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

    • "That’s very insulting! You are basically calling 17 million people that voted to leave the EU ‘thick’. " I'm certainly calling them wrong. And many of those 17 million agree with me now and have expressed regret. Many others were indeed thick, and remain so. You can see them being interviewed all the time. As for insulting, the losing side in that referendum have being called every name under the sun "enemies of the people" etc etc - so spare me the tears about being insulted But for clarity. there is a certain type of individual who even now thinks Brexit was a good idea, tends to side with Trump and holds views about immigrants - and yes I am happy to calll those people thick. - and even worse Jazzer posts a long and sometimes correct post about the failings of modern parties. I myself think labour are woefully underperforming. But equally it has been less than a year after 14 years of mismanagement and despite some significant errors have largely steadied the ship. You only have to speak to other  countries to recognise the improvement there. They have cut NHS waiting times, and the upside of things like NI increases is higher minimum wage - something hard-bitten voters should appreciate. They were accused of being too gloomy when they came in and yet simultaneously people are accusing them of promising the earth and failing to deliver - both of those can't be true at the same time Fact is, this country repeatedly, over 15 years, voted for austerity and self-damaging policies like Brexit despite all warnings - this newish govt now have to pick up the pieces and there are no easy solutions. Voters say "we just want honest politicians" - ok, we have some bad news about the economy and the next few years  - "no no not that kind of honesty!!! - magic some solutions up now!" Anyone who considers voting for Reform because they don't represent existing parties and want "change" is being criminally negligent in ignoring their dog-whistles, their lack of diligence in vetting, their lack of attendance (in Westminster now and in eu parties is guises past) and basically making all of the same mistakes when they pushed for Brexit - basically, not serious people   "cost of things in the shops and utility bills keep on rising, the direct opposite of what they promised." - can we see that promise? I don't recall it? Because whatever voters or govts want, the cost of things is not exactly entirely in their gift. People were warned prices would rise with Brexit and e were told "we don't care - it's a price worth paying!". Turns out that isn' really true now is it - people DO care about the cost of things (and of course there are other factors - covid, trump, tariffs, wars etc.    What the country needs is a serious, mature electorate who take a high level view of priorities and get behind the hard work needed to achieve that. There is zero chance of that happening so we are doomed to repeat failures for years to come, complaining about everything and voting for policies which will make things worse here we have labour 2024 energy manifesto commitments - all of it necessary long term investment - calling for immediate price cuts with no money in the kitty seems unrealistic given all of the economic headwinds   https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/general-election-2024-all-manifesto-energy-pledges/#Labour_Party
    • Regardless of “Blighty” it’s the combination of “we” “R” and “Blighty” we means there is a them  cancerian may or may not recognise a dog whistle.  If he doesn’t, we are trying to point one out.  If he does then they are trying to gaslight us into pretending they are just a lovely fundraising group with no agenda 
    • I’m on Darrell Road and have noticed this recently - your daughters are not alone! It seems to only be at night. Would you agree? High pitched and consistent. I’ve been wondering if it’s a street lamp, or a fox deterrent system.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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