For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1644056
Well actually, it shows him using it while the vehicle was stationary, which I know is still technically against the law, but that particular law is an ass.

Oh, it can't be used as evidence as there is no proof when it took place and tbh there are far more important issues that need Police and Court attention.

No I am not a football fan.

Cue righteous anti-phone brigade
#1644090
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.
By PaulB
#1644099
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’m sure that his next wage packet will go some considerable distance towards consoling him.
Charles Hunt liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1644143
I think the real issue here is who he is, if it was a "school mum" finishing a text before driving little Johnny home, nobody would have bothered to even noticed, let alone filmed her.

He puts the phone down before moving the vehicle and to me that is the key point. I don't care who he is, I'd never heard of him before this post and I'd have to scroll back to even check his name, leave him alone!

The lorry driver however, that is very different and he deserved a harsher sentence than he got.
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1644145
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. :D :D :D
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.
Last edited by GolfHotel on Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1644146
The stationary footballer didn't hit any woman. That was an an extra story someone added to show what could happen.

Though I'd say it's very unlikely that he'd hit and kill someone while sitting there with the handbrake on.
Sooty25 liked this