A quick rant against people who believe the Labour Party should not have paid "a single penny" to the court case related to the Panorama antisemitism thingy

1/11

The names of the whistleblowers are considered confidential data under the UK Data Protection Act of 2018. Under this act, the data controller is responsible for ensuring that the confidential data which they manage is only used for the purpose for which it is recorded
2/11

The full names of the whistleblowers ended up in the possession of both The Canary and Skwawkbox. If this was unintentional the data controller is considered legally negligent. If this was deliberate the data owner is considered to have deliberately committed a criminal act.
3/11

The legal data controller in question here is "the labour party"

The victims of the crime are due renomination based on the damages they've suffered. Legally this would have to be paid by The Labour Party

4/11

Because of the way The Labour Party is funded, these damages would effectively come from membership fees.

The only argument is how much money would need to be paid out. But then you're saying "I am happy for some of my membership fees being spend but not too much"

5/11

"but what if the names were given to The Canary and Skwarkbox by Panorama" is the only argument I can see which would prevent the labour party being found guilty. For this I need to switch from a Data Protection POV to a moral POV

6/11

I am very confident that Panorama did not leek the names to The Canary and Skwarkbox. To argue that they did seem to me to be the equivalent of "I did a crime but you can't prove it".

I, a labour party member, want my party to be a morally good institution.

7/11

If it commits a crime, I would like it to admit the crime, appropriately compensate the affected parties, and admit what it did. I do not believe "you can't prove it" is a morally defensible position.

or basically "don't be a dick"

8/11

So then basically the arguments people have thrown at me is "ok we should have apologised for X but not Y" or "we should have paid out these damages but not those damages"

Those people can have their arguments. "we should have paid less" "we should have apologised for less"
9/11

eat yer heart out, basically

10/11

politically I say this as a John McDonnell fanboy, who has never voted for a potential leader with more passionate hope than the two times I put the metaphorical X next to JC's name.

People with legal knowledge, I encourage corrections and clarifications.
11/11