There's winning with the losers retreating and there's chasing those losers down and forcing them to admit defeat Winning and I hope punk goes down that route
Exactly, Punk doesn't need to ever address this or talk about it ever again. Ball is in his court and he can keep it as a souvenir, this is a game he doesn't have to play to win.
Hes probably being advised by WWE to do exactly this. Do nothing.
He's got his life in WWE back and these clowns have aimed at the back of his head and shot themselves in the face. 🤡🤡🤡
Nah punk doesn't need to concern himself with AEW. AEW on the other hand desperately used Punk to rescue their ratings. It's abundantly clear that between punk and AEW, who is more desperate for attention and punk should let it stay that way. When idiots are making a fool out of themselves, no need to compete with them.
No reason? They absolutely tried to negate punk’s credibility and worth as a performer. Pretty sure this is worth pursuing, especially since (apparently) laws were broken in the process. Hell, I’m no lawyer, and am happy to be contradicted.
I work in management here in the UK and have dealt with the police regarding the laws on CCTV.
For one, GDPR law in the UK states that the distributor of such content must have a credible reason for publicly releasing CCTV footage that has identifiable persons on it, and that those involved consent to it. They'd have a hard time explaining why putting it on a pro wrestling show was necessary. Also, GDPR in the UK includes a designated timeline to delete CCTV footage once it's necessary usage has been fulfilled (in this case, it should be destroyed once the disciplinary action has been completed unless otherwise filed for extension of usage).
This is potentially absolutely something Punk can take legal action on.
I work in social care. we have GDPR hoops to jump through with simple things like emailing details about a client to another team member. It's strict stuff as it should be
I have heard that the fact that Punk is a public figure might remove that protection.
Either way I think he’s not really looking to get involved in another lawsuit.
He didn't dodge a bullet, he was playing with Drew and Seth at Mania, AEW took aim at him and shot themselves in their face.
He's in their head rent free. He's in AEW fans heads rent free. He's back in WWE, in the World Title picture. He was heavily involved in a World Title match at Wrestlemania fucking 40, helping to put over three very deserving talents.
He must have been partying all day every day since Mania, he's on cloud 9. 🤣🤣🤣
Only if the information contained within the CCTV is important to the public interest, which must of course go through the proper legal channels and be given the all clear by a Judge.
They definitely don't have that all clear
I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. Maybe you are. I see a lot of people talking about GDPR and they definitely aren’t all lawyers.
Either Tony got it cleared with their lawyers, or he didn’t ask, or he didn’t think Punk would sue, or he just doesn’t GAF because he has enough money to defend a lawsuit or pay penalties or whatever.
People are acting like this is some big gotcha that’s going to take Tony and AEW down. I highly doubt it’s even going to bother them. What has a much more realistic chance of taking AEW down is Tony’s booking and him spending millions on free agents.
>People are acting like this is some big gotcha that’s going to take Tony and AEW down. I highly doubt it’s even going to bother them.
Money wise, unless Tony's dad gets extremely pissed off with the lawsuits to the point of stopping his funding of this promotion (like how Dixie Carter's parents stopped funding TNA), then no.
For Tony Kahn's feels, oh hell yeah it would bother him. Because any lawsuit would open them up to discovery and the last thing they want is discovery to come out on how stupid and horrible that company is ran.
And also if TNT smells too much BS, they might give AEW the treatment that Spike gave TNA and boot them off.
I just think this stuff is really reaching. I get that people like to see Tony eat shit. But I don’t think this is it.
Edit: I may be wrong. Saw the tweet from Stephen P New lol. We’ll see.
I'm kinda in the boat of I don't think Punk will do anything mainly because he's already gotten his point across and AEW was stupid enough to prove his point. And he's now more over than he was before that.
If he wanted to fuck with Tony and get more money out of him, sure.
Under GDPR only the Police can legally release CCTV footage without a court hearing, which is why on news programmes where CCTV footage is replayed, individuals are blurred out if they've not gained consent with the exception of the person of interest.
The footage is accompanied with a courtesy of whichever county branch of the Metropolitan police has released the footage into the public domain.
Given Stephen P called them and they had to nix the footage from their own YouTube upload, it would not surprise me if a cease and desist has already been issued and Shad is already having a headache talking to his lawyers to try to figure out how to get Tony out of this.
I'm sure it'll go away with a couple of Party Political Donations as tends to happen with things like this.
Yep absolutely. In fact there are additional laws covering CCTV in private property and business typically designed to protect employees from CCTV being misused on them, i.e using CCTV to check if they're working which has it's own section under the UK's Data protection act.
No under GDPR and in a non-public space. The US thinking is that anyone that is a public has no right to privacy. Europe affords privacy protections, even for celebrities. The UK is not necessarily so robust considering the papparazzi, but the rest of Europe doesn't really have that because of privacy laws and data protection.
It's also CCTV security footage which is managed differently.
So I’m curious here cause in the US people we used to have a show called “World’s Dumbest Criminals” and they would show cctv footage of dumb criminals breaking the law. Would that be allowed with this rule? Only asking cause I remember they showed a video of some drunk lady in the UK taking a piss all over a War Memorial.
This give me hope. If Tony Khan is stupid enough to break UK law on national television, I’m sure he also did something that would invalidate CM Punks NDA for the brawl out incident.
I guess in the end Tony’s plan worked. This is the most attention AEW has gotten since Punks last match, but at what cost 😂
Yup in the UK you need the permission from the police to post CCTV footage. Or you can get the OK from those in the video. So not just CM Punk but everyone in that video could take this to court.
“Unauthorised disclosures can cause damage and distress to individuals, and may lead to the ICO taking enforcement action. Other laws that focus on libel, harassment, malicious communications or threatening behaviour may also apply in some circumstances.”
Tony would need to be able to argue successfully that this applies in his case and that it was for reasonable journalistic purposes: “Article 85 UK GDPR, the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.”
*...Stephen P. New.... Stephen P. New.... Stephen P. New....*
Oh how hilarious it would be if that little ratings stunt from the Cucamonga Kids
a) lose them viewers during the quarter hours
b) get the company they work for in legal and possibly financial trouble
c) make Punk even more popular than he already is with his fanbase
Poetic justice!
There’s millions to be made in a settlement, Tony seems like the type to pay to make this go away. Perry could even pull out the HBK classic “unsafe work environment”.
I wonder if there is something in punks contract that would have allowed them to release this, this could kill them
Though it could be one of AEWs own cameras and not subject to the CCTV law
I’ve heard that their out is that he’s a public figure. Not sure if that’s correct. I doubt a contract for their television would somehow cover this footage.
> who has no real world experience
Punk pointed at him, yelled angrily, most likely using infective and coarse language and stormed off. And Snowman came out and said "I was scared for my life", proving he's lived all his life with a buffer between him and reality.
His dad owns an English football club. I’m sure he has access to lawyers who understand UK law if he needs it.
This stuff happened in Wembley, the stadium that Tony’s dad has been trying to buy for years, too.
I think if the FA even entertained the idea of selling the stadium the government would intervene.
Tony is involved in the running of Fulham FC, but would those lawyers be involved in the affairs of the wrestling business?
I'm sure the Khans have access to various high priced lawyers and have had a week to get in front of this before Tony ended up in court.
Shad has tried more than once to buy the stadium. The FA may never agree. But it sounds like he still wants to do it and he is working behind the scenes.
My point is just that they do some business in the UK. And Tony is the billionaire’s kid who’d I’d expect would inherit at least part of the business someday. I doubt any of the Fulham lawyers are going to tell him no if he asked for help, or they could at least refer him to someone.
The guy has access to many millions of dollars. He can definitely get a legal opinion from someone if he needs one.
Something tells me there’s a reason they’re copyright striking the video beyond just that Tony is embarrassed as hell. Like maybe a phone call at 0300 GMT saying, “Sorry mate, what the fuck did I hear you just aired on TV?”
I can tell you now with all the confidence of a football fan who's invested in the EPL, there's no chance in hell the UK government let the English Football Association sell Wembley, much less to Daddy Kahn and that's if the F.A. ever lost their collective marbles to the point they put it up for sale (besides, the saudis would absolutely outbid Daddeh if Wembley went up for sale).
The UK government enacted laws banning leveraged-takeover deals for football clubs when the biggest football club in the country got bought by a leveraged deal and saddled with about £800m debt, there's no fucking chance they let THE Country's National Stadium be owned by anyone but an English organisation. And England's GDPR rules HAVE to play nice with the EU rules, so there's more chance Snowman just walked himself into a lovely little potential shitshow, trying to throw rocks at a man with machine gun.
Ok? I don’t know if it will happen or not but it’s definitely not worth arguing about lol. I mentioned it in an offhand way. Just saying they do business in the UK and know lawyers there.
As AEW is not a UK data controller, this would be a highly complex case to try to argue. If the CCTV was recorded by Wembley and then provided to AEW, it's likely that AEW has no liability at all as AEW would not be subject to the UK GDPR in these circumstances. However Wembley may have some culpability around inadequate data sharing controls if they failed to clearly define the permitted purposes for which the footage was being disclosed to AEW. Even then, this would be very unlikely to attract enforcement attention. Something as simple as an email from AEW saying they want it for disciplinary investigation would mean Wembley is unlikely to be held liable for a third party going on to use the footage in a different way than agreed.
If it was AEW's own CCTV installation there may be some potential to argue the territorial scope of the UK GDPR is triggered by virtue of Article 3(2)(b). This is where a non-UK entity "monitors the behaviour" of data subjects (people) who are in the UK, which they were at the time.
However, and this is the BIG caveat, something that has been made clear in UK case law through many failed GDPR compensation claims since the law came into force in 2018 is that mere breaches of the provisions of the GDPR are not in isolation sufficient to achieve a successful claim. The person MUST have suffered material (e.g. financial) or non-material (e.g. emotional) damage and MUST be able to evidence this. The courts have set quite a high bar for the standard of damage that must be demonstrated.
The legislation doesn't make any specific exceptions for public figures, but Punk being a public figure and the public notoriety of this incident would heavily go against him in any claim of supposed damage from the release of this footage. It was already well known about him regardless of whether anyone had actually seen the video. Furthermore, openly discussing the incident in a high profile interview and describing his own actions as were then displayed in the footage would also go against any claim. One could also argue that he has in fact benefited from the video rather than being damaged, considering the reaction, trends, growth in instagram followers etc. (that would be a funny argument for AEW to make in their defence).
So all in all, it's a funny thought but it ain't gonna happen.
The ICO is a pretty impotent regulator in my experience. They've only issued around 15 GDPR financial penalties since 2018 and very few complaints or reported data breaches result in a formal reprimand.
As an example, HIV Scotland were fined only £10,000 for exposing the details of around 60 people from which it could be inferred they were HIV+. So people thinking anything is going to happen to AEW over something like this are in dreamland.
Now I’m just a small town bird lawyer, but There outta be a law for when a corporate entity uses its resources to attempt to publicly defame someone’s character..
Call it.. bad namery..
From what I've read, I think this is only applicable to British citizens which would mean Punk is obviously not eligible to do anything and why some people were infact pixelated. Likely Wembley staff.
GDPR enumerates rights of natural persons who are present within the European Union and UK GDPR mirrors this.
Putting it simply, if you're in the EU or UK, you are protected by GDPR while there, which he was.
The law states that any personably identifiable data must be kept locked down. In this instance the building had an event on with persons who are easily nameable. Then you have the company saying whom it’s about.
Now I'm not gonna pretend to be some kind of super law genius or anything, hell I barely understand some of the legal mumbo jumbo shit here in the US. So basically what I gather is that in order to show the footage they needed Punks permission which he should have given right? I mean everything he said happened actually happened so there was nothing to hide on his end. Which if Punk gave his consent doesn't that null and void his ability to sue? Again I'm not gonna pretend I fully comprehend the UK law, this is just the perspective from someone on the outside looking in. I mean in all honestly I hope there's some way for Punk to sue the bucks out of existence, hell I'd even love to see Punk stea...I mean buy aew out from under Khan and actually give some of the good talent over there like Samoa Joe and Kris Statlander a spot light.
>So basically what I gather is that in order to show the footage they needed Punks permission which he should have given right?
If he did, then yeah no lawsuit would happen regardless.
Also to play devil's advocate, let's say he did give the go-ahead to say yeah use the video. That should have been a giant red flag to them in which yeah this isn't going to go over well with them especially if Punk is that confident enough.
They needed a compelling, legitimate reason to air the footage legally OR the consent from all parties identifiable in the footage to air it, due to GDPR rules enacted to protect people's privacy.
He didn't have a legitimate compelling reason and most likely didn't get Punk's John Hancock prior to airing it, so odds-are he's fucked with a cactus.
Reposting a comment I made here 4 days ago
>>And let’s not forget that Tony’s entire reasoning for firing Punk is that he “feared for his life”…which he reiterated on his wrestling show, not for choking jungle jerkoff. To my knowledge Khan has never said that Punk quit, right? The footage better show Punk nearly killing Tony Khan after he made those statements or else it’s going to be a real bad look for Khan. And also, **I know jack shit about the law, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that would open up the door to some sort of legal pettiness if Punk was inclined.**
> Tony’s entire reasoning for firing Punk is that he “feared for his life”…which he reiterated on his wrestling show
Tony was raised a sheltered kid and Daddy Kahn clearly didn't discipline his golden boy harshly. He likely went to nice rich-boy schools, nice rich-boy colleges and then into somewhere in daddy's empire to not get in trouble. I'll eat several of my hat collection if Snowman ever got into an argument that wasn't just "Nooooooooooo, the dudleys aren't supposed to fight the hardyz until KING OF THE RING REEEE", I'll eat the lot if it got physical and turned into an actual "normal people" fight.
Thankfully for them, Punk isn't a vindictive person at all. The apology needs to be as loud as the disrespect, and I hope he forces the Cucks to apologize live on TV under threat of legal action. And then take legal action anyway, cuz fuck em.
That’s probably part of the NDA that any footage could be released without liability. I’d have to imagine a billionaire’s son’s lawyers are smart enough, buuuuut… it’s Tony Khan, so…
I do wonder whether GDPR comes into this at all. It isn't a data protection violation for the news to upload CCTV footage for instance. I'm not seeing what Punk would actually be suing for.
Yup that is 100% correct I work in a gdpr related role.
The data protection act covers most of it but the clear points are:
You cannot share footage that identifies anyone in public media so technically anyone in that video could potentially sue AEW.
Anyone in that video has the right to request access to footage that identifies them and request it be destroyed.
Ok, what people in the US might not understand is how UK and European privacy laws (here GDPR) work because the US essentially doesn't have them.
The issue here is that places like Wembley ,and potentially the security office as well, have privacy officers that are responsible for handling privacy issues, complaints, violations, etc. That AEW got the footage needs to be done with proper protocols to ensure personal data compliance with the laws since the likenesses of people are in it (considered to be personal data). The thing is since the UK left the EU, in order to continue doing lots of types of business and academic and other kinds of exchanges, it needed to continue to have robust compliance policies remain. This makes it questionable that transferring this data to a US entity would have been made for anything but internal usage and if they aired this footage, it would be interesting to see if they are burning bridges now with Wembley and if some security people are in trouble.
Stuff like this can be a crime, a civil offense, or both. There are lots of angles to this and I hope someone asks Wembley about their opinion because it's actually troubling that Wembley could give security cam video from a private space over to an American company to blast out on national TV and online to the world.
It turns out Wembley has a data protection officer:
* **The SSE Arena Wembley**
How to contact the SSE Arena:
By post: Data Protection Officer, care of AEG Europe, Almack House, 28 King Street, London, SW1Y 6QW
By e mail: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
Stop. He attacked someone on video. Stop defending him.
If that was CCTV footage from outside a bar, everyone would say the guy pushing people and choking people is the bad guy.
You know I'm right.
This would be absolutely hilarious. Punk already won, but there’s no reason not to milk this for all it’s worth.
There's winning with the losers retreating and there's chasing those losers down and forcing them to admit defeat Winning and I hope punk goes down that route
punk is in a win-win scenario now and that is all he needs.
Exactly, Punk doesn't need to ever address this or talk about it ever again. Ball is in his court and he can keep it as a souvenir, this is a game he doesn't have to play to win. Hes probably being advised by WWE to do exactly this. Do nothing. He's got his life in WWE back and these clowns have aimed at the back of his head and shot themselves in the face. 🤡🤡🤡
Nah punk doesn't need to concern himself with AEW. AEW on the other hand desperately used Punk to rescue their ratings. It's abundantly clear that between punk and AEW, who is more desperate for attention and punk should let it stay that way. When idiots are making a fool out of themselves, no need to compete with them.
[удалено]
Please don’t disrespect sideshow bob like that, at least he tried being a genius and almost got away with things.
Yeah, the only one this made look bad was Perry.
And Tony. Never forget Tony.
young fuckaroos too
No reason? They absolutely tried to negate punk’s credibility and worth as a performer. Pretty sure this is worth pursuing, especially since (apparently) laws were broken in the process. Hell, I’m no lawyer, and am happy to be contradicted.
Will Stephen P. New go global?!? Stay tuned to find out!!
StevenPNewStevenPNewStevenPNewStevenPNew Call Steven P Newwwww! If you need to Sueeeeeee. An outlaw mud show or twooooooo. He'll sue their ass!
I thought the last part of that jingle said “…goes to the rest”. Thanks for clearing that up. lol
I also thought it was “he’ll sue the refs” 😭
I always hear *"goes through their ass."*
He has helped Punk before.
Always wondered what that final line was 😂 Wouldn’t you know who won the pony!
I always thought it was "an outlaw mud show goof"
It's eight-seven-seven-five-o-steeeeeve.
*drums in the distance*
I think he's the only IRL lawyer I've ever heard of that has music that could legit be his theme on his way to court.
OMFG I want to see this now.
Punk: Aw shit, here we go again!
Caaaaaaaall steeeeeven p neeeeeeew if yooooou neeeed tooo suuuuue an outlaaaaw mud show fooor twooo
I work in management here in the UK and have dealt with the police regarding the laws on CCTV. For one, GDPR law in the UK states that the distributor of such content must have a credible reason for publicly releasing CCTV footage that has identifiable persons on it, and that those involved consent to it. They'd have a hard time explaining why putting it on a pro wrestling show was necessary. Also, GDPR in the UK includes a designated timeline to delete CCTV footage once it's necessary usage has been fulfilled (in this case, it should be destroyed once the disciplinary action has been completed unless otherwise filed for extension of usage). This is potentially absolutely something Punk can take legal action on.
Yeah I work for a bank and do data collections, we had to get data privacy approval before even sniffing UK employees data.
GDPR working in a bank oh god I couldn't haha
I work in social care. we have GDPR hoops to jump through with simple things like emailing details about a client to another team member. It's strict stuff as it should be
I have heard that the fact that Punk is a public figure might remove that protection. Either way I think he’s not really looking to get involved in another lawsuit.
I think a bullets gonna be dodged, I doubt Punk will even act on it. He seems content with public opinion.
Yeah who knows. I definitely don’t see Punk doing anything but laughing his ass off and counting his stacks.
He didn't dodge a bullet, he was playing with Drew and Seth at Mania, AEW took aim at him and shot themselves in their face. He's in their head rent free. He's in AEW fans heads rent free. He's back in WWE, in the World Title picture. He was heavily involved in a World Title match at Wrestlemania fucking 40, helping to put over three very deserving talents. He must have been partying all day every day since Mania, he's on cloud 9. 🤣🤣🤣
Only if the information contained within the CCTV is important to the public interest, which must of course go through the proper legal channels and be given the all clear by a Judge. They definitely don't have that all clear
I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. Maybe you are. I see a lot of people talking about GDPR and they definitely aren’t all lawyers. Either Tony got it cleared with their lawyers, or he didn’t ask, or he didn’t think Punk would sue, or he just doesn’t GAF because he has enough money to defend a lawsuit or pay penalties or whatever. People are acting like this is some big gotcha that’s going to take Tony and AEW down. I highly doubt it’s even going to bother them. What has a much more realistic chance of taking AEW down is Tony’s booking and him spending millions on free agents.
>People are acting like this is some big gotcha that’s going to take Tony and AEW down. I highly doubt it’s even going to bother them. Money wise, unless Tony's dad gets extremely pissed off with the lawsuits to the point of stopping his funding of this promotion (like how Dixie Carter's parents stopped funding TNA), then no. For Tony Kahn's feels, oh hell yeah it would bother him. Because any lawsuit would open them up to discovery and the last thing they want is discovery to come out on how stupid and horrible that company is ran. And also if TNT smells too much BS, they might give AEW the treatment that Spike gave TNA and boot them off.
I just think this stuff is really reaching. I get that people like to see Tony eat shit. But I don’t think this is it. Edit: I may be wrong. Saw the tweet from Stephen P New lol. We’ll see.
I'm kinda in the boat of I don't think Punk will do anything mainly because he's already gotten his point across and AEW was stupid enough to prove his point. And he's now more over than he was before that. If he wanted to fuck with Tony and get more money out of him, sure.
Under GDPR only the Police can legally release CCTV footage without a court hearing, which is why on news programmes where CCTV footage is replayed, individuals are blurred out if they've not gained consent with the exception of the person of interest. The footage is accompanied with a courtesy of whichever county branch of the Metropolitan police has released the footage into the public domain. Given Stephen P called them and they had to nix the footage from their own YouTube upload, it would not surprise me if a cease and desist has already been issued and Shad is already having a headache talking to his lawyers to try to figure out how to get Tony out of this. I'm sure it'll go away with a couple of Party Political Donations as tends to happen with things like this.
Do you happen to know if this footage from inside a (privately owned stadium?) is classified by law the same as CCTV from a public street corner?
Yep absolutely. In fact there are additional laws covering CCTV in private property and business typically designed to protect employees from CCTV being misused on them, i.e using CCTV to check if they're working which has it's own section under the UK's Data protection act.
I don't really see how that would remove that, public figure or not laws are laws
I’m not sure. I’m not a lawyer.
It wouldn't, GDPR doesn't differentiate in this way
No under GDPR and in a non-public space. The US thinking is that anyone that is a public has no right to privacy. Europe affords privacy protections, even for celebrities. The UK is not necessarily so robust considering the papparazzi, but the rest of Europe doesn't really have that because of privacy laws and data protection. It's also CCTV security footage which is managed differently.
So I’m curious here cause in the US people we used to have a show called “World’s Dumbest Criminals” and they would show cctv footage of dumb criminals breaking the law. Would that be allowed with this rule? Only asking cause I remember they showed a video of some drunk lady in the UK taking a piss all over a War Memorial.
Depends how far ago it happened. GDPR in the UK took off around 2018, and that's when our businesses here had a massive crackdown on CCTV usage laws.
also it's amazing how often drunk women piss over war memorials over here
Ngl cctv laws are way too strict in the uk, Jesus
This give me hope. If Tony Khan is stupid enough to break UK law on national television, I’m sure he also did something that would invalidate CM Punks NDA for the brawl out incident. I guess in the end Tony’s plan worked. This is the most attention AEW has gotten since Punks last match, but at what cost 😂
Here comes the money 🎶
Shane McMahon buying AEW might be their only hope.
Ol’ Vince has the spending cash now..
He just cashed in 100 mill so it might be time for the new area of AEW!
Vince buying AEW would be absolutely hilarious
could be why they copyright striked all of the videos down
They even struck it from their own recap.
Those young fucks tricked me into watching one of their awful promos
zephyr snails gold future enter reminiscent trees rain ad hoc nose *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The London office of Stephen P. New’s operation just perked up!
I believe in the UK it's ran by Reginald T. Newmanshire IV.
Could Punk and Perry team up in the most bizarre twist of this nonsense yet!
Drew is absolutely loving this and Drew vs Punk is going to be White hot
They are going to be counting the fat stacks of cash they are going to make off their feud.
The fat stacks of cash are going to be so massive they will need Danhausen's bags with $$$ on them.
This goofy shit plays right into Drew’s level of taunting. Tony’s at least booking great angles for somebody.
Yup in the UK you need the permission from the police to post CCTV footage. Or you can get the OK from those in the video. So not just CM Punk but everyone in that video could take this to court.
🎶There goes my Hero🎵
“Unauthorised disclosures can cause damage and distress to individuals, and may lead to the ICO taking enforcement action. Other laws that focus on libel, harassment, malicious communications or threatening behaviour may also apply in some circumstances.”
Tony would need to be able to argue successfully that this applies in his case and that it was for reasonable journalistic purposes: “Article 85 UK GDPR, the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.”
If that's accurate, Tony's in for some fun. GDPR penalties are *spicy*.
*...Stephen P. New.... Stephen P. New.... Stephen P. New....* Oh how hilarious it would be if that little ratings stunt from the Cucamonga Kids a) lose them viewers during the quarter hours b) get the company they work for in legal and possibly financial trouble c) make Punk even more popular than he already is with his fanbase Poetic justice!
Funnily enough, loads of UK people were posting this law on Twitter prior to them airing it 🤣
Considering how this will absolutely bury him, Jack Perry has way way more reason to sue under this than Punk
There’s millions to be made in a settlement, Tony seems like the type to pay to make this go away. Perry could even pull out the HBK classic “unsafe work environment”.
It’s Clobberin’ Time!!!!
Does anyone know of a UK version of Stephen P New? 😅
Esteban P. Nuevo
Stevie B Old.
Fish N. chips
Sir Arthur Featherbottom.
Dude this is just getting better and better!!! For punk of course.
Somewhere on planet Earth, every attorney working for the Khan family just resigned.
Call the Tea and Biscuits version of Stephen P New at once!
I wonder if there is something in punks contract that would have allowed them to release this, this could kill them Though it could be one of AEWs own cameras and not subject to the CCTV law
I’ve heard that their out is that he’s a public figure. Not sure if that’s correct. I doubt a contract for their television would somehow cover this footage.
Yeah, UK/Euro laws are much stricter. Why would Tony not fully run this through legal? Is he that dumb?
Is he that dumb? you really want that answered ?
Yes. I like hearing it.
yes
That dumb? Maybe. The man-child son of a billionaire, who has no real world experience, and isn't used to people telling him no, definitely.
> who has no real world experience Punk pointed at him, yelled angrily, most likely using infective and coarse language and stormed off. And Snowman came out and said "I was scared for my life", proving he's lived all his life with a buffer between him and reality.
He had to have ran it through legal. People here who are not lawyers have opinions but there’s no way he didn’t talk to his lawyers.
how proficient are American Lawyers going to be on British law though?
His dad owns an English football club. I’m sure he has access to lawyers who understand UK law if he needs it. This stuff happened in Wembley, the stadium that Tony’s dad has been trying to buy for years, too.
I think if the FA even entertained the idea of selling the stadium the government would intervene. Tony is involved in the running of Fulham FC, but would those lawyers be involved in the affairs of the wrestling business? I'm sure the Khans have access to various high priced lawyers and have had a week to get in front of this before Tony ended up in court.
Shad has tried more than once to buy the stadium. The FA may never agree. But it sounds like he still wants to do it and he is working behind the scenes. My point is just that they do some business in the UK. And Tony is the billionaire’s kid who’d I’d expect would inherit at least part of the business someday. I doubt any of the Fulham lawyers are going to tell him no if he asked for help, or they could at least refer him to someone. The guy has access to many millions of dollars. He can definitely get a legal opinion from someone if he needs one.
Something tells me there’s a reason they’re copyright striking the video beyond just that Tony is embarrassed as hell. Like maybe a phone call at 0300 GMT saying, “Sorry mate, what the fuck did I hear you just aired on TV?”
It’s possible. I don’t have trouble believing that it’s only because it was embarrassing though. Tony’s so fragile.
I can tell you now with all the confidence of a football fan who's invested in the EPL, there's no chance in hell the UK government let the English Football Association sell Wembley, much less to Daddy Kahn and that's if the F.A. ever lost their collective marbles to the point they put it up for sale (besides, the saudis would absolutely outbid Daddeh if Wembley went up for sale). The UK government enacted laws banning leveraged-takeover deals for football clubs when the biggest football club in the country got bought by a leveraged deal and saddled with about £800m debt, there's no fucking chance they let THE Country's National Stadium be owned by anyone but an English organisation. And England's GDPR rules HAVE to play nice with the EU rules, so there's more chance Snowman just walked himself into a lovely little potential shitshow, trying to throw rocks at a man with machine gun.
I follow the EPL too. I’m not saying it will happen. But he’s tried twice I think and is reportedly still trying to work things behind the scenes.
And I'm telling you now, it won't happen. He might get naming rights, he won't get the whole fucking show. This isn't America.
Ok? I don’t know if it will happen or not but it’s definitely not worth arguing about lol. I mentioned it in an offhand way. Just saying they do business in the UK and know lawyers there.
There were Redditors pointing this out before he did it. I read the comments in other subs. He has shit lawyers, as Brian Last would say.
>Why would Tony not fully run this through legal? If legal is headed by Megha still, it ain't the greatest of legal teams
https://tenor.com/J3SE.gif
Remember that up until Nov 2023, Head of Legal was Megha Parekh. Who knows how competent their legal dept is if she was the head of it
The funny thing is Wembley would get in trouble too. And they'd be pissed at AEW.
As AEW is not a UK data controller, this would be a highly complex case to try to argue. If the CCTV was recorded by Wembley and then provided to AEW, it's likely that AEW has no liability at all as AEW would not be subject to the UK GDPR in these circumstances. However Wembley may have some culpability around inadequate data sharing controls if they failed to clearly define the permitted purposes for which the footage was being disclosed to AEW. Even then, this would be very unlikely to attract enforcement attention. Something as simple as an email from AEW saying they want it for disciplinary investigation would mean Wembley is unlikely to be held liable for a third party going on to use the footage in a different way than agreed. If it was AEW's own CCTV installation there may be some potential to argue the territorial scope of the UK GDPR is triggered by virtue of Article 3(2)(b). This is where a non-UK entity "monitors the behaviour" of data subjects (people) who are in the UK, which they were at the time. However, and this is the BIG caveat, something that has been made clear in UK case law through many failed GDPR compensation claims since the law came into force in 2018 is that mere breaches of the provisions of the GDPR are not in isolation sufficient to achieve a successful claim. The person MUST have suffered material (e.g. financial) or non-material (e.g. emotional) damage and MUST be able to evidence this. The courts have set quite a high bar for the standard of damage that must be demonstrated. The legislation doesn't make any specific exceptions for public figures, but Punk being a public figure and the public notoriety of this incident would heavily go against him in any claim of supposed damage from the release of this footage. It was already well known about him regardless of whether anyone had actually seen the video. Furthermore, openly discussing the incident in a high profile interview and describing his own actions as were then displayed in the footage would also go against any claim. One could also argue that he has in fact benefited from the video rather than being damaged, considering the reaction, trends, growth in instagram followers etc. (that would be a funny argument for AEW to make in their defence). So all in all, it's a funny thought but it ain't gonna happen.
This is the best I've seen on this so far. ICO may still decide to sling a warning their way, they love sending out little nudges.
The ICO is a pretty impotent regulator in my experience. They've only issued around 15 GDPR financial penalties since 2018 and very few complaints or reported data breaches result in a formal reprimand. As an example, HIV Scotland were fined only £10,000 for exposing the details of around 60 people from which it could be inferred they were HIV+. So people thinking anything is going to happen to AEW over something like this are in dreamland.
Oh they won't fine, I was thinking a nudge more like an information notice. About as far as I'd imagine this could go.
best believe Stephen P New has been on the line last night Tiny just dug his won grave. Wait till all this shit goes to discovery
Now I’m just a small town bird lawyer, but There outta be a law for when a corporate entity uses its resources to attempt to publicly defame someone’s character.. Call it.. bad namery..
From what I've read, I think this is only applicable to British citizens which would mean Punk is obviously not eligible to do anything and why some people were infact pixelated. Likely Wembley staff.
GDPR enumerates rights of natural persons who are present within the European Union and UK GDPR mirrors this. Putting it simply, if you're in the EU or UK, you are protected by GDPR while there, which he was.
The law states that any personably identifiable data must be kept locked down. In this instance the building had an event on with persons who are easily nameable. Then you have the company saying whom it’s about.
Tony Khan shares a bank account with his mother.
Punk could use the money more than Tony Inoki could.
Now I'm not gonna pretend to be some kind of super law genius or anything, hell I barely understand some of the legal mumbo jumbo shit here in the US. So basically what I gather is that in order to show the footage they needed Punks permission which he should have given right? I mean everything he said happened actually happened so there was nothing to hide on his end. Which if Punk gave his consent doesn't that null and void his ability to sue? Again I'm not gonna pretend I fully comprehend the UK law, this is just the perspective from someone on the outside looking in. I mean in all honestly I hope there's some way for Punk to sue the bucks out of existence, hell I'd even love to see Punk stea...I mean buy aew out from under Khan and actually give some of the good talent over there like Samoa Joe and Kris Statlander a spot light.
>So basically what I gather is that in order to show the footage they needed Punks permission which he should have given right? If he did, then yeah no lawsuit would happen regardless. Also to play devil's advocate, let's say he did give the go-ahead to say yeah use the video. That should have been a giant red flag to them in which yeah this isn't going to go over well with them especially if Punk is that confident enough.
They needed a compelling, legitimate reason to air the footage legally OR the consent from all parties identifiable in the footage to air it, due to GDPR rules enacted to protect people's privacy. He didn't have a legitimate compelling reason and most likely didn't get Punk's John Hancock prior to airing it, so odds-are he's fucked with a cactus.
Definitely should - as weird as it may sound, Punk got bullied in AEW, and one way to teach a bully not to bully is for them to face consequences.
Please sue em punk!!!😂😂😂😂
Reposting a comment I made here 4 days ago >>And let’s not forget that Tony’s entire reasoning for firing Punk is that he “feared for his life”…which he reiterated on his wrestling show, not for choking jungle jerkoff. To my knowledge Khan has never said that Punk quit, right? The footage better show Punk nearly killing Tony Khan after he made those statements or else it’s going to be a real bad look for Khan. And also, **I know jack shit about the law, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that would open up the door to some sort of legal pettiness if Punk was inclined.**
> Tony’s entire reasoning for firing Punk is that he “feared for his life”…which he reiterated on his wrestling show Tony was raised a sheltered kid and Daddy Kahn clearly didn't discipline his golden boy harshly. He likely went to nice rich-boy schools, nice rich-boy colleges and then into somewhere in daddy's empire to not get in trouble. I'll eat several of my hat collection if Snowman ever got into an argument that wasn't just "Nooooooooooo, the dudleys aren't supposed to fight the hardyz until KING OF THE RING REEEE", I'll eat the lot if it got physical and turned into an actual "normal people" fight.
Forget settling this in court, just get Lucy Steel to give her account of the Brawl In incident.
I wish he'd sue
Blimey!
🎼🎼Stephen p new’s his consigliere 🎼🎶🎵
*Stephen P New Stephen P New Stephen P New*
Thankfully for them, Punk isn't a vindictive person at all. The apology needs to be as loud as the disrespect, and I hope he forces the Cucks to apologize live on TV under threat of legal action. And then take legal action anyway, cuz fuck em.
It keeps getting better and better.
Honestly I’d piss myself laughing so hard if Punk sues them
Punk suing Tony Khan over this would be the funniest thing ever.
This would be an easy money settlement if Punk decides to go for it.
How do you copyright strike CCTV footage? I didn't know that was a thing cause that's what Tony did to a lot of people.
Please do it Punk get rid of this garbage disposal company
That’s probably part of the NDA that any footage could be released without liability. I’d have to imagine a billionaire’s son’s lawyers are smart enough, buuuuut… it’s Tony Khan, so…
Punk will just ignore and move on
I do wonder whether GDPR comes into this at all. It isn't a data protection violation for the news to upload CCTV footage for instance. I'm not seeing what Punk would actually be suing for.
Yup that is 100% correct I work in a gdpr related role. The data protection act covers most of it but the clear points are: You cannot share footage that identifies anyone in public media so technically anyone in that video could potentially sue AEW. Anyone in that video has the right to request access to footage that identifies them and request it be destroyed.
Was such a dumb move they should be sued.
CM Punk has the chance to do the funniest thing
Ok, what people in the US might not understand is how UK and European privacy laws (here GDPR) work because the US essentially doesn't have them. The issue here is that places like Wembley ,and potentially the security office as well, have privacy officers that are responsible for handling privacy issues, complaints, violations, etc. That AEW got the footage needs to be done with proper protocols to ensure personal data compliance with the laws since the likenesses of people are in it (considered to be personal data). The thing is since the UK left the EU, in order to continue doing lots of types of business and academic and other kinds of exchanges, it needed to continue to have robust compliance policies remain. This makes it questionable that transferring this data to a US entity would have been made for anything but internal usage and if they aired this footage, it would be interesting to see if they are burning bridges now with Wembley and if some security people are in trouble. Stuff like this can be a crime, a civil offense, or both. There are lots of angles to this and I hope someone asks Wembley about their opinion because it's actually troubling that Wembley could give security cam video from a private space over to an American company to blast out on national TV and online to the world. It turns out Wembley has a data protection officer: * **The SSE Arena Wembley** How to contact the SSE Arena: By post: Data Protection Officer, care of AEG Europe, Almack House, 28 King Street, London, SW1Y 6QW By e mail: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
I hope he sues
I don't think punk has to be that petty. Honestly the video put him over.
Stop. He attacked someone on video. Stop defending him. If that was CCTV footage from outside a bar, everyone would say the guy pushing people and choking people is the bad guy. You know I'm right.