That’s true as it’s not an advertisement relating to an invitation to treat for specific services or to a formal political party and relating to a poll (which would have been implemented by legislation). It doesn’t fit into any of these categories because it isn’t an advertisement.
I’d be interested to see how this person got hold of this evidence/data as we’ve been told u see FOIs that the council are not allowed to share this under any circumstance as it contains third party information which is protected. Does anyone know esp as I think this tweet was from someone outside Lambeth. Would be interesting to knowAny of our resident onesies care to comment on this:
Lambeth makes first LTN schemes permanent - Lambeth Labour
Cllr Danny Adilypour is the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Transport, Environment and Clean Air (job-share) and a councillor in Streatham South ward. In December, the council published its intention to make the Railton and Oval to Stockwell low traffic neighbourhood schemes permanent. These...www.lambeth-labour.org.uk
I don't recall seeing any 'I love my LTN' signs in the same 'estate agent' signboards (please correct me if I'm wrong) plus none advertising a website to donate money or protest against the LTNs.
It’s not the signboard idea that makes a difference under the legislation. The advertising point relates to an “invitation to treat” to supply services of buy something. If this is the granular level of the issue which the council is trying to address one could argue that a “I love my LTN” is a political advertisement as it’s directly supporting the published political policy of the current ruling party in Lambeth.
If you’re referring to “One example of this saw the Railton consultation receive over 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day – around one a minute for ten hours straight, all with identical formatting in the free text box asking for the first line of their address and no email address provided.” that text is copied from the Lambeth Labour webpage linked above.
Yes - only seen signs in windows in support for LTNs which are obviously different.
Thanks. I’ve asked for the data behind this and been told by the council that they were not able to to give any granular data behind the consultation results as it could result in third party data being given in breach of data protection. I then asked for how they were able to publish the data above, I’ve been told that they can’t tell me due to GDPR. Not sure how they can publish it but at the same time tell me that I can’t have the same (redacted) info due to gdpr.
Are you commenting on the article by Danny Adilypour? What tweet are you referring to?
You're submitting FOIs about the fake responses? What do you think you'll find out?
No, a tweet that came out from Enfield? at the same time/slightly beige this was published on the Lambeth website. I looked at how various responses could be filtered out and realised that if a husband and wife put exactly the same response in from the same IP address then both would be discounted as “suspicious” as they would have used the “other” box in the consultation. I noted that very similar/exactly the same responses from the same IP address which were plposiyive were not discounted as being “suspicious”. I there wanted to find out exactly how many of the Al responses in the “other” were discounted but was told that this information was not allowed to be released under GDPR (even in a redacted form). The information on the wedsitw is exactly the kind of thing I was asking for but was told the council can’t release it. I’m therefor trying to figure out why the information they are releasing is not covered by the same GDPR rules that they are relying on.
Read below. The process of getting out responses includes anything in the other box from the same IP address. Therefore two people in a house who put the same response in the “other” category both had their responses discarded. I was asking how many times this happened.
I'm saying fake responses in relation to the 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day - that was what the original post you replied to was asking for comment on. Do you have a view on that?
www.telegraph.co.uk
I can’t have a view on that as I’ve asked for the underlying data to show the responses but I’ve been told that the council is not allowed under the law to release this data. I’m therefore asking how they are now releasing this data showing that one IP address was submitting a reply once every minute for 10 hours straight. Furthermore, when they first released the consultation data they said they knocked out way more than 600 suspicious responses (all of which were “other” responses) and I’ve for this bit it’s ilegal to publish it.
Estate agent style boards come within the scope of planning rules relating to adverts & signage, and things displayed inside windows generally don't.
Yup, starting at 10.30 today.
Well of course they couldn't release underlying data as that would need to have IP addresses and presumably names & address. They haven't released anything like that - they're just stating what happened. Presumably you just don't believe them - which okay, but sounds quite conspiratorial and along with accusations of acting like North Korea/Nazis/East Germany and ethnic cleansing all has got very very tiresome indeed.
You haven’t quite understood. The information they have published in the post to which we refer…I was told that it was unlawful to publish that information. On that basis I need to understand why they can’t publish all the information but redact to be in line with GDPR as they have with this esp given that only similar responses in the “other” box were discounted.
They can publish a summary because it includes no personally identifiable information. You've asked to see the underlying data - for that to be any use it would have to include IP addresses, and IP addresses are considered personally identifiable information under the GDPR regulations. Thats why you're not getting anywhere. If they released it sufficiently redacted to comply it wouldn't show you anything.
So your conspiracy is that someone posted something soon after it was published on a website (that doesn't seem to have a time of posting on it). Even if it was prior to the website it is possible there may have been an email to party members beforehand.
I can't find the link upthread to the council document but weren't there a load of other signs of fake responses being looked for - not filling in the whole survey, not submitting an email address, not completing the equalities section (or filling it in with contradictory responses that made no sense)? So basically people who were not participating in in good faith. Not surprising when OneLambeth were both telling people to fill in the consultation wherever they were and in the same sentence calling it a fake / sham.
I hope you lose. Fingers crossed!
Yes, redacted. So without ip numbers, names or addresses to show the number of responses in each box.
Correction - you hope that the disabled lady bringing the case loses.
If they win it's a victory for everyone against the LTN. If they lose it's a council bullying one woman.
If there weren’t any IP addresses how would you know they were the same?!
