From the article:
"the plot got even more scandalously thick when, as Barrister Matthew Scott spotted, it seems that the release of the CCTV footage by Virgin Trains appeared to be in direct contravention of its own privacy policy."
Er, well I think when a senior politician starts using spouting off in public for reasons of personal gain about the conditions he's experienced on a train ride but is perhaps being "selective" whilst doing so, there's definitely a public interest defence in showing what really happened. Civilised society cannot afford to have a situation where politicians can make up stuff to the public detriment of an identifiable company or individual whilst hiding behind law that otherwise prevents the wronged company or individual publicly refuting the politician's claims.
If he wanted to be portrayed truly experiencing the woeful inadequacy of over crowded trains he should have pulled his finger out and got on a Southern service during their strikes, instead of lazily making something seemingly unreal up on the hoof during a pre-planned journey. And if he had any expectations in this day and age of CCTV, mobile phones, social media, etc. of being able to fake something (as seems likely) without risking discovery, then he's clearly got a lot of catching up to do on the way the modern world works in order to stand any chance of being portrayed as anything resembling an electable politician.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
