Hellhounds

[C R]

Therein lies the issue for most laws, particularly local authority laws.
IIRC Spike Milligan would photograph and report dog owners who allowed their animals to crap on the pavement. But in the internet age, you could start or fuel a war on your local FB page with images of the offenders. And if you wanted to go full John Wick, accompanied by images of campylobacter and toxocariasis. The son of one of my school teachers had ocular toxocariasis and was blind in one eye as a result.

One of the Paris councillors suggested posting CCTV images of the worst offenders in the parish Facebook page, but being a small village it is probably not a good idea.

 

[Bazzer]

One of the Paris councillors suggested posting CCTV images of the worst offenders in the parish Facebook page, but being a small village it is probably not a good idea.

Perhaps if the parish councillors give notice that offenders will be published on Facebook, then they can't complain when the brown stuff hits the spinning thing.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

And how would you enforce that?

Something that is commonly referred to as ''busy bodies'' or community police officers? (i'm sorry if i'm insulting those by calling them busy bodies)
Don't think cctv shaming is an good idea for a council in terms off obvious breach of privacy laws and such.

 

[Deleted member 121]

Don't think cctv shaming is an good idea for a council in terms off obvious breach of privacy laws and such

What privacy laws are you referring to in a public space?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

What privacy laws are you referring to in a public space?

Sharing on a platform for example facebook with the goal of shaming/identifying individuals who in this example don't clean up after their dog can be a violation of privacy. Despite the CCTV filming a public space.

 

[C R]

Sharing on a platform for example facebook with the goal of shaming/identifying individuals who in this example don't clean up after their dog can be a violation of privacy. Despite the CCTV filming a public space.

In the UK there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. In any case, I think it would be counter productive because the knuckle draggers would probably wear it as a badge of honour.

 

[Deleted member 121]

Sharing on a platform for example facebook with the goal of shaming/identifying individuals who in this example don't clean up after their dog can be a violation of privacy. Despite the CCTV filming a public space.

That's not a law. As CR points out there is NO law against filming in public and publishing that footage. Youtube would be a difficult platform to use in the UK if there was. Obviously, other laws can crossover onto this and you can certainly implicate yourself, such as the imbeciles who film themselves doing wheelies on a motorbike on a public road or lunatics doing enormous speeds on the motorway in their cars for example.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

That's not a law. As CR points out there is NO law against filming in public and publishing that footage. Youtube would be a difficult platform to use in the UK if there was.

The footage full stop is something else than taking clips/pictures etc from it to shame or identify one individual because of unwanted behavior, that the point i'm getting at. Whilst live streaming or filming in the public space might not raise privacy concerns it becomes a bit different as soon as you start iditifying poeple. The police has a bit more power in relation to that because of their duty. But i highly doubt a council can justify that for people not cleaning after their dog.

Obviously, other laws can crossover onto this and you can certainly implicate yourself, such as the imbeciles who film themselves doing wheelies on a motorbike on a public road or lunatics doing enormous speeds on the motorway in their cars for example.

Yes but that's is a other topic of you brag about your crimes or foolish acts by publishing the video's yourself, off course law enforcement can use it. but privacy laws would not apply anyway as the person publishing the videos made a free choice to do so.

 

[Deleted member 121]

public space might not raise privacy concerns it becomes a bit different as soon as you start iditifying poeple.

Identifying people from video captured in a public space for whatever reason, even if identified by random people is not a concern for the law in that simple sense.

Ask @CXRAndy, he watches Charlie Veitch on Youtube, let him tell you the law as he walks about Manchester, identifying people and filming them "without permission" and uploads often leaving it to viewers to shame, whilst strongly implying a response on the individual(s).

Shaming people may come under different laws and harassment of dog shïtters may fall under other laws if they are targeted specifically by individuals in public and then there is also defamation, which is less likely in a public space and are already convicted of dog fouling, which is why a council may not "shame" a dog shïtter captured on video in public places until after it has secured a conviction, such as fly tippers which is another blight and i see no issue in this whatsoever.

With that in mind, footage could be used as evidence in law or uploaded to social media such as Youtube, or BookFace etc. Again, this is usually done after a conviction in any case by authorities or released to the regional or national journalists who may publish it with a story.

For what you refer to is usually consigned only for those that are recorded on private property for which there in most instances is a reasonable grounds for an expectation of privacy and therefore comes under the data protection act. As a few reported case of people with doorbell CCTV have found out...

Yes but that's is a other topic of you brag about your crimes or foolish acts by publishing the video's yourself, off course law enforcement can use it. but privacy laws would not apply anyway as the person publishing the videos made a free choice to do so.

That is not always the case. Passers by film and upload and passengers can also do the same and still be charged based off of the footage. It has happened many times... The Law/CPS would prefer these idiots are captured by way of speed camera's/ANPR etc or by police because conviction is more likely, but convictions can and do happen based off of uploaded footage by the individual in question or by associates or a third party.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Identifying people from video captured in a public space for whatever reason, even if identified by random people is not a concern for the law in that simple sense.

So far i known it's kind of both, the law looks at intentions more than means off a creepy stalker probably has a problem with the law whether he uses public CCTV, a stalker drone or anything else than someone to do the same just to identify someone who has dropped his or her wallet to give it back.

Ask @CXRAndy, he watches Charlie Veitch on Youtube, let him tell you the law as he walks about Manchester, identifying people and filming them "without permission" and uploads often leaving it to viewers to shame, whilst strongly implying a response on the individual(s).

Just because nobody sued him yet doesn't make it legal, i can see a whole list of potential chargers. Have to be honest i don't known that particular youtuber i'm going off your description.

Shaming people may come under different laws and harassment of dog shïtters may fall under other laws if they are targeted specifically by individuals in public and then there is also defamation, which is less likely in a public space and are already convicted of dog fouling, which is why a council may not "shame" a dog shïtter captured on video in public places until after it has secured a conviction, such as fly tippers which is another blight and i see no issue in this whatsoever.

Yes but now we already moved to securing an conviction if that's process has been done yes sharing the footage is indeed different but i also question very much whether the cost of securing a conviction this way outweigh the cost of putting an officer there,

With that in mind, footage could be used as evidence in law or uploaded to social media such as Youtube, or BookFace etc. Again, this is usually done after a conviction in any case by authorities or released to the regional or national journalists who may publish it with a story.

Yes although in de example of not tidying up dog poo i can imagine a offender successfully protesting publication due to the proportionality principle, something that wouldn't apply to your other example of fly-tipping.

For what you refer to is usually consigned only for those that are recorded on private property for which there in most instances is a reasonable grounds for an expectation of privacy and therefore comes under the data protection act. As a few reported case of people with doorbell CCTV have found out...

Yes, that is indeed a very clear one

That is not always the case. Passers by film and upload and passengers can also do the same and still be charged based off of the footage. It has happened many times... The Law/CPS would prefer these idiots are captured by way of speed camera's/ANPR etc or by police because conviction is more likely, but convictions can and do happen based off of uploaded footage by the individual in question or by associates or a third party.

yeah i sometimes forget but the UK police seem to have much more power in this regards in comparision to european ones at least so far i have observed. alltough shared social media footage indeed has changed a lot in terms of policing

 

[Tanis8472]

If you think about their (and other sightghound) backgrounds, they're the Cheetah's of the canine world. Designed for high speed chases over short distances. Like the Cheetah, their bodies are not designed for stamina, so like cheetah's they conserve their energy when not hunting. Whether they are ex- racers, or never raced or lure coursed, their background doesn't really matter, they're all pretty much day-long dozers that only require a few good short zoomies in a day to be content.
Lure coursing Whippets compete greater distances over a zig-zagging course over more natural terrain than racing whippets which are straight line and possibly a bend. It's comparing 100m dash to a 400m for humans.

I've got a saluki which is also a sighthound and one of the oldest breeds in the world. He's quick as a greyhound but has stamina for looooong chases in desert environments.
He's still lazy though 😴

 

[Deleted member 121]

I've got a saluki which is also a sighthound and one of the oldest breeds in the world. He's quick as a greyhound but has stamina for looooong chases in desert environments.
He's still lazy though 😴

View attachment 5591

Lovely dog, i miss mine.

Where do you get them exploding head neck collars from? The last time i saw one was when Arnie had one. B&M don't sell em.

 

[theclaud]

Where do you get them exploding head neck collars from?

From your teacher.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Darwinism at work again...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-her-two-xl-bully-dogs-at-home-in-east-london

A woman has been fatally attacked by her two XL bully dogs at her home in east London.
The woman, who was in her 50s, was pronounced dead at the scene in Cornwall Close, Hornchurch, and the two registered dogs were safely seized having been contained inside a room, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan police said.

 

[Tanis8472]

But they were bred to be gentle and kind 🙄😔