loss of sense of humour or loss of privacy rights?
- Thread starter buggi
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Aperitif
Meme bar
- Location
- ...I don't have much idea - really.
Yeah - I recognise her instantly from the clip 
potsy
Rambler
- Location
- My Armchair
Now that is funny
And just think of all those motons who text whilst driving
Aperitif
Meme bar
- Location
- ...I don't have much idea - really.
I thought it looked a bit like you with short legs actually, Buggi! 
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
She should have good grounds for compensation in the present 'guard your arse' world we live in.
You would think there should have been Trip Hazard signs around that pool, and considering the frequent use of 'Danger Wet Floor' cones when floors are mildly damp, a pool should have had flashing lights and a siren as a minimum warning. 
Even the little safe for valuables in my hotel room last week had a label saying 'Caution Suffocation Danger Exists' on the inside of the door.
It's a mad mad world I tell you.
You would think there should have been Trip Hazard signs around that pool, and considering the frequent use of 'Danger Wet Floor' cones when floors are mildly damp, a pool should have had flashing lights and a siren as a minimum warning.
Even the little safe for valuables in my hotel room last week had a label saying 'Caution Suffocation Danger Exists' on the inside of the door.
It's a mad mad world I tell you.
longers
Legendary Member
Even the little safe for valuables in my hotel room last week had a label saying 'Caution Suffocation Danger Exists' on the inside of the door.
It's a mad mad world I tell you.
That's someone with a sense of humour doing that though isn't it? Isn't it?
Please say yes.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
This was a genuine label on the safe door, I regretted not having my camera with me on holiday to take home the photographic evidence.
It was in the London Hilton Metropole hotel.
SavageHoutkop
Veteran
- Location
- South Manchester-ish
I'm imagining:
"beep, beep, caution: fountain nearby, beep, beep, caution: fountain nearby" to the tune of what the rubbish collection vans around here do when reversing!
PBancroft
Senior Member
- Location
- Winchester
"I'm so incensed about my privacy being invaded, I am going to identify myself on international TV and make certain that my pratfall is seen by many more people and that they all know who I am."
Whilst it probably is funny (I didn't actually watch the video, the description told me enough) I do think it does raise some questions.
CCTV footage being released on youtube: is that the action of an individual security guard, the security company, the mall owners (in this case)? Just who took the decision to do it and why?
Ok, a women falling into a fountain is funny, and nobody really means to offend her in their laughter but, flip it around, if footage of you picking your nose, adjusting your tackle, scratching your arse, whatever made its way onto a public platform, just how thrilled would you be? I do think you have a right not to have your intimate moments made public. Do you think some individual should have the right to violate that just for their own laughs? I don't.
But then I'll fully admit to not always finding things like You've Been Framed funny either. I have never been able to take pleasure in other's discomfort. If that means I have no sense of humour then so be it, but it is the truth.
This is FlyingMonkey territory, I'd be interested to see what he thinks.
CCTV footage being released on youtube: is that the action of an individual security guard, the security company, the mall owners (in this case)? Just who took the decision to do it and why?
Ok, a women falling into a fountain is funny, and nobody really means to offend her in their laughter but, flip it around, if footage of you picking your nose, adjusting your tackle, scratching your arse, whatever made its way onto a public platform, just how thrilled would you be? I do think you have a right not to have your intimate moments made public. Do you think some individual should have the right to violate that just for their own laughs? I don't.
But then I'll fully admit to not always finding things like You've Been Framed funny either. I have never been able to take pleasure in other's discomfort. If that means I have no sense of humour then so be it, but it is the truth.
This is FlyingMonkey territory, I'd be interested to see what he thinks.
Kirstie
Über Member
This is also Kirstie territory! The issue is the actions of the security guard with their mobile, it's not about CCTV per se. Because of the principle of vicarious liability, as I understand it, the employer of the guard would be responsible, unless they could show that they had some kind of rule or code of practice which advised the employee not to do such things. The use of mobile phones by security personnel is an issue which has cropped up in other arguably more sensitive areas. Call centre operatives, for example, are banned from having mobile phones at their desks because they could photograph account details and steel identities or commit fraud. Far more alarming are the recent scandals following the introduction of body scanners at airports in the US and UK. If you are required to walk through a body scanner as a traveller an image of your naked body appears on a screen in front of the security guard. A few incidents have occurred where workers have taken mobile phone pictures of, for example, their co-workers as they walk through the scanner in training, and have been used to bully the worker. There are other incidences too: the naked images of a female netball team who walked through the scanner were allegedly distributed as were the images of famous people etc.
Although there are contraversies over the use of CCTV in 'public' or 'semi public' space, such as shopping malls (semi public because the shopping mall is privately owned but used by the general public), the regulation in the UK is pretty comprehensive in terms of where the cameras are legally allowed to point. The issues are that not everyone takes the regulation seriously (where CCTV systems are required to be registered - many are not), and that the low picture quality and sub standard operation of the systems amounts to a scandalous waste of public money. CCTV has been shown time and time again not to reduce crime, but to move it to areas where there is less CCTV. Similarly the only effect it has is on the attitude of citizens to 'fear of crime'. So the presence of a camera makes people feel less afraid even if its substantive outcomes are much less. Incidentally the CCTV operator job is extremely dull so I'm not surprised they did something to liven things up! If you want to read a book about CCTV operators consult 'The Maximum Surveillance Society' by Clive Norris and Gary Armstrong; or any of Gavin Smith's work (University of Sydney).
When I was doing some on-site support work on the fire alarm system at a busy shopping centre, I was working in the security guys' cubicle. I saw how they (all male) were operating the remotely steered CCTVs. A fair bit of up-skirt stuff, especially on the escalators. They were not in the least covert about it: even with me, an outsider, present, they were inviting me to have a look with remarks like "Corrrr! Look at that one!". I did not comment or report anything (this was over 20 years ago).
They were doing their job, as well, I must stress. Whilst I was there they spotted a gang of known shoplifters and alerted the on floor security guys. That's what the CCTV is there for.
I wonder how much of this still happens?
They were doing their job, as well, I must stress. Whilst I was there they spotted a gang of known shoplifters and alerted the on floor security guys. That's what the CCTV is there for.
I wonder how much of this still happens?
Kirstie
Über Member
When I was doing some on-site support work on the fire alarm system at a busy shopping centre, I was working in the security guys' cubicle. I saw how they (all male) were operating the remotely steered CCTVs. A fair bit of up-skirt stuff, especially on the escalators. They were not in the least covert about it: even with me, an outsider, present, they were inviting me to have a look with remarks like "Corrrr! Look at that one!". I did not comment or report anything (this was over 20 years ago).
They were doing their job, as well, I must stress. Whilst I was there they spotted a gang of known shoplifters and alerted the on floor security guys. That's what the CCTV is there for.
I wonder how much of this still happens?
This is exactly what has been documented in the research about it...that and the disproportionate focusing of CCTV on young black males and people wearing hats, curiously...(I assume because it hides the face).
