PDA

View Full Version : This has to be a joke ??



tankie
18 Feb 14,, 11:09
Unbelievable , what now for protection , will CCTV sales collapse , and TV crime progs finish :rolleyes:


Yahoo News UK & Ireland - Latest World News & UK News Headlines (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/homeowner-who-captured-thieves-on-camera-told-to-take-footage-offline---because-he-didn-t-get-criminals--consent-115824756.html)

Doktor
18 Feb 14,, 11:24
"Sir, I have tried to reach them, but they were unavailable for comment".

BTW, does the Commissioner know the identity of the 'damaged' party?

tankie
18 Feb 14,, 11:56
Like posted ,, a fkin joke .

Pedicabby
18 Feb 14,, 13:50
Huh?

tankie
18 Feb 14,, 14:47
Huh?

Indeed .

Doktor
18 Feb 14,, 14:49
Indeed .

Well, it's not the Commissioner's fault that the Police are not doing their job. He is clearly doing his.

tankie
18 Feb 14,, 15:01
Well, it's not the Commissioner's fault that the Police are not doing their job. He is clearly doing his.

Is he , you know ,and I know , this is crap , they are scum and if a man cant protect his property and help the cops to boot , its a sad sad state of affairs when piles of shite can get away with data protection , next it will be infringed human fkin rights bollox :mad:

Doktor
18 Feb 14,, 15:21
What can your Commissioner do if I upload the video?

tankie
18 Feb 14,, 15:39
What can your Commissioner do if I upload the video?

Fuck all , its from Dublin :biggrin: , what he should have done was show the cops first IMO , but does this now infringe on City CCTV ??

bonehead
18 Feb 14,, 17:59
There needs to be legislation in every country that says criminals don't have the same rights as law abiding citizens. No privacy and no ability to sue when you break into a house and fall down the stairs. Mostly you can't sue when you break in and the man or woman of the house breaks out a can of woop ass and uses it on the criminal. If one choses to engage in criminal activities they simultaneously choose to give up those rights.

Doktor
18 Feb 14,, 19:35
Giving up rights? Does it work?

bonehead
18 Feb 14,, 20:25
Giving up rights? Does it work?

Sure it does. Felons give up all kinds of rights but still have humanitarian rights and we are talking about criminals after all.

Doktor
18 Feb 14,, 20:26
Sure it does. Felons give up all kinds of rights but still have humanitarian rights and we are talking about criminals after all.

They don't give up the rights, but some of them are taken away from them. With court order.

bonehead
19 Feb 14,, 09:05
They don't give up the rights, but some of them are taken away from them. With court order.

You can look at it that way but consider this. The court oder is part of "due process". The same can be had with legislating laws to not benefit criminals when they are doing their crimes. In this day and age we pretty much know beforehand if we are going to commit a crime and we know what the consequences will be when we get caught. In this case when you break into a home you are playing the odds you won't get caught but you are making a conscience choice to do so. I maintain that the criminal voluntarily gives up some of his rights when he knowingly starts the crime.

Doktor
19 Feb 14,, 09:17
You can look at it that way but consider this. The court oder is part of "due process". The same can be had with legislating laws to not benefit criminals when they are doing their crimes.

If we know they are guilty without trial, why do we need courts?


In this day and age we pretty much know beforehand if we are going to commit a crime and we know what the consequences will be when we get caught. In this case when you break into a home you are playing the odds you won't get caught but you are making a conscience choice to do so. I maintain that the criminal voluntarily gives up some of his rights when he knowingly starts the crime.
He knows that what he does is wrong, but how can we be sure? Unless the home owner shots them on sight, there has to be a trial.

Back to my question, how does the Commissioner knows who is the damaged party?

From what I know about here if there is no known damaged party, there can be no fine or a trial.

bonehead
19 Feb 14,, 18:09
If we know they are guilty without trial, why do we need courts?


He knows that what he does is wrong, but how can we be sure? Unless the home owner shots them on sight, there has to be a trial.

Back to my question, how does the Commissioner knows who is the damaged party?

From what I know about here if there is no known damaged party, there can be no fine or a trial.

Ok lets go back to the beginning. The homeowner can get fined/go to jail, for posting pictures/video on the net because the thieves that broke into his home and robbed him "didn't give permission" to be photographed. All you have to do is change the law so if you break into some place illegally that automatically means you gave permission to be photographed and videotaped. Once you are caught your still going to have a trial to decide guilt. In the U.S. we have what is known as "mug shots" and the government plasters them all over the place when looking for specific criminals. We also have a "most wanted" list that includes criminals pictures. I seriously doubt the criminals consented to those pictures.

"Back to my question, how does the Commissioner knows who is the damaged party? "

The homeowner filed the police report and has evidence as to who the perps are and that a crime was committed. If the commissioner can't figure out who the damaged party is he needs to be replaced by someone who can.

omon
19 Feb 14,, 18:46
well, this is UK you talking about, they protect their criminals more than we do ours.


we need signs on doors, "by entering this dwelling you agree to be videotaped". he came in, he agreed

Doktor
19 Feb 14,, 20:28
I am merely stating that the law is fuzzy.

For instance, you can shot the perp and


Ok lets go back to the beginning.
OK.


The homeowner can get fined/go to jail, for posting pictures/video on the net because the thieves that broke into his home and robbed him "didn't give permission" to be photographed.
They are not criminals before a court decides that they are. This is what we are thought around here, funded by US and EU money.


All you have to do is change the law so if you break into some place illegally that automatically means you gave permission to be photographed and videotaped.
There is the irony. You can shoot the perp, kill him and wont even get arrested. Shoot him with the camera and violate his privacy

Once you are caught your still going to have a trial to decide guilt.


In the U.S. we have what is known as "mug shots" and the government plasters them all over the place when looking for specific criminals. We also have a "most wanted" list that includes criminals pictures. I seriously doubt the criminals consented to those pictures.
I am certain I have seen those in UK, Germany, France.., too. Government agents doesn't need a consent it seems. Is the home owner a Government's agent?


"Back to my question, how does the Commissioner knows who is the damaged party? "

The homeowner filed the police report and has evidence as to who the perps are and that a crime was committed. If the commissioner can't figure out who the damaged party is he needs to be replaced by someone who can.

He is a Commissioner for privacy, he doesn't give a damn about the burglary. Not on his list of duties.

I feel like I am going anal on this (I know you nod now), but it's the idiocy of those who wrote the laws to be blamed, not those who enforce them.