Originally Posted by zargof

It appears that you have just proven OF's point. You've taken one isolated incident, turned it into an emotive strawman of an argument and used it to justify why everyone should lose out because of a few extreme cases. Are you Jacqui Smith?

Originally Posted by zargof

But now we have the technology to monitor everyone wherever they go via CCTV, including, and yes this is very ironic considering the subject of this thread, kids in the school toilets. [1] But that's OK right because it's the government that is in charge of that, and we all know you can trust the government...

Originally Posted by nethead

Actually I think he just likes winding people up.

Originally Posted by SecretGarden

Ray........"not distraught enough to call the cops"........come on, she's British.

You, being a former law enforcement officer are looking purely at the legality of what the man did. She's looking at it from the point of view of being the girl's mother and knows it's her job to protect her the best she can; also, she is unfamiliar with what is legal here and what is not. It's fair of her to ask the question.

It's all perspective, but I don't think it is "typical" adult male behavior to go to a public pool and videotape a little girl playing in the water, and to respond to questions about this activity with what appears to be a response he's used before. Those who yell the loudest about their legal rights are sometimes the ones who know they're teetering on the edge of what they should and should not be doing from a social perspective.

What possible use could he have for this footage? Wanting to view "innocence of children" in private in his own home retort is simply bullshit. The guy needs another hobby. "Normal" people don't go around doing what he did unless they are professionals, and professionals would know to clear their activities with the pool management and the people being photographed.

The OP wasn't the one who said she couldn't cope; that was suggested by other poster(s). She didn't call the situation "horrific"---that word was used by other poster(s). She simply posted to see what other people thought of it (perhaps she realized her feelings might be clouded by being the girl's mother) and the whole thread then degenerated into "legal" vs. "illegal".

My whole point was that above and beyond the legality of it, it's downright weird and needless, its not the first time he's done it, and who the hell knows what else he does to observe the "innocence of children".

Playing devil's advocate Ray........I know that Joycee had a stalker awhile back and you did not take kindly at all to his activities. Some of it probably was legal, some of it wasn't, but I am positive you didn't feel good about ANY of it, even the legal bits. It's not nice to feel that someone you love is the object of a weirdo's affection, ya know?

Good luck to the OP.
~SG

Originally Posted by Lord Lionheart

So did the OP ever look for this highly dangerous man at large on the website I posted....................... or is everyone too busy with hysterics

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

Imagine the horror if we actually respected peoples' rights to privacy.

Originally Posted by fatbrit

There is no blanket right to privacy but rather it is dependent on the context. The OP was in a public park at the time -- so should probably expect the least amount of protection.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

In this instance, the wrong people are being protected. We should be able to use our public space without the need to hide from unwanted attention that is captured permanently on digital video and distributable to untold numbers of people. This is a problem that did not exist when the Constitution was drafted and no one could have envisioned it, so we need to adapt to modern times accordingly.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

The fact that it involves a kid and a creepy dude makes it viscerally worse, but the privacy issue pertains to all of us. Our society would benefit from less video surveillance, not more of it.

Originally Posted by fatbrit

The Constitution protects us from our government, not our peers.

Originally Posted by AmerLisa

He has to be convicted of something first. Perhaps it hasn't happened, which would make the pictures useless.

Originally Posted by Lord Lionheart

Wow did you figure that out all by yourself. The pictures are already on the site of convicted sex offenders, searching the zip code and some neighboring ones might just find him if he has done (and been convicted) this before. Just an idea if the OP is concerned that this man might be preying on other kids in the area. I never got an answer when I suggested it twice, seemed logical to me but most people seemed busy arguing their points

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

The OP previously mentioned that she intends to review the various Megan's Law websites, so she's on the case.

Originally Posted by pejpm1

Evidence of this claim please? Some countries in Europe have a legal drinking age of 16. Surely their drink driving accident rate must be sky high? I dont see drink driving as an age issue. In my experience, the older generation seem to take a more relaxed attitude towards drink driving.

I live in NYC. I got the train from NY to Philly recently. The ticket said that I must show a valid photo ID with my ticket.

A 100% ID policy is ridiculous. I went to a bar in WI recently and happened to forget my ID. It was 1pm on a Monday. They wouldnt serve me. The barlady said that she could clearly see that I'm over 21. I'm 26 and look old for my age, most people think I'm closer to 30. She said that she knew that I was over 21, but if she served me without asking for ID she could get fired. Thats not a good example as I accept that its reasonable for a bar to have something along the lines of 'we ID anyone who appears to be younger than 30'. Here is a crazy example though.... I was talking recently to an old guy that I met. He was 75 and originally from the UK. He'd been in a supermarket the week before and they refused to serve him a case of beer because he didnt have any ID. He was 75 years old. That is utterly ridiculous. I dont like this attitude that a rule should overrule common sense. I remember being in pubs on plenty of occasions between the ages of 17 and 18 and I've been served for exaple if I was with my dad or it was during the day. Obviously when I tried the same thing on a friday night it was a different story! I just dont understand why the attitude here seems to be that you must obey the rules at all costs at the cost of common sense and flexibility.

You are right, the act of showing an ID isnt a big deal, but the principle is. Why should I have to have a photo ID just to go about my daily business?Surely the libertarian crowd amongst us must be able to see that?

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

No, constitutional rights are protected from interference from anyone, whether public or private. It's no more my right to interfere with the press or disrupt a church service than it is the government's.

Originally Posted by fatbrit

The Constitutional rights to privacy (unreasonable search and seizure) limit the actions government can take to pry into your life, not those of your fellow citizens.