*Be vigilant* Possible imposters in the area

[JohnL]

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.

[KidKruger]

I mean posting outside on lamp posts, etc. NOT on this site, we've already covered this and I agree.

Also no-one is talking about drunkards - this is about a specific example of a man casing a property.

[Growlybear]

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.

[Fabricio the Guido]

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.

[KidKruger]

What would, what if, what do I, what happens, could imply.

[fernado]

String I'm up its the only language he understands mate

[tomdhu]

Don't you mean 'im rather than I'm?

[JohnL]

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.

[KidKruger]

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.

[the-e-dealer]

Yeah fixing broadband ! Bastard!

[Growlybear]

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.

[DJKillaQueen]

'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.... ;)

[KidKruger]

I think Hickory would know whether there's any need for a bailiff at her own front door.

But let's try and excuse away the behaviour - anything to justify it - makes classic reading !!

[DJKillaQueen]

And where have I or anyone justified the behaviour of the guy?

Pointing out that the law will have a view on the posting of photos is not an effort to justify anything.

[the-e-dealer]

Maybe he was Police? or a peeping tom? Neighborhood Watch they peer through curtains too!

[KidKruger]

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 !!!!!!!!!

[the-e-dealer]

Hmm burglar or peeping tom which is worst. There's only one way to decide fight!

[Hickory]

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.

[AbDabs]

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)

[KidKruger]

Yeah but if you'd seen somebody in the house when you glared through their lounge window you wouldn't have then run off would you ?!

The OP fight didn't have a house alarm issue, the guy wasn't checking why her sirens had kicked-off.

[Huguenot]

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'.

[DJKillaQueen]

'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.

[KidKruger]

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.

[Nicholas Spears]

"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.

[the-e-dealer]

The Sun Readers who attacked a paediatrician in his home cannot in any circumstances be described as Have A Go Heros