PR Disasters, chapter 13

[AtIusvue]

Meg and Harry and all their PR shenanigans

Trigger Warning: this thread may contain talk about sleeves.

FFS.

So now we have:

• 2 photo reels
• a video
• a photo of the BA card
• a People mag article

all to celebrate a non milestone wedding anniversary which most couples would barely even notice. And yes, the People mag article belongs with the above, because People only publish puff pieces like this with the approval of the celebrity concerned. Desperate.

Well I think the privacy violation argument is pretty weak. The card shows first names, nicknames, initials, and casual sign-offs. I don't see any sensitive personal information, no surnames (that I can see clearly), no contact details, no staff IDs, no addresses, etc.

Realistically, nobody is identifying or tracking down BA staff from Tracey or Sam...how could they? It's fairly ambigious. It’s not comparable to exposing private data.

For the wedding pictures well the wedding was televised so people would of already been seen publicly anyway and they would of known this before they attended that there is a high chance they or their children would end up being shown on TV or in pictures. So whose consent has she violated?

would have

I wonder if Meghan posted the BA card because she didn't realise that it is just something they do, as opposed to being unique to her? She got launched into a completely different strata with her marriage and probably didn't get things like that at the level she was operating. She may have thought it was individuals remembering her anniversary rather than the BA equivalent of a restaurant writing Happy Anniversary on your pudding.

Completely agree they should be removed from the website. Apart from anything else it would help their branding immensely to stop pretending Harry is a working royal and removal from the website shows that, again.

I jut googled Ba cabin crew gifts to VIPs. I'll admit I only read the AI overview , but it is much more about what gifts the crew are allowed to receive. I was trying to find out what the cabin crew would normally do when appraised of a significant birthday / honeymoon etc. Ha ha I wonder if MM gave out some candles to thank the crew very much. Doubt it.

Not sure you understand privacy law. Your privacy isn’t violated only when en masse strangers/members of the public/the press can identify you. If just one person recognises you from
the data put into the public sphere, that’s a violation. So yes, there’s every chance someone will recognise the signatories, even just from
a first name, given the surrounding information also provided.

Ok , but don’t get me started about Lulu !!

Ah, funny you should say that.

FWIW aviation can be a small world.

Due to my employment history, what's visible on the card and the context I'm pretty sure I can have a fair stab at the identity of one individual....and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can do that.

Now whether that's a breach of some rules, and whether that individual would be offended that somebody who (in my case) is now a member of the public has found out an element of their roster by virtue of Social Media..don't know.

Indeed! With the flight number and the small amount of crew members, anyone on that plane or who works there will know exactly who they are! , let’s face it the press managed to work out the identity of the “older woman “ Harry slept with, with far less information!
neither of them ask permission or consider the privacy of others! 🙄

Have you forgotten the wicked things that were said on here when Catherine was undergoing cancer treatment ?

true

That’s different obviously! For ….reasons 🙄

I think you’re missing an important point, which is that people are discussing a travel itinerary that is in the past.

Stalking is following someone’s intended or current journey where there is the potential for harm.

There is no danger to MM in people speculating about a journey that has already taken place.

Due to my employment history, what's visible on the card and the context I'm pretty sure I can have a fair stab at the identity of one individual....and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can do that.

I had suspected as much, from your post upthread, @notimagain.

My dad used to sing ( to the tune of O Christmas Tree)

The working class
Can kiss my ass
I've got the fireman's
Job at last

Meghan is just so desperate to display how ‘special’ she is.

A long haul flight to make a speech at a roundabout in front of a handful of people and all she got was a card from some BA staff.

Well you are a decent person, so your knowledge in itself is probably not a problem for Tracy or whoever, even if that knowledge would be (if it met the criteria set down in statute and common law) a technical privacy violation and therefore a technical breach of her rights. But what if eg, that crew member doesn’t want an ex partner to know where she’s working? What if he recognises her handwriting and knows her career, so can now identify her employer and location? There are all manner of possibilities of the wrong person finding out something about a person from what looks like very little info at the outset, especially in the SM age where data goes round the world in the blink of an eye.

I understand privacy law perfectly well, which is why I’m asking what specific legal violation occurred here.

A genuine violation usually involves disclosure of personally identifiable or sensitive private information where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy such as surnames combined with identifying details, addresses, contact details, financial information, employee records, or data that allows someone to realistically identify and intrude upon a person’s private life.

A card showing only first names, initials, nicknames and casual messages does not automatically meet that threshold simply because someone might theoretically recognise the person. Recognition alone is not the legal test. Otherwise every public thank you card, workplace leaving post, or signed birthday message would be a privacy violation.

You’re also conflating a person known to them may recognise them with their private personal data has been unlawfully exposed to the public. Those are not the same thing legally or practically.

So you are going to lecture a poster who has a background in law about something she has already explained to you!! Bold move! 🤣

But wow what a card 😂

@notimagain FWIW aviation can be a small world.

Isnt it just!

I love it.

Here’s hoping none of the crew members had asked to be rostered on the flight so they could have a couple of nights away with a special friend who’d also asked to be on that specific flight.

Here’s hoping none of the crew members on the flight hadn’t told a loved one they were on another route that day.

It happens.

Didn’t Meg win against a paper because they printed the complete letter she sent to her dad and not excerpts? Because the copyright was hers, so she sued.

So I’m guessing, BA has the copyright?

It's quite sad, really, the need to post that card online. Another sort of person might feel pleased to receive it and just show it to their spouse. It's another level of desperate to put it online. 'I am popular! I AM!!!'

What a headcase.

Same golf club - apparently Englebert Humperdinck was a lovely polite and charming man. ( You can take a guess at my age there. ) 😊

I think the salient point is there are those who cope with riches and fame ( to whatever degree ) , who remain nice people. And there are those who let it go to their head, And there are those who think automatic fame / inherited status owes them a living. & there are those in between.

To me the problem H&M have is H being KC's younger son is writing cheques they can't (outside the WRF) cash. Thus far he is a younger scion, of no constitutional importance , but he and his wife want the deference and accrued importance for their titles. Yes you are all over the newspapers but having chosen to leave the WRF , you really are on your own - apart from the PR consultants etc - I'm not even going to go there.