members solely for society use and then used it for personal communication in breach of their privacy and of data protection law.

[magnification]

That's easy enough. Contact information was give to me prior to GDPR rules in connection with Society business at the time. The information I had was the last current set and then used to communicate with the owners on business linked to the Society, amongst other things to establish up to date GDPR compliance for contact information. Subsequently, the contact information was destroyed as it was then deemed out of date. I have interpreted GDPR this way, and not a single person contacted has (so far) complained, unless you are one of them - I don't know your name. You may disagree with this interpretation, but I don't think GDPR was ever meant to restrict communication flows within hobby groups.

[magnification]

'Reverse Tango is not connected to you in any war'.

I am even more confused now, but I guess you mean 'way', not war. I am happy to leave it at that - I guess then that the comment was aimed at the greater Society, not me.

[bannockburn bhoy]

Guys Mark writes:

"posts by Bannockburn Buoy, Kalinovsky and Richard Babers barely concealed dislike are cases in point. I don't know, but suspect posts like these are doing a lot to keep the silent majority, well, silent really"

I think I am being accused of bullying

To the rest of you reading vote as you wish, I don`t feel the society owes me anything, I won`t take it personally if friends of mine think differently to me - honest But also I feel I have the right to speak my mind on an open forum where I have posted regularly and am not banned (yet)

Richard

With an MO like this ..should consider running for the leader of the tories

[bannockburn bhoy]

That's easy enough. Contact information was give to me prior to GDPR rules in connection with Society business at the time. The information I had was the last current set and then used to communicate with the owners on business linked to the Society, amongst other things to establish up to date GDPR compliance for contact information. Subsequently, the contact information was destroyed as it was then deemed out of date. I have interpreted GDPR this way, and not a single person contacted has (so far) complained, unless you are one of them - I don't know your name. You may disagree with this interpretation, but I don't think GDPR was ever meant to restrict communication flows within hobby groups.

I have run this past a friend who is head of compliance in Scotland for the entire NHS ,and in their considered and considerable opinion your in breach of the act.
Regardless if anyone has complained or not. I see at least two people that have voiced their concerns ,you can add me to that, so your contention is just more bullshit.
You obviously see yourself as a law unto yourself ,and your seriously starting to piss me right off.

[magnification]

All,

I have tried, and failed, to keep this discussion topic about re-energising the Society. However, it has served a purpose to get the proposal aired, but that is now done and I feel further discussion proposals on here about how a new Society would work in the future would now appear to be pointless. I am not getting any support on here, just hounded by a small group of dissenters who clearly do not want me to go any further. So, as I do believe that I do need to respond to many of you have who sent in helpful feed back, I will now answer these direct.

If anyone has not yet voted either way, could you just email me direct please - sotcwmarkw@hotmail.com

My next planned post here will be information pertaining to the outcome of the voting/input gathering process. To those who have expressed support so far in emails, I will be in touch soon. To those who have replied politely in the negative, thank you. To those in aggressive dissent - you have had the last word on this forum, so please be satisfied with that.

Regards,

Mark

[Kalinovsky]

“Aggressive dissent”? So people can have opinions only if they are the same as yours?

You asked for comment and you got it. I paid you the courtesy of taking you at your word that you wanted to listen to people’s views. In this I was obviously mistaken. I won’t comment further on GDPR except for saying you are in clear breach of them.

I’m not going to waste my time any more on this “discussion”.