Maybe she's learned a lesson, maybe not. She has an opportunity to tell her side now if she wants to - no reason she should if she doesn't want to but she could turn this to her advantage. Of course no sane person wants her getting threats etc any more than they condone punching the bloke and stealing his phone.
-
-
She was probably stressed because she couldn't get to her shop. She then finds some bloke filming her and over-reacts. He sees and opportunity to get a laugh, so doesn't stop. She didn't report him to the police for assault, and I daresay had no intention of doing so. She's upset and angry and talking rubbish.
They're both as bad as each other, but she's the one getting all the abuse. The reviews of her shop will stay on the net long after the incident is forgotten. Although it could work the other way - at least her shop has some publicity - I now know where to got for knitwear in Bath.Comment
-
Some of the "reviews" are uncalled for, but lots are just funny.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by k2p2 View Post
Good level-headed reasoning . . . . what the hell are you doing, this is CUK!!Comment
-
It's a very long and complex string. For the record I support your view that her parking was wrong and I think she should have been pulled up and told to park properly. I also take photos and have had more than my fair share of being moved off of "public" private spaces...Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post
As for the harm of photo's
Why don't we ask Princess Diana. Oh sorry, I forgot. We can't... But I think we can say that she didn't think it was nice to have someone "snapping" her image every where she went. There is a whole raft of famous people that can't live their life without wondering what nasty little news editor is going to get hold of pictures of them in various situations, and further more, having worked at several major news titles I am happy to state that the average newspaper makes a bunch of city traders look like kinder garden kids when it comes to over indulgence and bad behaviour. I can also tell you, having worked on photo feeds for news agencies, that the stuff you get to see in public is the very clean end of a very filthy wedge...
The public needs to know about bent arms dealing or whitewashed planning applications, and that need increases every day. However having the freedom to just pull out your camera and snap other people indiscretions because you might think its funny is an abuse of the next persons privacy for your freedom and very likely to end up costing you the right to do the very thing you want to do...
We al have our own defence strategies. That lady was indignant. Some of us upon extreem provocation use moderate violence (if there can be such a thing).
furthest down the bottom of the pile would ensure that the guy filming went missing...
Further up the thread you asked me about retribution for the person that filmed Big guy throwing the teenager off the train. Actually I think what Big Guy did was right and fulfilled the needs of the many to get home on time against need of the few to skip his fai.e.. For him to be facing a criminal trial for GBH because an ANON filmed his good work and posted it for laughs is sick. IMO the ANON needs to be unmasked to suffer the same support/abuse as the perpetrator. Instead they set up an anonymous account post it for giggles and move of having ****ed up someones life for a giggle...
In another thread, Ignis and Mitch were supporting the speech made by Jimmy Reid. The point being you have to make a stand and not sell out to a rat race. Well in the world of pop it on You Tube. The hero makes a stand, an ANON that doesn't have the balls to act themselves films it, and causes trouble for the good samaritan...Comment
-
Ideally, as well as parking offences, they would both (the nasty woman and her partner) be done for harassment:
They were both harassing someone who had done nothing wrong except film a car that was parked inconsiderately and later the parkee harassing him for it. And then her partner getting physical and harassing him too, which ironically was done by repeatedly asking 'why are you harassing my wife' (the one who was following him up the street). I'd throw the book at the both of them.Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.
Harassment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaComment
-
The road near my house is half the width and ten times busier than the one outside Sarah Duncan’s shop. It is also a main route for ambulances, fire-engines and police. Most residents of houses and shops are considerate when unloading but there is the odd one or two who don’t care a dam and will unnecessarily block the road or pretend they are unloading and just park their car or van there causing massive tail backs and holding up emergency vehicles.
Sarah Duncan falls in the latter category, there was no reason for her to park at right angles to the pavement and even then she parked a three feet gap from pavement."A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George OrwellComment
-
Top marks for bringing Princess Diana into the topic.Originally posted by bobspud View Post
Another tart who thought the world revolved around her arse!Comment
-
not
Comment