| door bells on 19:53 - Oct 13 with 1633 views | onehunglow |
Yeah,we have one.
It's all about if you can view somebody else's property.
FRKING NUTS.
This judge needs to be sectioned. |  |
|  |
| door bells on 19:57 - Oct 13 with 1632 views | britferry |
| door bells on 19:53 - Oct 13 by onehunglow |
Yeah,we have one.
It's all about if you can view somebody else's property.
FRKING NUTS.
This judge needs to be sectioned. |
both neighbours sound beauts | |
| |
| door bells on 23:23 - Oct 13 with 1550 views | KeithHaynes |
Ring doorbell. Excellent. Hook it up to your Alexa you can see who is at the door. It’s revolutionary. |  |
| |
| door bells on 01:03 - Oct 14 with 1524 views | Jack123 |
I don't like reading the fail. from what I can see the judge is bonkers, what's next no security cameras outside your house? |  |
| |
| door bells on 10:20 - Oct 14 with 1403 views | A_Fans_Dad |
The police have solved many crimes using security and now doorbell cameras, they should be making it clear to this dumb judge how essential they are for them to do their jobs.
They are also used in solving Insurance scams etc.
Or maybe she is trying to reduce her workload by getting them banned. | | | |
| door bells on 10:29 - Oct 14 with 1400 views | Catullus |
| door bells on 01:03 - Oct 14 by Jack123 |
I don't like reading the fail. from what I can see the judge is bonkers, what's next no security cameras outside your house? |
People don't like to be filmed see, it's a breach of their civil liberties. That's why the police can't use facial recognition anymore.
We don't have one of these video bells because I've read they can be hacked and then their into your wifi but this does sound ridiculous to me.
People may not like to be filmed but cameras protect the innocent, they can save lives and/or give the police evidence to convict the guilty.
I accept it's a fine line between upholding the law and a big brother state but we can all be tracked anyway, mobile phones, GPS in cars, bank cards, CCTV. Worrying about random images on doorbells is a bit potty. | |
| |
| door bells on 11:10 - Oct 14 with 1380 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| door bells on 10:29 - Oct 14 by Catullus |
People don't like to be filmed see, it's a breach of their civil liberties. That's why the police can't use facial recognition anymore.
We don't have one of these video bells because I've read they can be hacked and then their into your wifi but this does sound ridiculous to me.
People may not like to be filmed but cameras protect the innocent, they can save lives and/or give the police evidence to convict the guilty.
I accept it's a fine line between upholding the law and a big brother state but we can all be tracked anyway, mobile phones, GPS in cars, bank cards, CCTV. Worrying about random images on doorbells is a bit potty. |
Most buses these days have half a dozen cameras on board, viewing inside and outside and are used extensively in accident claims.
Are these people complaining about "civil liberties" the same bunch that do "selfies" and upload them to the internet for everyone to see?
Are they also the same ones taking photos of everything and everyone on their phones?
I suspect they are. | | | |
| door bells on 12:41 - Oct 14 with 1353 views | Catullus |
| door bells on 11:10 - Oct 14 by A_Fans_Dad |
Most buses these days have half a dozen cameras on board, viewing inside and outside and are used extensively in accident claims.
Are these people complaining about "civil liberties" the same bunch that do "selfies" and upload them to the internet for everyone to see?
Are they also the same ones taking photos of everything and everyone on their phones?
I suspect they are. |
I don't know but I hate those people too.
There was a car crash outside our house, myself and a few neighbours went to help but some of the drivers had their phones out filming. Idiots. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| door bells on 16:13 - Oct 14 with 1294 views | controversial_jack |
We are filmed everywhere we go in public. I don't believe data protection applies to individuals only to companies etc. We can film anything we like from a public area, and especially from our own property. Judge needs to be sacked | | | |
| door bells on 18:37 - Oct 14 with 1243 views | KeithHaynes |
| door bells on 11:10 - Oct 14 by A_Fans_Dad |
Most buses these days have half a dozen cameras on board, viewing inside and outside and are used extensively in accident claims.
Are these people complaining about "civil liberties" the same bunch that do "selfies" and upload them to the internet for everyone to see?
Are they also the same ones taking photos of everything and everyone on their phones?
I suspect they are. |
A young man is killed yesterday in Twickenham and still the police have to ask for footage. Too many people willing to film the death of someone and not help save lives. What world do we live in ? | |
| |
| door bells on 18:44 - Oct 14 with 1236 views | raynor94 |
| door bells on 16:13 - Oct 14 by controversial_jack |
We are filmed everywhere we go in public. I don't believe data protection applies to individuals only to companies etc. We can film anything we like from a public area, and especially from our own property. Judge needs to be sacked |
The camera he had on his shed, filmed all of her garden and driveway, and he had it on a feed to his mobile, he even showed her what he was doing, and still left the camera there.
To late to start crying now. |  |
| |
| door bells on 19:22 - Oct 14 with 1223 views | Catullus |
| door bells on 18:37 - Oct 14 by KeithHaynes |
A young man is killed yesterday in Twickenham and still the police have to ask for footage. Too many people willing to film the death of someone and not help save lives. What world do we live in ? |
Keith, My opinion is, all new cars should have front and rear dashcams fitted by the manufacturer. In the event of an accident the police should allowed access to every camera so they can prove what happened byond any doubt and it should be incumbent on all of us to allow the police access to our dashcams. | |
| |
| door bells on 21:12 - Oct 14 with 1183 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
From the judge:
"I found the Defendant Mr Woodard to be a very poor witness. He admitted that some of his evidence was incorrect. Different accounts given at different times contradicted each other. Some of it he changed in oral evidence as he went along, as difficulties with his evidence were revealed by Mr Phipps’ questioning. Much of his evidence was exaggerated. Some of it is contradicted by contemporaneous documentation or correspondence. Some of it was simply unbelievable. In several ways, I found him to be untruthful. I can believe almost nothing that he tells the Court unless it is supported by other evidence which is both credible and reliable, or the inherent probabilities. Where his evidence is in direct conflict with that of the Claimant and Dr Franich, I prefer their evidence."
The man is an idiot and absolutely deserves whatever punishment he gets. He lied to his neighbour when she enquired about what the cameras were recording, deliberately misled her and tried to mislead the court, too. What a vile, devious man. |  |
| |
| door bells on 21:22 - Oct 14 with 1177 views | controversial_jack |
| door bells on 18:44 - Oct 14 by raynor94 |
The camera he had on his shed, filmed all of her garden and driveway, and he had it on a feed to his mobile, he even showed her what he was doing, and still left the camera there.
To late to start crying now. |
So what? If it's on his property he can film what he likes as long as it isn't looking into windows etc , and he can record or stream it. CCTV cameras in public film everyone and everything and there's nothing we can do about it. There can't be one law for cctv cameras and another for home security. CCTV cameras also film wide arcs and many different locations and properties.
We can also film anything we like from a public area without anyone's permission. This is basic stuff, the judge should know this | | | |
| door bells on 22:04 - Oct 14 with 1162 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| door bells on 21:22 - Oct 14 by controversial_jack |
So what? If it's on his property he can film what he likes as long as it isn't looking into windows etc , and he can record or stream it. CCTV cameras in public film everyone and everything and there's nothing we can do about it. There can't be one law for cctv cameras and another for home security. CCTV cameras also film wide arcs and many different locations and properties.
We can also film anything we like from a public area without anyone's permission. This is basic stuff, the judge should know this |
Much of what you have said is wrong.
This gentleman recorded every time his neighbour entered and left the house, every time somebody else entered and left the house, what time they went to work, when they returned from work, when they had post delivered, when the house is empty, the audio of conversations made by the neighbour etc. He amassed a huge trove of personal information concerning his neighbour.
When she enquired as to what information he had, he lied to her, even telling her that one of the cameras was a "dummy", when it was not.
You have to follow strict GDPR rules when you collect personal data belonging to somebody else. I'm sure this would have been avoided had he not lied to and deliberately mislead his neighbour. He deserves the punishment. | |
| |
| door bells on 22:46 - Oct 14 with 1148 views | controversial_jack |
| door bells on 22:04 - Oct 14 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Much of what you have said is wrong.
This gentleman recorded every time his neighbour entered and left the house, every time somebody else entered and left the house, what time they went to work, when they returned from work, when they had post delivered, when the house is empty, the audio of conversations made by the neighbour etc. He amassed a huge trove of personal information concerning his neighbour.
When she enquired as to what information he had, he lied to her, even telling her that one of the cameras was a "dummy", when it was not.
You have to follow strict GDPR rules when you collect personal data belonging to somebody else. I'm sure this would have been avoided had he not lied to and deliberately mislead his neighbour. He deserves the punishment. |
Companies and organisations have to follow Data protection, but not individual security cameras. Unless there was direct harassment, which hasn't been mentioned, then there's no expectation of privacy in public. I could record anything on my phone and take pics of anything and anyone I can see from a public area and without anyone's permission.
There is no ban on recording audio either. If it could be proven that they were filming for purposes of commuting a crime, then it would be different, but photography or filming in itself is not a crime. The judge needs to be removed | | | |
| door bells on 23:16 - Oct 14 with 1133 views | raynor94 |
| door bells on 22:46 - Oct 14 by controversial_jack |
Companies and organisations have to follow Data protection, but not individual security cameras. Unless there was direct harassment, which hasn't been mentioned, then there's no expectation of privacy in public. I could record anything on my phone and take pics of anything and anyone I can see from a public area and without anyone's permission.
There is no ban on recording audio either. If it could be proven that they were filming for purposes of commuting a crime, then it would be different, but photography or filming in itself is not a crime. The judge needs to be removed |
Freeman of the Land alert  | |
| |
| door bells on 23:19 - Oct 14 with 1122 views | KeithHaynes |
| door bells on 22:04 - Oct 14 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Much of what you have said is wrong.
This gentleman recorded every time his neighbour entered and left the house, every time somebody else entered and left the house, what time they went to work, when they returned from work, when they had post delivered, when the house is empty, the audio of conversations made by the neighbour etc. He amassed a huge trove of personal information concerning his neighbour.
When she enquired as to what information he had, he lied to her, even telling her that one of the cameras was a "dummy", when it was not.
You have to follow strict GDPR rules when you collect personal data belonging to somebody else. I'm sure this would have been avoided had he not lied to and deliberately mislead his neighbour. He deserves the punishment. |
Correct. | |
| |
| door bells on 23:36 - Oct 14 with 1105 views | Jack123 |
IMO The judge does not live in the real world to say this ' However, Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed Mr Woodard's claim that the driveway camera was used legitimately to deter criminals from stealing his car and ruled that 'crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less' than the devices.'
Cameras from what I have witnessed are the best deterrent going! A few year back couple of kids trying car doors, managed to get into one, post shared on facebook do you know these? That was a good few year ago, No opportunists since then.
What I like about that is, even the dumbest criminals will see that, and thankfully avoid the area. | |
| |
| door bells on 23:57 - Oct 14 with 1091 views | Jack123 |
| door bells on 22:04 - Oct 14 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Much of what you have said is wrong.
This gentleman recorded every time his neighbour entered and left the house, every time somebody else entered and left the house, what time they went to work, when they returned from work, when they had post delivered, when the house is empty, the audio of conversations made by the neighbour etc. He amassed a huge trove of personal information concerning his neighbour.
When she enquired as to what information he had, he lied to her, even telling her that one of the cameras was a "dummy", when it was not.
You have to follow strict GDPR rules when you collect personal data belonging to somebody else. I'm sure this would have been avoided had he not lied to and deliberately mislead his neighbour. He deserves the punishment. |
She sounds like a prize whinger, personally I would be thankful if had cameras keeping an eye on my house for free.
It seems a lot more to this story, than the quick glance over the link provided. The majority of people would not have an issue with cameras covering their property, in fact I think it's very neighbourly of him, for not asking for a fee for carrying out that service. | |
| |
| door bells on 00:11 - Oct 15 with 1075 views | controversial_jack |
| door bells on 23:36 - Oct 14 by Jack123 |
IMO The judge does not live in the real world to say this ' However, Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed Mr Woodard's claim that the driveway camera was used legitimately to deter criminals from stealing his car and ruled that 'crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less' than the devices.'
Cameras from what I have witnessed are the best deterrent going! A few year back couple of kids trying car doors, managed to get into one, post shared on facebook do you know these? That was a good few year ago, No opportunists since then.
What I like about that is, even the dumbest criminals will see that, and thankfully avoid the area. |
It doesn't really matter what a camera is used for, it's not illegal to film in public or from your own property.We don't have to justify what we film or photograph, unless it's aimed into someones windows or similar caveats.
No personal data is being kept, just images which can be seen with the eye. Judge is a prize idiot and needs removing asap [Post edited 15 Oct 2021 0:14]
| | | |
| door bells on 00:24 - Oct 15 with 1053 views | Jack123 |
| door bells on 00:11 - Oct 15 by controversial_jack |
It doesn't really matter what a camera is used for, it's not illegal to film in public or from your own property.We don't have to justify what we film or photograph, unless it's aimed into someones windows or similar caveats.
No personal data is being kept, just images which can be seen with the eye. Judge is a prize idiot and needs removing asap [Post edited 15 Oct 2021 0:14]
|
That is true, but it was just totally weird to me, why she would make a comment about the devices. | |
| |
| door bells on 04:51 - Oct 15 with 1019 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| door bells on 00:11 - Oct 15 by controversial_jack |
It doesn't really matter what a camera is used for, it's not illegal to film in public or from your own property.We don't have to justify what we film or photograph, unless it's aimed into someones windows or similar caveats.
No personal data is being kept, just images which can be seen with the eye. Judge is a prize idiot and needs removing asap [Post edited 15 Oct 2021 0:14]
|
Would you be happy if your neighbour installed a camera on top of their shed which recorded the entirety of your back garden, 24/7, streamed live to your neighbours phone and computer, and when you ask the neighbour about said camera, they deliberately mislead and lie to you regarding what is being recorded?
Let's hope she gets the full £100,000. This idiot might have ruined these very useful devices for everybody in the country. | |
| |
| door bells on 09:12 - Oct 15 with 974 views | britferry |
He aint even the next door neighbour, he's next door but one. It looks like they have a shared parking area at the rear, with the driveway between them too
 | |
| |
| door bells on 10:46 - Oct 15 with 959 views | controversial_jack |
| door bells on 04:51 - Oct 15 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Would you be happy if your neighbour installed a camera on top of their shed which recorded the entirety of your back garden, 24/7, streamed live to your neighbours phone and computer, and when you ask the neighbour about said camera, they deliberately mislead and lie to you regarding what is being recorded?
Let's hope she gets the full £100,000. This idiot might have ruined these very useful devices for everybody in the country. |
It doesn't matter what you like or dislike. I don't like being recorded every time i go out and every time i go into a shop or public building, but there's nothing i can do about it.
The key phrase, being, "their shed," it's on their property. I admit it's a bit weird and anti social, but it's not against the law,something that judge doesn't understand. Many people have home cctv and it captures images other than that which is on their property, and I know one who streams it to his pc. The implications of this are huge and could possibly prevent security surveillance unless it's overturned. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
