The cyclist who was almost squeezed to the kerb by this passing bus believes it was a punishment pass because he failed to use a “pointless” 20-metre cycle lane.
The incident took place on Friday December 22 at around 2.30pm while the cyclist was riding past Victoria Circus in Southend on Sea.
Westcliff GoPro – who has already submitted a couple of other videos for this feature – said:
“As shown in the video, it was ridiculously close but the bus driver’s reaction shocked me more. When I gesticulated how close he was he said: ‘Don’t talk fucking bollocks’.
“I think the driver’s attitude was far from what you’d expect and, in my opinion, I think it was done deliberately because I didn’t take the pointless cycle lane.”
The incident has been reported to both Essex Police and First Group, but there hasn’t yet been a response from either.
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc">info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
95 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 76: Cyclist is squeezed by close-passing bus driver (includes strong language)”
Either the bus driver is an
Either the bus driver is an incompetent driver who shouldn’t have a licence or is a professional doing this deliberately who shouldn’t have a licence. Hope this gets due attention and the driver soon becomes an unemployed pedestrian.
Buses have CCTV nowadays too,
Buses have CCTV nowadays too, so shouldn’t be difficult to find solid facts about what happened from a number of viewpoints. Could easily kill somebody doing that.
what is the answer to this
what is the answer to this ever increasing problem.Would there be a better response from the police in this case if the cyclist hadn’t understandably engaged the driver.What more can we do?
Good grief that made me
Good grief that made me physically cringe just watching it – I think the rider did well not to resort to a physical response – that bus driver deliberately endangered his life… these small minded, low IQ Neanderthals need to be off the road and if the police and the bus company do not take action they are negligent…
Keep chasing it and keep
Keep chasing it and keep asking “why not?” if the police refuse to chase this twat down.
EDIT: And ask them to confirm everything in writing.
Judging by the driver’s
Judging by the driver’s attitiude and quick delivery of profanities when challenged, he has done this with intent
You can leave a comment on
You can leave a comment on this tweet, make sure to hashtag is so that it’s public; #firstessex
https://twitter.com/FirstEssex/status/946804305335652353
Given there’s a cycle lane
Given there’s a cycle lane there, I do wonder if the bus driver was trying to make a point. Hopefully Essex Police will pick this up and speak to the driver. It looks like a pretty clear case of driving without due care and attention, but what do I know? A mate of mine is a cop in Essex and a very keen cyclist and I expect he’d be annoyed to see this, tho Sarfend isn’t his beat.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Not his job.
OldRidgeback wrote:
The cycle lane seems to be there more to help cyclists going left than straight a head, as it deposits those going straight ahead right in the path of traffic.
Hence it isn’t a good idea to use it if you are going straight a head, as drivers (who mainly sit on the RHS in the UK) would have to look to their left to see you merging. While car drivers could see you with ease if they bothered to look, those driving large vehicles including buses would have difficulty.
@tonyfarrelley how can your
@tonyfarrelley how can your website promote such language, there may be children reading and watching this content!
alansmurphy wrote:
I really think you need to get a grip on life if you are more concerned about the riders language then a life threatening incident. Personally I find it easier to explain the rights and wrongs of swearing than to explain why the bus driver attempted to kill the cyclist.
Gus T wrote:
I really think you need to get a grip on life if you are more concerned about the riders language then a life threatening incident. Personally I find it easier to explain the rights and wrongs of swearing than to explain why the bus driver attempted to kill the cyclist.
— alansmurphy
I feel a ‘whoosh!’ might be appropriate here.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
🙂
Hi Gus,
Site genius Tony F had a pop at myself and other posters regarding our language on the forum due to the possibility of a younger audience. Our poor language was in response to a bigoted, racist, fudging walker whom Tony didn’t feel it appropriate to ‘discipline’.
Further to a lack of response to our concerns, I thought a little ‘poke’ on a video they publish on their site containing bad language was a lovely ironic use of the forum…
alansmurphy wrote:
This site is intended primarily for those who are adults. If Tony F doesn’t think adult language is suitable for his children then he needs to tell them they can’t use it.
Personally I would block forums and sites with below the line comments from children younger than secondary age due to the use of double entendre in many of them and having to explain what they mean.
First buses employ otherwises
First buses employ otherwises unemployable psychopaths and the management are fuckwits. If they didnt bung the Tory party they wouldn’t have a business.
How else can a frustrated
How else can a frustrated underling, probably with a demanding boss and a tiny penis, feel some sense of taking back control of his life? Sanctioned outlets for the craven and uneducated to relieve stress, such as smoking in public places, or intimidating one’s wife, have been banned. Opportunities to vote in ways that will upset the “elites” which newspapers say are responsible for his shitty life are good, but they only come around very rarely. Even telling racist jokes down the depot is as likely to attract scorn as admiration, these days. No, it’s bullying vulnerable road users, especially perceived transgressors of the unwritten rules of the road, like cyclists not using bike lanes, or nothing. And nothing is not an option when you’re that big of an arsehole.
I actually swore at the
I actually swore at the screen watching this. It was a quite deliberate, blatant attack on a legal road user. Quite how someone so utterly incompetent is allowed to drive a bus with the lives of 70 people in his hands is beyond me, but there is clearly something wrong with the licensing process and driver selection for public transport vehicles if someone this stupid can drive one.
Firstbus have to suspend this driver immediately, pending possible prosecution, and they have to come out and say they’ve done it and that such driving is not and never will be acceptable.
Don’t forget to report it to
Don’t forget to report it to DVLA, they can withdraw PSV & HGV licences at any time.
It’s happened to me with
It’s happened to me with Arriva. First should take action, even without a camera, Arriva were very helpful and sent the driver on a course and as far as I could make out they have him a warning.
Used to ride with a camera
Used to ride with a camera but stopped about one year ago. Just one more item of faff that I had to deal with when just jumping on the bike. But small incidents keep getting to me. On one brompton ride to a Xmas meal a pedestrian literally walked into the side of me, and a lorry and myself had to come to a stop as it tried to complete an overtake on a narrowing road to avoid crushing me. This with me wearing lights, high vis, helmet, training and insurance as per “daily mail” requirements! Think i am going to have to become a bike cam nob again. Picked up one of those Aldi fly6 knockoffs also so I can see also what happens behind.
Why are you a ‘nob’ if you
Why are you a ‘nob’ if you have a bike cam? Don’t get that. Just because a small number of riders post up video clips willy nilly of trivial interactions with other road users doesn’t make the rest of us ‘nobs’ for using one.
A camera has been a most useful accessory to me over the past five years and this year alone has helped in winning, or at least driving swiftly to a conclusion, two accident claims. I have also seen three drivers sent on driver improvement courses by the police in the past six months based entirely on my camera evidence. The camera sits fairly inconspicuously on my bike and does not draw attention to me in any way.
I cannot see any arguments against having a camera, only arguments in favour.
Grumpy17 wrote:
It gives too many self righteous idiots access to publicly convicting people before a fair trial. A fair amount of time is wasted by people who want to rant about others while not paying sufficient attention to their own errors. It is not our job to police the roads, especially as we are untrained and generally ahve a poor grasp of the law.
They are a nice little toy, but when they fill up the internet with rants and hate filled objectives, I think they are wrong.
There should be a larger Police presence on the roads to prevent this type of incedent, we are just supporting the budget reducing policies by carrying cameras. There are so many reasons to not have cameras.
I would like to know how we would have reacted if govt made it policy that we all carried cameras throughout our daily lives. Not positively, I imagine, but here we are voluntarily sticking cameras on every flat surface to observe others. Invasion of privacy much?
I was filmed while entering the local recycling dump last week. Why? Simply because people can’t do their jobs properly…
Here endeth my rantette….
Happy New Year!
don simon wrote:
no, not at all. If you’re in public you have no expectation of privacy.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Are you saying that someone can take my photo and publicly display it without my consent?
don simon wrote:
Yes. And sell it. And broadcast it. And make comment on it. No one owns the rights to their public image. Images taken in private are a different matter.
benborp wrote:
Oh! I thought it was different to that https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv, same would apply to still cameras too with only slight changes.
don simon wrote:
I briefly tried one, after having my front wheel buckled after experiencing an idiot-boy-racer-incomplete-overtake-left-turn-sideswipe-hit-and-run maneuver (there needs to be a shorter term for that). Figured that if I had a camera next time I might get the licence plate number.
But the ultra-cheap one I tried turned out to be crap battery life and crap image-quality, and a camera good enough to be useful would be so costly I’d worry about damage to it more than I do the bike.
But as for ‘there should be a larger police presence on the road’ – be real, there ‘should be’ all sorts of things, but that one in particular is never, ever going to happen (because it costs a lot, and, importantly, its an ongoing cost, not a one-off capital investment), so what then?
And the government doesn’t need to make it policy that we all carry cameras, because most people already do precisely that (phones?). Not to mention CCTV everywhere (I’d be surprised if a recycling centre didn’t have CCTV). We live in a goldfish bowl, for better or worse.
Anything illegal or just embarrasingly stupid one does in public has a good chance of being captured on video now. Fortunately for motorists, the police still won’t do anything if it shows lawbreaking behind the wheel.
That’s what the engine cut
That’s what the engine cut out button is for under the engine cover.
I used to commute on fixed.
I used to commute on fixed. No joke when someone tries to push you into the kerb.
Tony F is one of the site
Tony F is one of the site owners/contributors, it was another adult that pointed out his kid reads the site. This adult didn’t seem concerned about racism and nor did Tony as he chastised our swearing committee but not Nigel Donald Bernard Valbrona…
Anyway, we’re off on a tangent, the bus driver is a total wanker!
Tabloids and paparazzi have
Tabloids and paparazzi have pushed the moral boundaries by exploiting what the law allows the general public to do reasonably.
benborp wrote:
That’s a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.
We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it’s our acceptance that’s wrong and that doesn’t mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.
don simon wrote:
Which is what my statement was illustrating. Public interest, moral and legal boundaries are not aligned.
In the UK there is no absolute right to privacy. Any individual’s right to privacy is balanced against others’ freedom of expression, reasonable use and public interest. Demands for compensation or image rights would be futile. Proving harassment is a far more likely way to prevent publication, but that would require the photographer to transgress reasonableness by a huge margin.
Without reasonable use and freedom of expression clauses it would be very easy to make nearly all non-commercial photography illegal. Close-up nature photography would probably be ok.
benborp wrote:
Bearing in mind that the point is in relation to cctv and moving images, there has to be protection from stills too. Also taking into account the difference between taking an image and publishing, I can simply ask a photographer to remove an image, and then they must remove it from publication, unless they can demonstrate a just cause for it staying published.
It has to be so, you cannot take a photo of me and use it as you see fit with me having recourse. Whether the law can be arsed to move, is another question, but the public MUST have protection.
don simon wrote:
Don – I’m really not sure that’s right, assuming that the picture is taken in a public place. It all depends on the circumstances, but I don’t think you have the absolute right to stop other people taking and using photos of you in the way you think.
The ICO webpage you originally linked to is headed “When is CCTV covered by the Data Protection Act?”. Anyone, especially a business with multiple cameras etc…, would be seen as a “Data Controller” under the DPA 1988. NB – this is Data Protection law, not (directly) any individual’s general right to privacy, let alone control of their personal “image” in any sort of copyright sense (copyright always rests with the person taking the image, not the subject).
I think the DPA is far less likely to apply to an individual either taking still photos or using dash/bike cam, so guidance about CCTV is probably not that applicable. Legally, I think dash/bike cam use is still pretty new and specific case law hasn’t really happened yet, let alone specific legislation.
gw42 wrote:
don simon wrote:
I’m sorry don, but that is just not how the law is applied in the UK. You may be able to argue that someone has a moral duty to respect your wishes in how an image is used but legally you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
The DPA only really begins to affect the actions of photo/videographers once the image is tied to personal, identifying information. Different safeguards have to be taken depending on the type of information held, the environment in which the images were captured, the vulnerability of the subject and the intended use of the image. The DPA is unlikely to offer much recourse to a subject objecting to the publication of a simple image or video segment of themselves.
I’m sorry don, but I can. The law provides a fairly wide latitude to the manner in which I can do so.
The counter arguments being that the libel and slander laws do not protect your identity or the revelation of such. The exact opposite I would say. And the DPA does not prevent the use of images of individuals in the public realm. The alternative position to yours is incredibly well supported.
As a photographer that has been commissioned by charities to take images of vulnerable people for wider publication I know what to do to stay within the law. Guidance notes, codes of conduct, best practice, terms of employment – all provide far more stringent control over a professional photographer. As the law stands, day to day use of recording equipment in public, by an amateur, for their own purposes, is well protected.
I’ve also been arrested for taken photos in a public place. I was collecting stock images of street furniture for the graphics team of a Channel 4 documentary. A magistrate performed a citizen’s arrest. Of course, I hadn’t committed any offence, however by arresting me in the manner that he did…
I didn’t press charges but I believe stern words were said. People get funny ideas about cameras and what they can do.
benborp wrote:
I think you’ll find that you are actually agreeing with me.
You’re a pro, are you? Interesting….
don simon wrote:
anyone, like me, who has taken many, many thousands of photos of people in public places has run into these questions thousands of times and both amateur and professional photographers generally make sure they know where they stand legally. I’ve been stopped and in many cases harassed for taking pictures in public, not just by members of the public, but by police, security guards, CPSOs and similar types over the 40+ years I’ve been taking street photos.
You may think you have certain rights not to be photographed, or to demand that pictures not be published, but fortunately you don’t, by and large. Photographers’ organisations and magazines publish various guides to photographers’ rights in this area.
I say fortunately because the right to photograph anyone in public means thar for example police officers or security guards or other authority figures bullying people cannot legally prevent us from photographing them and publishing what they are doing. This is a very important freedom and protection against abuse of authority.
ConcordeCX wrote:
You crack on, you’re obviously right. Just do me a favour and quote me the law which states that the public has no rights governing what happens to our images whatsoever. Which law it is that states that you can take whichever photo of me in public and I cannot control whatever happens to it. Show the law which prevents me from having photos which you have published from being removed? Can you show me, please?
don simon wrote:
In turn, can you show me the law that allows you to have photos which someone has published removed?
I’m only joining in for the sheer novelty of partially agreeing with Rich_CB about something (don’t think that’s ever happened before!) but unless you can prove otherwise, I’m going to go on believing what I’ve already been lead to believe – that there’s no general ‘right to privacy’ relating to photos taken in public places.
As I understand it the law is very unclear, because it depends on the European human rights act, which, as with most things European, contradicts itself (you have the right to privacy…but the photographer has the right to free speech…depends whether you have the reasonable expectation of privacy, and who knows what a judge might decide is ‘reasonable’?). You might have the right of which you speak, or you might not, its a crapshoot as far as I can make out, but I bet it would cost you a lot to find out.
If you are a wealthy celeb or Rupert Murdoch, you probably could afford to test out this ‘right’, and hire good enough lawyers to stand a chance, but I doubt most people could.
Ha, here’s the case I vaguely remembered. Yup, it demonstrates there is a sort of ‘right to privacy’ that applies…but how much do you think Naomi Campbell had to spend to get to that point? And what are the chances that a judge would be equally sympathetic to Joe Nobody who didn’t have a very lucrative brand to defend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd
don simon wrote:
Don – Lots of people are saying the same thing to you, but you’re not listening.
The basic point about English Common Law is that the default position is that you can do anything you like, unless there is a law against it. That law can be from primary legislation, secondary legislation (regulations etc…) or case law (precedent). This is very different from many other countries, for example those with a formal constitution (e.g. USA) or with a defined civil/criminal code (often European countries)
Hence you asking someone to “quote me the law which states that the public has no rights governing what happens to our images whatsoever” is missing the point. The default position in English law is that you, as the person asserting a right, need to be able to quote the law that gives you rights over your own image. As others have said, you would have to bring a claim to get someone to remove or stop using your image, and you would have to set out on what legal basis you made that claim.
Until recently, (very recently in terms of legal history), there was no concept of privacy in English law. It is simply not a common law concept. You mentioned defamation earlier, but that is about reputation, not privacy. The DPA in 1988 was more about ensuring that data held about you was correct, not preventing someone holding data about you.
It was only with the Human Rights Act that the first real suggestion of any right to privacy was introduced into domestic UK law. As others have pointed out though, this has not been held to prevent people taking and using photos of people in public where they had no expectation of privacy. It certainly does not give you the absolute right you keep asserting to have control over pictures of yourself.
If that’s not how the law
If that’s not how the law works, talk to me about precedent then…
This is 100 tines worse than
This is 100 times worse than what Charlie Alliston did, this is a deliberate action to harm another, there is no intention to avoid hitting/harming the vulnerable person (unlike Alliston’s actions which included braking, giving a warning and swerving several times to avoid collision) .so this should be charged by the police as something far worse than manslaughter, except they wont, nor the CPS because they’ll all agenda driven wankers
1st working day of year
1st working day of year tomorrow. I suggeat that people phone, e-mail, tweet and anything else.
Here’s their contact page.
https://www.firstgroup.com/essex/about-us/help/customer-care
Give them a shit start to the year!
I’ll be hassling from about 09:30, the more that do the more likely they’ll pay attention.
You could also e-mail the link to this guy:
Giles.Fearnley@FirstGroup.com
Can we get back to what the
Can we get back to what the thread was about?
By way of an update Mr Fearnley has read the e-mail I sent. How about some more doing the same?
freespirit1 wrote:
Amen to that! I received the usual ‘thank you for contacting us email”, let’s wait and see.
On the subject of taking
On the subject of taking still and moving images in public there were some cases a few years ago when police officers – and private security guards – tried to prevent photographers etc from going about their lawful business (or indeed hobby) in public places.
Because no law prevents the taking of such images in public some creative police officers used Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop perfectly law abiding citizens from taking photographs/recording video:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/andy-trotter-the-threat-is-real-but-police-must-show-common-sense-1834634.html
In specific cases (persistent harassment by paparazzi or decidedly dodgy types, say, photographing children) there are limited laws to protect privacy, but if any of us were simply to stroll past a photographer’s lens in a public place there is no law to stop our images being captured and put to any legal use.
“I think you’ll find that you
“I think you’ll find that you are actually agreeing with me. [yes]”
No, Don he’s not.
Benborp was saying Anyone can take your picture (or video) in a public place and use it however they wish. They don’t have to take it down if you object in any way. You have to demonstrate through the courts that they have breached a reasonable expectation of privacy, which you don’t have in a public space. This is diametrically oppposed to what you were asserting.
madcarew wrote:
So they can take and publish photos, except the ones I want removing and I’m saying that they can publish the ones I allow.
Pretty much the same to me from different points of view.
don simon wrote:
It’s not the “ones you allow”.
The default is for the photographer to be allowed to publish any picture taken of any adult in any place where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In order to stop publication you have to prove that the publication of said photograph would be “highly offensive to a reasonable person”.
Rich_cb wrote:
So they can take and publish photos, except the ones I want removing and I’m saying that they can publish the ones I allow.
Pretty much the same to me from different points of view.
— Rich_cb It’s not the “ones you allow”. The default is for the photographer to be allowed to publish any picture taken of any adult in any place where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to stop publication you have to prove that the publication of said photograph would be “highly offensive to a reasonable person”.— don simon
You must be itching to put the link up for this bit of legislation.
Rich_cb wrote:
So they can take and publish photos, except the ones I want removing and I’m saying that they can publish the ones I allow.
Pretty much the same to me from different points of view.
— Rich_cb It’s not the “ones you allow”. The default is for the photographer to be allowed to publish any picture taken of any adult in any place where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to stop publication you have to prove that the publication of said photograph would be “highly offensive to a reasonable person”.— don simon
You must be itching to put the link up for this bit of legislation.
don simon wrote:
Not legislation, legal precedent based on interpretation of human rights law.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-3.htm
Rich_cb wrote:
You must be itching to put the link up for this bit of legislation.
— Rich_cb Not legislation, legal precedent based on interpretation of human rights law. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-3.htm— don simon
So you make a quote of something that’s not really a quote of legislation (which was obvious) and include an irrelevant case involving a famous person and a newspaper, which has no relationship with average Joe being photographed.
Another one who doesn’t realise that they agree with what I’ve said.
don simon wrote:
No. I completely disagree with you.
Law isn’t all legislation, it’s also precedent.
The link discussed privacy law in detail as it applies to both the famous and not so famous.
I can take a picture of you walking down the street and publish it and there is nothing you can do about it unless you can prove that said photograph would be”highly offensive to a reasonable person”.
I do not require your consent in any way.
Rich_cb wrote:
So you make a quote of something that’s not really a quote of legislation (which was obvious) and include an irrelevant case involving a famous person and a newspaper, which has no relationship with average Joe being photographed.
Another one who doesn’t realise that they agree with what I’ve said.
— Rich_cb No. I completely disagree with you. Law isn’t all legislation, it’s also precedent. The link discussed privacy law in detail as it applies to both the famous and not so famous. I can take a picture of you walking down the street and publish it and there is nothing you can do about it unless you can prove that said photograph would be”highly offensive to a reasonable person”. I do not require your consent in any way.— don simon
No, you don’t directly need my consent, but I can expect you to remove all photographs that you publish of me at my request, as your article states.
And I quote:
So in essence, you do need my permission.
Can you stop using this highly offensive to a reasonable bollocks, please? It makes you look stupid. The article you used only used the word “embarrassing” to be sufficient to be considered an invasion of privacy.
don simon]
That’s a direct quote from the link.
“The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private”
I don’t legally have to remove any photos at your request.
You have to get a court order requiring me to do so.
You would have to prove that the photo was an invasion of your privacy.
The quote I included above is a test applied to decide whether private activity had been photographed. If I had merely photographed ordinary activity in a public place you would have absolutely no legal right to get me to remove the photos.
I’ve got a graph for that…
I’ve got a graph for that…
But that’s American and just
But that’s American and just a guide. And easily argued against.
don simon wrote:
The origin of the test might be American but it’s completely applicable to British cases, hence its direct quotation.
Regardless of what test you choose the fact remains that the onus is on you to prove that the activity photographed is private.
Unless you can do so, either through the quoted test or by some other means, you have absolutely no legal right to demand the removal of published photographs.
Your consent is not required to take or publish photographs of normal activity in a public place.
Rich_cb wrote:
So I have no right to demand the removal of photos that have been published, except in those cases where I can demonstrate that I pass the test of having a right.
My conclusion is that I have the right to remove any photo that is published.
This is fucking hilarious!
don simon]
Your conclusion is wrong.
You can only demand that a photograph is removed in a very specific set of circumstances.
The onus is on you to prove that those circumstances apply.
In all other circumstances you have no right to demand the removal of a photograph taken in a public place.
Rich_cb]
[quote=Rich_cb][quote=don simon]
So I have no right to demand the removal of photos that have been published, except in those cases where I can demonstrate that I pass the test of having a right.
My conclusion is that I have the right to remove any photo that is published.
This is fucking hilarious!— Rich_cb Your conclusion is wrong. You can only demand that a photograph is removed in a very specific set of circumstances. The onus is on you to prove that those circumstances apply. In all other circumstances you have no right to demand the removal of a photograph taken in a public place.— don simon
So I can demand that photos are removed then? After being told that I don’t have the right, it turns out that I do have the right. Try reading the law and interpreting it correctly instead of trying to twist it to fit your position.
You’re starting to contradict yourself.
Show me the law that supports the position that I have no rights. And no taking the opinion of a learned friend whose popping over to the States or Aus to pick up quotes to try and support their argument. black and white (I know) UK law.
don simon wrote:
You can demand all you want.
Unless you can prove the activity photographed was private your demands will be ignored.
Your original position was
That is wrong.
You can only demand a photo is removed if you are identifiable and you can prove the activity photographed is private.
The UK is a common law country so not all law is written legislation.
The link I provided includes all the relevant legal precedents which establish the current legal position.
Rich_cb wrote:
So I can demand that photos are removed then? After being told that I don’t have the right, it turns out that I do have the right. Try reading the law and interpreting it correctly instead of trying to twist it to fit your position.
You’re starting to contradict yourself.
Show me the law that supports the position that I have no rights. And no taking the opinion of a learned friend whose popping over to the States or Aus to pick up quotes to try and support their argument. black and white (I know) UK law.
— Rich_cb You can demand all you want. Unless you can prove the activity photographed was private your demands will be ignored. Your original position was
That is wrong. You can only demand a photo is removed if you are identifiable and you can prove the activity photographed is private. The UK is a common law country so not all law is written legislation. The link I provided includes all the relevant legal precedents which establish the current legal position.— don simon
So show me the supporting fucking evidence instead of standing there saying that I’m wrong. Please? I beg you. Please show me that I’m wrong..
You haven’t shown anything except that a private citizen has the right to challenge the publication of an image.
don simon wrote:
I’ve shown you the evidence.
The UK is a common law country, the evidence is therefore the previous legal precedents, all of which are detailed in the link I provided.
You can challenge the publication of an image but the legal default is to allow publication unless you can prove the photographed activity is private.
That is completely different to your original claim.
Rich_cb wrote:
So show me the supporting fucking evidence instead of standing there saying that I’m wrong. Please? I beg you. Please show me that I’m wrong..
You haven’t shown anything except that a private citizen has the right to challenge the publication of an image.
— Rich_cb I’ve shown you the evidence. The UK is a common law country, the evidence is therefore the previous legal precedents, all of which are detailed in the link I provided. You can challenge the publication of an image but the legal default is to allow publication unless you can prove the photographed activity is private. That is completely different to your original claim.— don simon
No it’s not.
I have the right to demand the removal of any published image of me.
You’re wrong.
don simon wrote:
But now you are retreating to a statement that is true but pointless. You have the right to demand any number of things, including free chocolate forever, but so what? What’s your point?
don simon wrote:
Your original position was that you could demand the removal of any identifiable image and that if you demanded its removal it should be removed.
That is very different from your new position that you can demand the removal of any photograph.
As FKoT has pointed out we can all demand anything we want. Nobody has to honour our demands.
Rich_cb wrote:
No it’s not.
I have the right to demand the removal of any published image of me.
You’re wrong.
— don simon Your original position was that you could demand the removal of any identifiable image and that if you demanded its removal it should be removed. That is very different from your new position that you can demand the removal of any photograph. As FKoT has pointed out we can all demand anything we want. Nobody has to honour our demands.
You’ll have to explain the difference between can and could to me, as I’m totally lost. FKoT is right, we can indeed demand anything we want. Now bugger off and find the supporting law that will let you do this.
I thought the law was all about making things equal for all.
don simon wrote:
I’ve already provided the supporting law.
The UK is a common law country.
Your original position was that you could make a demand and there had to be a response to your demand.
Your new position is just that you can make the demand.
Those two positions are very different.
Rich_cb wrote:
My position is the same, I have the right to demand that any image of me can be withdrawn from publication and that demand must be responded to.
Do I have this right? Yes or no?
don simon wrote:
You’ll have to explain the difference between can and could to me, as I’m totally lost. FKoT is right, we can indeed demand anything we want. Now bugger off and find the supporting law that will let you do this.
I thought the law was all about making things equal for all.
— don simon I’ve already provided the supporting law. The UK is a common law country. Your original position was that you could make a demand and there had to be a response to your demand. Your new position is just that you can make the demand. Those two positions are very different.— Rich_cb My position is the same, I have the right to demand that any image of me can be withdrawn from publication and that demand must be responded to. Do I have this right? Yes or no?— don simon
Boring and tiresome now. How about you go away and start another thread? We can all then get back to the original subject posted…
don simon wrote:
Just for clarification this is your original position:
You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy.
The burden of proof lies with you.
Rich_cb wrote:
Just for clarification this is your original position:
You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy. The burden of proof lies with you.— don simon
Give it up! No gives a flying fuck anymore!
kevvjj wrote:
Whereas everybody is completely enraptured by yet another close pass video…
Rich_cb wrote:
Give it up! No gives a flying fuck anymore!
— Rich_cb Whereas everybody is completely enraptured by yet another close pass video…— kevvjj
Perhaps If you Rich_cb and don simon hadn’t hijacked this thread for a bit of pointless willy waving, those of us who have done something about the original vdeo would get a word in!!
Rich_cb wrote:
Just for clarification this is your original position:
You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy.
The burden of proof lies with you.— don simon
It was a simple yes/no question. You can’t even do that without misinterpeting.
don simon wrote:
Which I answered.
You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy.
Your original position was wrong.
Rich_cb wrote:
don simon wrote:
You’ll have to explain the difference between can and could to me, as I’m totally lost. FKoT is right, we can indeed demand anything we want. Now bugger off and find the supporting law that will let you do this.
I thought the law was all about making things equal for all.
— don simon I’ve already provided the supporting law. The UK is a common law country. Your original position was that you could make a demand and there had to be a response to your demand. Your new position is just that you can make the demand. Those two positions are very different.— Rich_cb My position is the same, I have the right to demand that any image of me can be withdrawn from publication and that demand must be responded to. Do I have this right? Yes or no?— don simon
You certainly do have a right to demand anything you want and other people have the right to ignore that demand. AFAIK (I’m not a lawyer), you don’t have any particular right to control an image of you taken in a public place (there’s no expectation of privacy in public spaces). If you take the image yourself, then you have the usual copyright protections, but as a subject, you wouldn’t have any inherent rights to the image.
You can take people to court if you can prove that your privacy has been violated – this might work if you are not a public figure and there is undue attention given to your image e.g. if someone took a photo of you and used it in a national advertising campaign then you’d have a strong case. Otherwise, you’d be hard pressed to show any damages for a typical photo.
don simon]
Don, I’m making the generous assumption that you are still unsober after some protracted new year festivities, but it’s going to be a very long year unless you start reading what has been said to you and you don’t stop posting the same questions which have already been answered a dozen times.
Quote:
Been done, read the thread before commenting. DPA gives access and rights on cctv and Europe gives details on human rights (which kindly introduced the Campbell case) to highlight that Joe Public does indeed have the right. It’s not a discussion on whether you’d succeed or not, it’s the right!! And we all have the right. Including the discussion on whether it’s embarrassing or extremely offensive. It’s still a fucking right!
Why did you spend so much time running around in a circle?
don simon wrote:
Been done, read the thread before commenting. DPA gives access and rights on cctv and Europe gives details on human rights (which kindly introduced the Campbell case) to highlight that Joe Public does indeed have the right. It’s not a discussion on whether you’d succeed or not, it’s the right!! And we all have the right. Including the discussion on whether it’s embarrassing or extremely offensive. It’s still a fucking right!
Why did you spend so much time running around in a circle?
Why do you still mention the DPA, when its almost entirely irrelevant to the topic?
I mentioned the HRA, the point is it’s not something you can rely on in pracitce, as it requires a judge to balance different rights and apart from a couple of celebs I know of no cases where its achieved the results you imply. But go ahead and try and rely on it if you wish, I suspect you will be disappointed. The point is its not an unqualified right, it’s explicitly balanced against other factors, and in practice that balance is very skewed towards those other factors. Hence you are simply mistaken in declaring that it’s a ‘fucking right’.
Do you seriously believe in entirely theoretical rights, while ignoring what actually happens in practice? That seems naive to me. I mean, on that basis you must think any number of despotic regimes throuhout history were idyllic democracies.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Oh FFS!
Quote:
Were there overriding factors like in the Campbell case where the claim to privacy was rejected as there was a bit of a news story in it?
Anyway, it’s Tuesday (unless you wish to tell me different) and I have work to do. A right is a right, end of. I’ll let you get on as you’ve all obviously won (you haven’t) and you can all feel proud of yourselves (god in heaven help us).
Mr Fearnley has replied, here
Mr Fearnley has replied, here it is;
“Thank you for passing me the video of one of our buses in Essex. We require the very highest standards of driving and behaviour from our drivers at all times. Any shortcomings are taken seriously and, investigated and appropriate action taken. I can now assure you that his incident is now being so investigated. Thank you for taking the time to contact us.”
Regards
GILES FEARNLEY
I tweeted First, this was the
I tweeted First, this was the reply. “Thank you for bringing this to our attention, please could you give us a follow so we can dm you a contact form to get this logged with us; my apologies – CM”
Has Westcliff got in touch?
Has Westcliff got in touch?
Anyone know him?
Anyone know him?
BrokenBootneck wrote:
No, but searching for his YouTube handle of “Westcliff GoPro” turns up what is probably his facebook and Google+ accounts (won’t post here – you can do the same search).
CygnusX1 wrote:
The article says the guy has already reported it to the company, no?
So don’t they already know who he is?
road.cc: have you reached out
road.cc: have you reached out to the bus firm in question for a comment on this incident? If not then may I ask why?