Man's personal life revealed on facebook by eavesdropping stanger!

Thwip!

Hehehe, he's sitting under a poster that says "Joy Rider" :P

Rasheed wrote: »

Help for lying? Go way outta that! Have you or someone you know ever lied in front of friends to act 'cool' or get respect? Yeah it's sad if he is lying or bullshiiting but it's very common!

What's cool about cheating? Surely someone wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend they cheated and tell that to their friends, who could in turn feel obligated to tell his wife?

Seachmall

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But if this happened in Europe, the person who took the images and posted the information would have to demonstrate (among other things) a public interest in what they were posting. It is not adequate for a video or images simply to serve as entertainment, and this is particularly high bar to overcome in respect of private individuals

Can you source this?

I'm an amateur street photographer and I've never heard of anything like that before but it sounds very relevant to me.

Cody Pomeray

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you source this?

As an amateur street photographer I've never heard of anything like that before.

Yep. I was thinking of the cases of Caroline of Monaco and Axel Springer took against Germany, specifically. The judgements in those case, and in previous caseshave established about 5-6 criteria that need to be met in dismissing a breach of privacy.

These criteria include a genuine public interest (i.e. the person should already be a celebrity), and another element of the criteria is the gravity of the consequences of publication.

In other words, if Enda Kenny was photographed bashing youngsters around the head on Grafton Street, that would not be a breach of privacy.

However, if Joe Bloggs were photographed smacking his kid in his car, or on a train, and a reasonable person foresaw that publication would lead to vilification, that would possibly be a serious breach of privacy.

Nate--IRL--

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you source this?

I'm an amateur street photographer and I've never heard of anything like that before but it sounds very relevant to me.

You don't publish allegations about the people you photograph though. It doesn't apply to you.

Nate

Rasheed

Thwip! wrote: »

What's cool about cheating? Surely someone wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend they cheated and tell that to their friends, who could in turn feel obligated to tell his wife?

It's not cool at all but who know what sort of 'friends' these are. All could have blowing about all their conquests and your man felt he had to keep up.

Nobody knows the situation. Not even the woman that decided to put this on Facebook. Everyone had decided to vilify this man without knowing a single detail about this mans life only what he said to a group of lads he was with.

Even if he's cheating, even if he's the biggest player that ever walked this earth, that woman had no right to out him like that. She has made a laughing stock of him and more importantly, his wife and family who are completely innocent in all this.

Thwip!

Rasheed wrote: »

It's not cool at all but who know what sort of 'friends' these are. All could have blowing about all their conquests and your man felt he had to keep up.

Nobody knows the situation. Not even the woman that decided to put this on Facebook. Everyone had decided to vilify this man without knowing a single detail about this mans life only what he said to a group of lads he was with.

Even if he's cheating, even if he's the biggest player that ever walked this earth, that woman had no right to out him like that. She has made a laughing stock of him and more importantly, his wife and family who are completely innocent in all this.

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

Norwesterner

BostonB wrote: »

Is it private if you are speaking loudly in a public space?

Yes actually.
What next?
Photos of people in the waiting room of the STD clinic?
It's a public area after all.

citytillidie

I wonder what the reaction would be if the roles were reversed ie a man taking a pic of a woman suppositly bragging about having an affair

Thwip!

I'd imagine it would be the same (at least I know mine would be). Cheating is cheating.

Granted there does tend to be a lot of bias when it comes to that. Women who cheat will generally get a more aggressive reaction from people than men that cheat. Lot of what's called "Slut-shaming" happens, which is ridiculous. The gender doesn't matter, it's the act

batistuta9

Thwip! wrote: »

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

Even if he did say it, he didn't do it online for millions and the nsa to gawk over

Peanut

Thwip! wrote: »

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

It wouldn't be a very good argument though, would it.

Prodigious

Wasn't me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g5Hz17C4is

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Interestign point: aren;tthe oblighe to at leat blur the picture without permission?

Did you just have a stroke? :-P

Rasheed

Thwip! wrote: »

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

One could. And if he is cheating then I feel very sorry for his wife. But if I was in her position I'd rather he told me or it come out in the town, as these things invariably do, instead of millions knowing.

Stereomaniac

For sure, it must be hard for his wife if he is cheating and this is how she has found out about it, but I would also be of the belief that he should've watched what he was saying too.

Femme_Fatale

Nah I can't see how it's defensible for an uninvolved party to record him, no matter how much of a loudmouth twat he was being.

nick 56

That train looks nicer than the CIE ones, as for the other stuff she is in the wrong. He is a prat , hope they both get bunions.

Meritocracy Wins

ilovesleep wrote: »

But the woman hasn't destroyed his life. If what she heard was true and he's a cheater, he's done it all himself.

What was her purpose of doing this? To spread news in the hope that his main partner picks up on it, perhaps? Granted an absolute stranger who knows nothing about him hasn't helped, news like that will break out anyway eventually.

There's no excuse what so ever for cheating. It's greed and selfishness and nothing but.

Your response is more to do with your own case I'd say. If I am correct you are the poster with the ex that seems to unnerve you now and again. If I am wrong I apologise.

I believe the man is a plonker but it doesn't give people the right to stick a phone in his face and then plaster his story all over the public domain. He is a cheat, she is a busybody who I suspect has had some bloke cheat on her and this is payback.

It is a worrying trend that a private conversation can be broadcast to the world. Context can be lost and people can be hurt.

Meritocracy Wins

Meritocracy Wins wrote: »

Your response is more to do with your own case I'd say. If I am correct you are the poster with the ex that seems to unnerve you now and again. If I am wrong I apologise.

I believe the man is a plonker but it doesn't give people the right to stick a phone in his face and then plaster his story all over the public domain. He is a cheat, she is a busybody who I suspect has had some bloke cheat on her and this is payback.

It is a worrying trend that a private conversation can be broadcast to the world. Context can be lost and people can be hurt.

+1

I had a very awkward situation in the pub a while back when the people on the next table, who were eavesdropping on our conversation, took something we said totally out of context, without knowing us or anything about us, and decided we were racist. We explained what we were talking about (it had involved a private joke) and they apologised, but what if they'd recorded one incriminating sentence and put it on the internet? I told them it might be best that in future, they concentrated on their own conversation rather than eavesdropping on conversations that don't concern them, getting the wrong end of the stick and then making us explain ourselves. Whatever happened to the concept of minding your own business?

djmcr

Stark wrote: »

At first read I thought "God what a bitch". But thinking about it, if I was stuck in a carriage listening to some idiot brag to the whole carriage about his conquests for 2 hours too, I'd probably be tempted to do the same.

Wonder did she ever think of changing seats?

danniemcq

This could all be an elaborate ploy to show how much damage social network could cause?

i mean its only a photo and her word sayin that he boasted about cheating.

easily deniable by the guy by just saying that she was an auld bat who got annoyed at him for no reason or something stupid.

Or she is psycho. I went out with a chick once who told me she wanted to stab a mate of mine, no reason. Just didn't like him even though they had never talked or interacted bar seeing him in college. Just plain nuts and wanted to cause him serious harm.

Still though any port in a storm and when i told him the next morning we both had a good laugh but i made a promise not to see her again which i promptly broke but after that i stayed clear too

stateofflux

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Nah I can't see how it's defensible for an uninvolved party to record him, no matter how much of a loudmouth twat he was being.

i agree with this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The thing is it's a moral issue, not a legal one. If it were a legal one and the guy was breaking the law somehow, I'd be siding with the woman a lot more at this stage.

But what gives her (or someone else) the right to turn around and say "my morals are better than yours and I have a right to do this"? Why? On what basis? Did you do a agree on it or soemthing?

Soemthing I've always wondered about socially conservative people, to be honest.

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But what gives her (or someone else) the right to turn around and say "my morals are better than yours and I have a right to do this"? Why? On what basis? Did you do a agree on it or soemthing?

To be honest the entire legal system is dependent on that mentality.

Saying "what you're doing conflicts with my moral beliefs and I will intervene" is what brings people to justice.

This particular case is just a grey area, but the principle is necessary for civilisation.

Yakult

Do not agree with the actions of this woman at all. Detest such a thing in fact.

If it was really bothering her so much why couldn't she just move?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

To be honest the entire legal system is dependent on that mentality.

Saying "what you're doing conflicts with my moral beliefs and I will intervene" is what brings people to justice.

This particular case is just a grey area, but the principle is necessary for civilisation.

I see your point, but we have first, a choice in who makes the laws; and secondly, a standard. Either an act is illegal, or it is not.

The second line is not true: who decides what "bringing people to justice" is in a moral issue?

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I see your point, but we have first, a choice in who makes the laws; and secondly, a standard. Either an act is illegal, or it is not.

The second line is not true: who decides what "bringing people to justice" is in a moral issue?

Laws in a democracy are formed when the majority of people agree that something is morally wrong in their own opinion and decide action should be taken. What constitutes as justice is supposed to be determined in the same manner (in actuality it often comes down to the discretion of the law makers and/or the prosecuting judge).

The only difference between that and this case was that here an individual made that decision, not a majority group.

But the principle of what occurred is the same.


When an individual inflicts their morals on another we consider it butting into other peoples' lives, when a majority do it we consider it democracy.

Cody Pomeray

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

who decides what "bringing people to justice" is in a moral issue?

The concept of justice is a moral intervention.

The laws are just the fences that mark the boundaries of our moral parameters.

So take privacy laws - most people accept that there is a moral right to privacy for each of us, and a moral right to freedom of expression for each of us. Most people tend to agree on where the balance lies, and so they demand the laws take heed of their moral judgement.

The law is not an authority on anything in itself. The law is the mere servant of public morality. It is a manmade structure which we can and must tear down, improve, and replace as our collective morality dictates.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

Laws in a democracy are formed when the majority of people agree that something is morally wrong in their own opinion and decide action should be taken. What constitutes as justice is supposed to be determined in the same manner (in actuality it often comes down to the discretion of the law makers and/or the prosecuting judge).

The only difference between that and this case was that here an individual made that decision, not a majority group.

But the principle of what occurred is the same.


When an individual inflicts their morals on another we consider it butting into other peoples' lives, when a majority do it we consider it democracy.

The key difference here is "majority of people" and "one person on a train with a camera". Also, the law is already in place when a judge gets to pass judgement, and has guidelines and acts to base his judgement on.

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The key difference here is "majority of people" and "one person on a train with a camera".

Absolutely, but the principle of moral intervention is what I'm getting at.

Also, the law is already in place when a judge gets to pass judgement, and has guidelines and acts to base his judgement on.

Of course, but he has the discretion to decide on certain matters such as how long a sentence or even if a custodial sentence is fitting or not.