"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:47:38 +0100, R D S wrote:

"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

Bought / ordered in her name?

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless mower.

Was it supposed to be in the same box or comes 'extra' OOI (just
interested to know how it got excluded if it was supposed to be in the
box). Or maybe it was an extra combo?

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

I guess if you were asking for the results of her medical tests or
something that might be considered 'private' or even likely to be a
gift, you can see why they might need to interpret the rules
'strongly' but a customer service enquiry on a battery mower ... ;-(

So I guess the question of 'is it bureaucracy gone mad' may be down to
if there is any granularity in 'the rules' and if the Aldi rep applied
them correctly or not?

Cheers, T i m

On 02/06/2021 12:11, T i m wrote:
I guess if you were asking for the results of her medical tests or
something that might be considered 'private' or even likely to be a
gift, you can see why they might need to interpret the rules
'strongly' but a customer service enquiry on a battery mower ... ;-(

I know, why aren't there as many people working on making the rules
sensible and workable as there are making many of them effing pointless.


So I guess the question of 'is it bureaucracy gone mad' may be down to
if there is any granularity in 'the rules' and if the Aldi rep applied
them correctly or not?


Yeah, I said... Mate, she's down two flights of stairs and probably busy
with a customer, can you not simply check that what i'm telling you is
correct and if so just send *her* a battery?

Apparently not. More than his job's worth, eh?

On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Strictly for instance if you are in business in any way, a gardener, say
and you have an address list on your phone (who doesn't) you need to
have a statement of compliance and policy somewhere (on paper?). A
pointless and intimidating bit of red tape. If your address book is
paper - doesn't apply.

You should however be pleased that the EU looks out for its citizens and
protects their data from abuse by big business.

TW

In article ,
TimW wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Strictly for instance if you are in business in any way, a gardener, say
and you have an address list on your phone (who doesn't) you need to
have a statement of compliance and policy somewhere (on paper?). A
pointless and intimidating bit of red tape. If your address book is
paper - doesn't apply.


yes, it does - and has been the case for a great many years - since well
before GDPR.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

I get the problem from my doctor who wants more and more info from me on the
phone tpo prove who I actually am. One day a patient will expire while
trying to satisfy them they are the real patient.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"R D S" wrote in message
...
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?
What makes Aldi think the person on the phone is not "Mrs" ?
A very dodgy assumption to make these days if they dont want fall foul
of their probable Diversity policy.

On 02/06/2021 16:43, Robert wrote:
What makes Aldi think the person on the phone is not "Mrs" ?
A very dodgy assumption to make these days if they dont want fall foul
of their probable Diversity policy.

It occurred to me to pretend I was she.

TimW wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Strictly for instance if you are in business in any way, a gardener, say
and you have an address list on your phone (who doesn't) you need to
have a statement of compliance and policy somewhere (on paper?). A
pointless and intimidating bit of red tape. If your address book is
paper - doesn't apply.

I thought that an address list with no other information doesn't
require anyything further. It's only if there is other information
with the addresses that you have to do more.

--
Chris Green
·

On 02/06/2021 15:10, R D S wrote:
On 02/06/2021 12:11, T i m wrote:
I guess if you were asking for the results of her medical tests or
something that might be considered 'private' or even likely to be a
gift, you can see why they might need to interpret the rules
'strongly' but a customer service enquiry on a battery mower ... ;-(

I know, why aren't there as many people working on making the rules
sensible and workable as there are making many of them effing pointless.

The problem comes when the Mrs then rips a strip off them and makes a
complaint to the data protection regulator because "you discussed my
personal business with that psychotic scamming SoB that I am divorcing,
because of his controlling behavoiour!"[1]

[1] Not suggesting that is the case here of course, but you can see that
making assumptions that all is cordial and cosy between two people just
because they share a surname is not always a safe assumption.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/06/2021 15:38, TimW wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Presumably because we were legally required to faithfully implement it
into UK law. (they usually don't care if you gold plate it, but get
upset if you leave bits out or actually try to make it work as intended!)

Strictly for instance if you are in business in any way, a gardener, say
and you have an address list on your phone (who doesn't) you need to
have a statement of compliance and policy somewhere (on paper?). A
pointless and intimidating bit of red tape. If your address book is
paper - doesn't apply.

GDPR applies to any data that is "processed" - it does not limit to
stuff that is held electronically.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
On 02/06/2021 15:38, TimW wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi, To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger
with the cordless mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Presumably because we were legally required to faithfully implement it
into UK law. (they usually don't care if you gold plate it, but get
upset if you leave bits out or actually try to make it work as intended!)

Strictly for instance if you are in business in any way, a gardener,
say and you have an address list on your phone (who doesn't) you need
to have a statement of compliance and policy somewhere (on paper?). A
pointless and intimidating bit of red tape. If your address book is
paper - doesn't apply.

GDPR applies to any data that is "processed" - it does not limit to
stuff that is held electronically.

The intersting point about GDPR was that the concept originated in the UK.
I went to a seminar taken by one of the people who produced the legislation.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 17:59:06 +0100, R D S wrote:

On 02/06/2021 16:43, Robert wrote:
What makes Aldi think the person on the phone is not "Mrs" ?
A very dodgy assumption to make these days if they dont want fall foul
of their probable Diversity policy.

It occurred to me to pretend I was she.

"I identify as Mrs X..."




--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 19:27:21 +0100, John Rumm wrote:


The problem comes when the Mrs then rips a strip off them and makes a
complaint to the data protection regulator because "you discussed my
personal business with that psychotic scamming SoB that I am divorcing,
because of his controlling behavoiour!"[1]

[1] Not suggesting that is the case here of course, but you can see that
making assumptions that all is cordial and cosy between two people just
because they share a surname is not always a safe assumption.

We had a major problem with an insurance company applying details of an
accident to the wrong part. It was resolved, only to pop up at the next
renewal when another company accused my wife of not declaring an accident
of mine.

We made a total of £500 in compensation out of that.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 02/06/2021 19:43, Tim Streater wrote:
On 02 Jun 2021 at 15:38:45 BST, TimW wrote:

On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Snip

It's ****ing irritating, I know that. Every damn website I go to bores me with
**** relating to cookies. Since I have no intention of allowing-all, I have to
interact with each of these, what a waste of time. In addition I sometimes
find that I'm on one page of a website, deal with the cookie ****e, then go to
another page which is part of the same organisation, only to find that they
want to bore me too. Or there's the BBC, which even if I answer their
question, decide a week or two later to ask it again.

Even worse are the ones that take you to a different page to reject
cookies and then don't take you back to the page that you were trying to
look at.

Browsers have long had a "Send Do Not Track Request" option - I wish the
sites would just read it and not require me to opt out ... repeatedly!

Just found one tonight trying to catch me out. For a long time, when
clicking Manage Options, sites have presented me with a list of items,
pre-marked No, Off or whatever and an Accept All and Save Selected
button. Just a few minutes ago, I accidentally clicked on a link to the
Radio Times and all the options defaulted to On - on going back they are
now defaulting to Off.

On 02/06/2021 21:09, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 19:27:21 +0100, John Rumm wrote:


The problem comes when the Mrs then rips a strip off them and makes a
complaint to the data protection regulator because "you discussed my
personal business with that psychotic scamming SoB that I am divorcing,
because of his controlling behavoiour!"[1]

[1] Not suggesting that is the case here of course, but you can see that
making assumptions that all is cordial and cosy between two people just
because they share a surname is not always a safe assumption.

We had a major problem with an insurance company applying details of an
accident to the wrong part. It was resolved, only to pop up at the next
renewal when another company accused my wife of not declaring an accident
of mine.

We made a total of £500 in compensation out of that.

:-)

I think Matalan are still convinced that I am Mrs Rumin or something
similar!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/06/2021 20:09, charles wrote:
In article , John Rumm
wrote:
On 02/06/2021 15:38, TimW wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi, To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger
with the cordless mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Presumably because we were legally required to faithfully implement it
into UK law. (they usually don't care if you gold plate it, but get
upset if you leave bits out or actually try to make it work as intended!)

Strictly for instance if you are in business in any way, a gardener,
say and you have an address list on your phone (who doesn't) you need
to have a statement of compliance and policy somewhere (on paper?). A
pointless and intimidating bit of red tape. If your address book is
paper - doesn't apply.

GDPR applies to any data that is "processed" - it does not limit to
stuff that is held electronically.

The intersting point about GDPR was that the concept originated in the UK.
I went to a seminar taken by one of the people who produced the legislation.

We certainly had the data protection act long before GDPR...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/06/2021 19:43, Tim Streater wrote:


In the UK, everything is legal except that which is forbidden by law. On the
continent, with their fundamentally different approach, the reverse is true.
....

This is Brexit bull****, many times debunked and ridiculed. You still
believe it. Ha Ha!

TW

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 22:36:40 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 02/06/2021 21:09, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 19:27:21 +0100, John Rumm wrote:


The problem comes when the Mrs then rips a strip off them and makes a
complaint to the data protection regulator because "you discussed my
personal business with that psychotic scamming SoB that I am
divorcing, because of his controlling behavoiour!"[1]

[1] Not suggesting that is the case here of course, but you can see
that making assumptions that all is cordial and cosy between two
people just because they share a surname is not always a safe
assumption.

We had a major problem with an insurance company applying details of an
accident to the wrong part. It was resolved, only to pop up at the next
renewal when another company accused my wife of not declaring an
accident of mine.

We made a total of £500 in compensation out of that.

:-)

I think Matalan are still convinced that I am Mrs Rumin or something
similar!

I have the same problem with Long Tall Sally (or I did before their
recent troubles), because I have bought presents for SWMBO from there.
They assumed that all their customers were female.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 2 Jun 2021 18:43:32 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:


It's ****ing irritating, I know that. Every damn website I go to bores me with
**** relating to cookies. Since I have no intention of allowing-all, I have to
interact with each of these, what a waste of time. In addition I sometimes
find that I'm on one page of a website, deal with the cookie ****e, then go to
another page which is part of the same organisation, only to find that they
want to bore me too. Or there's the BBC, which even if I answer their
question, decide a week or two later to ask it again.


Why have you no intention of allowing-all? Are the benefits of not
allowing all worth the trouble of allowing only some? It's bad enough
clicking all the allow-all's.
--
Dave W

On 02/06/2021 17:59, R D S wrote:
On 02/06/2021 16:43, Robert wrote:
What makes Aldi think the person on the phone is not "Mrs" ?
A very dodgy assumption to make these days if they dont want fall foul
of their probable Diversity policy.

It occurred to me to pretend I was she.

When my dad was alive but very frail I tried once or twice to explain
that as I had power of attorney they could deal with me, but it was
always a failure. They wanted me to post all the papers to them, or
actually go into the bank or wherever. So I just started to ring up and
say I was him, and that worked much better.

Most of the accounts I use for buying things were set up by my late wife
and are in her name. I can't be bothered to change them. I've had a few
instances where they've insisted on speaking to her. That hasn't
generally ended well.

Bill

On 02/06/2021 19:43, Tim Streater wrote:
On 02 Jun 2021 at 15:38:45 BST, TimW wrote:

On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

In the UK, everything is legal except that which is forbidden by law. On the
continent, with their fundamentally different approach, the reverse is true.
So, the EU might pass a Directive saying "You may use red-coloured tiles on
your house". Nothing more is needed in continental countries because all other
colours would be automatically forbidden. Translated as-is into UK law, such a
Directive would be a no-op because it wouldn't forbid anything. So the law
that actually would be passed here would need to include an *addition*,
stating explicitly that all other colours were forbidden. Some people then
call that gold-plating, when in fact it is necessary in order to implement the
actual purpose of the Directive.

Since I don't know what the actual purpose of GDPR was, it's hard to know
whether its implementation into UK law was done well or not. Or whether the
EU's original offfering was good/bad/indifferent or not, or
self-contradictory, unclear, or vague, or not.

It's ****ing irritating, I know that. Every damn website I go to bores me with
**** relating to cookies. Since I have no intention of allowing-all, I have to
interact with each of these, what a waste of time. In addition I sometimes
find that I'm on one page of a website, deal with the cookie ****e, then go to
another page which is part of the same organisation, only to find that they
want to bore me too. Or there's the BBC, which even if I answer their
question, decide a week or two later to ask it again.

At the time the UK implemented GDPR, we were still in the EU so had no option
to "adapt the EU regulations to make them more sensible", as you wittily put
it. Of course, now we're out, it might be possible to do something.

What ****es me off is the 'cookies needed to ensure site operation'

You don't in general, need cookies to ensure site operation.

The only purpose of cookies is to 'remember you by past actions' and so on.

Only if you have logged into a site should that be legally permitted.





--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to talk
to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?
what has it got to do with you...they wanted the wife

On 2 Jun 2021 18:43:32 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip
It's ****ing irritating, I know that. Every damn website I go to bores me with
**** relating to cookies. Since I have no intention of allowing-all, I have to
interact with each of these, what a waste of time. In addition I sometimes
find that I'm on one page of a website, deal with the cookie ****e, then go to
another page which is part of the same organisation, only to find that they
want to bore me too. Or there's the BBC, which even if I answer their
question, decide a week or two later to ask it again.
snip

I allow all cookies, everywhere because it is quicker but then I've
set my browser so that it deletes all cookies etc every time I close
it down.

Anything "serious" gets done on a freshly launched Live Linux session
which forgets everything when it gets shut down.

Nick

On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

Do what a friend of mine does, he just tells them he is his
mother/wife/daughter/whoever.

Under all the other ******** of the 21st Century, the person the other
ends dares not question a 'wrong' sounding voice !

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

Do what a friend of mine does, he just tells them he is his
mother/wife/daughter/whoever.

similar to complainants wanting to talk to "The Manager". You ask your mate
on the nearby deak to take the call.

Under all the other ******** of the 21st Century, the person the other
ends dares not question a 'wrong' sounding voice !

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/06/2021 10:39, Mark Carver wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?

Do what a friend of mine does, he just tells them he is his
mother/wife/daughter/whoever.

Under all the other ******** of the 21st Century, the person the other
ends dares not question a 'wrong' sounding voice !

Tanya Arnold sounds like a bloke anyway.

Bill

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
What ****es me off is the 'cookies needed to ensure site operation'

You don't in general, need cookies to ensure site operation.

The only purpose of cookies is to 'remember you by past actions' and so on.

Only if you have logged into a site should that be legally permitted.


Or "To improve your viewing experience". I came across a site with
this, and it had a link to explain why they needed cookies. Nothing on
there explained how it would improve my viewing experience, and so far
as I could tell, they didn't any value at all.

See also many third party scripts on websites.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 02/06/2021 19:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/06/2021 15:38, TimW wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Presumably because we were legally required to faithfully implement it
into UK law. (they usually don't care if you gold plate it, but get
upset if you leave bits out or actually try to make it work as intended!)

The "R" in GDPR stands for "Regulation". Under EU law, a Regulation
cannot be altered by a Member State (unlike a Directive, which allows
for some local interpretation).

That was then - this is now, post-Brexit. I haven't checked, but I think
the GDPR was one of those EU laws that we kept unchanged, the intention
being to get round to discussing amendments when the Houses of
Parliament had time for it.

--

Jeff

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 02/06/2021 19:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/06/2021 15:38, TimW wrote:
On 02/06/2021 11:47, R D S wrote:
"I'm afraid I can't discuss the order with you sir, I would have to
talk to Mrs...."

I'd called Aldi,
To let them know they've not sent a battery/charger with the cordless
mower.

Bureaucracy has gone too far hasn't it?


GDPR serves a very useful purpose, there is a genuine need for such
legislation but it was a poorly drafted in a number of ways and is
widely misunderstood and abused, often used as an excuse for
officiousness and intransigence. The UK government should have adapted
the EU regulations to make them more sensible, but it didn't. I wonder
why not?

Presumably because we were legally required to faithfully implement it
into UK law. (they usually don't care if you gold plate it, but get
upset if you leave bits out or actually try to make it work as
intended!)

The "R" in GDPR stands for "Regulation". Under EU law, a Regulation
cannot be altered by a Member State (unlike a Directive, which allows
for some local interpretation).

That was then - this is now, post-Brexit. I haven't checked, but I think
the GDPR was one of those EU laws that we kept unchanged, the intention
being to get round to discussing amendments when the Houses of
Parliament had time for it.

since the UK was mainly responisble for GDPR, it isn't surprising we wanted
to keep it unchanged.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle