# Why the abuse?



## magnatom (13 Mar 2009)

I post videos on youtube of what happens when I cycle to and from work. I make comments about it and let people debate my cycling and the incidents. On occasion I have raised my voice (usually to be heard) and on occasion I have sworn (usually out of shock whilst asking why someone did something). 

So what is it that I do that deserves comments such as this received today on youtube:

*I want to find you and run you over *

This is one of many, many comments that I receive like this on a nearly daily basis. Why? What do these people seek to gain? Do they think I will be scared by there, I'm a big man hidden by an anonymous log in, comments? I'm not! Or, are they just troubled souls with no life, and nothing better to do than spend their life telling the rest of the world how wrong it is?

Am I and others like me who post these incidents really such monsters that we deserve death threats? It really makes me wonder what it must be like for people like Madeleine McCann's parents when they had the media turning against them. 


I certainly don't worry about iit (I get plenty of positive comments and messages), but it really is fascinating!


----------



## Tynan (13 Mar 2009)

goes with e territory Mags, you know that

people say silly things on the webby, they're probably good as gold in real life


----------



## magnatom (13 Mar 2009)

Tynan said:


> goes with e territory Mags, you know that
> 
> people say silly things on the webby, they're probably good as gold in real life




I think it is the anonymity that does it. You can get away it, so why not... Maybe it reveals peoples true colours. I'm not anonymous, so I have to be careful what I say and do. Maybe I should get a second log in and start abusing people. I beleive the simoncc login is available...


----------



## magnatom (13 Mar 2009)

> Link?



On this video. It's one of many. The directness of it just made me think!


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (13 Mar 2009)

tbh there is no reason to comment on anyones riding styles. everyone rides differently


----------



## John Ponting (13 Mar 2009)

General decline in civility in this country PLUS anoninimity (that's harder to type than mississippi) of logins. Magnatom, I've not researched at all and don't often look at your videos (nothing persinal, I just don't) but is your login your real name or are you semi anonimous ? Maybe rudeness is easier online anon to anon. I know I change my style a bit when I type a real name, especially if I have met the person involved.


----------



## HJ (13 Mar 2009)

Just another taxi driver...


----------



## Eat MY Dust (13 Mar 2009)

Hmm happened to me once (not a video just an argument on another forum) I posted my address for the guy to pop around. He never showed up. Pussy.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (13 Mar 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/user/KWB1690

Go to this guys chanel comments page. lol, says it all.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (13 Mar 2009)

yh it does lol


----------



## goo_mason (13 Mar 2009)

Google a few of the usernames; one of them seems to do nothing else but post abusive messages across a variety of forums. He made a tasteful comment on a breast cancer support site about Wendy Richards...

I suspect he's a bullied 13yr-old who gets his kicks at pretending to be an evil hard git online, thinking he's anonymous.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (13 Mar 2009)

what did he say on a breast cancer support site


----------



## eldudino (13 Mar 2009)

Jesus, I never get anything like this commuting through Stirling. Granted it's a smaller place but I take up a lot of road, especially when passing parked cars etc. 

Can I suggest that it may just be the West coast disposition of these morons?!



Just been watching some of your youtube clips; pretty scary to be honest, the Weeg is full of moron drivers. I love the STV news, they certainly interviewed a broad cross-section of the understanding general public, and not just a bunch of toothless morons...

Favourite bit is you shouting the reg of the white van then following it up with "I've got a camera, you twat!". The more people see this sort of behaviour, hopefully the more will get done to stop it.


----------



## purplepolly (13 Mar 2009)

eldudino said:


> Granted it's a smaller place but I take up a lot of road, especially when passing parked cars etc.



Nail, head

I don't think it's anything to do with how much room we take up but with how congested the road is and how much the drivers are having to queue. They're far more patient on the same roads when there's less motorised vehicles about.


----------



## swee'pea99 (13 Mar 2009)

Most of the abuse is down to nothing more or less than simple envy. These are people who are trapped in a metal box for hours on end every day, frustrated at every turn, and then along comes a cyclist - free!

What's not to hate?


----------



## HLaB (13 Mar 2009)

swee said:


> Although these people are probably to simple to realise that! I just put it down to the moron factor.


----------



## magnatom (13 Mar 2009)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> tbh there is no reason to comment on anyones riding styles. everyone rides differently




I don't agree. I think a lot has been learned on here and elsewhere by discussing riding styles. I certainly have learned a lot.


----------



## magnatom (13 Mar 2009)

John Ponting said:


> but is your login your real name or are you semi anonimous ?



I thought I was world famous!! Don't you know who I am!!??!

I've been in the press, somewhat...


----------



## hackbike 666 (13 Mar 2009)

*especially Thomas who needs a new camera and a kick up the arse,






*


----------



## boydj (14 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> I reckon people react like they do towards you because you trap them.



Don't you mean 'catches them out'? Or are motorists are only culpable if they are not being filmed?



User76 said:


> If the police used the same tactics you do to trap criminals, then it would all be thrown out of court.



Just being there constitutes entrapment now?


----------



## downfader (14 Mar 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> http://www.youtube.com/user/KWB1690
> 
> Go to this guys chanel comments page. lol, says it all.



Reading the comments that one has left leads me to beleive that he is a racist c***. Or is that too derogatory to other racists?


----------



## J4CKO (14 Mar 2009)

Its the same on any video on there, my uncle put one up of him sliding his Rover V8 around and you get mainly positive comments but there seem to be those that exist simply to make negative comments, you win though, every time as you have made them sit through several minutes of footage of someone cycling. I also think there is a bit of a class thing, certain groups in society don't cycle as it is seen as being seen to be that you cant afford a car and involves effort, i.e. knuckle dragging types so as is normal with these types, they feel the need to have a go and every retard has a pc these days to look at porn and play online bingo.


----------



## downfader (14 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> I reckon people react like they do towards you because you trap them. I have said it before, if you put on a camera and then post the results on-line then put your tin hat on.
> 
> If the police used the same tactics you do to trap criminals, then it would all be thrown out of court.
> 
> ...



"The humourous voice of reason"  I think they might have been laughing at you after that little tirade.


----------



## arranandy (14 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> I post videos on youtube of what happens when I cycle to and from work. I make comments about it and let people debate my cycling and the incidents. On occasion I have raised my voice (usually to be heard) and on occasion I have sworn (usually out of shock whilst asking why someone did something).
> 
> So what is it that I do that deserves comments such as this received today on youtube:
> 
> ...



They are peanuts, just ignore them


----------



## magnatom (14 Mar 2009)

Oh come on Maggot, I trap them!  If using a camera is seen as entrapment, then why are the police using them increasingly, why are traffic wardens using them increasingly, and why are lollipop men and woman using them increasingly? Please provide evidence that using a camera would result in a case being thrown out of court, or are you just throwing arguments for arguments sake?
Anyway I think you give these idiots more credit than they are due. I don't think they would understand what entrapment was (I'm not sure you do....)

Don't worry folks, I don't worry about these comments, I just wonder what goes through their minds. Hmm. Maybe I should try and recruit a few of them for an functional MRI study, maybe they don't have minds after all.....


----------



## hackbike 666 (14 Mar 2009)

What is the problem with cameras?There must be 3000 of them around Waterloo station.I reckon a false beard and wig is in order.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (14 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> *I reckon people react like they do towards you because you trap them. I have said it before, if you put on a camera and then post the results on-line then put your tin hat on.*
> 
> *If the police used the same tactics you do to trap criminals, then it would all be thrown out of court. *



How’s he trapping them – he’s just recording his commute



User76 said:


> *We, and the viewers on-line, see just your view, from an off-centre angle, at an unusual height, at a time of your choosing, with your head wibbly-wobbling about, the viewer has no idea of your road position prior to, during and after the event, what your signalling was like, indeed if you signalled, whether you made decent observations, if the car was signalling, lights displayed on your bike and the car, the majority of road markings and if one of the parties had waved someone through.*



Are we looking at the same videos? Don’t recognise your description here – anyway I’m off to “trap” some poor unsuspecting motorist by cycling home on the road…


----------



## soulful dog (14 Mar 2009)

As well as the usual internet abuse, i.e. you are broadcasting yourself online and therefore that puts you out there as a target (which is true of anyone who publishes stuff online be it a blog, website, video or whatever), there's possibly a feeling from some drivers that you're a bit of a self righteous git for wanting to highlight people's wrong doings. People can get so defensive, particularly it seems when they get into their cars, and you are attacking them with your videos. Possibly, there is also the typical Scottish (at least I think it's typically Scottish) attitude that you are seeking a bit of fame with your videos and so are fair game for abuse.

Just throwing some thoughts into the mix (just want to point out I'm not calling you a self righteous git!), personally I reckon the biggest factor is the first thing I mentioned. No matter how good your intentions are, there will always be people wanting to shoot you down just because you are broadcasting/publishing something online.

Incidentally, I've watched a couple of your videos and my only thoughts were thank god I don't commute in rush hour traffic!

Oh and edited to add, I think Maggot's point is a creditable one too....


----------



## magnatom (14 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Imagine shagging some bird after the x-ray dept night out, you would feel shit the next day, remorseful and just want the whole thing forgotten. Then some wag posts it on the internet and your missus sees it, it's the same. What you thought was private mistake has now become public property for everyone to laugh at you and judge you about, without knowing the full context, situation or potential results.




If I did that, I would deserve anything that came as a result. What are the normal consequences of my filming? The vast majority of the time the drivers are not identified, they never even know they have been filmed (when they do, they often don't care). 

If you think driving on the road is a private affair, then you are very, very nieve. Eyes (CCTV) are everywhere, maybe FM or Kirstie could fill in the details....


----------



## magnatom (14 Mar 2009)

Soulful dog,

I think there is certainly some truth in what you say. 

It's funny when people think I want fame. I hate the whole celeb thing. However, at the same time, I'm not scared of people knowing who I am or knowing what I stand for. If a bit of publicity will spread the message, then I'm happy to do it. Of course if no-one cared I probably stop doing it and move on. It's human nature. We all want someone to listen. 

Anyway, the sad thing is I'm probably the perfect person for the celeb life. I am really boring, and can't think of any interesting skeletons in the cupboard. With my judo club I used to pop over to Amsterdam for competitions. Afterwards we would cruse the cafes. I was the really boring one who stuck to the beers!

Which bit of what maggot says do you agree with, the entrapment bit?


----------



## magnatom (14 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> I don't think it is a private affair, I do think that the approach of becoming a self-appointed guardian of driving morals is completely different. You have appointed yourself as the highlighter of bad driving, and give your 'victims' no right of reply or explanation. You have become a one-man kangaroo court. It's wrong.





I've done no such thing. I challange you to trawl through my posts here, on youtube, on my blog, over the last 3 and a half years and show me where I have suggested any such thing. People _assume_ I think of myself as some sort of guardian of driving morals, but that is your and their assumption and misinterpretation, not my stance. I just show what happens on my commute, and ask that I get a little more respect. In return, I offer respect back. Show me anywhere, where I have said any different.

As for no right of reply!  Do you know how the internet works!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Mar 2009)

I have some sympathy for both Magnatom and Maggot's views here. On the one hand, I am all for cyclists protecting themselves, but I have also observed that surveillance tends to increase, not act as a remedy for, declining civility. And, whilst I do not any way condone death threats (whether believable or not) or violence of any kind, I can understand why increasing numbers of people have had enough of being filmed everywhere they go. Magnatom may have, and certainly may think he has, no bad motivations, but what does that mean to the people being filmed (and then being displayed online)? It is also the case that you are an easy target for frustration in the way that state CCTV or other fixed cameras are generally not (and they are increasingly protected). I am not sure, in the end whether helmet cams really protect you or incite a reaction. Certainly the posting online is far more provocative than necessary for self-protection. It still isn't 'normal' and I am not sure that I want to live in a society where it is.

But I don't know. It's something I am spending quite a lot of time trying to work out.


----------



## hulver (14 Mar 2009)

Normal person + Anonymity + Audience = Total F**kwad


----------



## soulful dog (14 Mar 2009)

Of what User76 posted, I think just the idea that some people perhaps feel embarrassed at being filmed doing something wrong, and there's an element of being trapped. People can get very defensive, more so if they think you are deliberately looking to catch them out (which they'll automatically assume because you are filming).

Flying_Monkey's point about people just not being happy about being filmed and it being broadcast online is probably a pretty big factor too.

Let's face it, there's a whole raft of valid reasons for people reacting in differing ways to your videos - good and bad. People dishing out abuse to you though is just sad.


----------



## bonj2 (14 Mar 2009)

The fact is if you're filmed by magnatom and you do nothing wrong then the film is going to be discarded and deleted, and never watched again by anyone, and therefore the mere fact that you have been filmed does not make any difference whatsoever. Just the same as the way in which loads of mobile phone calls are tapped but 99.999% of the data is completely discarded and analyzed (beyond contribution to generic statistics).
If you drive dangerously near someone, especially someone more vulnerable, then you can fully expect that person to become aggrieved, and highlighting their idiocy to others is imho a perfectly civil way of retributing that aggravation - which is all magnatom is doing. The 'oh but it contributes to an ever-increasing surveillance society' has just become a buzz-word that likes to be rolled out, sorry FM, but it is.
In answer to the op, the reason people become abusive is because they would like to defend their actions but can't think how - either because they are too thick, or there is no real valid defence, or more probably both - it is just neanderthalism coming out when the bad driver gets frustrated that he has been shown up as simply a common or garden _bad driver_, frustrated because he has lost face because he like most bad drivers like to think they're the best driver in the world.


----------



## bonj2 (14 Mar 2009)

soulful dog said:


> Of what User76 posted, I think just the idea that some people perhaps feel embarrassed at being filmed doing something wrong, and there's an element of being trapped. People can get very defensive, more so if they think you are deliberately looking to catch them out (which they'll automatically assume because you are filming).
> 
> Flying_Monkey's point about people just not being happy about being filmed and it being broadcast online is probably a pretty big factor too.
> 
> Let's face it, there's a whole raft of valid reasons for people reacting in differing ways to your videos - good and bad. People dishing out abuse to you though is just sad.



I dont' buy this notion that 'it's difficult to drive 100% perfectly and thus escape magnatom's radar'. He is n't interested in less than 100% perfection, he's only interested in blatant carelessness or dangerousness.Otherwise his videos would be quite boring and no-one would watch them. If you can't drive without serious carelessness or dangerousness, then you shouldn't be driving, whether it's a mistake, impatience or whatever.


----------



## MacB (14 Mar 2009)

If you ride with a cam with the intent of using the footage in case of an accident, then I can find no fault. I'm not so sure about the posting up of general footage where the poster feels another road user is at fault. This is subjective and the footage is liable to editing and would rarely provide the overall view. I'm not convinced about the level of good this does. If some of the feedback is accurate then it certainly does plenty of harm in setting some motorists more firmly against cyclists.

I've watched quite a few clips now and some seem to clearly show appalling attitudes from motorists. Some show incidents where I just don't see the problem. Then there's been a few where I think the cyclist posting the footage is wrong in either their interpretation or their reactions.

Taking Mags as a specific, I thought his official close pass video, the one with the taxi driver, was a clear example of criminal fault on the part of the motorist. Though we debated Mags road position etc, nothing ever warrants that sort of driving. Then there was another video where Mags was nearly reversed into by a car. In that one I thought that the potential for trouble was clear and would have hoped to have anticipated that possibility. I don't excuse the poor driving but I felt you could see it coming.

I have to say I share, at least, some of FM's concerns, re the rise of this sort of activity. I have nothing like his understanding, or background, in this field, but something really doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Lurker (15 Mar 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> If you ride with a cam with the intent of using the footage in case of an accident, then I can find no fault. I'm not so sure about the posting up of general footage where the poster feels another road user is at fault. This is subjective and the footage is liable to editing and would rarely provide the overall view....



You're right that helmet cam footage is subjective; isn't that (mainly) the point? People who don't cycle often have no conception of what it's like to use the road as a cyclist. Helmet cam footage on youtube's also useful for learning whether as a cyclist or motorist; any progressive driving school/trainer of driving instructors would be making use of it as a training tool. 

However, cyclists wouldn't feel the need to use helmet cams, and this debate wouldn't be happening, if:
a) road users obeyed the law and the highway code
 the police took an interest in law-breaking on our roads, and in poor road user behaviour generally
c) the police - and criminal justice system generally - focused their energies on law-breaking on roads that has the greatest potential for harm i.e. that carried out by drivers


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> The 'oh but it contributes to an ever-increasing surveillance society' has just become a buzz-word that likes to be rolled out, sorry FM, but it is



How and why do you think it has become a 'buzz-word' bonj? I'll tell you why. It is because people like me have been doing research for the last twenty years into exactly this and the media has finally started to take some notice. 

It would help sometimes if you took account of more than your superficial reactions to things.


----------



## magnatom (15 Mar 2009)

Thanks for your views guys. 

I should point out that I have never suggested that everyone else should do what I do and post on youtube. I've posted my reasons for doing it many times, so I won't go over old ground again (that's all we do here isn't it). I do think, however, that the more cyclists that have them, and that it is public knowledge that a lot of cyclists have them, the better.

I do try and be as honest, and as fair as I can. I can understand that people might think I selectively edit my videos to make me look better. I try not to. If I had the time and money etc I would happily post all of my commutes from start to finish (minus a bit near my house) for scrutiny. That way if ever the question of editing came up I could provide all of the footage.

FM I really don't think the camera incites any agression towards me on the street, quite the opposite. I've had many people back down when I pointed it out. I've also tried to be reasonable in posting identifying details. Car registrations are only identifyable to a few, I often (when I remember) try and tell the person on film that I am filming and will publish it, and when someone who has shown that they are the person in the video, asks for it to be removed I have removed it. Of course part of the cameras power is in it's embarassment factor. i.e. who wants to get caught on youtube driving badly (some do! ). 

I have actually thought of writting a 'code of conduct' piece on using helmet cameras. Maybe I should get around to it and maybe you could help FM?

As for those who suggest that it is 'boring now, so I should stop'...... I'm not doing doing this for entertainment (although some clips are amusing) so I'm not to bothered if you are bored. Also the viewing figures for my videos suggest otherwise. User76 if you find it so boring, why do you bother watching, reading or replying. The internet is a wonderful place with one or two other web pages that you could visit instead....


----------



## soulful dog (15 Mar 2009)

bonj I'm just playing devils advocate a bit to try and give reasons why people might not be happy about magnatom's videos. I've only watched a few of them so don't know how much hassle he gets (and I mean because he's filming not just the normal hassles from the drivers who think they are the only ones who matter on the road), and I still think the biggest reason for the abusive comments posted on youtube is simply that he is publishing the videos online. No matter how good your intentions are, that seems to open you up to being a target for abuse.

Edited to add - jeez did it really take me over seven minutes to type out this post! To add a final comment following magnatom's post, as long as he is happy enough posting his videos and thinks he's doing some good highlighting (and hopefully correcting) poor driving and attitudes towards cyclists, good for him.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> FM I really don't think the camera incites any agression towards me on the street, quite the opposite. I've had many people back down when I pointed it out. I've also tried to be reasonable in posting identifying details. Car registrations are only identifyable to a few, I often (when I remember) try and tell the person on film that I am filming and will publish it, and when someone who has shown that they are the person in the video, asks for it to be removed I have removed it. Of course part of the cameras power is in it's embarassment factor. i.e. who wants to get caught on youtube driving badly (some do! ).
> 
> I have actually thought of writting a 'code of conduct' piece on using helmet cameras. Maybe I should get around to it and maybe you could help FM?



It would be an interesting project. 

It isn't so much the filming as the posting on Youtube that I think get some people's backs up. I was involved in one of the first video-activist groups in this country - we filmed the police at demonstrations and protests, for the protection of activists - which worked to an extent. But ironically we also found ourselves the target of police monitoring, and the state adopted tactics to counter this - the police officers would remove or cover their numbers, and new laws have now been introduced to allow the police to ban photography and filming. The thing is that you can't just consider what you do in isolation - you are part of both a massive growth in monitoring, which is happening from the global to the personal, and a battle for control of the visual (how things are seen) - and I am not sure what side you are on, or even what side is right. When you only think of this as you, your camera and a few drivers, it all sounds perfectly reasonable. When you start to consider this in the wider context, I am not so sure that it does. If this sounds slightly confused, it is...

There's also quite a few interesting class and power questions here. Cyclists tend to think of themselves as pretty righteous (for various reasons) - and we may well be - but we also tend to be more educated, more middle class, more aware of our rights etc. This as much as anything else annoys people like the guy in the OP, who yes, doesn't seem like a very nice chap, but he is pretty much your average working class Glaswegian protestant Rangers fan, and he probably thinks that you (and I) are middle class self-gratification artists as cyclists anyway, although that's about as far as it goes. But add the the camera, the youtube site and the attitude, and you've pretty much confirmed his opinion and made it worse. Of course it's provocative - whether or not that provocation has a reasoned and reasonable basis.


----------



## Bollo (15 Mar 2009)

Wow, a five page helmet cam thread that hasn't descended into angry exchanges, personal insults and dubious poetry. I'll have to raise my game.....

Although I'm cammed up on my commute I don't tend to put videos of 'standard' bad driving (non-contact close passes, exchanges of verbal, sign language etc) on youtube any more. The good news is that there aren't that many to show, a point the maggers makes about his rides but that some fail to hear. Also, I don't have the time, energy or inclination to get into pointless comment debates with some of the crazies that inhabit youtube.

Unfortunately (puffs on French cigarette to give air of lassitude) I've no real faith in the use of cameras as a campaigning tool. Maggers has been there and, much as I wish his efforts could have achieved the desired results, the effect was at best short-lived. We're the whipping boys for many of the ills that affect our roads and, until attitudes change fundamentally in this country, I don't think footage of our poor treatment can make a significant difference. I wish it weren't so, but there you go. BUT - cameras are great evidence and that's why use one.


----------



## Crackle (15 Mar 2009)

If you're using a camera a la Bollo, ''in case', it's good: Posting on youtube, it's bad, end of as far as I'm concerned but then I'm not you and when you explain your reasons, I'm often left with the, well it's not something I would do, line.

Surveillance society is bad but then again since the cctv cameras went in those gatherings of two hundred youths have stopped....

It's telling that my kids don't count red cars when we're out driving but how many cameras they've seen.


----------



## magnatom (15 Mar 2009)

FM,

I'll admit, I probably don't know enough about the subject, to know which side I am on! Superficially, I have no problem with being monitored in public places, in appropriate databases etc, however, I realise that there is a big assumption in this, and that is that data is appropriately used. Of course there is a possibility for abuse, and often in ways that it might not be obvious. At the moment I can only offer assurances that I have no ulterior motives, and I try to be as transparent and honest as possible. If there was a way of proving that or auditing it I would be happy to do it.

Your an expert in this, and as you point out, you don't have the answers yet, so what chance do the rest of us have! I'm always open to advice in this area from yourself and others. 

I know that research has shown cyclists tend to earn more etc, but does Joe Public actually know this? Before I cycled I probably had the opinion that cyclists couldn't afford a car etc, and I get plenty of comments telling me to buy a car etc....


----------



## Crackle (15 Mar 2009)

What did you say Bollo.


----------



## magnatom (15 Mar 2009)

Eh? I don't know enough about the use of CCTV etc, the use of personal material etc in general, to have a strong opinion. I know from talking to others (not FM) that this is a very complex subject. I thought I made it fairly clear that I am generally on the side of freedom of information, but I am happy to acknowledge the limits of my understanding of the subject. What is wrong with that (I also say this in my article that I published without input from anyone else).

As for wibbly at the knees, academically, I am probably in a similar position to FM although probably a bit more junior, however, I have a number of papers published, and am currently working on grants in excess of a million squid. So to suggest that I go wibbly is a bit of a stretch.

I am however, willing to admit that my knowledge on the subject of surveillance is significantly less than FM's. What's wrong with that?

As for road safety, especially with respect to cycling, I have a good knowledge set, however, even here I have a vast amount to learn. I have said this on numerous occasions, it's just that some people filter out what they don't want to see.


----------



## bonj2 (15 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> I know that research has shown cyclists tend to earn more


starting another thread about this.
http://cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29881


----------



## Crackle (15 Mar 2009)

Can't you think of a better question, we know the answer to that one. Like ...............actually you have to think of it. Read FM's post for a clue.


----------



## bonj2 (15 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> How and why do you think it has become a 'buzz-word' bonj? I'll tell you why. It is because people like me have been doing research for the last twenty years into exactly this and the media has finally started to take some notice.
> 
> It would help sometimes if you took account of more than your superficial reactions to things.



All I'm saying is I think that if you've got a problem with a particular instance of surveillance, you should deal with that on its own merits, rather than lumping it together with all the other surveillance into a general rant on 'the surveillance society' as a whole. I'm not saying you do that all the time, but you do sometimes, and I can appreciate it must be very tempting to do that. Therefore I personally think you would carry more credibility (possibly only with me, which probably doesn't matter to you, but possibly also with others) if you made a deliberate concerted effort to avoid tarring all surveillers with the same big fat tarry brush.
Have you in the course of your research come across any evidence that the tendency to initiate surveillance exhibits 'bandwagon' type behaviour, i.e. that organisations/people do it simply because 'it's the done thing now' or simply because the fact that others do it conveys a perception that there is a general need to do it? Do you think that's why magnatom does it?


----------



## downfader (16 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Can't you think of a better question, we know the answer to that one. Like ...............actually you have to think of it. Read FM's post for a clue.
> __________________
> 
> 
> ...



You know you appear to have a real chip on your shoulder by the way you launch into your recent posts on here. Is THAT why you called yourself,maggot? 

Seriously though. Dont be so facetious. It doesnt harm you or affect you in the long run and your exhibiting the same paranoia that people have shown me when I walk around with my SLR


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> *So, you are unsure about the use of personal material in general regarding official and un-official surveillance, and it's posting on the internet. So are you right or wrong to do it?
> 
> *Honestly, jolly well done for being involved in a study worth over a million quid, thats great. Also I am glad to hear that you are academically the equal of FM, although somewhat junior.
> 
> ...





Let me make this simple for you. 

I think what I am doing is right. Simple.

Now nothing is that simple of course. It is possible that encouraging others to use cameras might have an effect that I have not thought of. It is possible that people would misuse cameras for other means etc. So that is something I have to be mindful of and be willing to listen to those who I consider the experts. If it was simple do you think FM would have been working in this area for so long?

I mentioned my work and academic status to show that I have an understanding of the breadth and depth of work that goes on in academia. There is no way in the world that I could understand FM's subject as well as he does, just as there is no way in the world that FM would have more than a simple understanding of my work. So I expect when I talk about MRI on here (and I have) that FM would listen and pay me the respect I deserve, when I talk about a subject I know a lot about. The same goes for me, when FM talks about surveillance issues.

I am open minded, and shock horror, if new data information etc was to somehow show that what I am doing is wrong and bad, yes I would stop. Of course FM is just one such resaercher, and researchers disagree, so I would have to look at what FM said and balance that against other experts. 

Does that clarify things for you? Does it all seem reasonable?


P.S. I am involved with a number of studies, not just one, totaling over a million squid.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Have you in the course of your research come across any evidence that the tendency to initiate surveillance exhibits 'bandwagon' type behaviour, i.e. that organisations/people do it simply because 'it's the done thing now' or simply because the fact that others do it conveys a perception that there is a general need to do it? Do you think that's why magnatom does it?



Now, that is a very good question, probably the best that's been asked here. 

I think that we are seeing here (and in many cases like it) a kind of 'normalisation' of surveillance - the use of what used to be quite specialist technologies and unusual (even dubious) practices for normal, everyday interactions. 

That doesn't mean it is wrong: social networking is simply technologically-mediated communication, and it doesn't become wrong because of the method. It should however make us question what kind of society we are making, and whether think we want that kind of society - where we are all watching each other through cameras instead of _talking_. 

You seem pretty blase about it, and about your right to privacy, dignity etc. That is quite common amongst younger people, and teenagers in particular, the kinds of people who don't think much about consequences, or haven't yet done much that they would regard as private.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Now, that is a very good question, probably the best that's been asked here.
> 
> I think that we are seeing here (and in many cases like it) a kind of 'normalisation' of surveillance - the use of what used to be quite specialist technologies and unusual (even dubious) practices for normal, everyday interactions.


If there is a normalisation, is that normalisation any more than coincidence?

And what's an example of "unusual/dubious practices for normal/everyday interactions" ? not saying there aren't any just wondered what you mean by this.




Flying_Monkey said:


> That doesn't mean it is wrong: social networking is simply technologically-mediated communication, and it doesn't become wrong because of the method. It should however make us question what kind of society we are making, and whether think we want that kind of society - where *we are all watching each other through cameras instead of talking*.


I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Which is fine, normally, but if you're claiming to be an expert on the subject and to have been researching it for 20 years or whatever then I would expect you not to use such sweeping, emotive generalisations. Are you impartial, or do you actually just front a campaign against use of surveillance?
I know there is a difference between what you would put in a report and what you would say on a cycle forum but it's clear that phrases like that just trip off the tongue with no qualms.
The issue is we clearly _aren't_ ALL watching each other through cameras! I know you'll claim it's a figure of speech or whatever, but it to me displays an irrational viewpoint on the issue.



Flying_Monkey said:


> You seem pretty blase about it, and about your right to privacy, dignity etc. That is quite common amongst younger people, and teenagers in particular, the kinds of people who don't think much about consequences, or haven't yet done much that they would regard as private.


I don't think I do have a _right_ to privacy, any more than I have a _right_ to, say, a car, or leisure facilities, or to be served in a particular shop.
If I want a car, I'll buy one with my own money and get licensed to use it - but if I don't cough up the money, or aren't licensed, I can't expect to have a car. It's not my right.
If I want to use leisure facilities, or get served in a pub/shop, then as long as I'm civil I normally will be allowed to - but they don't have to serve me - it isn't my right either. But if i don't be civil, then I might be chucked out, and can't expect to exert any 'right' to be served.
If I want privacy, I'll go in my house and maybe shut the curtains. But if I don't do that, then I can't expect privacy - if i do something in the street, in full view of the public, then I can't expect to exert any 'right' to privacy.
People are far too obsessed with their 'rights' these days, and it isn't just chavs. As an example was watching road wars the other day and some fat bint in a people carrier got stopped, with about 3 toddler-age kids in the back and boyfriend in tow. She didn't seem to know much about why she should have a valid tax disc or insurance, but she seemed to know plenty about the officers' 'duty of care' towards her and her kids who were supposedly 10 miles from home. It pleased me when she was told where to get off, but there are plenty of cases where this isn't the case, and it just shows that in the same way that you're railing against what you see as 'the surveillance society' becoming ever prominent in today's day and age, what's more worrying to me is the trend in the development of a 'rights' based culture.
It's worrying the amount of education some organisations and people put out to people about what their rights are.
I wish people would think more along the lines of what can I DO for the world rather than what the world OWES me - people should be rewarded for thinking so.


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> - where we are all watching each other through cameras instead of _talking_.



Actually, this is a very interesting point you have raised. One I don't agree with. Look at what my filming and posting has done, it has instigated talking. How many words have been typed or even talked on the back of my videoing? A lot. Sure, there is a lot of noise, but there is a signal within it. 

By continuing to post videos hopefully people will continue to talk, and who knows maybe some of these conversations will lead to ideas/progress (oh, I've gone all hopelessly optimistic!)


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> I wish people would think more along the lines of what can I DO for the world rather than what the world OWES me - people should be rewarded for thinking so.



Do I get an award then?


----------



## bonj2 (16 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> Do I get an award then?



You should probably try and milk the press for one.


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> You should probably try and milk the press for one.




Ahh, for my wonderful article in the CTC magazine. How do you apply for the Purlitzer?


----------



## Watt-O (16 Mar 2009)

Isn't is a bit sad and ego centric to film yourself and then publish the article for public consumption? Although, maybe not as sad as people who just watch them.


p.s where and how do your mount your handycam?


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

Watt-O said:


> Isn't is a bit sad and ego centric to film yourself and then publish the article for public consumption? Although, maybe not as sad as people who just watch them.
> 
> 
> p.s where and how do your mount your handycam?




No. If I was sad and ego-centric I would have a second camera pointing at me filming my reactions. I could then do a little piece to the camera at the end of each incident.



Mmmm, can I afford another camera....

It's on my noggin!


----------



## yenrod (16 Mar 2009)

>Why the abuse?

Mags - maybe its because you indirectly goad drivers into this action ???

I dont know, but I'd be quite pissed off if a driver was filming me...

_Which I have been BTW !!!_ (filmed)


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

yenrod said:


> >Why the abuse?
> 
> Mags - maybe its because you indirectly goad drivers into this action ???



Oh come on yenners, how can I possibly indirectly goad a driver?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> Actually, this is a very interesting point you have raised. One I don't agree with. Look at what my filming and posting has done, it has instigated talking. How many words have been typed or even talked on the back of my videoing? A lot. Sure, there is a lot of noise, but there is a signal within it.
> 
> By continuing to post videos hopefully people will continue to talk, and who knows maybe some of these conversations will lead to ideas/progress (oh, I've gone all hopelessly optimistic!)



At the moment, yes - because we are still in a stage where, as bonj says, not everyone actually expects this or sees it as normal. I think there is a difference though, between creating a debate through a critique of a practice, and creating a debate by doing the thing that is being criticised. The latter inevitably encourages the practice and doesn't really leave any doubt that you believe you are the one in 'the right'.

So I wonder what you are actually optimistic about here when you say you are optimistic, and what progress you are talking about when you talk about progress. It's kind of what I meant when I said I didn't know what side you were on or even where the sides are in this debate. 

If we did get to the extreme situation I mentioned (provocatively) earlier where we were all recording all our interactions, where social order was achieved through the constant threat of being observed rather than because we understood what was good or right, would this be 'progress'?


----------



## Crackle (16 Mar 2009)

> would this be 'progress'?



No, it would a cross between Orwell and Bladerunner.


Maggers will be the ruination of us all - rise up against him (not you Mr. hippo, col and Maggot).


----------



## downfader (16 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Now, that is a very good question, probably the best that's been asked here.
> 
> I think that we are seeing here (and in many cases like it) a kind of 'normalisation' of surveillance - the use of what used to be quite specialist technologies and unusual (even dubious) practices for normal, everyday interactions.
> 
> ...



FWIW no one has a right to privacy in a public place. It would simply be unworkable. 

I do remember a time without CCTV, the web and rolling news, etc.. I do also remember people getting s***ty over the first shops with CCTV about 20 years back. I think realistically this is a situation that has been going on for over 2 decades - why should anyone worry about bike-cameras when they dont worry about shop CCTV? 

Life is just far too short for the vast majority of people to do anything wrong with said information.


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> If we did get to the extreme situation I mentioned (provocatively) earlier where we were all recording all our interactions, where social order was achieved through the constant threat of being observed rather than because we understood what was good or right, would this be 'progress'?




By progress and optimism I am talking about improved treatment for cyclists, and more mutual respect on the roads. The camera and the videos it creates are just tools. It educates, it informs and creates debate, it gets people talking about the subject. It also informs those who have absolutely no experience of being on a bike on the roads about what it is like. I am not using the camera with the aim of creating debate about the use of cameras. On this my aim is to stay within the law, and as best I can to use it ethically. What ethically is, is probably open to debate of course, but that is why I would like to be involved in writing a set a ground rules for their use. However, this, though of interest to me is not my focus. The camera is just a tool to me.

I honestly, have no other motives.

I actually wish I did not have to use the camera, and if I felt that it served no road safety, or personal safety purpose, I would not use it. I could save the money and buy a better bike! So my gut feeling is that you last question misses the point a little. Progress would be, that there was no need for cyclists to have cameras. 

But to directly answer the question, would all cyclists having cameras be progress, yes, if it made the roads a safer and happier place. If they didn't then there would be no point in them and no progress would have been made.

Does that make sense?


----------



## downfader (16 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Then why do all your videos have provocative titles? You use them to admonish and humiliate drivers you think have wronged you. You post videos as revenge not education.
> 
> Thats why people get shirty.



Come on, they're hardly provocative. God forbid you'd ever read the Mail or you'd prolly s*** yourself in anger 

Infact by your reasoning the Police are acting in revenge rather than justice, or the newspapers were acting in revenge instead of reporting current affairs..


----------



## John Ponting (16 Mar 2009)

downfader said:


> FWIW no one has a right to privacy in a public place. It would simply be unworkable. .



Hasn't this been changed recently to prevent capturing images that would allow identification of police officers, military personnel and probably various other groups? Does that cover a headcam that includes an image of a proscribed group ? Especially if that image is subsequently published on web ?


----------



## Bollo (16 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Then why do all your videos have provocative titles? You use them to admonish and humiliate drivers you think have wronged you. You post videos as revenge not education.
> 
> Thats why people get shirty.



Do you mean the people in the videos getting upset, or the people who leave comments on youtube? If its the former, I don't think I've ever seen anyone get upset specifically because of the presence of the camera. There's usually been an incident beforehand. Shirts have already been brandished.

As for youtube, its a screaming collection of the dull, ignorant and bigotted. The only reaction I have to most of the comments that go Magnatom's way is an increasing willingness for SARS to mutate into some form of idiocy-tracking virus. Meh.

Revenge? Its a pretty lame revenge. I've done it. I've put vids up as a form of revenge. Did it give me any satisfaction? Did it f***. It's p1ssing in the wind. Where I depart from Mag's way of thinking is that I believe it has very little effect on the public at large - either positively by improving driving standards or negatively by creating driver resentment and ill-will.

I have absolutely no problem with filming though. Driving is a public activity with public responsibilities and there shouldn't be any problem with exposing it to public scrutiny.


----------



## downfader (16 Mar 2009)

John Ponting said:


> Hasn't this been changed recently to prevent capturing images that would allow identification of police officers, military personnel and probably various other groups? Does that cover a headcam that includes an image of a proscribed group ? Especially if that image is subsequently published on web ?



Sorry yes you're right in that instance (Army/services and government staff are also included)

Silly law tbh, all under section 44 having been amended... anyway thats a different story entirely


----------



## thomas (16 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Who knows, maybe if less stuff ended up randomly posted on-line, often with no context, then people would be less twitchy and paranoid about you and your SLR, ever thought of that.



That's laughable. You really think people target cyclists because some of us have cameras? I'd bet if you asked the majority of drivers they wouldn't even realise. I know people who have cameras in their car too...


----------



## goo_mason (16 Mar 2009)

Uncle Mort said:


> Maggot, I'm sorry, but you are calling your sig line into question. I think you and Tom are both intelligent and funny people with a differing point of view. Most of us have taken the Mickey out of Tom for his videos and I must say, he's taken it well and in good will. I loved your descent of the Gorge and Tom's tunnel video equally. Hasn't it gone a bit far, both of you?



*(pssst. His name's not Tom, it's Dave.....)*


----------



## Dayvo (16 Mar 2009)

goo_mason said:


> *(pssst. His name's not Tom, it's Dave.....)*



Oh! I thought it was Margaret!


----------



## Bollo (16 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Oh, and the Police don't tend to post vids on YouTube with deliberately provocative titles do they?



Roadwars? Streetwars? Scariest Police Chases?.........


----------



## Bollo (16 Mar 2009)

Uncle Mort said:


> Ferchrissakes. Are you bored or summat? Can't you take the piss out of Belgium like everyone else?



Any country that eats horses is ok by me.


----------



## downfader (16 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Look I've told you earlier, if you want to have a dig and disagree with me, you don't have to use a smiley, it's fine. I won't be offended. It's like punching someone on the nose and giving them a tissue for the blood. By the way, you get around the swear filter by typing shit, but by the content of some of some of your post you obviously knew that.
> 
> Oh, and the Police don't tend to post vids on YouTube with deliberately provocative titles do they?



I'm not having a dig - I think you're sadly doing a good enough job of it yourself. I would genuinely hoped to have let you see the error of your statements but frankly some of what you've written.. its almost as if you're disagreeing for the sake of it. 

And as Bollo said - the Police do frequently publicise video of arrests etc, many forces have put videos on youtube and their own sites.


----------



## magnatom (16 Mar 2009)

Actually uncle mort I think this has been a reasonable debate up until now. I have no problems with maggot, and he is more than welcome to his views. We don't agree, fair enough. Sure I think some of hi arguments are a little contrived, but nothing outrageous. 

Reasoned debate is all good, and is part of what it is all about. When I first set out doing this, I though the debate would be about bad driving and treatment on the roads, it often is. However, over the last few years it has lead to debates about cycling technique (mine included!!), surveillance, road psychology, etc. 

Talking is good.


----------



## itboffin (16 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> On this video. It's one of many. The directness of it just made me think!



Woh! chap those are some pretty stressful vids you have posted on youtube  

So glad I don't cycle in London or any big city anymore.

Take care out there.


----------



## goo_mason (17 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Here Here.
> 
> It's a good old fashioned debate, shame we don't live closer so we can do it in the pub, maybe after the rugby on Saturday.



I'm sure you'd be welcome to come up and join us on the 29th March for our wee ride (and perhaps get filmed into the bargain), and buy us all a pint in the pub so we can have a civilised debate.....


----------



## magnatom (17 Mar 2009)

User76 said:


> Here Here.
> 
> It's a good old fashioned debate, shame we don't live closer so we can do it in the pub, maybe after the rugby on Saturday.




Ah yes, you'll be drowning your sorrows.....


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Mar 2009)

downfader said:


> FWIW no one has a right to privacy in a public place. It would simply be unworkable.



You are factually wrong about this. The European Court decision in the case of Peck versus Regina decided that we do (even in the UK - in Germany this right is constitutional, well, it has been since 1983). Unfortunately the police in the UK don't seem to have realised this yet and the implications of this landmark decision have not yet been explored more fully in other court cases.

As for all those show which broadcast police videos and CCTV as entertainment; I think they are one of the main reasons British people think of CCTV as so normal. We've been culturally conditioned* into accepting surveillance and expecting and even enjoying it.

*this doesn't mean it was an intentional strategy, before anyone thinks I am advocating conspiracy theories.


----------



## Bollo (17 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> As for all those show which broadcast police videos and CCTV as entertainment; I think they are one of the main reasons British people think of CCTV as so normal. We've been culturally conditioned* into accepting surveillance and expecting and even enjoying it.
> 
> *this doesn't mean it was an intentional strategy, before anyone thinks I am advocating conspiracy theories.



Agree with that. I'm no sort of expert on this but I have far fewer problems with what Maggers does than the use of surveillance as entertainment. Just wrapping it up in a thin veneer of education or public interest is disingenuous at best. 

Without leaving myself open to a visit to the judge, I was on jury service a few months ago and was on a case based on CCTV evidence. The way that footage was presented and interpreted in a court of law was fascinating. The whole process gave me a lot of faith in our jury system but destroyed what little faith I had in the police.

And therein lies some of the problem. I have a cam partly because I have no faith in the police to take the appropriate action against a driver that, through carelessness or malice, puts me in hospital or the morgue, without having the evidence rammed down their throats. Plod seem to view their role in protecting vulnerable road users as directing traffic around the bodies.

*It is a conspiracy between the Rand Corporation and the Reverse Vampires!


----------



## yenrod (17 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> Oh come on yenners, how can I possibly indirectly goad a driver?



By filming them...its a real 'state your case' situation this !

In one way I think its wrong BUT in another its not because I have been on the shitty end of the stick -as we all have, as cyclists- so i suppose Mags I do support you esp. in a heavy traffic'd situation as Ive said before a cyclist is a hell of a lot more open to injury/death than a car driver willever be - something _some_ on here dont feel that is the case whatesoever !


----------



## bonj2 (17 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You are factually wrong about this. The European Court decision in the case of Peck versus Regina decided that we do (even in the UK - in Germany this right is constitutional, well, it has been since 1983). Unfortunately the police in the UK don't seem to have realised this yet and the implications of this landmark decision have not yet been explored more fully in other court cases.
> 
> As for all those show which broadcast police videos and CCTV as entertainment; I think they are one of the main reasons British people think of CCTV as so normal. We've been culturally conditioned* into accepting surveillance and expecting and even enjoying it.
> 
> *this doesn't mean it was an intentional strategy, before anyone thinks I am advocating conspiracy theories.



Bollocks. Absolute guff. Either you've completely misunderstood it, or you've chosen to apply your own interpretation to it, probably both.
to suggest that we "have the right to privacy in a public place" could transpire that we have the right to REQUIRE that people look away, it effectively implies that we have the right to not have people see us.
Which if you think about it, is completely ludicrous.
Think back to my muslim women not hving to wear a burkha analogy.


----------



## Bollo (17 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Bollocks. Absolute guff. Either you've completely misunderstood it, or you've chosen to apply your own interpretation to it, probably both.
> to suggest that we "have the right to privacy in a public place" could transpire that we have the right to REQUIRE that people look away, it effectively implies that we have the right to not have people see us.
> Which if you think about it, is completely ludicrous.
> Think back to my muslim women not hving to wear a burkha analogy.



How would you feel about a horse-cam, bonj?


----------



## magnatom (17 Mar 2009)

Bollo said:


> How would you feel about a horse-cam, bonj?





Can you get helmets to fit horses?


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2009)

magnatom said:


> Can you get helmets to fit horses?



There fitted to the harness, not a helmet.

As for helmets for horses
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7406816.html


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Mar 2009)

I got a 2 foot drive by tonight with the passenger hanging out of the window calling me a tosser. All I know it was a blue corsa, 4 up, young lads, heading along the A614 towards Howden at Middleton. I only got a partial reg YY04 ???, cos I was swearing and begging them to stop to give the chav a ****** good hiding.

Basterd!!


----------



## montage (18 Mar 2009)

just watched the incident where the driver threatened to knock you off.
Brilliant response from you  makes me want a helmet cam.

Love how you burn down the loosers that death threat you aswell.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> Bollocks. Absolute guff. Either you've completely misunderstood it, or you've chosen to apply your own interpretation to it, probably both.



Oh dear. And you were doing so well. As you have been told in several other threads over recent days, you are an idiot.

First, you need to learn what a 'right' is, and how the term is understood in law. As for my interpretation of the ruling, it is derived from an intimate knowledge of the entire case, the views of the judges and of many different lawyers. And yours is based on what exactly? I don't think you know anything about it. 

All rights are circumscribed. They apply to people to certain degrees with certain conditions. Of course there is no _absolute_ right to privacy in public places. Neither I nor the ruling said that there is. The right to privacy in public places applies to intimate acts in public whose wider publication would have a negative impact upon a person's life. 

It is a long story, but briefly... the original case related to a man who was mentally ill and tried to commit suicide at night with a knife. The act was caught on camera and as a result he was saved. So far so good. However the operator of the camera allowed the footage to be used for other purposes, inluding public broadcast, which allowed the person to be identified - although they masked his face, his distinctive hairstyle made him recognisable. The plaintiff successfully argued that this breached his human rights because, although he had tried to kill himself in a public place, he could legitimately expect that act to be regarded as an intimate and private act and that the operator of the camera had a duty not to publicise the footage, and had failed to protect his privacy by doing so. This ruling, which overruled the Law Lords, gives us a right of privacy in public places in England and Wales. It is a right that is probably rather limited, but as it is a right that as yet remains untested in British courts, so far as I know, we do not know how far judges will chose to interpret it, if given the opportunity to do so... 

You complained on another thread that people were only thinking in black and white, but this exactly what you do. You either think something is true or 'bollocks'. You appear not to understand anything else. If you don't understand something, try asking a question (you managed this before) - there is no shame in not knowing something and trying to learn. If you try to dismiss someone who knows far more than you about a subject as talking 'bollocks' you are liable to look like an fool.


----------



## bonj2 (23 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Oh dear. And you were doing so well. As you have been told in several other threads over recent days, you are an idiot.
> 
> First, *you need to learn what a 'right' is, and how the term is understood in law. As for my interpretation *of the ruling, it is derived from an intimate knowledge of the entire case, the views of the judges and of many different lawyers. And yours is based on what exactly? I don't think you know anything about it.


so basically, a 'right' is whatever YOUR interpretation of it is.
I'm not bothered how it's derived, what is the succinct definition of it?
If you can't define it, how can you claim to have one?



Flying_Monkey said:


> All rights are circumscribed. They apply to people to certain degrees with certain conditions. Of course there is no _absolute_ right to privacy in public places. Neither I nor the ruling said that there is. The right to privacy in public places applies to intimate acts in public whose wider publication would have a negative impact upon a person's life.
> 
> It is a long story, but briefly... the original case related to a man who was mentally ill and tried to commit suicide at night with a knife. *The act was caught on camera and as a result he was saved.* So far so good. However the operator of the camera allowed the footage to be used for other purposes, inluding public broadcast, which allowed the person to be identified - although they masked his face, his distinctive hairstyle made him recognisable. *The plaintiff successfully argued that this breached his human rights *because, although he had tried to kill himself in a public place, he could legitimately expect that act to be regarded as an intimate and private act and that the operator of the camera had a duty not to publicise the footage, and had failed to protect his privacy by doing so. This ruling, which overruled the Law Lords, gives us a right of privacy in public places in England and Wales. It is a right that is probably rather limited, but as it is a right that as yet remains untested in British courts, so far as I know, we do not know how far judges will chose to interpret it, if given the opportunity to do so...


What a f**king ungrateful twat.
This is exactly the type of soulless epitome of how our once proud nation is being washed down the shitpan with the deluge of the poisonous, grasping 'rights'-based culture.
He had a bit of a turn, and he was saved. Instead of thinking how he could thank the camera operator for saving his life, and how his experience could be used to help others, no - his first thought was 'how much compo can I screw out of them'. For _helping_ me.

You're perpetuating the 'rights'-based culture. I wish you would concentrate on things that are actually unethical instead of conducting an education campaign about what people's rights are based on a case of such awful ethical outcome.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Mar 2009)

bonj said:


> so basically, a 'right' is whatever YOUR interpretation of it is.



No. 



> I'm not bothered how it's derived, what is the succinct definition of it?
> If you can't define it, how can you claim to have one?



Why don't you try doing some reading for once? It would help next time you try to make an unsupported and ridiculous statement. You go on about 'rights' as if you know what they are, but it's quite clear you have no idea. Please don't try to blame me for your ignorance - which I have only tried to correct. 



> What a f**king ungrateful twat.
> This is exactly the type of soulless epitome of how our once proud nation is being washed down the shitpan with the deluge of the poisonous, grasping 'rights'-based culture.
> He had a bit of a turn, and he was saved. Instead of thinking how he could thank the camera operator for saving his life, and how his experience could be used to help others, no - his first thought was 'how much compo can I screw out of them'. For _helping_ me.
> 
> You're perpetuating the 'rights'-based culture. I wish you would concentrate on things that are actually unethical instead of conducting an education campaign about what people's rights are based on a case of such awful ethical outcome.



Actually you are worse than an idiot, you are actively and deliberately stupid - this is the kind of utter shite that the braindead morons on the BBC's Have Your Say site would come up with.

What, in anything that has been said, makes you think that this had anything to do with compensation? Please, tell me. Because I can't remember mentioning it. 

And why do you imagine that the guy wasn't grateful to the individual security people and ambulance staff etc. - as oppposed to the organisation which operated the camera and later (illegally as we no know) distributed the images? You do understand the diffference here?

In addition to not knowing anything about the case you originally criticised or any of the principles on which it is based, you have just made up an entire story for yourself - well, let's face it, a set of lies to make yourself feel happily outraged - instead of dealing with what I actually said. Unbelievable!

As for conducting an education campaign - do you mean trying to correct your ignorance? That, unfortunately, would seem to be impossible...


----------



## Origamist (23 Mar 2009)

After a bit of umming and ahhing I decided not to get a cycle-cam as I did not want to actively contribute to the participatory panopticon...


----------



## Crackle (23 Mar 2009)

Ahem, FM


----------



## bonj2 (24 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Why don't you try doing some reading for once? It would help next time you try to make an unsupported and ridiculous statement. You go on about 'rights' as if you know what they are, but it's quite clear you have no idea. Please don't try to blame me for your ignorance - which I have only tried to correct.


So, in other words, you simply _don't know_. Why don't you just admit it?



Flying_Monkey said:


> What, in anything that has been said, makes you think that this had anything to do with compensation? Please, tell me. Because I can't remember mentioning it.


Well why was there a court case?
You just started talking about "the plaintiff". Plaintiff means, 'bringer of a case'. So what was the gist of the case, or are you deliberately leaving that bit out so you can make it up as you go along to suit your argument?




Flying_Monkey said:


> And why do you imagine that the guy wasn't grateful to the individual security people and ambulance staff etc. - as oppposed to the organisation which operated the camera and later (illegally as we no know) distributed the images? You do understand the diffference here?


How does he expect the individual security people to even be employed there if it wasn't for the organisation that operated the camera? Does he think they do work as cctv operators out of the kindness of their hearts?



Flying_Monkey said:


> In addition to not knowing anything about the case you originally criticised or any of the principles on which it is based, you have just made up an entire story for yourself - well, let's face it, a set of lies to make yourself feel happily outraged - instead of dealing with what I actually said. Unbelievable!


I think it's you that's concocting a set of lies, as you've deliberately failed to explain how he became to be a "plaintiff", the only reason for which I can see being so that you can insert that bit of the story later when you can tailor it as you see fit.
Whether he was angling for compo or not he's still an ungrateful, me-me-me-obsessed, grasping, hypocrite to take them to court.




Flying_Monkey said:


> As for conducting an education campaign - do you mean trying to correct your ignorance? That, unfortunately, would seem to be impossible...



You're constantly on the warpath trying to make people aware of their supposed 'rights' to privacy and how they should sue anybody that breaches their supposed right to privacy , and that they should sue this, sue that, sue the other. SUE the university for allegedly 'getting rid of them' if they escape with a lesser degree instead of failing and resitting, SUE the news of the world if they ever so much as mention your name - doesn't matter whether it's in the law or not, think about that bit later - just get your suing in first!


----------



## Bollo (24 Mar 2009)

Origamist said:


> After a bit of umming and ahhing I decided not to get a cycle-cam as I did not want to actively contribute to the participatory panopticon...



That's my favourite programme!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Mar 2009)

bonj - if there was some sense here, or any connection to reality, I could make a reply, but you seem to have left your brain on autopilot with no-one at the controls...

Unless you actually start to do me the courtesy of actually reading and understanding what I write before replying, I will not bother again. Sorry, but you are wasting my time, and _yours_ - which is somewhat less understandable...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Mar 2009)

Crackle said:


> Ahem, FM



Thanks, I know. For a while it was interesting - whatever bonj's motives. Now it isn't.


----------



## bonj2 (25 Mar 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> bonj - if there was some sense here, or any connection to reality, I could make a reply, but you seem to have left your brain on autopilot with no-one at the controls...
> 
> Unless you actually start to do me the courtesy of actually reading and understanding what I write before replying, I will not bother again. Sorry, but you are wasting my time, and _yours_ - which is somewhat less understandable...



you mean you can't be bothered to read my post because you know you've cocked up and that i've sussed your argument, which wasn't particularly hard.


----------

