Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think going down that route would be good for this site though - the following questions would be asked as a precedent might be set ..


Should we proceed and allow anyone to post photos of intruders/drunkards/anti-social types in the chip shop etc.

Should we limit who is trusted to do this (one year as a poster ?) or

Do we allow this one as a one off and never again.



It's a can of worms.



KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Posting a photo saying 'this man has been peeping

> through windows of local house(s)' is not

> libellous - unless that's not how you took the

> photo.

I'm an administrator on another forum, and whilst I would probably remove a post with a photo which said, for example, 'This is the man who was trying to find out if I was home so that he could burgle our house' I would have no problems with someone saying 'This stranger was on my private property, peering through my window last night'. If it is a truthful factual statement, it isn't libellous. People can then draw their own conclusions about his motives.

What would be the purpose of a simple factual statement ? What if someone decided to do something on the basis of a simple factual statement? What do I report to the police if i happen to see the man on the 176 bus in the morning ? The community becomes aware of what exactly, that this man exists and has been seen peering into windows? Then, what happens? You could also libel by , insinuation or innuendo, implication. Ie: this man is a posing as a sodomite or a paediatrician.


"truthful factual statement' to you could imply many things to other people.

But how do you know it's true? The poster may have joined the site that day to

cause trouble. Even a regular poster can't be trusted 100% (how do you know the

account hasn't been hacked).


To allow the photo you would need to establish it's true, surely, not take it on

trust. The person in the photo could be a neighbor the poster doesn't like.


Growlybear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm an administrator on another forum, and whilst

> I would probably remove a post with a photo which

> said, for example, 'This is the man who was trying

> to find out if I was home so that he could burgle

> our house' I would have no problems with someone

> saying 'This stranger was on my private property,

> peering through my window last night'. If it is a

> truthful factual statement, it isn't libellous.

> People can then draw their own conclusions about

> his motives.

So the poster obtained a photo of the neighbour they don't like who just happened to have his nose pressed against the poster's lounge window ?

We've got a specific scenario here from the OP, lets stick with that eh ?

If a poster is on a wind-up then the poster is liable to be found out and exposed.

I assume that the photograph which had been taken would show that the person concerned was peering through the window, and I wouldn't allow a photo to be posted, for example, which showed a random person walking down the street. Whether it was a neighbour that the poster didn't like or a complete stranger who was planning to burgle the house, I can't see a valid reason for anyone to peer through someone's window on their private property.


JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But how do you know it's true? The poster may have

> joined the site that day to

> cause trouble. Even a regular poster can't be

> trusted 100% (how do you know the

> account hasn't been hacked).

>

> To allow the photo you would need to establish

> it's true, surely, not take it on

> trust. The person in the photo could be a

> neighbor the poster doesn't like.

>

> Growlybear Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm an administrator on another forum, and

> whilst

> > I would probably remove a post with a photo

> which

> > said, for example, 'This is the man who was

> trying

> > to find out if I was home so that he could

> burgle

> > our house' I would have no problems with

> someone

> > saying 'This stranger was on my private

> property,

> > peering through my window last night'. If it is

> a

> > truthful factual statement, it isn't libellous.

> > People can then draw their own conclusions

> about

> > his motives.

That's it TED !! It must have been the good old neighbourly peeping Tom, cuddly fella that he is, should have darn well invited him in and let him have a good look around, perhaps give him a copy of holiday/absent dates and what times of day everyone's at work. After all, there's so many 'valid reasons' that he 'could' be glaring through your windows, only leaving the premises when he realises he's been spotted !!

Ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!

Wow I just returned to this post following Christmas week - oh my.

I am not posting the photo. It is a matter for the police. It's not just about libel, but fair trial and preventing rebuttals on both sides. Remember when have-a-go- heros attacked a paediatrician in the late 1990s, after mistaking the term for 'paedophile'.. Nothing comes of trying to capture or accuse specific individuals.


I was merely letting the forum know what happened to ensure members of our community keep an eye our for one another and ask for ID for workmen.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'I can't see a valid reason for anyone to peer

> through someone's window on their private

> property.'

>

> Bailiffs do this all the time.....so there's

> one.... ;)


I did this the other day because an alarm was going off and I wanted to check if anyone was in trouble. (They weren't - simply a fault, but I'd have been xxxxxx annoyed if my face got posted on this forum as a consequence of me trying to be helpful)

I'm a bit torn on this - I recognize the rights of the individual not to suffer false accusation, but also recognize that one of the largest deterrents against is crime is actually the fear of being caught and shamed (not the penalty itself).


It's a responsibility of a community to be largely self policing - and that means that residents should have the right to identify individuals causing concern and publicly challenge unusual behavior.


Likewise those who behave unusually should recognize that it increases the chance of their being publicly challenged, they should respect this and be prepared to either defend their activity.


A deliberate campaign of libel is already punishable by law, and our communities should be cohesive enough to accommodate persistent troublemakers and boys crying 'wolf'.

'Likewise those who behave unusually should recognize that it increases the chance of their being publicly challenged, they should respect this and be prepared to either defend their activity.'


Hmmm would you include those with mental health problems in this? Dangerous definition if you ask me.


And in my experience of persistent offenders, being caught and shamed is not something they fear.....far from it.


I agree though that communities can work together to self police, in turn working with the Police and SNTs to deliver safer communities - we do it where I live. But working within a local community is very different to using an online medium where the whole world potentially can see what is published. There has to be a line.

The 'whole world' is not interested in someone glaring through a window suspiciously on Dunstans Rd, or wherever.

The photos can be removed when/if necessary.

If there's a mental health issue (yet another attempt to stretch this very specific instance of trespass into something it's not) then the photo will help others to let the guy know you can't just wander around people's properties behaving like you're casing the joint, because it upsets residents. Mental health or not, it's not OK.

"Remember when have-a-go- heros attacked a paediatrician in the late 1990s, after mistaking the term for 'paedophile'.. Nothing comes of trying to capture or accuse specific individuals."


This business of a paediatrician being attacked is actually an urban myth - there was no attack. Some graffiti was spray painted on the house of a paediatrician, once, some years ago.


And it is not entirely true to say nothing comes of naming people. Sometimes the guilty are apprehended or warned off.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
    • Unless you're 5 years old or have been living in a cave for several decades you can't be for real. I don't believe that you're genuinely confused by this, no one who has access to newspapers, the tv news, the internet would ask this. Either you're an infant, or have recently woken up from a coma after decades, or you're a supercilious tw*t
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...