MarciaBlaine

As far as I know private parking charges are a bit of a bust, legally. They usually write to you having got your details from the DVLA but they don’t know who was actually driving the car at the time, so they rely on you contacting them to confirm who’s to take the fine. If you don’t confirm that, there’s nothing they can do. Not sure if that applies to your case and I’m happy to stand corrected, but in my experience they can be ignored, including from big commercial car parks, unless they already have a name. (On-street parking is a different kettle of fish though.)

I don’t mind them as such, though would prefer them to be outside the ground or before/after a game is in progress. It’s unfortunate that the damaged items you list (advertising hoardings and plastic grass) are two things I’m no big fan of 😆

I’m still baffled why it wasn’t given offside

Thoroughly entertaining game. Ayr scored the best 2 goals of the day but we could have netted plenty - seen that movie before and it usually ends in a sob story but we had the resilience and application to make it a blockbuster win!

First game back since Montrose in July before all the ownership saga kicked off. I've really missed this! So good to feel that weird Saturday morning mix of trepidation and excitement return. Here's hoping for a bumper crowd, a great (+ positive) atmosphere and of course a good result.

McKay and Bremner were apparently good pals too. One of them (can’t remember which) told the story that when this pic was taken he was saying “Listen you, any more of that and we won’t be going for a pint after the gemme!”

You make some valid points Denis though I disagree with some of your emphasis. I’m also glad to see you back on the forum despite passive aggressive comments in your direction from Admin and others. It has taken many different parties and a real diversity of tactics to get us to this point, which is hopefully a turning point. I’m fairly optimistic on that. While I’ve found TJF’s stance/approach a mite too polite for my liking (I’d have flipped the table in anger many a time!) I think it’s unarguable that they’ve communicated well across a range of media, kept the issues in the spotlight and generally conducted themselves well, showing up other groups in the process. A big conglomeration like the Foundation relies on strength in diversity so although I personally wanted a bit more boldness sometimes, I felt you need to back them up. I’m always the one in life who’s agitating for going that wee bit further and I’d hope that folk in my position help to shift the window of debate generally, even just a tad, by staying in the wider group. That said, it’s also unarguable that other groups and actions have also been vital in toppling the old board and (hopefully) ushering in a better era. There’s a key difference for me between protest and direct action, and the Kelty game was a great example of the latter’s effectiveness. The group who marched to the canal and boycotted the John Lambie stand showed that there can be a visual, narrative and financial impact on what the board were doing and it clearly worked. But the smallish group on the canal bank were backed up by hundreds of fans who either chose to abandon the JLS for the day or boycott the game entirely. That again added to the narrative hugely - think of the story of it being our lowest ever Scottish Cup attendance, or the image of the near-empty stand! - so it’s a wee bit unfair to characterise the action as one done by a tiny minority. It was interesting to see the magnificent 7 mention in their parting shot something about “potential impacts on sponsorship “or words to that effect so you’d have to assume something went on there too. I’m guessing the fact that some fan(s) wrote to sponsors saying the goings-on reflected badly on them meant that they contacted the club to say they weren’t happy about it. McCall mentioned one such incident in the paper at one point. All of which is not to say the more conventional ‘protest’, media work, events etc were insignificant parts of the puzzle here. The whole thing, through many diverse aspects, was what got us here. TJF and the “Trust” are certainly making the right collective noises at the moment so, currently, I’m confident we won’t be fooled twice.

Feeling almost nostalgic that it‘ll be the last petulant, blinkered, arrogant statement from the pen of JLow I’ll ever have the displeasure of reading. Bye Jacqui! Bye pal!

Careful @Jordanhill Jag. You’ll get your knuckles rapped if you don’t call them the PTFC Trust

From the ICO website section on “legitimate interest”: The processing must be necessary. If you can reasonably achieve the same result in another less intrusive way, legitimate interests will not apply. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/legitimate-interests/

That’s some proper “don’t back down, double down” craic there. I don’t think it stands up to basic scrutiny of how GDPR works. Bullet point 1: Legitimate interest is about how you choose to store and use data as a Data Controller - the “lawful basis for processing”. It’s wholly immaterial in passing data to another body imo and it’s very bad practice for the club to gather data and then share it under this amended purpose, going against some of the key points of GDPR’s existence (i.e. consent, being up front about how and why data is collected/used). Bullet point 2: The “Trust” are a third party in this context, separate from the Data Controller (the club) as defined in the Trust’s own GDPR policy. Bullet point 3/5: A wee bit laughable tbh. The perceived “size” or “privacy” of the data really aren’t the point. Personal data is personal data. The character or depth of data only really becomes a factor when you’re being punished for breaches. Point 6: This is a bit of a weird one, not very clear. Presumably the collated data includes names and addresses as well as emails so the impact is potentially much greater if lost or misused. Point 7 is saying the quiet part out loud and doesn’t hold water. Again it goes against the point of GDPR. The GDPR policy quoted at the end only really relates to data processing once they have it, not how they’re getting it from the club.

Hang this video in the Tate!

Can you elaborate a wee bit? I’m guessing this was during the game.

I think the word “appears” is important here. Generally, I’m far from convinced there’s a clear demarcation between the “Trust’s” comms and the club’s. The style (varying between weaselling and passive aggressive) is eerily similar at times. And as has been pointed out, the email slips into the third person again when purporting to be from the Trust in the first person. But I agree that on the face of it, it’s presented as their communication so they’re on the hook.

To be fair to the so-called “Trust” I think this seems more like the club’s error. It’s the club who needed to email fans as they had their contact details (at least in theory, though we’ve now seen they don’t have them all). It’s the club who had to pass the opt-in responses to the “Trust”. The “Trust” are pretty much a passive recipient in this process and they might be as livid as anyone about how this has been handled. They certainly seemed to understand the issues in the James Cairney piece.