• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The European Politics Thread

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
So I'm to assume that UK will still send 73 parliamentarians and an untold army of lobbyists to Brussels?

Oh well. At least make sure they sit the full term.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Depends who wins the elections I guess. Lots of very pro-remain figures have said they will stand.
 

andmark

Well-known member
****, Notre-Dame Cathedral is on fire.

Edit: does this need its own thread?
 
Last edited:

wpdavid

Well-known member
Were they? They've been a thing since Jan iirc.
You're closer than I was; apparently they registered with the Electoral Commission on 8th February.
So what's all the talk about them only existing for six weeks before the euros? Anyone would think Farage was lying.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
I guess it's probably the time most people formally recognise them as actually existing and doing stuff, rather than the time they were officially registered on the paperwork etc.
 

StephenZA

Well-known member
I guess it's probably the time most people formally recognise them as actually existing and doing stuff, rather than the time they were officially registered on the paperwork etc.
I mean what did they do other than exist? I mean they have literally one arrow in the quiver.....
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
At a guess six weeks is when they were listed to stand in these elections, which were their first ones?
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Haha, worth noting that this would have been completely unlawful in the pre-GDPR days as well.

"Under GDPR, personal data (and especially sensitive biometric data) needs to be collected for specific and legitimate purposes. Scraping data to figure out if someone once appeared in porn is not that."

This excerpt from the article possibly misrepresents the position though. Sounds like a specific purpose to me, and it could plausibly also be legitimate in some contexts. The legal issue here is that what went on here lacked any adequate legal basis (i.e. it could not be justified by way of reference to any of the legitimising grounds for the processing of personal data outlined in the GDPR).

It's not enough for you to have a specific and legitimate purpose in mind.
 
Last edited:
Top