Thank you for the breakdown, this was my understanding having done some basic GDPR training. I'm aware of the regulator. I've nicely asked questions for now, to see what the answers are.

I don't disagree.

I've asked questions to see what grounds they believe they are using.

It's England. Edited post.

I would like to not put up with it, hence asking questions to see if they actually understand what they are doing...

It is also during period inspection, so they have asked to attend and it has been agreed.

It's quite insane to me to, hence the curiosity.

This is my personal understanding, that it is to prove to the landlord that they did the inspection.

However, isn't that their problem, not mine? Are they really using people's data to prove their business obligations?

The people that won those elections are poor performers, bad strategists and often abdicate their responsibilities as leaders. If they were born poorer or lower class, they would not be where they are now.

They win elections with media support, even when taking opposite stances day to day because the people that own and run those media companies... Went to school with them.

It's like a big club, and most of us ain't in it.

But if you are in it, you can be stupid, lazy, incompetent or even outright evil and still succeed, aka, fail upwards.

I live in a small non wealthy town in the UK, it's five miles across and everything is accessible without cars.

My neighbor has five to seven cars on their driveway. To let others out they start them all and play musical cars. Two of them drive to jobs less than two miles away. They use them for practically every trip over 200 metres. Their extended family visit every weekend, in separate cars and all live within five miles.

My other neighbors have three cars for two people, including a pickup truck. Again, they drive literally everywhere. Even walking distance.

Many of the young people here drive terrible modded cars up and down all day for no actual purpose than vanity.

If you tried to have to have a conversation with these people about their car use, they would claim it's their right and that they "pay for it". Yet what they pay is < 10% of the damage they cause.

Obviously, if you are remote, or have a disability or need to carry a heavy load you should probably use a car.

But many people think it's literally their God given right to drive a dangerous metal box, badly, burning irreplaceable oil, spraying pollution, noise pollution and brake dust literally straight into your home.

Every single car journal under 10 miles should be excessively taxed, with extreme taxes for trips under three miles. You should literally be forced to think twice, then twice again.

All of these people are literally saying: "Fuck other people's health, their sanity, their happiness, their time, their environment, the environment as a whole. Me drive metal box"

The entitlement of drivers is literally staggering.

I’ve got no problem with taxing carbon-emitting fuel much higher than today.

If you tax three mile trips extremely enough, you turn a 4 mile roundtrip into around 15 miles of driving in a lot of cases. Need to go A to B to A which are 2 miles apart? Drive A to C (3.5 miles) to B (4 miles) to C (4 miles) to A (3.5 miles). Does that policy make sense in light of the obvious workaround?

Tax the fuel and you align the incentives much more closely and much more difficult to workaround in ways that work against your intention.

You're right in one sense. In another, isn't this exactly what people said about intelligence agencies ("they could but they don't") and then... Snowden.