Searching for owner of an Ovni 36.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pvb said:
This is madness! GDPR has no bearing on discussion in an open internet forum. If your boat had been damaged, wouldn't you have been pleased to receive any information?
Click to expand...

Fully agree, a forumite in trouble should be afforded any assistance from all
 
I maybe mistaken but was the removed post the mod saying it was under review?

Would like to tread carefully anyway as I am not in the business of accusing people who have done nothing. Would just like to find some details so can pass onto insurance to let them do their part.
 
z1ppy said:
I maybe mistaken but was the removed post the mod saying it was under review?

Would like to tread carefully anyway as I am not in the business of accusing people who have done nothing. Would just like to find some details so can pass onto insurance to let them do their part.
Click to expand...

No, the moderator's comment was that the post had been removed as a result of GDPR. This is not true; GDPR only relates to the way in which the website treats personal information provided by users of the website, not information provided in posts.
 
pvb said:
No, the moderator's comment was that the post had been removed as a result of GDPR. This is not true; GDPR only relates to the way in which the website treats personal information provided by users of the website, not information provided in posts.
Click to expand...

You are entirely mistaken about the Mod intervention especially the bit in bold, and you are becoming agitated without good reason. Concern was expressed to the Mods that personal details might be being revealed. From previous GDPR discussions by the Mods, two points from the GDPR were considered to be germane:

1
If it is possible to identify an individual directly from the information you are processing, then that information may be personal data.

and
2
If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual.

Clarification of possible problems was sought and obtained from a professional source. We moved on, and removed the Mod original post and a copy as they were no longer of significance.

The OP should be commended for the amazingly calm and unfussed way he is finding the owner/skipper of the Ovni without rushing to judgement. We hope the matter will be resolved properly in the near future.
 
Moderator said:
You are entirely mistaken about the Mod intervention especially the bit in bold, and you are becoming agitated without good reason. Concern was expressed to the Mods that personal details might be being revealed. From previous GDPR discussions by the Mods, two points from the GDPR were considered to be germane:

1
If it is possible to identify an individual directly from the information you are processing, then that information may be personal data.

and
2
If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual.

Clarification of possible problems was sought and obtained from a professional source. We moved on, and removed the Mod original post and a copy as they were no longer of significance.

The OP should be commended for the amazingly calm and unfussed way he is finding the owner/skipper of the Ovni without rushing to judgement. We hope the matter will be resolved properly in the near future.
Click to expand...


Can you elaborate on this point as it seems to be missing context. Are you saying that that no post can be written which identifies any person because that would constitute personal data? If that is the case you might as well close the entire forums because just about everyone here is identifiable.
 
The clarification given to us is that GDPR has no bearing on what users post on the forum, but the T&Cs do.

Mod.
 
Moderator said:
Post removed after GDPR clarification.
Mod
Click to expand...

Moderator said:
You are entirely mistaken about the Mod intervention especially the bit in bold, and you are becoming agitated without good reason. Concern was expressed to the Mods that personal details might be being revealed. From previous GDPR discussions by the Mods, two points from the GDPR were considered to be germane:

1
If it is possible to identify an individual directly from the information you are processing, then that information may be personal data.

and
2
If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual.

Clarification of possible problems was sought and obtained from a professional source. We moved on, and removed the Mod original post and a copy as they were no longer of significance.
Click to expand...

Moderator said:
The clarification given to us is that GDPR has no bearing on what users post on the forum, but the T&Cs do.

Mod.
Click to expand...

So which is it then? GDPR? T&Cs? If you follow this crazy route, it will be impossible for forum users to congratulate good suppliers (because they haven't given you permission to reveal their details), and it will be impossible for forum users to genuinely enquire about the ownership of a rogue boat which has caused damage and disappeared without trace.
 
Tranona said:
Are you sure about that? Is certainly true for RTAs but that is in the Road Traffic Act. There is no criminal offence committed by hitting another boat. It is a civil offence. Insurance will obviously want some supporting evidence (usually eye witness accounts) if they are going to claim from the other party's insurance. However lack of this would not affect payment of the claim to their insured if they have all risks cover.
Click to expand...

Sure? Not completely positive. Merchant Shipping Act. Requires the Master of a vessel involved in a collision to contact the other vessel to determine if assistance is required or not.(or ask for it) exchange information including name, port of registry owners, insurance and P&I. Does this apply to pleasure vessels. Not positive but I believe it does.
 
pvb said:
So which is it then? GDPR? T&Cs? If you follow this crazy route, it will be impossible for forum users to congratulate good suppliers (because they haven't given you permission to reveal their details), and it will be impossible for forum users to genuinely enquire about the ownership of a rogue boat which has caused damage and disappeared without trace.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. It doesnt seem right to me that "discussions" between mods can result in a deletion, then when the "discussion" deletion is questioned with informed opinion then all of a sudden "professional" opinion is sought and it turns out that the "deletion" was based on mistaken interpretation. Not right, not right at all! If I disappear after this post, I will be contacting Timeinc Towers directly by the way!
 
pvb said:
So which is it then? GDPR? T&Cs? If you follow this crazy route, it will be impossible for forum users to congratulate good suppliers (because they haven't given you permission to reveal their details), and it will be impossible for forum users to genuinely enquire about the ownership of a rogue boat which has caused damage and disappeared without trace.
Click to expand...

The original Mod post, now deleted, simply said that if the Ovni boat name was discovered, and it hadn't by that stage and still hasn't I don't think, then we should not mention the name because of GDPR.

I queried whether that meant that we could not mention any boat name from now on, as all boat names lead to identification of an individual, sort of. However, it seemed that it was the context of this boat name which was causing concern rather than the name being mentioned per se.

I did think it rather strange as I didn't think that the GDPR concerned itself with context in quite this way, and it now seems that it doesn't.

Richard
 
Uricanejack said:
Sure? Not completely positive. Merchant Shipping Act. Requires the Master of a vessel involved in a collision to contact the other vessel to determine if assistance is required or not.(or ask for it) exchange information including name, port of registry owners, insurance and P&I. Does this apply to pleasure vessels. Not positive but I believe it does.
Click to expand...

You would not report it to the police and the prosecution would be by MCA if under the Merchant Shipping Act. However they would not be in the least bit interested as the civil law is quite capable of dealing with a (relatively) minor collision that caused some damage to somebody else's boat. There is no requirement in law to report such an incident. In fact there is no requirement for a leisure craft to be insured either.

There have been proposals to make reporting of incidents compulsory in the UK (although remember this one took place in France) but killed very quickly as unnecessary and unworkable.
 
RichardS said:
I did think it rather strange as I didn't think that the GDPR concerned itself with context in quite this way, and it now seems that it doesn't.
Click to expand...

You're correct, GDPR has nothing to do with it, it's simply a obscure piece of legislation which people can try to hide behind.
 
This is so typical of a Politically Correct organisation reacting to an insane EU law that even here in the Far East is having severe repercussions in their dealings with anything European and has resulted in me being the recipient of far too many e-mails. I'm sure most of you are in a similar situation.

May I suggest that if you think you can identify the pillock in the yacht you contact the OP directly by PM, but, beware that the YBW mandarins will almost certainly read your private messages so simply say you have information and leave your e-mail address.

Then other nosy s. o. b's cannot interfere and you can pass on whatever information you wish free of anyone's interpretation of the latest EU madness using e-mail unconnected with and unseen by the dyspeptic thought police here!

I only came on here to comment as someone mentioned the incident on NTL and the YBW mods fear-reaction to it.

I'm going to get a load of you as witnesses, and burn a mod's boat, rape his/her dog and poo in his/her garden fully secure in the knowledge that my wrong-doing will never be revealed by any of you because of GDPR.

Good game, good game.
 
Last edited:
Cliveshep said:
This is so typical
I'm going to get a load of you as witnesses, and burn a mod's boat, rape his/her dog and poo in his/her garden fully secure in the knowledge that my wrong-doing will never be revealed by any of you because of GDPR.
Click to expand...

Include me out!

They're both insured for lots more than they're worth. And their boats! besides, I know where they live - and vice versa.
 
Cliveshep said:
This is so typical of a Politically Correct organisation reacting to an insane EU law that even here in the Far East is having severe repercussions in their dealings with anything European and has resulted in me being the recipient of far too many e-mails. I'm sure most of you are in a similar situation.

May I suggest that if you think you can identify the pillock in the yacht you contact the OP directly by PM, but, beware that the YBW mandarins will almost certainly read your private messages so simply say you have information and leave your e-mail address.

Then other nosy s. o. b's cannot interfere and you can pass on whatever information you wish free of anyone's interpretation of the latest EU madness using e-mail unconnected with and unseen by the dyspeptic thought police here!

I only came on here to comment as someone mentioned the incident on NTL and the YBW mods fear-reaction to it.

I'm going to get a load of you as witnesses, and burn a mod's boat, rape his/her dog and poo in his/her garden fully secure in the knowledge that my wrong-doing will never be revealed by any of you because of GDPR.

Good game, good game.
Click to expand...

4/10. You forgot to use the term "so-called".
 
z1ppy said:

(sorry for the poor photo, we had other things to deal with at the time)
Click to expand...
z1ppy said:
Yes indeed.

He tried to go back to his berth, seemed unable to manoeuvre his boat despite a number of us being ready to take his lines (and fend off others) and proceeded to leave saying, "my name is redacted, the marina have details"
Click to expand...
Must have been a real challenge to handle a boat in such severe weather - or is it a "library picture"?;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A1Sailor said:
Must have been a real challenge to handle a boat in such severe weather - or is it a "library picture"?;)
Click to expand...

indeed. there was not a breath of wind at the time. We all make mistakes with boat handling but the conditions at the time make this incident even more bizarre.

i can confirm that the photo was taken by me in the seconds after we had untangled him from three boats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Other threads that may be of interest

Baggywrinkle
Test run of the Lithium system that has been sitting in my cellar for most of this year.
Replies
16
Views
626
Baggywrinkle
Baggywrinkle

Share this page

Top