iwantgreatcare - asleep this weekThere was an argument I used quite a while ago that revolved around quantifying distress. Queens Counsel crowed at me as lawyers often do stating he did not have to remove my data because I could not prove distress. Personally, my view would be this - if something is causing a doctor distress, their GP would be able to say it is causing them distress and anxiety from a medical point of view. The QC did not argue back with me on that point :). He informally removed my data and compromised :). Anyhow, the interesting precedent for organisations causing distress is the GP for Dr David Jarman [[Toth v Jarman] which argued that the GMC was causing him significant anxiety. The GMC accepted that.
I would also approach the Information Commissioner directly and inform them that Bacon already has a ruling against. Use of personal data without permission is currently a extension of that behaviour. I would also seek advice on the legality of the use of a database for marketting purposes where doctors have never given him permission to use their personal data. [ Essentially, Section 10 and 11 Data Protection Act]. If Neil refuses removal, I would issue a pre-action protocol [via solicitors] to inspire him to think more clearly about his mistakes. Costs for the pre-action can be claimed from Bacon.
The key is uncovering the marketting company where Neil Bacon has purchased his database from and using Section 11 Data Protection Act 1998 [to cease processing data] against that market ting company. Once that is successful, Bacon has to comply as well - thats logical. I doubt Bacon will disclose this information but someone can find out the marketting company because everyone has sources. The way it worked with a previous project was this, they apparently got the database from a marketting company to issue circulars etc. My memory is vague but I recall requesting an upstream removal of my data as well which succeeded. The fact I was on the GMC register at the time made no difference.
I would never pay £450 plus VAT for any lawyer to write one letter. There is enough strength of feeling for doctors to obtain a top Queens Counsel in Libel/Data Protection to advise them first then the letters can be issued cheaply through a solicitor. The chambers who fight for doctors normally are Outer Temple Chambers London. Not clear whether they do libel but Richard Lissack QC is usually excellent. The key is to figure out what to do via the best advice available. Following that, the plan for the future may become clearer. Queens Counsel advice is urgently needed for something so complex. I would not develop plans without it. These days solicitors don't need to be instructed - they can be approached directly through public access. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is trusted the advice of a relatively junior solicitor. The law is known by Queens Counsel. Thats my view. The way I did things in the past with Libel was this - I discussed the matter initially with a solicitor, he then sent it directly to leading counsel. We then developed a plan of action and tactics. If this is not done, people go round in circles with no effective solution. Queens Counsel is expensive but worth it. MPS should be covering all member doctors for this. MDU and MDDUS are rather more moody about it. So essentially, I would persuade Priya Singh [MPS] to get the biggest, fattest, cleverest barristers to advise. Afterall, as doctors - you're worth it! The BMA can pay for the advice as well. They know it. If they all whinge, refer to their Articles [ defence union] and BMA small print. The more adventurous of you will can approach Queen Counsel directly by emailing them. On occasion, they do provide free advice if they are on direct access or a solicitor is instructing them. It has happened to me - once.
Neil Bacon is a thick nut to crack due to his stubbornness. An annoying one because he lacks insight. The way to win against him is to argue logic. He cannot rely on the the GMC's Medical Act 1983 to cite that data is "Public" and can be used for marketting purposes. He is not working for the GMC. No data can be used for marketting purposes [ ie making money as he is doing through Google UK ads] without the consent of the data subject. Neil will say different because he always does. Neil will argue on everything. The reason he may be refusing removal of the database because if he says "yes" to one person, he has to say "yes" to everyone and that means that his database collapses as does his business. If in doubt, those of you who are intelligent enough should chase up his Google UK ads :). There is also the UK's Trading Standards but I have no idea how useful they would be.
The above is merely speculative thoughts. I have limited data due to the fact very few people tell me anything although some do :). Dolphin Orange is a wonderful thing. One cannot write positively on half the data but I have tried to write what my interpretation on the 4 texts I got. Section 10 DPA removal for me has succeeded about 6 times in total. If they are refused, normally a court application is enough to job their systems into logical decision making. The key is to look at your information and read the Data Protection Act in detail. Winning an argument is done by paying attention to detail. Neil Bacon pays little attention to detail.
If I was fighting Neil Bacon at this point, he would be pinned to the wall with a pre-action protocol and a particulars of claim drafted. I would then put my arguments through a pre-action protocol. No point in messing around with toerags to my mind. Better looking men than Neil Bacon to play footsie with. Anthony Barton is a doctor/solicitor is swimming around in the oceans of a doctors only web site or he used to be when he mailed me last. He should be advising everyone for free :).
I would also approach the Information Commissioner directly and inform them that Bacon already has a ruling against. Use of personal data without permission is currently a extension of that behaviour. I would also seek advice on the legality of the use of a database for marketting purposes where doctors have never given him permission to use their personal data. [ Essentially, Section 10 and 11 Data Protection Act]. If Neil refuses removal, I would issue a pre-action protocol [via solicitors] to inspire him to think more clearly about his mistakes. Costs for the pre-action can be claimed from Bacon.
The key is uncovering the marketting company where Neil Bacon has purchased his database from and using Section 11 Data Protection Act 1998 [to cease processing data] against that market ting company. Once that is successful, Bacon has to comply as well - thats logical. I doubt Bacon will disclose this information but someone can find out the marketting company because everyone has sources. The way it worked with a previous project was this, they apparently got the database from a marketting company to issue circulars etc. My memory is vague but I recall requesting an upstream removal of my data as well which succeeded. The fact I was on the GMC register at the time made no difference.
I would never pay £450 plus VAT for any lawyer to write one letter. There is enough strength of feeling for doctors to obtain a top Queens Counsel in Libel/Data Protection to advise them first then the letters can be issued cheaply through a solicitor. The chambers who fight for doctors normally are Outer Temple Chambers London. Not clear whether they do libel but Richard Lissack QC is usually excellent. The key is to figure out what to do via the best advice available. Following that, the plan for the future may become clearer. Queens Counsel advice is urgently needed for something so complex. I would not develop plans without it. These days solicitors don't need to be instructed - they can be approached directly through public access. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is trusted the advice of a relatively junior solicitor. The law is known by Queens Counsel. Thats my view. The way I did things in the past with Libel was this - I discussed the matter initially with a solicitor, he then sent it directly to leading counsel. We then developed a plan of action and tactics. If this is not done, people go round in circles with no effective solution. Queens Counsel is expensive but worth it. MPS should be covering all member doctors for this. MDU and MDDUS are rather more moody about it. So essentially, I would persuade Priya Singh [MPS] to get the biggest, fattest, cleverest barristers to advise. Afterall, as doctors - you're worth it! The BMA can pay for the advice as well. They know it. If they all whinge, refer to their Articles [ defence union] and BMA small print. The more adventurous of you will can approach Queen Counsel directly by emailing them. On occasion, they do provide free advice if they are on direct access or a solicitor is instructing them. It has happened to me - once.
Neil Bacon is a thick nut to crack due to his stubbornness. An annoying one because he lacks insight. The way to win against him is to argue logic. He cannot rely on the the GMC's Medical Act 1983 to cite that data is "Public" and can be used for marketting purposes. He is not working for the GMC. No data can be used for marketting purposes [ ie making money as he is doing through Google UK ads] without the consent of the data subject. Neil will say different because he always does. Neil will argue on everything. The reason he may be refusing removal of the database because if he says "yes" to one person, he has to say "yes" to everyone and that means that his database collapses as does his business. If in doubt, those of you who are intelligent enough should chase up his Google UK ads :). There is also the UK's Trading Standards but I have no idea how useful they would be.
The above is merely speculative thoughts. I have limited data due to the fact very few people tell me anything although some do :). Dolphin Orange is a wonderful thing. One cannot write positively on half the data but I have tried to write what my interpretation on the 4 texts I got. Section 10 DPA removal for me has succeeded about 6 times in total. If they are refused, normally a court application is enough to job their systems into logical decision making. The key is to look at your information and read the Data Protection Act in detail. Winning an argument is done by paying attention to detail. Neil Bacon pays little attention to detail.
If I was fighting Neil Bacon at this point, he would be pinned to the wall with a pre-action protocol and a particulars of claim drafted. I would then put my arguments through a pre-action protocol. No point in messing around with toerags to my mind. Better looking men than Neil Bacon to play footsie with. Anthony Barton is a doctor/solicitor is swimming around in the oceans of a doctors only web site or he used to be when he mailed me last. He should be advising everyone for free :).
0 comments:
Post a Comment