Really, if the journalist wanted to cover the event without being noticed he could've done so undercover.
It doesn't clearly state that it was part of the room block at Benn's initial booking, and it implies that the booking was not associated with Flock when the initial booking was made.
A 2-steps-from-origin word-of-mouth claim of "They told me someone called on my behalf" is not the same thing as "Flock impersonates".
"they told me" (definitive) and "called on my behalf" (interpretable) are both important here.
The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking? If you think so, please let me know next time you have travel plans and we'll put that to the test. I would hope the hotel would not be vulnerable to that kind of attack.
They're false statements of fact.
> if Flock didn't "impersonate" the traveler, then that makes it worse-looking for the hotel
I see now suddenly we've gone from "Flock bad" to "hotel bad". I hope you recognize the importance of that shift in blame in relation to the submitted headline.
> The general principle: Should a third party be able to call a hotel to cancel someone else's booking?
A booking made in a designated room block. If you call the hotel and claim to be a member of my family reunion then I'm going to call the hotel and tell them that you lied.
The person said: “…contact a hotel on my behalf…”.
They didn’t claim impersonation.
I might go further: the person who posted this story made up (aka lie) a headline which is not what the journalist claimed.
Dude can book without the block or go to a different Hotel.
You want to drive a 2 ton vehicle on roads i pay for, don't speed.
You mean they appear to be anti-speeding.
Nobody said anything about being anti-speed-cam. The context is being pro-speed-cam.