*Be vigilant* Possible imposters in the area

[KidKruger]

It's just SOOO easy to jump to worst examples, there's no need - there's no proposal to name and shame on a general basis.

It's one instance. One guy. One photo.

Reminds me of the argument that if you pay people for being unemployed what'll happen next ? The whole country will go on the dole ?!

[Nicholas Spears]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> The Sun Readers who attacked a paediatrician in

> his home cannot in any circumstances be described

> as Have A Go Heros

There has never been an occasion when a paediatrician was attacked by Sun readers.

As I said earlier it's an urban myth. Here's what actually happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

[JohnL]

But a real paedophile got attacked by a mob in Portsmouth

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/865633.stm

Notice the last but one paragraph too - if that was true it wasn't nice.

Nicholas Spears Wrote:

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

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The Sun Readers who attacked a paediatrician in

> > his home cannot in any circumstances be

> described

> > as Have A Go Heros

>

>

> There has never been an occasion when a

> paediatrician was attacked by Sun readers.

>

> As I said earlier it's an urban myth. Here's what

> actually happened:

>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes there have been attacks on innocent people after they were accused falsely of something, so it's not an exception to point those out and KK I'm suprised at you. Do you really have so little understanding of mental health issues so as to suggest that naming someone with such issues would be an effective deterrant to whatever 'unusual' behaviour they had displayed?

You also miss the point of the consensus against publishing the photo...that 'assumption' (that he was casing the joint) is not enough.....there needs to be more than that.

[????]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> The Sun Readers who attacked a paediatrician in

> his home cannot in any circumstances be described

> as Have A Go Heros

And the Guardian readers, (nay, even columnists) and previous gov't ministers who used to march round Grosvenor Square shouting support for a murderer of millions (Mao Tse Tung) should be equally as ashamed, actually more - they had the benefit of an 'education;...but they won't

[????]

*waves at Tonybee, Benn, Straw, Ali....i could go on

[Huguenot]

That's interesting Quids - I can't find any reference to those protests, can you give more details? When was this?

If it was the 50s and 60s they would be unlikely to be Guardian readers - at that stage the Guardian was considered a capitalist rag. The Guardian campaigned against Attlee and Bevan, and even opposed the creation of the NHS, believing it to be symptomatic of a nation in decay.

[????]

Actual knowledge is far better than Google Huge, you should read up a bit of UK social history if you've not heard of the anti-vietnam Grosvenor Square 'riots', not like you're in your 20s.

[????]

First attempt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/march/17/newsid_4090000/4090886.stm

[wiacek68]

I don't understand Fabricio and others' insistence that it would be wrong to post a photo. First of all, what law prohibits it? Can someone quote the law? Cite some caselaw? It reminds me of all those petty bureaucrats (e.g. school officials) who insist something is against "Health and Safety" in cases where there is no violation. Second, just because something is not proved in a court of law doesn't mean it didn't happen. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the guy was casing the house. And if he wasn't and really had a reason why he is pressed up against someone's bay window and then pretending to be a Virgin Media worker, then, guess what, he can explain himself on the forum. Third, Fabricio then brings out the race card ("We could all draw up lists of people we don't like the look of, including suspected paediatricians and even pedophiles, chavs, blacks, travellers, swarthy looking eastern europeans, gingers, northerners." in his words). Classic fallacious slippery slope argument. Here it is Fabricio himself who is guilty of insinuation or innuendo. That's the problem with this country: any attempt to combat or even protest against criminality will be met with the bullying fanatics. The Left can be just as intolerant as the Right.

[Nicholas Spears]

Indeed. No law prohibits posting such a photo - you can take a photo of anyone you like in a public place or your own home. And you can publish it too (problems only might arise if it features a child).

You, or the forum you post it on, could of course face legal action if libellous claims were made regarding those featured in the photo. But if your claims are true, and proveable as such, they are not libellous.

[DJKillaQueen]

And there is the problem...there is no 'proof' the guy was casing, just assumption. And assumption, no matter how likely it might be, is not enough to prevent being sued.

[Sue]

Pity you didn't practice what you preached before posting false and serious accusations about me on this very forum, DJKQ.

[DJKillaQueen]

Sue you've been warned to keep your issues with people out of the forum by admin. Have reported your provocative post.

[EJTH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

[Huguenot]

I'm aware of the anti-Vietnam War protests, I've just never heard those protests described as support rallies for Mao Zedong?

Isn't that why they're called 'protests' - they're against something?

Either way, the trades union movement may well have supported Mao, but the Guardian did not support the unions' socialist movements at that time, and certainly did not support Mao.

So your assertion about Guardian readers who should be ashamed is unfortunately in error in this case. I'm sure there are plenty of their examples though - so don't give up the campaign!

[DJKillaQueen]

My dad was a trade union steward and read the Daily Express!!!! Have never figured that one out :D

[Sue]

Why has my post been removed?

Is it against forum policy to point out hypocrisy?

[KidKruger]

Who needs proof of whether the guy was casing ?

How ridiculous !

"Here is a photo of a man who was glaring into our lounge on dunstans road Tuesday 15th. If you know who he is or what he was doing there please email to explain. If you have also seen him doing this please let us know as it may help us understand why he caused my wife to be startled and why he ran off when he realised someone was in the house".

FFS.

What law has has been broken doing this !?

It's exactly the silly comments about 'proof', 'suing' and 'rights' which cripple the future victims and prevent them heading issues off at the pass. Guess why there is so much criminality ? Because of the neuter-minded views expressed earlier in this thread the innocent become unsure they have the right to question behaviour that concerns them.

'Community' doesn't just mean opening you and your people to abuse.

[dirty tree]

here here kidkruger!

[Penguin68]

1. Publication of a photograph captioned only with ascertainable fact - 'this photograph was taken in this place, at this date and time, and shows this person undertaking these apparent actions' (without imputing motive) particularly where the person was not on public grounds - even where it is additionally accompanied with a statement such as 'if anyone knows this person or is this person and can offer an explanation for these actions I would be grateful' is entirely unexceptional. I should note that a few days ago I was peering into a neighbour's house (living room windows) after their alarm was triggered, and would be happy to explain that if asked.

2. If you have such a picture and believe it may have captured a potential thief or burglar 'casing' your joint, there is an arm of the civil authority (the police) who would probably be interested in it. Actually, they may be a better recipient than a public e-forum.

3. Publication of any photograph just to satisfy the prurient interests of forum-ites has no merit (or value).

[Nicholas Spears]

I always thought prurience referred to any unhealthy interest in sexual matters - not concern about potential burglars. And I don't know when the public started thinking that only the police had the right to any information about potential dangers.

[ianr]

What do people want to achieve? We have been told what's happened, but we don't know the identity of the person(s) concerned. We also know that at least one of them has been addressed and so presumably knows that they were under suspicion and have been photographed. Will it greatly help us to see the photograph, given that no offence has been perpetrated? What might be gained by it? What would be the potential costs of doing so? Would there be any gain in any potential perps knowing only that they might have been photographed?

I think btw that there's an argument in such cases for keeping observation and/or phoning 999, stating the facts, and letting the police do their own prioritising.

[JohnL]

'police' once told me they used undercover operators - and this was one reason I shouldn't get involved/chase etc. That was after a theft in the West End.

The guys who told me this claiming to be police were not in uniform and did not show ID - so they themselves could have been anyone - hence the quotes.

Nicholas Spears Wrote:

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

> I always thought prurience referred to any

> unhealthy interest in sexual matters - not concern

> about potential burglars. And I don't know when

> the public started thinking that only the police

> had the right to any information about potential

> dangers.