|
Close Quarters (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
then a cop would be able to testify after they have been called to break up the ruckus. It would be a different case altogether. But i wouldnt allow the videos as evidence in that case if its harrassment. Especially if the people in the video are openly objecting on film to their images being captured.
If police response is a joke, then change that. But dont break the law or harass people in the meanwhile.
and if it sucks that badly i still say "just move". Its a big country. |
I dunno Jay, a lot of people don't like being photographed/videod, but still do, and those get published (think Lady Di etc.) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TO guy
The language makes it seem like you need to be in your house for it to apply |
this part says to me that it can also be a public place
[quote]besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be[quote]
the happens to be part is the key |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TO guy
I dunno Jay, a lot of people don't like being photographed/videod, but still do, and those get published (think Lady Di etc.) |
it would be interesting to see what would happen.
maybe u cant get him for the tape himself but for the act of watching and possibly following people? |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
it would be interesting to see what would happen.
maybe u cant get him for the tape himself but for the act of watching and possibly following people? |
If there was following involved, then yeah it is definatley harassment.
But based on the rest of the language in the "happens to be" is important. They would not have included dwelling, business etc if they were going to let "anyplace" in at the end. |
|
|
| Euphorica |
if you are outside/in a public place you really have no say in whether or not you are filmed.
unless that place has rules up for no video tapping(like at a gym or something), but out on the street your SOL. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i believe u can film but there are restrictions on how you could use the film.
Putting it on public display would be a gross violation of privacy. This is why many times you will see people in crowd scenes blotched out on certain programs. |
|
|
| Anton |
| It's funny because the Billy Bob's they are talking about in that article is a bar not too far from Quarters. It was known as a place where disturbers go, and like always the people of Westdale complained how the bar was causing trouble in the neighborhood (even tho it was near a commercial/industrial area not a residential area). Anyways Billy Bobs lost it's liquor license for some minor violations in April I think it was, and has been having problems opening up since, because of the residents of Westdale. Leaving me out of a job because I used to/still do work there. So bottom line is, they think the bars are responsible for the drunken kids all around the neighborhood, before going after Quarters they thought Billy Bobs was to blame, now Billy Bobs is closed and still happens, they go after Quarters, after Quarters it'll be the other pubs, then Boston Pizza.. not cool at all |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
btw the whining doesnt end at the pub
so again i ask, WHY THE DO YOU LIVE NEAR A MAJOR UNIVERSITY IF YOU ARENT PREPARED TO TOLERATE IT'S PEOPLE?
mark, imagine for example if some old guy moved into the village and started complaining about gay people holding hands. It's the exact same idea.
If you dont like it, MOVE! |
that analogy is absurd.
it is not illegal for gay people to hold hands...while it is illegal to damage property, trespass, and cause excessive noise at 3 or 4 am. (note that I said excessive noise...additional noise vs. living in the middle of nowhere is to be expected). It is also prohibited to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk, btw...but whatever...every bar does it.
your seemingly limitless "if you don't like it, move" philosophy is a bit ridiculous. of course people need to take certain things into account when they choose where to live. I live in the heart of downtown Toronto, right beside Ryerson University's buildings and student residences. I accept that there are students everywhere. Who am I kidding, I enjoy the eye candy on the way to work :p They are a bit noisy sometimes...and quite often I hear students staggering home from a bar/club, wasted (I tend to do that myself on occassion). That's to be expected...and I accept it.
What I do not encounter, and would not tolerate, is damage to my property, tresspassing, or lenghty and *unreasonable* noise at certain hours. Even in DT Toronto, there can be noise that is unreasonable...just as there is some limit to what ought to be tolerated by people living next to these university pubs (or in the path of the students' routes home).
No one should be trying to prevent other people from "having a good time" (I'd then tell them to off and move too), but if I found my property damaged by jackasses ramming into hedges with shopping carts...or breaking in to my backyard and jumping in my pool...yeah, I'd be ing pissed, and rightfully so!
The residents seem to have gone way overboard and need to accept that these places are going to continue to exist...and more generally that students will be students. but the school and police need to do their part as well, and the students need to recognize the difference between partying and being obnoxious s who don't recognize the fact that other people live there too.
basic consideration is NOT too much to ask. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
that analogy is absurd.
it is not illegal for gay people to hold hands...while it is illegal to damage property, trespass, and cause excessive noise at 3 or 4 am. (note that I said excessive noise...additional noise vs. living in the middle of nowhere is to be expected). It is also prohibited to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk, btw...but whatever...every bar does it.
your seemingly limitless "if you don't like it, move" philosophy is a bit ridiculous. of course people need to take certain things into account when they choose where to live. I live in the heart of downtown Toronto, right beside Ryerson University's buildings and student residences. I accept that there are students everywhere. Who am I kidding, I enjoy the eye candy on the way to work :p They are a bit noisy sometimes...and quite often I hear students staggering home from a bar/club, wasted (I tend to do that myself on occassion). That's to be expected...and I accept it.
What I do not encounter, and would not tolerate, is damage to my property, tresspassing, or lenghty and *unreasonable* noise at certain hours. Even in DT Toronto, there can be noise that is unreasonable...just as there is some limit to what ought to be tolerated by people living next to these university pubs (or in the path of the students' routes home).
No one should be trying to prevent other people from "having a good time" (I'd then tell them to off and move too), but if I found my property damaged by jackasses ramming into hedges with shopping carts...or breaking in to my backyard and jumping in my pool...yeah, I'd be ing pissed, and rightfully so!
The residents seem to have gone way overboard and need to accept that these places are going to continue to exist...and more generally that students will be students. but the school and police need to do their part as well, and the students need to recognize the difference between partying and being obnoxious s who don't recognize the fact that other people live there too.
basic consideration is NOT too much to ask. |
the question of legality is moot in my example. My point is (and im sure you got it) that you dont go into a neighbourhood and then try to change it to suit yourself. Rather you investigate the neighbourhood then decide whether it suits you. And yes sometimes neighbourhoods change for better or worse at which point you re-evaluate whether or not you wish to stay.
Dont try and float the red herring here. My anology was comparing students and their activities such as going to bars and having parades to gay people holding hands and flying rainbow flags.
I do not condone violence in either community.
This guy whines about pubs, about parades etc. Where does he stop? Im willing to bet the school was there long before he was which is why i keep questioning why he chose to live there. Anyone with a sane mind would understand what living near a school may entail.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own choices instead of whining until everything suits them.
As for the drunkeness and stupidity, perhaps the police should be doing more patrols. But dont blame the pubs or the school, blame the certain individuals committing those acts in the first place. The pub has a clean record with the AGCO. In other words they are a law abiding business. So if buddy doesnt like it, hes got a choice to make. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
there is the same type of whining in London among residents who live near Fanshawe College and UWO. One woman in the LFP was quoted bitching about the students, yet SHE HERSELF lives in the student hosuing complexes across from Fanshawe with her children. Like hello....DO NOT BUY RENT WITHIN VISIBLE PROXIMITY of a university. I would never, ever consider living even a few blocks away from a big campus.
We hear this stuff every year. People complaining about the students, etc. It tends to peak in September/October, then disappears, only to resurface at the beginning of another school year. |
|
|
| MarkT |
haha...no, you used that example because you think it hits close to home for me :p
all I'm saying is that there are limits to what ought to be tolerated...while you repeatedly seem to advocate for limitless freedoms and a "move if you don't like it" philosophy, which I find a bit silly.
I'm not *blaming* anyone...I'm saying that you don't have to wait until you legally must do something. You don't have to wait until the situation explodes before taking proactive steps to remedy the situation.
The militant residents group is being idiotic...I'm just surprised at the complete lack of consideration given to them...just as the island residents get NO consideration either (though I agree they too are as idiotic as this group).
it's not 'all or nothing'...there's a middle ground. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
haha...no, you used that example because you think it hits close to home for me :p |
well yes i was trying to get you to relate to it personally...
| quote: | | all I'm saying is that there are limits to what ought to be tolerated...while you repeatedly seem to advocate for limitless freedoms and a "move if you don't like it" philosophy, which I find a bit silly. |
because i believe in it. I have moved many times in my life and always investigated the neighbourhood. And sometimes ive had to tolerate things i didnt like. And once it actually caused me to move. But thats what living amongst society entails. A point that seems lost on so many people these days.
| quote: | | I'm not *blaming* anyone...I'm saying that you don't have to wait until you legally must do something. You don't have to wait until the situation explodes before taking proactive steps to remedy the situation. |
no.. but at the same time you should expect that there will be good and bad occurances in a neighbourhood based on the demographic that is there.
| quote: | The militant residents group is being idiotic...I'm just surprised at the complete lack of consideration given to them...just as the island residents get NO consideration either (though I agree they too are as idiotic as this group).
it's not 'all or nothing'...there's a middle ground. |
its because they are idiotic that people are very hardlined against them. They paint themselves the victim and in the same stroke try to victimize everyone around them. Its a very selfish game and one i have no tolerence for. |
|
|
|
|
