Trial By You Tube

[John Skelton]

Is that raised? It looks more like a fly-by-night.

It's on a special, deluxe edition, invisible plinth for raising red herrings. (Plinth not supplied with red herring).

[Norfolk Born]

...to be weighed in the scales of justice no doubt (it's clearly the best plaice to sort the whole thing out).

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't like to feel that we were being led down the garden path.

[Bryn]

Hmm, let's see. I and a friend decide to get up to something antisocial, indeed illegal, on some form of public transport. I want to protect myself from successful prosecution if apprehended. I know, I'll get my friend to film the incident on his mobile phone and post the result on YouTube. With that evidence effectively excluded from being use in evidence against me, I can exploit its posting on YouTube to undermine any prosecution.

[Lateralthinking1]

How exactly? I don't quite see it.

You might say that the posting of it prevents a fair trial. Surely that can happen anyway?

[rauschwerk]

I find the story itself positively heartwarming, indeed the entire carriage full of fare paying passengers should have been united in outrage and helping to throw the little so-and-so off.

I find the story, far from being heartwarming, deeply disquieting. What the ticket collector/conductor surely should have done was to leave the alleged fare-dodger alone as soon as he started swearing, allowed the train to proceed and arranged for the police to meet the train at the next stop. Then this student's story that he had given up the return half of his ticket by mistake on his outward journey could have been assessed by the police and, if necessary, in a court of law. I rather hope that assault charges will be brought against the gung-ho vigilante in this case.

[Serial_Apologist]

I am wondering if those passengers applauding the student's eviction would have reacted in similar manner had the fare-dodger been of similar build to the gentleman who effected the eviction - especially had either party been armed with knives, say.

[ahinton]

I think you are worried in a libertarian way that my suggestion could actually be introduced into law whereas a ban on posting certain items on the internet could not be because that would be impossible to enforce.

I'm not worried about it as such because I don't see that it could sensibly be introduced onto the statute books.

My view is that I get on a bus subject to the conditions of the company. That is my choice. I am aware that I could be on the bus company's camera. That is reasonable. But if I am photographed by another passenger without my consent I would see it as an invasion of my privacy and tantamount to an assault. Here in this time of rapid technological change, with its associated cultural assumptions, members of the public do need some serious education on how to stay inside their own boxes.

I don't disagree with you at all in principle but, again, how could one usefully and meaningfully enforce such rights to privacy in law if any case brought against those who breach such rights in the wsays that you suggest will not likely give rise to the awarding of damages, will end up costing both sides money and will waste already over-stretched court time?

Finally, there are many forms of evidence that are impermissible so I think on that point you raise a red herring.

The very fact that there are already impermissible forms of evidence reveals that this would be anything but a red herring, by reason of its tacit invitation to all and sundry to try to pile Pelion upon Ossa in terms of forms and sources of evidence that could be deemed impermissible.

[ahinton]

How exactly? I don't quite see it.

You might say that the posting of it prevents a fair trial. Surely that can happen anyway?

You might indeed - and perhaps that would be because it might at the very least interfere with, if not actually prevent, a fair trial; My point above was - and remains - that the more categories of inadmissible evidence there are, the less chance of just conviction there will be.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not worried about it as such because I don't see that it could sensibly be introduced onto the statute books.

I don't agree but let us say for a moment that I do. We shall just have to make it a condition of transport licencing that operators should ban all (unauthorised) photography in its vehicles and on its premises.

[ahinton]

I don't agree but let us say for a moment that I do. We shall just have to make it a condition of transport licencing that operators should ban all (unauthorised) photography in its vehicles and on its premises.

That might be difficult to implement and to enforce but it's not quite impossible; however, public transport is not the real issue here, is it? (apart from the fact that the two incidents tht have been discussed involved such transport); it would be abit like the smoking ban in buildings, would it not? - if you want to smoke, you have to go outside to do it and, likewise, if you wnat to photograph people irrespective of whether or not you have due permission to do so, you do it anywhee other than on public transport. I therefore don't see how imposing a ban on photography of people on public transport without their prior written permission a condition of public transport licensing would make any difference to what you;re concerned about, which is a far more general risk of such invasion of personal privacy.

[Lateralthinking1]

Er, yes, I think. The same applies, for example, to restaurants. You are right.

I think I would shove the amateur Baileys and sleuths out into the smokers' corners. It makes sense because mobiles with apps are the new 20 Benson with matches. The psychology of use is uncannily similar.

Just to take one point, it is the same trigger addiction. Then you get defence, attack, distraction. My guess would be that mobile phone use has risen directly in proportion to the reduction in smoking.

While smoking restrictions are argued on health grounds, there is a hint there of setting the privacy boundaries on all sides. I speak as someone who still occasionally smokes but who doesn't own a mobile phone.

[Norfolk Born]

I find the story, far from being heartwarming, deeply disquieting. What the ticket collector/conductor surely should have done was to leave the alleged fare-dodger alone as soon as he started swearing, allowed the train to proceed and arranged for the police to meet the train at the next stop. Then this student's story that he had given up the return half of his ticket by mistake on his outward journey could have been assessed by the police and, if necessary, in a court of law. I rather hope that assault charges will be brought against the gung-ho vigilante in this case.

It's my understanding that the train had already been stationary at Linlithgow for 5 minutes, which might indicate that the ticket inspector had not considered, or had considered but ruled out, the option of moving along and arranging for the alleged fare-dodger to be met by police at the next stop (not that easy to arrange at such short notice - unless the train remained at Linlithgow until the ticket collector was sure that the poice would be waiting at the next stop. In which case, he might as well have arranged for the police to board the train at Linlithgow). The hung-ho vigilante (actually an investment analyst, or something of that ilk) probably did what a fair proportion of the other passengers would have liked to do, especially as the ticket inspector had clearly got nowhere and might have carried on in the same unsuccessful vein for Heaven knows how long.

[Lateralthinking1]

I can confirm that fare dodgers halt buses here several times each week. The dodger refuses to get off. The driver under instruction switches off the engine. Nothing happens until the next bus arrives, then everyone other than the dodger piles onto that one. If they don't leave the bus, they can be forcibly removed. I've been through this many times myself.

This is no way to run a transport system, nor is a bus or train the ideal venue in which to dance with the nuances of the law. In a sense, it is an open invitation for cameras to click and people then to become famous for 15 minutes. It concerns me that there will inevitably be a highly selective trial by internet audience. For example, one wonders if those who condemn the big fella here might have felt indifferent, or even cheered, had he removed a woman making racist comments.

These things are never easy - one persons rights versus those of others; the issue of privacy; the question of who has powers under the law; the assessment of appropriate force; the extent to which an individual's political outlook plays a part; the potential boomeranging of law-breaking. It is a minefield and one that is made more difficult to negotiate with the photography. We've seen this recently. That is why I believe the law needs to tighten. I think it would mean less time being wasted, not more.

[Biffo]

I find the story, far from being heartwarming, deeply disquieting. What the ticket collector/conductor surely should have done was to leave the alleged fare-dodger alone as soon as he started swearing, allowed the train to proceed and arranged for the police to meet the train at the next stop.

I am sure the conductor condidered this approach but I know from personal experience that in these situations BTP are as elusive as the Higgs Boson.