Trump Staff Take Pics of Woman Urinating.[W:63]

Chagos said:

The confusion displayed here on geography kind of prepares the reader for the confusion on property rights that follow.

To try and be of some help, property that includes rights of way (read public paths) is NOT private, certainly not where those rights are guaranteed. To accuse anybody using those rights of passage of trespassing is simply idiotic.

Click to expand...

Chagos said:

Me neither, in fact I've done it myself.

When you gotta do it, ya gotta do it.:mrgreen:

Nobody saw any necessity to take a pic of it, though.:roll:

Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:

A Scots anti-Trump activist lost her privacy case against Trump staff who took pictures of her without her knowledge when she was caught short on a walk over his Aberdeenshire golf course. However the Sheriff (A Scots judge) making the ruling, pointed out that staff could risk prosecution under public order laws.
Scotland has wide-ranging (see what I did there?) public access to the countryside laws, which Trump hates.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-trump-golf-course-over-urination-photographs

Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:

His golf course is in Scotland, and the women were walking along the beach, following a (Public Right of Way) footpath, some distance from any toilet facilites. (or cover!)

Essentially they're activists fighting Trump attempts to illegally close off public access to his course. Scotland has wide-ranging access to open land laws, and Trump staff overstepped their authority when they took pics, as the judge said. The urine connection was too good to ignore.

Click to expand...

William Rea said:

...

On the point regarding peeing in public, people get caught short and as the article says, if the woman made reasonable efforts to conceal herself in that situation then she has every right not to expect someone to pull out a camera and take a photograph. The judge remarked that he felt that she had made reasonable efforts to do this and I agree his judgement that on balance she had a reasonable expectation to some privacy. You are not obliged to stand and watch her pee if it upsets you so much or even worse go and find a better view of her peeing so that you can be more offended.

...

Click to expand...

RenoCon said:

"Trump Organisation warned in court its staff are at risk of prosecution for photographing women, even though Rohan Beyts lost privacy case"

What am I missing here? The anti-Trump activist lost the privacy case. That is, the judge determined that she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The rest of the article is just the Sheriff/Scots judge bloviating about what might happen to the golf course staff. Beyond that, I would agree that the OP title is just more baiting by the frustrated left.

Click to expand...

JohnPaul said:

Does that include pissing rights? I know there are public restrooms located on public sidewalks in the UK, but they are enclosed. I never saw anyone pissing on an open sidewalk in the UK.

Click to expand...

JohnPaul said:

I hope you had paid for your use of the golf course.

Click to expand...

William Rea said:

The UK has a huge network of public footpaths and bridleways that are public rights of way and are protected regardless of who owns the land. If you agree to buy land that has one of these pathways on it then you are legally obliged to maintain access to it, doesn't matter who you are or how much money or power you have, these rights of way are protected for everyone. Trouble is, you tend to get jumped up people with entitlement issues that buy the land and then think they can block access with impunity. Even before Trump set foot in Scotland there had been some real humdinging battles between land owners and people with an interest in maintaining public rights of way and, in the specific case mentioned the woman was NOT trespassing. That is the simple fact.

On the point regarding peeing in public, people get caught short and as the article says, if the woman made reasonable efforts to conceal herself in that situation then she has every right not to expect someone to pull out a camera and take a photograph. The judge remarked that he felt that she had made reasonable efforts to do this and I agree his judgement that on balance she had a reasonable expectation to some privacy. You are not obliged to stand and watch her pee if it upsets you so much or even worse go and find a better view of her peeing so that you can be more offended.

I cycle long distances on roads in the countryside and sometimes I have no choice but to find somewhere reasonably concealed so that I can take a comfort break, I would expect that people might understand that sometimes we get caught short and that while they might not like it, I am not obliging them to watch me do something to relive what could be considerable discomfort if I do not do it. The public has an option to turn 180 degrees and not look, if they get off at staring at me doing it then I am kind of relaxed about that but, pulling out a camera and photographing me is a bit twisted to be honest.

Just shows how cheering for a team can skew perspective though.

Click to expand...