Looking for legal advice about GDPR breach
Discussion
Northern_Wanderer said:
...
None of its going to make their life any easier for a few months as they will be worrying about who's knocking at their door now but some compensation might help.
Yes, I must say that if I was frightened of the wrong person coming to my door, getting a pile of money would chill me out super lots. This post does at least provide some evidence in the eternal debate: compo culture - blame lawyers, or blame clients?None of its going to make their life any easier for a few months as they will be worrying about who's knocking at their door now but some compensation might help.
As noted above, a complaint to Sky followed by a complaint to the ICO looks like the obvious course, but if you want to instruct a lawyer, I'd recommend contacting Howard Kennedy LLP. Location isn't terribly important, especially in the age of Zoom.
Northern_Wanderer said:
...From past experience the ICO is a waste of time ...
Translator's note: This is PH code for "the ICO did not agree with me".Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 1st October 07:11
Dredging my memory, ISTR that the address was in the book as well as the number. Page upon page of J Smiths in big city phone books.
That were when all t'internet were just fields, aye, and we 'ad to sit in freezing bluddy 'allway wi' only a whippet for company to tok t' girlfiriend, until Mam shouted "gerroff the ruddy phone, we ent med a brass, yeh daft hapeth"...
(Contd on page 97)
That were when all t'internet were just fields, aye, and we 'ad to sit in freezing bluddy 'allway wi' only a whippet for company to tok t' girlfiriend, until Mam shouted "gerroff the ruddy phone, we ent med a brass, yeh daft hapeth"...
(Contd on page 97)
The OP won't like me saying this, but it sounds from his description of what has happened that he has been making a very bad situation worse by stoking up his relative to pursue pointless complaints and even to litigate. The OP seems unable to grasp that complaining and litigating can hardly ever bring peace or closure, and also seems a bit mixed up about compensation, and what the law regards as harm. Money never assuages grief or other mental pain, and some fires are best left to go out rather than having petrol poured on them.
Lastly, the press often behave badly, and may have done so in this case, but we live in a free press country (still, just about), and the law is reluctant to do much to inhibit the actions of the press, and, on balance, that is how things should be.
Lastly, the press often behave badly, and may have done so in this case, but we live in a free press country (still, just about), and the law is reluctant to do much to inhibit the actions of the press, and, on balance, that is how things should be.
Northern_Wanderer said:
...
As for taking out an injunction against people, its hard when they would just send someone else round.
Nobody "takes out" an injunction against anybody. An injunction may be granted by a court if applied for, and if the grant is justified.As for taking out an injunction against people, its hard when they would just send someone else round.
An injunction against, for example, a newspaper, would apply to that paper and to all of its employees and agents. The law is not that easily cheated.
But obtaining an injunction to restrain a newspaper is difficult, and that is for very good reasons.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff