No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks (From Daily Echo)

Perhaps the Echo would like to explain how its actions in this case fit with its privacy policy, which states:


"Disclosure of personal information to third parties
Your personal information will be disclosed where we are obliged or permitted to do so by law, or in the circumstances described in paragraph 15 of the Terms. We may disclose non-personally identifiable data to commercial advertisers on our websites or any other of our commercial clients to help them understand and meet potential customer preferences and needs. We may disclose your personal information to selected third parties who may then send information to you about goods and services. You can indicate you do not wish to receive such material by contacting us here."

Nowhere is their reference to "we will disclose your personal information to our reader base if we think it will make a juicy story". It seems the Echo has breached its privacy policy and Data Protection legislation here, which I feel is a more important story than "person has opinions that other people don't like".

Comments from Dan Kerins or other members of the Echo team welcomed.

Is that boat in the picture, one of the perks of being head of transport for the council? He might need it to escape from the cretins........sorry voters of Southampton.

“cretins”, “bigoted” and “inbred” and that is just the Labour voters!!

It’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it, although looking at the photo of the happy couple, I think she should be careful when calling others inbred.

It is very worrying to know that what we say on a forum can be used against us and our names and personal info can be disclosed without our permission.
I don't post on here very often, but sometimes say things tongue in cheek that others don't agree with, that is what a forum is about . I will be unsubscribing from this forum as I have no wish to have all my posts for the past years used against me
May-be others should thing about doing the same

THEKILLER wrote:
It is very worrying to know that what we say on a forum can be used against us and our names and personal info can be disclosed without our permission.
I don't post on here very often, but sometimes say things tongue in cheek that others don't agree with, that is what a forum is about . I will be unsubscribing from this forum as I have no wish to have all my posts for the past years used against me
May-be others should thing about doing the same

Do we read into anything why you call yourself the Killer?

rightway wrote:
It’s her opinion and she’s entitled to it, although looking at the photo of the happy couple, I think she should be careful when calling others inbred.

Yes it is her opinion and she is entitled to it.... I feel the more serious issue here is the Daily Echo revealing her identity thus contravening their privacy policy.

Absolutely being a mass murder who is sending this from prison, as I'm sure the Echo will confirm !!!!!!!

What a disgraceful act by the Echo.
.
A witch hunt by Editor Murray and reporter chums at the City Council is getting a little punchy now and involving local politicians families which has to be condemned by all.
.
I can understand Editors Murray’s disappointment at the demise of his chum Royston but as an editor of a well read local rag he should start to draw the line and move on whilst trying to show some impartiality .. and ........ very soon.
.
Putting politics aside …….. I feel that it is disgusting that users of this site can have their personal postings and comments blazoned over three pages of this rag with your full name and address location for all to see.
.
When you “sign” up to this site with a view to posting your comments, you can either enter your “own” name to be accredited to your post (as some do) or use a fictitious name on your post (as many do).
.
Does this now mean that the Echo will read your comments, check your full name against that post and at a later stage reveal it on a NATIONAL basis if they feel like it.
.
I would have thought this is in breach of the Data Protection Act of 1998 and 2003.
.
Anyway …. After reading the three pages compiled a Luke Tugby and presumably agreed by Murray, I think the ladies comments were somewhat justified.
.
As with so many ignorant and venemous posters on this site, who made vile personal comments regarding her father’s redundancy without even knowing him I feel that she was well justified in posting her comments and under an assumed name.
.
As regards the comments re the cemetery worker being made redundant I would suggest that she followed the pattern of several posters, in not only condemning the hysteria surrounding the issue, but also, the posters lack of knowledge on the situation.
.
The issue here, IMO, is not the postings, but, the way that the Echo has treated this woman as if she has murdered someone and to give it THREE PAGES is really beyond belief.
.
Irrespective of your political colour this should not happen to ANY politicians family.
.
TABLOID REPORTING ECHO ….. SHAMEFUL
.
We expect better from you

THEKILLER wrote:
Absolutely being a mass murder who is sending this from prison, as I'm sure the Echo will confirm !!!!!!!

They will be going through all your old posts now... Mr Sutcliffe

I clicked on this story expecting to be outraged and I am..... at the ECHO.

Absolutely disgusting breech of Privacy

I do not agree with this ladies comments, but to reveal her identity is a terrible thing for the echo to do. I sincerely hope she reports them to the press complaints people.

This is awful, Echo!

Trolling your own news paper with salacious trash such as this is disgusting. The woman is entitled to her opinion - whether others agree or not and she has done nothing more than millions of people do every day under assumed identities.

I believe you're in breach of your terms.

Good post LR, I am sure that this will not be the end of this "story"" as I would assume that there have been some serious breached of privacy and confidentially.

Some I knew that worked at the echo a long time ago said that Murray would fall on his sword because he thinks he's running a major red top comic, this could turn out to be very true.....

most other cities hold this opinion of southampton people,fact.

PRIVACY POLICY
Newsquest does not store or capture data about you Really????

Can't find a unsubscribe button ????

Forget the petty party politics here for a minute and put all your political prejudices to one side.
.
Good.
.
Now are you happy with The Daily Echo outing anonymous posts on this forum/site?
.
It is a clear breach of their own policy and a real "big brother" moment and whoever has undertaken this action or signed off on it should hang their heads in shame.
.
This site ranges from reasoned debate to outright banter and Micky taking and to think that The Echo will out someone and use these postings as a story is absolutely outrageous.
.
People who post here need to think long and hard about what they say in future as it is possible that The Echo will out you and make you a story on their site.
.
I would be very interested for Ian Murray's view on such an infringement of civil liberties.

Anyone should be able to give their personal views and opinions in this forum without fear of the Echo making their identies known.
I hope this woman makes a complaint against the Echo regarding this outrageous breach the Data Protection Act
It is unfortunate that her descriptions fit a good number of the City residents

Facewagon wrote:
Perhaps the Echo would like to explain how its actions in this case fit with its privacy policy, which states:


"Disclosure of personal information to third parties
Your personal information will be disclosed where we are obliged or permitted to do so by law, or in the circumstances described in paragraph 15 of the Terms. We may disclose non-personally identifiable data to commercial advertisers on our websites or any other of our commercial clients to help them understand and meet potential customer preferences and needs. We may disclose your personal information to selected third parties who may then send information to you about goods and services. You can indicate you do not wish to receive such material by contacting us here."

Nowhere is their reference to "we will disclose your personal information to our reader base if we think it will make a juicy story". It seems the Echo has breached its privacy policy and Data Protection legislation here, which I feel is a more important story than "person has opinions that other people don't like".

Comments from Dan Kerins or other members of the Echo team welcomed.

It was release in the Echo News Papper before it was put up on the web site, there fore "paragraph 15 of the Terms" do not apply.

Ha ha..and ha ha ha..is all I can think at the present.

Datarater wrote:
“cretins”, “bigoted” and “inbred” and that is just the Labour voters!!

It's not an exclusive trait, it's across the political divide and nothing she said is untrue,it's just that people cannot face the truth. Take a look at yourself and think, "Do people think that of me?" If you suspect that they do, then do something about it.

I actually think she should think about what she is saying and is a disgrace.

I am a proud of my city and anyone representing the city should be positive about its people, it a duty.

There has to be an apology. We live in a world where you have to be responsible for what you say.

PS, Well done echo, and I believe this is in the public interest.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Datarater wrote:
“cretins”, “bigoted” and “inbred” and that is just the Labour voters!!

It's not an exclusive trait, it's across the political divide and nothing she said is untrue,it's just that people cannot face the truth. Take a look at yourself and think, "Do people think that of me?" If you suspect that they do, then do something about it.

I would say that she got it wrong about Jim Emery, but again that is my opinion.

The only apology required here is for the serious own goal by the Echo in the way they've sourced and revealed an anonymous contributors identity, sadly I suspect an apology by the Echo will not be forthcoming as they continue to devolve into yet another gutter press publication.

southy wrote:

Facewagon wrote:
Perhaps the Echo would like to explain how its actions in this case fit with its privacy policy, which states:


"Disclosure of personal information to third parties
Your personal information will be disclosed where we are obliged or permitted to do so by law, or in the circumstances described in paragraph 15 of the Terms. We may disclose non-personally identifiable data to commercial advertisers on our websites or any other of our commercial clients to help them understand and meet potential customer preferences and needs. We may disclose your personal information to selected third parties who may then send information to you about goods and services. You can indicate you do not wish to receive such material by contacting us here."

Nowhere is their reference to "we will disclose your personal information to our reader base if we think it will make a juicy story". It seems the Echo has breached its privacy policy and Data Protection legislation here, which I feel is a more important story than "person has opinions that other people don't like".

Comments from Dan Kerins or other members of the Echo team welcomed.

It was release in the Echo News Papper before it was put up on the web site, there fore "paragraph 15 of the Terms" do not apply.

Utterly irrelevant. The Echo is on very shaky legal ground here.

The happy couple both look like inbred, bigoted cretins themselves, next time she should take a look in a mirror (if it doesn't break when she's in frame) before calling the public slanderous names.

Take into consideration that the "offensive" remarks were NOT made to the people of Southampton. ONLY to the ones that posted vile jibes re her Father.
.
Echo didnt make that clear .... surprise suprise

How many of you know my Identitiy, most do, How many of you have posted my real name up on this forum, a number off you have, and Councillor Furnell who post on here, how about him and you got the same answer.
But Do We Worry About It, the answer is NO we dont,
Now its leaves me to wonder what have all you lot got to worry about, to be in fear of having your real Identitys known, more so those that have been slagging off other people and name calling, could it be that you are councillors or like in this case a partner to a councillors or Politically aline to a political party of sorts.
LR good post but on these things, I think you find that the Data Protection Act do not cover open public forums, And what this lady said was wrong to insult the people of Southampton, its now her turn to stand by what she said and take the flak, or take her words back.

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Take into consideration that the "offensive" remarks were NOT made to the people of Southampton. ONLY to the ones that posted vile jibes re her Father.
.
Echo didnt make that clear .... surprise suprise

And then she launched an unprovoked attack on those protesting about Jim Emery's job being axed.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Datarater wrote:
“cretins”, “bigoted” and “inbred” and that is just the Labour voters!!

It's not an exclusive trait, it's across the political divide and nothing she said is untrue,it's just that people cannot face the truth. Take a look at yourself and think, "Do people think that of me?" If you suspect that they do, then do something about it.

Er, Cretinism has been mostly eradicated in the Western world due to early detection and treatment.

southy wrote:
How many of you know my Identitiy, most do, How many of you have posted my real name up on this forum, a number off you have, and Councillor Furnell who post on here, how about him and you got the same answer.
But Do We Worry About It, the answer is NO we dont,
Now its leaves me to wonder what have all you lot got to worry about, to be in fear of having your real Identitys known, more so those that have been slagging off other people and name calling, could it be that you are councillors or like in this case a partner to a councillors or Politically aline to a political party of sorts.
LR good post but on these things, I think you find that the Data Protection Act do not cover open public forums, And what this lady said was wrong to insult the people of Southampton, its now her turn to stand by what she said and take the flak, or take her words back.

Read my post ...... She DID NOT direct her "comments" to the people of Southampton ONLY the vile posters who slated her father .....
.
That a BIG difference.
.

As for Luke Tugby, the journalist on this piece he must be on Murdoch's list of 'ones to watch.' He keeps writes excellent pieces that involve ruining peoples lives armed with his trusty thesaurus and fuelled no doubt by a tipple or three. His sensationalist writing skills and ability to repeat the same information 2/3 times per piece makes him destined for a great career with the scumbags at News International! The Echo should just be renamed 'The Tory mouthpiece'

I agree that this "lady" does have a right to her own opinion, in the same way i feel that being a wife of someone who holds such a high profile position, she should not allow herself to be drawn into making or relpying to comments, that if she were to use her own name, would be disregarded as personal and not hold the impact she was so clearly striving to achieve. The position her husband holds is always going to be open for scrutiny and comments from " the general public" as to how he professionally (or unprofessionally) handles past, present and future situations. If this "lady" finds that dealing with "bigoted, inbred cretins" as she so shamelessly labels the cities residents is a tough job, then maybe Councillor Thorpe is in the wrong job and its time to resign.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
The happy couple both look like inbred, bigoted cretins themselves, next time she should take a look in a mirror (if it doesn't break when she's in frame) before calling the public slanderous names.

In your opinion and maybe a few others but not generally thought so.

userds5050 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Datarater wrote:
“cretins”, “bigoted” and “inbred” and that is just the Labour voters!!

It's not an exclusive trait, it's across the political divide and nothing she said is untrue,it's just that people cannot face the truth. Take a look at yourself and think, "Do people think that of me?" If you suspect that they do, then do something about it.

Er, Cretinism has been mostly eradicated in the Western world due to early detection and treatment.

Progress

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Facewagon wrote:
Perhaps the Echo would like to explain how its actions in this case fit with its privacy policy, which states:


"Disclosure of personal information to third parties
Your personal information will be disclosed where we are obliged or permitted to do so by law, or in the circumstances described in paragraph 15 of the Terms. We may disclose non-personally identifiable data to commercial advertisers on our websites or any other of our commercial clients to help them understand and meet potential customer preferences and needs. We may disclose your personal information to selected third parties who may then send information to you about goods and services. You can indicate you do not wish to receive such material by contacting us here."

Nowhere is their reference to "we will disclose your personal information to our reader base if we think it will make a juicy story". It seems the Echo has breached its privacy policy and Data Protection legislation here, which I feel is a more important story than "person has opinions that other people don't like".

Comments from Dan Kerins or other members of the Echo team welcomed.

It was release in the Echo News Papper before it was put up on the web site, there fore "paragraph 15 of the Terms" do not apply.

Utterly irrelevant. The Echo is on very shaky legal ground here.

Its very relevant, no case to answer. The woman made a statement behind a hiden identity, it was then discovered not by the Echo but by a citizen of Southampton who reviled her identity to the echo or a southampton citizen working for the Echo took personal offence to what she said and reviled her identity or the Echo make sure that that they publish in the Echo before they put on the web site, the Echo reserve the rights to post on there web site an artical that as appeared in the Echo.

Practice what you preach?

blue.me10 wrote:
southy get a life u bigot, all u do is sit on this site moaning bout s**t. go out son, meet some people

If only you have seen what I have seen and the very high number of people I have talk to and still talk to and new ones being added every day, Its more than likely make your life look very very shallow

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

userds5050 wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Datarater wrote:
“cretins”, “bigoted” and “inbred” and that is just the Labour voters!!

It's not an exclusive trait, it's across the political divide and nothing she said is untrue,it's just that people cannot face the truth. Take a look at yourself and think, "Do people think that of me?" If you suspect that they do, then do something about it.

Er, Cretinism has been mostly eradicated in the Western world due to early detection and treatment.

Progress

Sure is. The people she was referring to most likely have achondroplasia. It's a common mistake to make.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
How many of you know my Identitiy, most do, How many of you have posted my real name up on this forum, a number off you have, and Councillor Furnell who post on here, how about him and you got the same answer.
But Do We Worry About It, the answer is NO we dont,
Now its leaves me to wonder what have all you lot got to worry about, to be in fear of having your real Identitys known, more so those that have been slagging off other people and name calling, could it be that you are councillors or like in this case a partner to a councillors or Politically aline to a political party of sorts.
LR good post but on these things, I think you find that the Data Protection Act do not cover open public forums, And what this lady said was wrong to insult the people of Southampton, its now her turn to stand by what she said and take the flak, or take her words back.

Read my post ...... She DID NOT direct her "comments" to the people of Southampton ONLY the vile posters who slated her father .....
.
That a BIG difference.
.

And they are people of southampton

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Practice what you preach?

QUOTE: Southampton Tory leader, Cllr Royston Smith said: " People like Cllr Thorpe who are in public office should certainly be very careful with the way that they treat the public and what they say and do." Practice what you preach?

blue.me10 wrote:
people of southampton, u have webbed feet, INBRED

You are mistaking us for that mob down the other end of the M27!

sallyjennie wrote:
I agree that this "lady" does have a right to her own opinion, in the same way i feel that being a wife of someone who holds such a high profile position, she should not allow herself to be drawn into making or relpying to comments, that if she were to use her own name, would be disregarded as personal and not hold the impact she was so clearly striving to achieve. The position her husband holds is always going to be open for scrutiny and comments from " the general public" as to how he professionally (or unprofessionally) handles past, present and future situations. If this "lady" finds that dealing with "bigoted, inbred cretins" as she so shamelessly labels the cities residents is a tough job, then maybe Councillor Thorpe is in the wrong job and its time to resign.

Well said SJ

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
most other cities hold this opinion of southampton people,fact.

Tell us the ones that don't?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

blue.me10 wrote:
people of southampton, u have webbed feet, INBRED

You are mistaking us for that mob down the other end of the M27!

Indeed, plus having some sort of physical feature considered as "not normal" doesn't mean they're inbred either, just means they're different.

Being able to sit on the fence I can see it is blatantly obvious that the lady's comments were aimed at a few of the bloggers on this site, not the people of Southampton as the Echo has rather disingenuously stated in the article. The fact that some of the previous posters on this thread have fallen for the Echo's story only tells me that she was fully justified in what she said about US.

Now I understand why the editor has a naked picture of Julian Assange on his wall.

blue.me10 wrote:
“cretins”, “bigoted” and “inbred”., she should of said more bout the people of soton, but its true.. ive meet so many people since movin to this city, and yes, they are great swimmers, "INBREDS", im afraid its gone much further than inbreeding.

If you feel that badly about the people of southampton perhaps you should go back to where you came from!! As the wife of a politician this "lady" should be extremely careful what she says. All this has done for me is confirm that the labour party in general as not worth a vote, 1 elected person jumps ship at the first hurdle, another goes back on their word and another allows his very rude wife to make disparaging remarks about the very people who voted him in. Perhaps we need another election and soon?

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Take into consideration that the "offensive" remarks were NOT made to the people of Southampton. ONLY to the ones that posted vile jibes re her Father.
.
Echo didnt make that clear .... surprise suprise

Exactly.

The Echo headline twists language to imply that the comments refer to all city residents when looking at the detail this is not the case at all.

It's thoroughly nasty journalism and makes you think twice before contributing comments to things like this.

It's actually quite scary to think that this could happen and I for one will no longer contribute anything to the Echo website until a full apology from THEM is forthcoming.

Really hope the Echo gets it's knuckles justifiably rapped.

Whether there is a higher case of inbreeding in Southampton or not. The Echo should of respected the right to remain anonymous in this forum. Any abusive texts on here should of just been deleted by the Echo. Will Ian Murray now be studying phone hacking technique so as to bag a scoop?

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Take into consideration that the "offensive" remarks were NOT made to the people of Southampton. ONLY to the ones that posted vile jibes re her Father.
.
Echo didnt make that clear .... surprise suprise

It was clear actually!!!! She was an idiot for making tose comments, and take it on the chin.

I think the Echo have a lot of questions to answer regarding recent stories and that a lot will be revealed in time, maybe Newsquest should look into how and who is running the paper and the reasons they are giving so much space to certain stories amongst other things.

southy wrote:

blue.me10 wrote:
southy get a life u bigot, all u do is sit on this site moaning bout s**t. go out son, meet some people

If only you have seen what I have seen and the very high number of people I have talk to and still talk to and new ones being added every day, Its more than likely make your life look very very shallow

Everyone advancing in to old age can make the same claim unless they have chosen to be a recluse or they're confined in some way.

If this contravenes the confidentiality clause then the Echo are wrong to release her name.
but if the Echo are reporting it wrong why doesn't she print an apology stating she never meant the people of Southampton just the ones who slated her dad?
the truth is she stated the inbreds of Southampton did she say this in the heat of anger? yet again why didn't/don't she write an apology?
to say it should have nothing to do with her husband being a councillor is absolute bunk.
He's representing this Inbred Southampton constituency & she should be aware of anything like this will reflect on him.
As for the Echo you were out of line printing her name & before you release ours here's my name. Wayne Hobson I have nothing to hide & my loosehead title is a position I played in Rugby.
Any one who knows me will know the hard live & the background I come from & will know how wrong many of the left wing /Unions are wrong about me.
So come on if you have nothing to hide tell us you're names

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

blue.me10 wrote:
southy get a life u bigot, all u do is sit on this site moaning bout s**t. go out son, meet some people

If only you have seen what I have seen and the very high number of people I have talk to and still talk to and new ones being added every day, Its more than likely make your life look very very shallow

Everyone advancing in to old age can make the same claim unless they have chosen to be a recluse or they're confined in some way.

Torchie even people older than me, can not make the same claim.

Inform Al wrote:
Being able to sit on the fence I can see it is blatantly obvious that the lady's comments were aimed at a few of the bloggers on this site, not the people of Southampton as the Echo has rather disingenuously stated in the article. The fact that some of the previous posters on this thread have fallen for the Echo's story only tells me that she was fully justified in what she said about US.

Tut Tut A1, we all ready know that you are politicaly aline, so sitting on the frence do not apply to you.

loosehead wrote:
If this contravenes the confidentiality clause then the Echo are wrong to release her name.
but if the Echo are reporting it wrong why doesn't she print an apology stating she never meant the people of Southampton just the ones who slated her dad?
the truth is she stated the inbreds of Southampton did she say this in the heat of anger? yet again why didn't/don't she write an apology?
to say it should have nothing to do with her husband being a councillor is absolute bunk.
He's representing this Inbred Southampton constituency & she should be aware of anything like this will reflect on him.
As for the Echo you were out of line printing her name & before you release ours here's my name. Wayne Hobson I have nothing to hide & my loosehead title is a position I played in Rugby.
Any one who knows me will know the hard live & the background I come from & will know how wrong many of the left wing /Unions are wrong about me.
So come on if you have nothing to hide tell us you're names

I'M SPARTACUS!

Forest Resident wrote:
The only apology required here is for the serious own goal by the Echo in the way they've sourced and revealed an anonymous contributors identity, sadly I suspect an apology by the Echo will not be forthcoming as they continue to devolve into yet another gutter press publication.

Why should the Echo apologise?
This "lady" has been exposed for her double standards, which to me seem to flow all too frequently when they have the misguided impression because of who they are or who they are related to, that they have a right to look down on those they deem less worthy. Classic case of careful who you trample on on your way up, as these same people will be your welcoming committee on your rapid descent to earth.

MisterGrimsdale wrote:
Now I understand why the editor has a naked picture of Julian Assange on his wall.

That is personal and private information and should not be published on here. Disgraceful behaviour.

Ted Rogers wrote:

loosehead wrote:
If this contravenes the confidentiality clause then the Echo are wrong to release her name.
but if the Echo are reporting it wrong why doesn't she print an apology stating she never meant the people of Southampton just the ones who slated her dad?
the truth is she stated the inbreds of Southampton did she say this in the heat of anger? yet again why didn't/don't she write an apology?
to say it should have nothing to do with her husband being a councillor is absolute bunk.
He's representing this Inbred Southampton constituency & she should be aware of anything like this will reflect on him.
As for the Echo you were out of line printing her name & before you release ours here's my name. Wayne Hobson I have nothing to hide & my loosehead title is a position I played in Rugby.
Any one who knows me will know the hard live & the background I come from & will know how wrong many of the left wing /Unions are wrong about me.
So come on if you have nothing to hide tell us you're names

I'M SPARTACUS!

Not Ted Rogers the comedian then?

From One Cretinous Inbred and Bigoted citizin to another i would just like to say Hello to ALL.

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

blue.me10 wrote:
southy get a life u bigot, all u do is sit on this site moaning bout s**t. go out son, meet some people

If only you have seen what I have seen and the very high number of people I have talk to and still talk to and new ones being added every day, Its more than likely make your life look very very shallow

Everyone advancing in to old age can make the same claim unless they have chosen to be a recluse or they're confined in some way.

Torchie even people older than me, can not make the same claim.

Are you sure you aren't referring to the life that you would have liked? You have listed your life steps on this blog over the years and an incomplete education, a few trips on the IoW ferry, a bit of work on the local refinery, a failed attempt at running your own business and now trying to gain a place in politics with an extremist party that is hardly electable? Not the stuff of legends is it?

First of all Lone Ranger was very prominent on the comments about Anthea Thorpe's father's redundancy back in February - they are obviously very close to Commnurse and asaspacey and are therefore biased. Secondly, I think it's a good lesson that the internet shouldn't be used just to make defamatory remarks about other people or to try and distract from real and important issues by doing so. And thirdly, has anyone read Asa Thorpe's blog where he printed a little cartoon of a 'reply board' he uses when replying to the TROLLS (ie local community) who contact him with questions?!!! They both admit to being sci fi fans, I suggest they both grow up.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
most other cities hold this opinion of southampton people,fact.

Tell us the ones that don't?

the outer limits of space,

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Facewagon wrote:
Perhaps the Echo would like to explain how its actions in this case fit with its privacy policy, which states:


"Disclosure of personal information to third parties
Your personal information will be disclosed where we are obliged or permitted to do so by law, or in the circumstances described in paragraph 15 of the Terms. We may disclose non-personally identifiable data to commercial advertisers on our websites or any other of our commercial clients to help them understand and meet potential customer preferences and needs. We may disclose your personal information to selected third parties who may then send information to you about goods and services. You can indicate you do not wish to receive such material by contacting us here."

Nowhere is their reference to "we will disclose your personal information to our reader base if we think it will make a juicy story". It seems the Echo has breached its privacy policy and Data Protection legislation here, which I feel is a more important story than "person has opinions that other people don't like".

Comments from Dan Kerins or other members of the Echo team welcomed.

It was release in the Echo News Papper before it was put up on the web site, there fore "paragraph 15 of the Terms" do not apply.

Utterly irrelevant. The Echo is on very shaky legal ground here.

Its very relevant, no case to answer. The woman made a statement behind a hiden identity, it was then discovered not by the Echo but by a citizen of Southampton who reviled her identity to the echo or a southampton citizen working for the Echo took personal offence to what she said and reviled her identity or the Echo make sure that that they publish in the Echo before they put on the web site, the Echo reserve the rights to post on there web site an artical that as appeared in the Echo.

Southy, you're way off on this. The fact is that the Echo have publicised a poster's personal details, in contravention of their own privacy policy. Where these details were published first is irrelevant. Paragraph 15 refers to passing details onto third parties for marketing purposes, which has no bearing on this case. As it stands, the Echo has a case to answer. Just because you feel your identity is in the public domain does not mean that the Echo is justified in breaching its privacy policy.

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

blue.me10 wrote:
southy get a life u bigot, all u do is sit on this site moaning bout s**t. go out son, meet some people

If only you have seen what I have seen and the very high number of people I have talk to and still talk to and new ones being added every day, Its more than likely make your life look very very shallow

Everyone advancing in to old age can make the same claim unless they have chosen to be a recluse or they're confined in some way.

Torchie even people older than me, can not make the same claim.

Are you sure you aren't referring to the life that you would have liked? You have listed your life steps on this blog over the years and an incomplete education, a few trips on the IoW ferry, a bit of work on the local refinery, a failed attempt at running your own business and now trying to gain a place in politics with an extremist party that is hardly electable? Not the stuff of legends is it?

Have you been to Antarctica, or the many other places I been to, and a business that did not fail, it still running today, and able semi-retire early, and be part of the only middle of the road political party that is new and rising in supporters.
Its a lot more than you ever achieved, and more than likely than you will ever achieve in life, but you never know one day you just might make a break from that mondane job you got and realise that money is not the be all and end and its just a tool to be used.

Facewagon said:-
Southy, you're way off on this. The fact is that the Echo have publicised a poster's personal details, in contravention of their own privacy policy. Where these details were published first is irrelevant.
Paragraph 15 refers to passing details onto third parties for marketing purposes, which has no bearing on this case. As it stands, the Echo has a case to answer. Just because you feel your identity is in the public domain does not mean that the Echo is justified in breaching its privacy policy.

It is very relevant, Publish in the Echo News Paper means its all ready been publish and all there site have done is repeated all ready publish news, so the details was all ready out.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Facewagon wrote:
Perhaps the Echo would like to explain how its actions in this case fit with its privacy policy, which states:


"Disclosure of personal information to third parties
Your personal information will be disclosed where we are obliged or permitted to do so by law, or in the circumstances described in paragraph 15 of the Terms. We may disclose non-personally identifiable data to commercial advertisers on our websites or any other of our commercial clients to help them understand and meet potential customer preferences and needs. We may disclose your personal information to selected third parties who may then send information to you about goods and services. You can indicate you do not wish to receive such material by contacting us here."

Nowhere is their reference to "we will disclose your personal information to our reader base if we think it will make a juicy story". It seems the Echo has breached its privacy policy and Data Protection legislation here, which I feel is a more important story than "person has opinions that other people don't like".

Comments from Dan Kerins or other members of the Echo team welcomed.

It was release in the Echo News Papper before it was put up on the web site, there fore "paragraph 15 of the Terms" do not apply.

Utterly irrelevant. The Echo is on very shaky legal ground here.

Its very relevant, no case to answer. The woman made a statement behind a hiden identity, it was then discovered not by the Echo but by a citizen of Southampton who reviled her identity to the echo or a southampton citizen working for the Echo took personal offence to what she said and reviled her identity or the Echo make sure that that they publish in the Echo before they put on the web site, the Echo reserve the rights to post on there web site an artical that as appeared in the Echo.

Completely circular argument. Well done. Here is your point, summed up. See if you can spot the glaring hole in the logic:

"It is not a privacy breach, as it was printed in the paper edition first. I can prove this, because the Echo made sure they printed it on paper first, to make sure it wasn't a breach"

Compare it to this argument, which is basically the same thing:

"The Bible must be right, because it is the Word of God. I know it is the Word of God, because it says so in the Bible"

southy wrote:
Facewagon said:-
Southy, you're way off on this. The fact is that the Echo have publicised a poster's personal details, in contravention of their own privacy policy. Where these details were published first is irrelevant.
Paragraph 15 refers to passing details onto third parties for marketing purposes, which has no bearing on this case. As it stands, the Echo has a case to answer. Just because you feel your identity is in the public domain does not mean that the Echo is justified in breaching its privacy policy.

It is very relevant, Publish in the Echo News Paper means its all ready been publish and all there site have done is repeated all ready publish news, so the details was all ready out.

You can't prove your argument just by repeating it.

If the Echo exposed evryones identities on here you wouls see a very sad bunch of OAP's in kanga pants who have got nothing better to do than quote other peoples posts repeatedly, correct people on their use of grammar and spout their political view point to people who couldnt care less.
I dont see why she should be vilified for speaking the truth and sorry no,not everyone in Southampton supports Jim Emery at all.

Ha ha ha it's so true.

Why do the spouses of councillors always assume they are elevated onto some higher morale higher ground? and that they too have gained some kind of authority?

Presumably, she does not want her husband to be re-elected.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
How many of you know my Identitiy, most do, How many of you have posted my real name up on this forum, a number off you have, and Councillor Furnell who post on here, how about him and you got the same answer.
But Do We Worry About It, the answer is NO we dont,
Now its leaves me to wonder what have all you lot got to worry about, to be in fear of having your real Identitys known, more so those that have been slagging off other people and name calling, could it be that you are councillors or like in this case a partner to a councillors or Politically aline to a political party of sorts.
LR good post but on these things, I think you find that the Data Protection Act do not cover open public forums, And what this lady said was wrong to insult the people of Southampton, its now her turn to stand by what she said and take the flak, or take her words back.

Read my post ...... She DID NOT direct her "comments" to the people of Southampton ONLY the vile posters who slated her father .....
.
That a BIG difference.
.

for the record YES she did direct her verbal dyhorea to the people of Southampton,if you read back through it..She said far too much that could have only come about by Asa & Anthea discussing Jims case with eachother! The APOLOGY Is only being directed to the people she offended sticking fighting her dads corner for her father last year, which i She hasnt and prob wont apologise to people in southampton for what she labelled us most recently!

joenice1 wrote:
I actually think she should think about what she is saying and is a disgrace.

I am a proud of my city and anyone representing the city should be positive about its people, it a duty.

There has to be an apology. We live in a world where you have to be responsible for what you say.

PS, Well done echo, and I believe this is in the public interest.

quite agree joenice1

lisa whitemore wrote:

joenice1 wrote:
I actually think she should think about what she is saying and is a disgrace.

I am a proud of my city and anyone representing the city should be positive about its people, it a duty.

There has to be an apology. We live in a world where you have to be responsible for what you say.

PS, Well done echo, and I believe this is in the public interest.

quite agree joenice1

Rubbish, she said that most of the bigots etc in Southampton seem to post on this site. As that numbers about 5 or 6 she appears to have actually underestinated the numbers of bigots etc in Southampton. It is the Echo that for political bias has distorted this story.