Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
cctv condition of licence o ignorant one. read some licensing cttee papers.
Brixton news, rumour and general chat - July 2015
- Thread starter David Clapson
- Start date
- Status
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
The comparison is laughable so I was hoping you'd leave it go.
Do you really think it's just because it's you that people pull you, and not because they disagree with what you are saying and pointing out your inconsistency? It's a bit self-absorbed tbh.
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
Are you sure? I can't be arsed to check it online but I remember this being pulled about 2 years ago because it was discussed in my local at the time in Amsterdam and the dutch contingent just wouldn't have that it was allowed at all
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes
Imagine if your ketamine fail had been posted everywhere with a sneery comment
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
The comparison is not entirely accurate.
The CCTV images are not published.
A notice is posted to warn customers they are being filmed
And access to the footage should be controlled.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
where's that give you any expectation of privacy?
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Squatjuice thataway ------------------->
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Is it still going? I dread to think what state some of the long term posters on there must be in these days.
Angellic
Well-Known Member
Rushy
basically a scrotum
It does not look to me that they are all asleep. The girl looks to be chatting to the guy, who is looking down whilst listening. Quite normal in a noisy bar. Her mate who she appears to be looking after is definitely lost to the land of nod though!
It's easy to judge when it's a stranger, but over the last 25 years I'd say all but my most self controlled mates have overdone things at one time or another (some of us considerably more often than others) and "disgraced" themselves at least to the extent of needing a friendly arm around their shoulder after peaking too early. It's never seemed like a big deal at the time.
I had a mate in my early 20s who would always disappear for about 30mins for a snooze when we were out clubbing. Once he could not find a quiet corner and lay down in front of the sound system
. Then he'd be back on his feet and on it until the Sun came up and he'd go off to play in a match. He was a bit of a sportsman and never took drugs. I can imagine what people thought when they saw him. Bouncers were (almost) always amused and very nice to him (although unsurprisingly he did get thrown out a couple of times).
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Yes. Its all about the publishing rather than the act of taking the picture (although owners of private land can ban photography).
Its a bit like when you make a phone call and you get the message that your call may be recorded and used for x,y,z. You don't need permission to record a call. But you do need permission to distribute the recording beyond the original participants for almost any other purpose. (Carrying on the call after a warning implies acceptance).
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I am not wholly convinced there is an expectation of privacy.
But the code (and the law it is based on) suggest there might be, by pointing out that privacy can be expected in some public places too.
Which is why newspapers generally picture celebs inside pubs, restaurants etc only when they can claim 'public interest' grounds.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
grand. if you are aware of any licensed premises in which cctv compatible with met standards has not been made a condition of license i would be interested to know of them. every license application i've seen, albeit in hackney, has included this at the request of the police. it may be councils are more amenable to blanket police requests than magistrates were.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
ah. but the police right to take pictures basef on the same right everyone else enjoys and i've had my picture taken - against my wishes - in a ctl london wetherspoons.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I think it is actually human rights legislation where the privacy rights stem from. But, as with so many applications of human rights legislation, it's a bit grey.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Injunctions must have been sought by individuals objecting to the publication of their photo taken in a pub or restaurant. But I don't know what the courts have ruled.
As Rushy says, it might be a grey area.
editor
hiraethified
Don't wriggle out of it. Dakowicz in particular take far more 'damning' photos of drunk people in bars and pubs and in the street. Where's your criticism of his work?
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
editor
hiraethified
Imagine if you got banned for constantly bringing up off-topic and irrelevant drug references designed to personally provoke and disrupt the conversation Oh wait, it's just happened. I've had enough.
See: last line of FAQ
editor
hiraethified
And all this off-topic discussion about photographic rights because a handful of the usual beef-laden posters thought my photo had given them an opportunity to stage another personal attack on me. It's gone beyond pathetic now and it's going to stop.
This is a forum for discussing Brixton matters. I happen to give rather a large fuck what is happening to my area and I think that there are important discussions to be had. In the past, these boards have provided a useful news resource and have been instrumental in informing and perhaps influencing local opinion but they're being wrecked by the same faces who don't care if discussions get totally trashed - it's all about attacking me.
So I'll make it plain: Anyone continuing to use it as a means to snipe, bait, belittle and attack me will find themselves warned and then banned in accordance with the rules.
This is a forum for discussing Brixton matters. I happen to give rather a large fuck what is happening to my area and I think that there are important discussions to be had. In the past, these boards have provided a useful news resource and have been instrumental in informing and perhaps influencing local opinion but they're being wrecked by the same faces who don't care if discussions get totally trashed - it's all about attacking me.
So I'll make it plain: Anyone continuing to use it as a means to snipe, bait, belittle and attack me will find themselves warned and then banned in accordance with the rules.
editor
hiraethified
Have you any evidence to support this claim?
I don't think it's reasonable to presume that people drinking in a pub should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a pub, FFS. Full of people.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I'm not sure it is, tbh. There's very little recourse in law about photos that are taken in public places and then published online unless it can be shown to be defamatory (which would require a caption), obscene, or potentially harmful (usually photos involving children).
The usual advice is to always act in public as if everything you do may be photographed and shown to your mother, boss, spouse, best friend, and worst enemy!
It's wrong, but it's a relatively recent phenomenon since everyone now carries a camera. It'll change over time.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The criticism here seems to be over your motivation.
You've taken one photo of a bustling venue which you presumably approve of, then another of one that appears quieter (which you presumably have less time for) then juxtaposed them with a caption to suit your agenda. The less flattering picture contains an identifiable individual in circumstances that he probably wouldn't want circulated.
Nothing illegal, but certainly questionable integrity-wise.
editor
hiraethified
No, it's absolutely right because handing over those photography rights exclusively to the police and private security would not be beneficial to the public. Or would you like to live in a world where you're not allowed to film the police?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
And as that poor Lord has just found out, even being naughty in a completely private environment can still come back to haunt you
Well that's the thing now isn't it? You're hardly every truly in private.
But fuck him!
editor
hiraethified
I'm not really interested in your agenda-laden interpretation of the photo, thanks. Please keep such thoughts to yourself or try asking me first before trying to damn me from a position of ignorance and throwing around clueless doubts about my 'integrity.'
This personal stuff is stopping now, so proceed at your peril.
- Status
Similar threads
