ICO view on permission to send newsletters from BCA
- Thread starter alastairgott
- Start date
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
The simple way to reach the membership over this question of a newsletter is to make it a organisational issue so one can use the 4000 plus email addresses BCA already holds and thus only have to post out to some 1000 plus members at a cost of around ?2000. The challenge is getting a suitable message together either telling them it is now a condition of membership to receive the newsletter (with or without 3rd part stuff such as Hidden Earth) and that where an email address has been supplied, then it will be used or some other message.
Bob Mehew said:
This seems pretty sensible to me - if we have 4000 email addresses already out of around 5000+ we could surely email those, as Bob suggests. Wording a suitable message is the crucial part but it's got to be worth a try, even if we don't post out anything to the other 1000 or so members for the time being. We could always assume that, once word gets around that there is a worthwhile Newsletter plus a chance to vote if you wish to, you might find that more people will sign up and so reduce the number you don't have emails for. Then you will have a chance maybe to collect the rest when the next call for subscriptions goes out at the end of 2019 by adding a suitable message to the clubs who are collecting the CIM subscriptions.
It would certainly be a start.
Cavematt
Well-known member
Ian; It's easy to say such things are utter bullshit. And I agree that organisations like the BCA sending useful and relevant news to our members is almost certainly not what GDPR was ever meant to achieve. That part is definitely bullshit.
However, put yourselves in the shoes of the BCA Executive. They have been tasked with doing something which seemed a reasonably justified action back at the BCA Council meeting, but which we now have written confirmation from the ICO would be in breach of regulations. The stakes have changed. Therefore, it is pretty serious to now go ahead and carry out that action knowing the ICO have said we can't; I doubt any BCA Officer is going to be willing to actually undertake this action now.
It's very easy from someone not at the sharp end to sit behind a keyboard and declare such things bullshit. Less easy for those who actually have to action the decisions and are thus in the firing line in the very small chance it backfires.
However, put yourselves in the shoes of the BCA Executive. They have been tasked with doing something which seemed a reasonably justified action back at the BCA Council meeting, but which we now have written confirmation from the ICO would be in breach of regulations. The stakes have changed. Therefore, it is pretty serious to now go ahead and carry out that action knowing the ICO have said we can't; I doubt any BCA Officer is going to be willing to actually undertake this action now.
It's very easy from someone not at the sharp end to sit behind a keyboard and declare such things bullshit. Less easy for those who actually have to action the decisions and are thus in the firing line in the very small chance it backfires.
Ian Adams
Active member
Matt,
Please stop pandering to the minority left wing militant melts and please stop doom-mongering with words such as ?serious?. I have followed your thread on the BCA secretary position and (although silent like so many others) am supportive of what you are doing.
Alistair approached the ICO with a loaded question and the answer that has been posted back is by no means definitive. It appears that some people (in this thread) have taken it as ?Gospel? that the BCA must not (under any seeming circumstances whatsoever) send out newsletters without prior permission (blah de blah) under the apparent threat of reprisal action by the ICO. The momentum now includes rhetoric that BCA are ?on notice? because they have been told the action is illegal.
See how this has ballooned into nonsense?
If the BCA were now to send out the newsletters you could bet your sweet puppy dog that one of those melts would report the matter to the ICO by way of a complaint. You know who would, I know who would and most of the folk on here know who would. This is nothing new or unsurprising, it is part of the crap we (the BCA members) have had to put up with, and still have to put up with.
There are a small number of people hellbent on control seemingly at almost any cost. Every single trick in the book is being played to thwart ?progress? (just look at some of the items on the agenda for the forthcoming AGM ? it?s evident there). You know (as well as most people) that we (the normal people who want a normal BCA) have had enough. You have stepped forward to bring about some much needed change. You will not do yourself any good (or any good to the main body of the BCA) by bowing down to regressive crybullys.
You know, I know and most people know, the refusal to send out newsletters to BCA members (whether or not it ?technically? goes against the ICO guidelines) is complete tripe. It?s not marketing, it?s not spam, it?s not porn (hum, that word is P-O-R-N and has been altered by the script in case it is encountered by a snowflake) and it?s not politics (David portrays all sides for balance). To ?block? the newsletter going out is puerile, iniquitous and damaging to the good name of the BCA.
No one is going to argue that the law intended to prevent BCA from bringing news to its members.
The newsletter should be sent out and people removed from the circular if they indicate they don?t want it.
That?s common sense and eminently reasonable.
People need to get a grip and this militant crap from a small minority has got to end.
Ian
Please stop pandering to the minority left wing militant melts and please stop doom-mongering with words such as ?serious?. I have followed your thread on the BCA secretary position and (although silent like so many others) am supportive of what you are doing.
Alistair approached the ICO with a loaded question and the answer that has been posted back is by no means definitive. It appears that some people (in this thread) have taken it as ?Gospel? that the BCA must not (under any seeming circumstances whatsoever) send out newsletters without prior permission (blah de blah) under the apparent threat of reprisal action by the ICO. The momentum now includes rhetoric that BCA are ?on notice? because they have been told the action is illegal.
See how this has ballooned into nonsense?
If the BCA were now to send out the newsletters you could bet your sweet puppy dog that one of those melts would report the matter to the ICO by way of a complaint. You know who would, I know who would and most of the folk on here know who would. This is nothing new or unsurprising, it is part of the crap we (the BCA members) have had to put up with, and still have to put up with.
There are a small number of people hellbent on control seemingly at almost any cost. Every single trick in the book is being played to thwart ?progress? (just look at some of the items on the agenda for the forthcoming AGM ? it?s evident there). You know (as well as most people) that we (the normal people who want a normal BCA) have had enough. You have stepped forward to bring about some much needed change. You will not do yourself any good (or any good to the main body of the BCA) by bowing down to regressive crybullys.
You know, I know and most people know, the refusal to send out newsletters to BCA members (whether or not it ?technically? goes against the ICO guidelines) is complete tripe. It?s not marketing, it?s not spam, it?s not porn (hum, that word is P-O-R-N and has been altered by the script in case it is encountered by a snowflake) and it?s not politics (David portrays all sides for balance). To ?block? the newsletter going out is puerile, iniquitous and damaging to the good name of the BCA.
No one is going to argue that the law intended to prevent BCA from bringing news to its members.
The newsletter should be sent out and people removed from the circular if they indicate they don?t want it.
That?s common sense and eminently reasonable.
People need to get a grip and this militant crap from a small minority has got to end.
Ian
Madness
New member
The answer is simple, just send everyone with a known email address telling them that their next membership subscription will be going up by a penny/whatever.
In the very same email you could include a link for opting in to receiving an email newsletter. Then it's down to the individual to decide whether they want the newsletter or not.
In the very same email you could include a link for opting in to receiving an email newsletter. Then it's down to the individual to decide whether they want the newsletter or not.
NewStuff
New member
droid said:Ian Adams wins 'Rant of the Year' with that.
Is this a return to his CRoW 'debate' form?
To be fair, he has a very valid point. He's pissed off with yet more shenanigans.
I would have been very likely to express myself in a similar, if not more blunt, manner. However given that we're seeing the same old kinds of behaviour, and that this behaviour is still having the intended effect, we (DDDWH CC) will not be bothering with the BCA at all, despite the good intentions of many to change it. That means it doesn't affect us, I am no longer bothered about it, and as such it makes it a lot easier to sit at the sidelines and see what's happening when you don't have to urge on a horse in the race.
Whole damn thing needs to be razed and started from scratch, for the members, not the few who perceive some sort of power from "running things".
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
You can't use cheap tricks like 'make it a condition of membership to receive the newsletter' or 'add a bit of marketing onto a legitimate email'; there are rules about such things. I suspect that sending out a link _to_ marketing materials, rather than sending out the materials themselves, would also be considered iffy.
Clearly we all want to send the newsletter out to BCA members. Clearly the executive does not want to deliberately and knowingly break the law.
Most people (certainly Council) are agreed that we can send out a newsletter _in principle_. The only remaining issue is that it must not contain marketing, and this is a tricky one - particularly as we don't know what samples Alastair sent. Fortunately I'm sure the to-be-formed GDPR subcommittee can look at the issue carefully and find the maximum probably allowable content...
Part of the real issue is the separation from members caused by _some_ clubs. I have no desire to restrict clubs, and neither does Matt, but the BCA could do a better job of collecting club member information. Something as simple as a standardised form (which clubs have to give to members as a condition of club membership, if they don't use an online system) would do a lot (and also allow the BCA to guarantee that the relevant GDPR stuff had been given to the club members...).
Clearly we all want to send the newsletter out to BCA members. Clearly the executive does not want to deliberately and knowingly break the law.
Most people (certainly Council) are agreed that we can send out a newsletter _in principle_. The only remaining issue is that it must not contain marketing, and this is a tricky one - particularly as we don't know what samples Alastair sent. Fortunately I'm sure the to-be-formed GDPR subcommittee can look at the issue carefully and find the maximum probably allowable content...
Part of the real issue is the separation from members caused by _some_ clubs. I have no desire to restrict clubs, and neither does Matt, but the BCA could do a better job of collecting club member information. Something as simple as a standardised form (which clubs have to give to members as a condition of club membership, if they don't use an online system) would do a lot (and also allow the BCA to guarantee that the relevant GDPR stuff had been given to the club members...).
Will just have to send out an email to members with link to click & confirm they want newsletter. Send another email to club secretaries with a link to website asking them to forward it to members & copy that into Descent and ukcaving.
Then anyone who doesn't have an email address & you haven't heard from can be sent a notification with their membership card & you only have the problem of how do you find out if new members want it...
Or send out a newsletter with option of unsubscribing & everyone gets on with their lives.
Then anyone who doesn't have an email address & you haven't heard from can be sent a notification with their membership card & you only have the problem of how do you find out if new members want it...
Or send out a newsletter with option of unsubscribing & everyone gets on with their lives.
droid
Active member
NewStuff said:
Agreed on both points mate.
I don't see the need for such a convoluted system for a National organisation with so few members, a significant proportion of which are *probably* only in it for the insurance.
The only caveat I'd add is that Ian's point (and I've made much the same point myself, above) needs someone to take responsibility. It's easy to suggest someone ELSE does that.
Madness
New member
I'll make another suggestion!
Make sure the next BCA newsletter contains absolutely nothing that could be construed as 'Marketing' (however a sub-commitee would probably have to be formed to clarify that it actually didn't contain any.)
Then send it to everyone who's email address is known.
How long does the BCA need to prevaricate on this before anything gets done?
Or send me the newsletter in electronic format, and send me a list of email addresses, and I'm sure I can 'accidentally' send the news letter out.
Make sure the next BCA newsletter contains absolutely nothing that could be construed as 'Marketing' (however a sub-commitee would probably have to be formed to clarify that it actually didn't contain any.)
Then send it to everyone who's email address is known.
How long does the BCA need to prevaricate on this before anything gets done?
Or send me the newsletter in electronic format, and send me a list of email addresses, and I'm sure I can 'accidentally' send the news letter out.
alastairgott
Well-known member
Ian Adams said:
I approached them, not so I can "wave my nethers about" as you might like to put it, but because someone had raised it, and rather than splurge on in a never ending debate, I wanted clarification.
I'm ambivalent about receiving the newsletter. If it had been sent out in the first place without it being mentioned on here and therefore searchable by anyone wishing to search for terms "GDPR", "ICO" and other such "bull". Then the question would never have been asked.
Rather than quietly getting on with "making the BCA" better, whoever it was that mentioned it in the first place has done exactly the opposite, I don't know who it was, and frankly I couldn't care less.
If you want me to seek some "better" clarification from the ICO then I can escalate it.
Or you could send a link to the online newsletters round to all BCA clubs to put a link on their website, or a clickable link (like an amazon cart) to sign up to the Newsletter.
The last thing I want to hear of from a BCA meeting is problems or friction, I (personally) want to only hear good things about it [which is presumably the whole point in sending the newsletter out in the first place]. but sadly it seems that while "making it better" some seem to want to point out the flaws in it to start with.
Its like walking into a shop taking a loaf of bread to the counter and saying I bought bread from you a month ago and it went off in three days. Theres nothing they can do about it, so why bring it up.
alastairgott
Well-known member
Or i'll send round a chain email to 10 of my friends sending the BCA newsletter out and asking for people to sign up to the newsletter and my 10 friends can find 10 more friends to send the BCA newsletter to. Till we have the newsletter being sent to people multiple times by all of their caving friends. that would get people annoyed enough to sign up to only receive it once!
Choose your solution, I've cocked up :spank: , but want to help.
Choose your solution, I've cocked up :spank: , but want to help.
Madness
New member
Alastair, you've not 'cocked up'. You've got off your arse and asked a question in an attempt to get clarification.
That's more than others have done and we should be appreciative of that. It seems that within the BCA there will always be someone who's not happy about someone else 'doing stuff' or making a decision.
There appears to be an element within the BCA council who are completely against change and will do their best to stop it. I can only assume they fear that their level of control will be diminished by any change.
Change will come, that I'm certain of. Whether it will be within the BCA or from the formation of an alternative national body is anybody's guess.
That's more than others have done and we should be appreciative of that. It seems that within the BCA there will always be someone who's not happy about someone else 'doing stuff' or making a decision.
There appears to be an element within the BCA council who are completely against change and will do their best to stop it. I can only assume they fear that their level of control will be diminished by any change.
Change will come, that I'm certain of. Whether it will be within the BCA or from the formation of an alternative national body is anybody's guess.
