screenman

[HMS_Dave]

How can the seeking of information thats in the public domain be construed as an incasion of privacy? If the information is publically accessible then there is no privacy to be maintained.

And you might want to read the legal definition of stalking. That comes down to mens rea so under these circumstances would not be stalking. No ingent to cause harassment, alarm, distress, etc - no stalking.

There is nothing legally or morally wrong with seeking publicly held information about a person with intent to enquire after their welfare. If such enquiries are successful, the target is located, and they then turn round and say bog off then fair play, leave them alone, but up until the time that happens...

I haven't bothered to look, but from what i've ascertained from this thread, is that not his place of work? Would it not seem bizarre then if members of a cycling forum turned up or phoned asking if he is OK as he hasn't posted a comment for a month?

Potentially embarrassing if he just wanted a break...

How would that not be an invasion of privacy?

 

[DCLane]

And you might want to read the legal definition of stalking. That comes down to mens rea so under these circumstances would not be stalking. No ingent to cause harassment, alarm, distress, etc - no stalking.

Agreed. So my wife's patient who found our address and kept absconding from the secure mental health hospital to sit opposite our front door was considered stalking. And creepy. As was one of my ex-students who didn't quite do as much but close.

 

[roadrash]

I never met Vernon, but have seen some of his posts and he seemed like a popular and entertaining guy. But it was an act of luck that people got to know what happened to him.

Regarding the act of luck,.....you really could not be more wrong if you tried ,....really hard, it was nothing to do with luck as i am sure several cyclechat members that remember can confirm

Your confusing the 2 issues there. Nothing wrong with being concerned, but hunting out private addresses and phone numbers even where he lives could easily be mistaken for stalking and invading privacy.

I am not confusing anything, ...anyone that thinks finding information that is available to the public, in the public domain, as several people have found further up thread, can be regarded as stalking or invading privacy seriously needs to educate themselves on the matter, ...just because you dont agree with it does not make it wrong .

just to add i have not telephoned or knocked on his door ,

 

[HMS_Dave]

Regarding the act of luck,.....you really could not be more wrong if you tried ,....really hard, it was nothing to do with luck as i am sure several cyclechat members that remember can confirm






I am not confusing anything, ...anyone that thinks finding information that is available to the public, in the public domain, as several people have found further up thread, can be regarded as stalking or invading privacy seriously needs to educate themselves on the matter, ...just because you dont agree with it does not make it wrong .

just to add i have not telephoned or knocked on his door ,

Public derived information is irrelevant...

Here is some education...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment

In highlight...

Harassment:
Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as 'stalking by proxy'. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.

How can you know this wont affect him?

Definition of stalking
Stalking is not legally defined but section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 lists a number of examples of behaviours associated with stalking. The list is not an exhaustive one but gives an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. The listed behaviours are:

(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.

All im saying in relation to this is what if he just wants to be left alone!?


Anyway, im going to quit here. No more posts from me on the thread....

 

[The Crofted Crest]

Dear screenman, if you ever read this you'll realise we love and care about you cos you're a mate, we're just too shy or cautious to say so. Hope all's well.

 

[roadrash]

All im saying in relation to this is what if he just wants to be left alone

for the record, that isnt all you was saying....just saying


But im pretty sure he would make his feelings known, then an apology would be forthcoming, maybe some of us who regularly interact with him, know that this is out of character and are stalking, invading his privacy i mean concerned

 

[Tripster]

This /\/\/\/\
Just leave him be. If he wanted a load of Random's on the internet to know how he was/is then he'll let them know.

+1 for this. Its an anonymous internet forum and the fact no one knows where he resides or much about him shows we are just random internet people. Sure his friends and family know his whereabouts

 

[Drago]

I haven't bothered to look, but from what i've ascertained from this thread, is that not his place of work? Would it not seem bizarre then if members of a cycling forum turned up or phoned asking if he is OK as he hasn't posted a comment for a month?

Potentially embarrassing if he just wanted a break...

How would that not be an invasion of privacy?

Perhaps you could answer the question i asked you first - how can seeking information freely vailable in the public domain be conateued as an invasion of privacy? The two words, the concepts, are utterly irreconcilable.

And you forgot the most important part of stalking, or any crime - the mens rea. As aforementioned, without that there is no crime of any sort.

Definition of stalking
Stalking is not legally defined but section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 lists a number of examples of behaviours associated with stalking. The list is not an exhaustive one but gives an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. The listed behaviours are:

Don't selectively quote. There is no attemot to curtail anyones freedom, or to make to subject feel the cosntantly have to be cateful - therefore, there is no crime. The simply act of tracking a person down woth the sole intent of establishing their welfare is not stalking - if that were the case, then just about every copper who has been involved on a missing person enquiry would need locking up.

No mens rea = no crime. Period, s the colonials are wont to say.

There may be philosophical arguments for or against trying to find Screenie with the intent of checking on his welfare, and that's a fair enough point to argue. But rubbish talk about invasion of privacy or stalking is just that - rubbish.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Remember that we can and do share a lot of information on this forum.

Indeed. Google my name and you’ll soon get a number of hits.

 

[HMS_Dave]

4
Perhaps you could answer the question i asked you first - how can seeking information freely vailable in the public domain be conateued as an invasion of privacy? The two words, the concepts, are utterly irreconcilable.

And you forgot the most important part of stalking, or any crime - the mens rea. As aforementioned, without that there is no crime of any sort.



Don't selectively quote. There is no attemot to curtail anyones freedom, or to make to subject feel the cosntantly have to be cateful - therefore, there is no crime. The simply act of tracking a person down woth the sole intent of establishing their welfare is not stalking - if that were the case, then just about every copper who has been involved on a missing person enquiry would need locking up.

No mens rea = no crime. Period, s the colonials are wont to say.

There may be philosophical arguments for or against trying to find Screenie with the intent of checking on his welfare, and that's a fair enough point to argue. But rubbish talk about invasion of privacy or stalking is just that - rubbish.

I'm keen to draw a line under this. I'm not new enough around here to know how this "pile on stuff "works, which is why I don't want to take away from the thread with this bollox. I simply offered an alternative angle to the mystery. I dont think I accused anyone of directly stalking, correct me if I'm wrong only suggesting maybe if could be considered that way as it really depends on how screenman/ his family views it from their perspective im sure... I don't think there is any secret that I am not solicitor or legal representative. I realise reading back that I may have been unnecessarily heavy handed and therefore I apologise, I certainly didn't mean to hit hard with the message. I do want to apologise to the OP @roadrash for not conveying my message reasonably...

 

[cougie uk]

Am I alone in wanting one of his pals on here to phone him and let us know he's ok ?

 

[vickster]

Am I alone in wanting one of his pals on here to phone him and let us know he's ok ?

Not sure anyone actually has a real life relationship with him, or has been given contact details by him

 

[Tripster]

Am I alone in wanting one of his pals on here to phone him and let us know he's ok ?

Would a real pal not have his phone number, private email or address? Whereas anonymous internet chatters would not as he may not see them as anything other than that ?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Anyone parked outside his place of work with night vision goggles yet?

 

[classic33]

Anyone parked outside his place of work with night vision goggles yet?