OT: Unorthodox cat keeping

[Tim Streater]

Not that it's right that any NGO should have statutory powers anyway.

[ARWadsworth]

Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone who they believe has committed an offence.

Hell, Dennis can bring a prosecution against every News channel and newspaper in the country for showing the cat video if he wants to.

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Tim Streater writes

Indeed. The RSPCA seem to have become a quasi-GO. For that reason alone my money goes to the PDSA.

[Tim Streater]

Sure, no problem with that. But don't their "inspectors" have right of access to commercial property where animals are kept? Who regulates them anyway?

[Andy Champ]

"Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Andy

[Andy Burns]

Yes, I noticed the caption overlay read "front/left" so that tends to imply other cameras covering other views of/from the property ...

[ARWadsworth]

I did not give it that much thought. I just watched a TV interview that showed the cameras and there was more than one:-)

[Andy Dingley]

The backlash has already started

[ARWadsworth]

It seems that the RSPCA have no special powers.

[John Rumm]

I suspect that is bollocks.

One is entitled to film / photograph people in a public place where they would have no anticipation of privacy. One does not need their consent. One is also entitled to publish ones own photographic material.

The only person "defaming" the woman's reputation is herself. All the CCTV owner is doing is attempting to establish the identity of woman.

[Bill]

In message , "dennis@home" writes

Taken from:-

"The Data Protection Act does not apply to individuals? private or household purposes. So if you install a camera on your own home to protect it from burglary, the Act will not apply."

Therefore it should not be a DPA problem.

If you are not satisfied with the above could you cite which offence has been committed?

[dennis]

Incorrect in many circumstances.

The person that posted the video should have given it to the police to identify the person. It is against the DPA to publish it.

[ARWadsworth]

The first night after I installed my CCTV I had my garden and van vandalised by two women. I had never met them (but it was a personal attack on my property not a random attack) and they were pissed up. They also both has a piss in the street.

I'll dig the tape out and put it onto youtube for Dennis.

All the local pubs showed the video for everyone to see. The women did not like that.

[dennis]

The data protection act is all about individuals. it sets out the rights of the individual and their personal data and what has to be done to protect those rights.

You don't have to register under the DPA for a home CCTV system. You still have to comply with the law regarding an individuals rights as define in law including that of the DPA.

I have.

[Huge]

Of course it is; it's dennis.

[TGH]

just jumping in again.

According to the arguments that Dennis has come up with programs like Crimewatch are all guilty of breaking the DPA so should be prosecuted.

[ARWadsworth]

Dennis never lets facts or the truth get in the way of his ramblings.

He also ignores the fact that the person that posted the CCTV was the cat's owner.

Quote from just above

Well Dennis it was the bloke with the CCTV ie the cats owner that released the video. You might have seen copies of it but it was the cats owner that released the video.

[dennis]

So what? How does it make any difference to what I said? You are just talking cr@p like you always do.

[ARWadsworth]

Well the bloke that "published" the video owned the camera and the DVR that recorded the images. He was legally allowed to do so.

And you cannot even spell crap. Does your special needs tutor tell you not to swear?

[John Rumm]

You notice he has at least given up spouting the "defamation" cobblers at least now. ;-)