Charles Hunt wrote:But surely him being videoed without his consent is a breach of his privacy, human rights and a whole load of other stuff as well. At the very least he’ll need counselling for stress.
I get where you are coming from, I think. And I agree completely. But what the righteous brigade miss is the woman he hit had human rights as well. And I for one rather rank her right not to be smashed to bits as more important than his right to privacy.
EDIT: from Pauls post below it appears there may be some confusion.
For the avoidance of doubt, when I said "the woman he hit" I was referring to the video of the lorry driver. I thought that was clear, maybe not. Also I thought the post I quoted by CH was in reference to the same video. It might not be.
At the end of the thread (seems more appropriate than day)
1) I have little sympathy with someones right not to be survailed at work or while in public. If done for reasonable purpose.
2) I don't consider picking on someone as he is famous reasonable and very much doubt there is a reasonable chain of evidence from the first video to allow a safe conviction.
3) There probably is a safe chain of evidence in the case of the lorry driver.
minds are like parachutes, they work best when open.