Why the abuse?

[bonj2]

Oh dear. And you were doing so well. As you have been told in several other threads over recent days, you are an idiot.

First, you need to learn what a 'right' is, and how the term is understood in law. As for my interpretation of the ruling, it is derived from an intimate knowledge of the entire case, the views of the judges and of many different lawyers. And yours is based on what exactly? I don't think you know anything about it.

so basically, a 'right' is whatever YOUR interpretation of it is.
I'm not bothered how it's derived, what is the succinct definition of it?
If you can't define it, how can you claim to have one?

All rights are circumscribed. They apply to people to certain degrees with certain conditions. Of course there is no absolute right to privacy in public places. Neither I nor the ruling said that there is. The right to privacy in public places applies to intimate acts in public whose wider publication would have a negative impact upon a person's life.

It is a long story, but briefly... the original case related to a man who was mentally ill and tried to commit suicide at night with a knife. The act was caught on camera and as a result he was saved. So far so good. However the operator of the camera allowed the footage to be used for other purposes, inluding public broadcast, which allowed the person to be identified - although they masked his face, his distinctive hairstyle made him recognisable. The plaintiff successfully argued that this breached his human rights because, although he had tried to kill himself in a public place, he could legitimately expect that act to be regarded as an intimate and private act and that the operator of the camera had a duty not to publicise the footage, and had failed to protect his privacy by doing so. This ruling, which overruled the Law Lords, gives us a right of privacy in public places in England and Wales. It is a right that is probably rather limited, but as it is a right that as yet remains untested in British courts, so far as I know, we do not know how far judges will chose to interpret it, if given the opportunity to do so...

What a f**king ungrateful twat.
This is exactly the type of soulless epitome of how our once proud nation is being washed down the shitpan with the deluge of the poisonous, grasping 'rights'-based culture.
He had a bit of a turn, and he was saved. Instead of thinking how he could thank the camera operator for saving his life, and how his experience could be used to help others, no - his first thought was 'how much compo can I screw out of them'. For helping me.

You're perpetuating the 'rights'-based culture. I wish you would concentrate on things that are actually unethical instead of conducting an education campaign about what people's rights are based on a case of such awful ethical outcome.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

so basically, a 'right' is whatever YOUR interpretation of it is.

No.

I'm not bothered how it's derived, what is the succinct definition of it?
If you can't define it, how can you claim to have one?

Why don't you try doing some reading for once? It would help next time you try to make an unsupported and ridiculous statement. You go on about 'rights' as if you know what they are, but it's quite clear you have no idea. Please don't try to blame me for your ignorance - which I have only tried to correct.

What a f**king ungrateful twat.
This is exactly the type of soulless epitome of how our once proud nation is being washed down the shitpan with the deluge of the poisonous, grasping 'rights'-based culture.
He had a bit of a turn, and he was saved. Instead of thinking how he could thank the camera operator for saving his life, and how his experience could be used to help others, no - his first thought was 'how much compo can I screw out of them'. For helping me.

You're perpetuating the 'rights'-based culture. I wish you would concentrate on things that are actually unethical instead of conducting an education campaign about what people's rights are based on a case of such awful ethical outcome.

Actually you are worse than an idiot, you are actively and deliberately stupid - this is the kind of utter shite that the braindead morons on the BBC's Have Your Say site would come up with.

What, in anything that has been said, makes you think that this had anything to do with compensation? Please, tell me. Because I can't remember mentioning it.

And why do you imagine that the guy wasn't grateful to the individual security people and ambulance staff etc. - as oppposed to the organisation which operated the camera and later (illegally as we no know) distributed the images? You do understand the diffference here?

In addition to not knowing anything about the case you originally criticised or any of the principles on which it is based, you have just made up an entire story for yourself - well, let's face it, a set of lies to make yourself feel happily outraged - instead of dealing with what I actually said. Unbelievable!

As for conducting an education campaign - do you mean trying to correct your ignorance? That, unfortunately, would seem to be impossible...

 

[Origamist]

After a bit of umming and ahhing I decided not to get a cycle-cam as I did not want to actively contribute to the participatory panopticon...

 

[Crackle]

Ahem, FM

 

[bonj2]

Why don't you try doing some reading for once? It would help next time you try to make an unsupported and ridiculous statement. You go on about 'rights' as if you know what they are, but it's quite clear you have no idea. Please don't try to blame me for your ignorance - which I have only tried to correct.

So, in other words, you simply don't know. Why don't you just admit it?

What, in anything that has been said, makes you think that this had anything to do with compensation? Please, tell me. Because I can't remember mentioning it.

Well why was there a court case?
You just started talking about "the plaintiff". Plaintiff means, 'bringer of a case'. So what was the gist of the case, or are you deliberately leaving that bit out so you can make it up as you go along to suit your argument?

And why do you imagine that the guy wasn't grateful to the individual security people and ambulance staff etc. - as oppposed to the organisation which operated the camera and later (illegally as we no know) distributed the images? You do understand the diffference here?

How does he expect the individual security people to even be employed there if it wasn't for the organisation that operated the camera? Does he think they do work as cctv operators out of the kindness of their hearts?

In addition to not knowing anything about the case you originally criticised or any of the principles on which it is based, you have just made up an entire story for yourself - well, let's face it, a set of lies to make yourself feel happily outraged - instead of dealing with what I actually said. Unbelievable!

I think it's you that's concocting a set of lies, as you've deliberately failed to explain how he became to be a "plaintiff", the only reason for which I can see being so that you can insert that bit of the story later when you can tailor it as you see fit.
Whether he was angling for compo or not he's still an ungrateful, me-me-me-obsessed, grasping, hypocrite to take them to court.

As for conducting an education campaign - do you mean trying to correct your ignorance? That, unfortunately, would seem to be impossible...

You're constantly on the warpath trying to make people aware of their supposed 'rights' to privacy and how they should sue anybody that breaches their supposed right to privacy , and that they should sue this, sue that, sue the other. SUE the university for allegedly 'getting rid of them' if they escape with a lesser degree instead of failing and resitting, SUE the news of the world if they ever so much as mention your name - doesn't matter whether it's in the law or not, think about that bit later - just get your suing in first!

 

[Bollo]

After a bit of umming and ahhing I decided not to get a cycle-cam as I did not want to actively contribute to the participatory panopticon...

That's my favourite programme!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

bonj - if there was some sense here, or any connection to reality, I could make a reply, but you seem to have left your brain on autopilot with no-one at the controls...

Unless you actually start to do me the courtesy of actually reading and understanding what I write before replying, I will not bother again. Sorry, but you are wasting my time, and yours - which is somewhat less understandable...

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Ahem, FM

Thanks, I know. For a while it was interesting - whatever bonj's motives. Now it isn't.

 

[bonj2]

bonj - if there was some sense here, or any connection to reality, I could make a reply, but you seem to have left your brain on autopilot with no-one at the controls...

Unless you actually start to do me the courtesy of actually reading and understanding what I write before replying, I will not bother again. Sorry, but you are wasting my time, and yours - which is somewhat less understandable...

you mean you can't be bothered to read my post because you know you've cocked up and that i've sussed your argument, which wasn't particularly hard.