The Meeting Between S Easdale and SOS at Full Time

[Bluedell 5,740]

And what the f*** has Green got to do with this thread? Please keep it relevant guys.

[chilledbear 16]

To be truthful I am more concerned about the conduct of a Director, than I am about a figurehead of a Supporters Group.

[bluebear54 0]

I tire of having our dirty linen washed in public for the benefit of newspaper sales and the gleeful entertainment of our haters. We have been the driving force in media sales for over 2 years now.

[der Berliner 3,886]

I refuse to believe you are so naive to actually post and concur with this nonsense. We are talking about Easdale's lawyer not Rangers lawyer.

 

Actually, I reckon that Houston's address will be in any telephone book out there. His or at least his parents'. Would double-checking whether it is the same address that the ST go to be unlawful? It is somewhat strange that at times people refer to the company/board/club just as "the club", while as it is now the board/company/club are seperate things again. So again, as a director of the company, is Easdale utterly forbidden to use the info of the ST holder to send him a letter via his own lawyer, when he is being targetted by said ST holder because of his role as a Rangers boardmember? (Coming to think of it, maybe Charlotte told his lawyer ... she/he/it seems to have all access as well. Not that this is usually deemed unlawful.)

 

Of course, as we now have some more facts, it is utterly ridiculous how the paper went into hyperbole about Easdale willing to sue "Rangers supporters", when it in essence was a private matter between him and Houston. Do these people actually get paid for this?

[Bluedell 5,740]

Actually, I reckon that Houston's address will be in any telephone book out there. His or at least his parents'.

What phone book do you look in? Glasgow South, Glasgow North? Inverclyde? Edinburgh? How would anyone know his mum's address. The phone book doesn't say Craig's mum.

 

Would double-checking whether it is the same address that the ST go to be unlawful?

Yes. However in this case it seems highly unlikely he could have got the address from any other source.

 

It is somewhat strange that at times people refer to the company/board/club just as "the club", while as it is now the board/company/club are seperate things again. So again, as a director of the company, is Easdale utterly forbidden to use the info of the ST holder to send him a letter via his own lawyer, when he is being targetted by said ST holder because of his role as a Rangers boardmember?

It is forbidden for him to get information from the club/company and for him to use it in a personal way. He could have written to him as a company director but not in a personal sense.

 

You obviously don't get the Data Protection Act so just accept that Easdale's actions were illegal if he did what was alleged.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Bluedell

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Actually, I reckon that Houston's address will be in any telephone book out there. His or at least his parents'. Would double-checking whether it is the same address that the ST go to be unlawful? It is somewhat strange that at times people refer to the company/board/club just as "the club", while as it is now the board/company/club are seperate things again. So again, as a director of the company, is Easdale utterly forbidden to use the info of the ST holder to send him a letter via his own lawyer, when he is being targetted by said ST holder because of his role as a Rangers boardmember? (Coming to think of it, maybe Charlotte told his lawyer ... she/he/it seems to have all access as well. Not that this is usually deemed unlawful.)

 

Of course, as we now have some more facts, it is utterly ridiculous how the paper went into hyperbole about Easdale willing to sue "Rangers supporters", when it in essence was a private matter between him and Houston. Do these people actually get paid for this?

 

yes utterly illegal and may see him in real trouble if proven.

[andy steel 0]

Since the telecom industry was de-regulated the Phone Book has gone from the size of a prop on Worlds' Strongest Man to a wafer-thin pamphlet which comes in the door and straight into the Blue Bin. Wherever the info came from, it wasn't any phone book.

 

I've heard Craig Houston on the radio and he sounds first class. I wish him all the best. 100% solidarity from this Bear.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

i think we all know what went on here. it's now only a matter of what can be proven and the fallout from that.

[amms 0]

I find dB perplexing on this. Germany has the strictest personal privacy laws in Europe and is at the forefront of preventing personal data being collected for any reason.

 

You can have your own view on whether you think Mr Houston did libel Easedale, you can have your own view on whether Easedale should resort to law on this. What can't be defended is using private information for personal gain. It shows that Easedale either views the club as 'his' and can't distinguish between the two thinking it part of his personal fiefdom or else we've a Director so ignorant of basic law you have to question his suitability for the role.

 

Either scenario is very concerning.

[bluebear54 0]

Actually, I reckon that Houston's address will be in any telephone book out there. His or at least his parents'. Would double-checking whether it is the same address that the ST go to be unlawful? It is somewhat strange that at times people refer to the company/board/club just as "the club", while as it is now the board/company/club are seperate things again. So again, as a director of the company, is Easdale utterly forbidden to use the info of the ST holder to send him a letter via his own lawyer, when he is being targetted by said ST holder because of his role as a Rangers boardmember? (Coming to think of it, maybe Charlotte told his lawyer ... she/he/it seems to have all access as well. Not that this is usually deemed unlawful.)

 

Of course, as we now have some more facts, it is utterly ridiculous how the paper went into hyperbole about Easdale willing to sue "Rangers supporters", when it in essence was a private matter between him and Houston. Do these people actually get paid for this?

 

I'm not quite sure if your post is an attempt to criticise the DPA (1998) or something else altogether. I am tempted to think the latter.

I find it extraordinary, as a professional, that you haven't heard of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG), and aren't fully aware of its ramifications and implications for amongst others, companies and public bodies. Every one of your countrymen that I deal with is totally aware of this legal framework and are extremely au fait with its workings.

You may, or may not be aware that Germany led the way in legislation of this kind for the European Union and was one of the driving forces in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament adopting a general data protection directive in 1995 (Directive 95/46/EC) that had to be implemented in the law of the Member States by the end of 1998. To my knowledge, only Ireland and France have not implemented it. I have heard that, in the case of Ireland, there are multiple reasons (such as the Magdalene scandal) for them dragging their feet as long as possible.

Back to my point, as such, Data Protection legislation is fairly consistent throughout the EU, and seminars on its application are a staple diet for new inductees to companies, public bodies and in fact anyone who holds data belonging to a third party.

Despite your wish to argue otherwise, I can categorically assure you - if Craig's account is true - that there have been multiple breaches of the DPA (1998) in this instance. The prime reason being that Sandy Easdale apparently used data that was in the control of the Club for personal purposes . Furthermore, that data would appear to have been passed to Sandy Easdale's lawyers, which certainly aggravates the situation. If true, I can't for the life of me understand why his lawyers went along with this, because they will be caught up in DPA breaches too. Everyone who has anything to do with that data will be caught up in it. If Sandy Easdale is named as the data controller at the Club, he is facing pretty serious charges and his position would appear to be untenable. Furthermore, the gravity of the situation would appear to be gravely enhanced by the online comments of Jack Irvine who made comment (that Mr Houston) "tell your pals that soon we will take everything off one of them, someone's going to lose their house, savings, cars the lot." May I remind everyone that Mr Irvine was in the employ of the Club at that time and is certainly caught up in all of this. It may well be that those comments were responsible for his and his company's removal a few days later.

If charged, Sandy Easdale may well ask to be exonerated on your "telephone book" principle, but I would imagine the legal world would wait with baited breath on Mr Easdale's explanation as to how - as a private individual - he eliminated every other Houston in every UK telephone book, given that he should not have known Mr Houston's mother's first name in the first place - or that they were even related, or even if she lived in Castlemilk or Catalonia.

As previously mentioned, I am merely a layman, and the thoughts above should be construed as my own, and not as legal advice or interpretation in any way.

They are, however, more convincing to me than the "telephone book" concept.

Edited March 15, 2014 by bluebear54