bonj said:
Bollocks. Absolute guff. Either you've completely misunderstood it, or you've chosen to apply your own interpretation to it, probably both.
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.
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...
You complained on another thread that people were only thinking in black and white, but this exactly what you do. You either think something is true or 'bollocks'. You appear not to understand anything else. If you don't understand something, try asking a question (you managed this before) - there is no shame in not knowing something and trying to learn. If you try to dismiss someone who knows far more than you about a subject as talking 'bollocks' you are liable to look like an fool.
), and buy us all a pint in the pub so we can have a civilised debate.....
