|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Seek secret camcorder (like TV documentaries)
they probably use in TV documentaries. I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and not a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now small enough to hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't want to spend a ton of cash. Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with the lens pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I would need one with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking up conversation in a small room. Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? Especially if they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at the moment. Thank you. Anne "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message <snip crap>news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... > I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what > they probably use in TV documentaries. > > I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I > want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as > proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and not > a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. > A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it could lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more than you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera that you need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small portable video recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 USD / GBP. If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say that the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio recording do? [1] you don't say which jurisdiction you are in, the US, UK or Timbuktu...
Show quote
Hide quote
":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote in message What Jerry said, aprat from you could get away without the VCR, and instead news:44a6dab4$1$79787$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net... > > "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what >> they probably use in TV documentaries. >> >> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and > not >> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >> > > <snip crap> > > A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being > illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with > their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in > any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it could > lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more than > you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera that you > need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small portable video > recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 USD / GBP. > > If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say that > the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio recording > do? > > [1] you don't say which jurisdiction you are in, the US, UK or > Timbuktu... > use a camcorder with analogue input. Don't try this at home. Deep.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Deep Reset" <DeepRe***@hotmail.com> wrote in message Actually the FIRST words he said was that he's in the UK..!news:QvGdnV4BfayUdTvZRVnyrA@bt.com... > > ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote in message > news:44a6dab4$1$79787$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net... >> >> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what >>> they probably use in TV documentaries. >>> >>> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >>> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >>> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and >> not >>> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >>> >> >> <snip crap> >> >> A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being >> illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with >> their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in >> any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it could >> lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more than >> you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera that you >> need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small portable video >> recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 USD / GBP. >> >> If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say that >> the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio recording >> do? >> >> [1] you don't say which jurisdiction you are in, the US, UK or >> Timbuktu... >> > What Jerry said, aprat from you could get away without the VCR, and > instead use > a camcorder with analogue input. > Don't try this at home. > > Deep. Here in the USA it's called Invasion Of Privacy, subject to very heavy civil court fines, and possible criminal proscecution as well. Invasion of privacy is when ever an image or sound recoding of an individual is published without consent. Showing the video or playing the audio recording to any other person is considered publishing in the eyes of the law...a release is needed to use any material recorded, audio or video. When you see "secret" foorage on TV, you can bet your sweet bippy that either a release has been obtained (sometimes for monitary compensation) or that the persons face has been obscured or pixelated to avoid the liablity of a lawsuit. On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 21:06:57 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> Yes she does.wrote: >[1] you don't say which jurisdiction you are in, the US, UK or >Timbuktu... In message <44a6dab4$1$79787$892e7***@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Show quoteHide quote ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> writes You're quite right Jerry. Such unauthorised recording is in > >"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what >> they probably use in TV documentaries. >> >> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and >not >> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >> > ><snip crap> > >A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being >illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with >their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in >any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it could >lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more than >you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera that you >need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small portable video >recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 USD / GBP. > contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which was introduced into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. There are exceptions of course, i.e. o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country. o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime. o Acting for the protection of public health or morals. These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see that Ann can include her specific case in any of the above. Because of this, if it were discovered that Ann had made such unauthorised recordings, she might have all care withdrawn from her, at least by the hospital, and likely by her local NHS trust. If she has a complaint about her diagnosis or treatment, she should make a formal complaint (in writing) to her LHA. That way she would not be dis-enfranchised from health care - irrespective of whether or not there was any outcome from her complaint. LHAs are particularly sensitive about formal complaints, since any outcome (whether or not in Ann's favour) could result in litigation (and the award of substantial damages) in years to come. So Ann is likely to have any issues quickly resolved. -- Tony Morgan Tony Morgan ha scritto:
Show quoteHide quote > In message <44a6dab4$1$79787$892e7***@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, http://s4.bitefight.it/c.php?uid=19648> ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> writes > > > >"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message > >news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... > >> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what > >> they probably use in TV documentaries. > >> > >> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I > >> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as > >> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and > >not > >> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. > >> > > > ><snip crap> > > > >A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being > >illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with > >their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in > >any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it could > >lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more than > >you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera that you > >need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small portable video > >recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 USD / GBP. > > > You're quite right Jerry. Such unauthorised recording is in > contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights > which was introduced into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. > > There are exceptions of course, i.e. > o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety > or the economic well-being of the country. > o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime. > o Acting for the protection of public health or morals. > > These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see that > Ann can include her specific case in any of the above. > > Because of this, if it were discovered that Ann had made such > unauthorised recordings, she might have all care withdrawn from her, at > least by the hospital, and likely by her local NHS trust. > > If she has a complaint about her diagnosis or treatment, she should make > a formal complaint (in writing) to her LHA. That way she would not be > dis-enfranchised from health care - irrespective of whether or not there > was any outcome from her complaint. LHAs are particularly sensitive > about formal complaints, since any outcome (whether or not in Ann's > favour) could result in litigation (and the award of substantial > damages) in years to come. So Ann is likely to have any issues quickly > resolved. > -- > Tony Morgan On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 01:14:56 +0100, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: >Because of this, if it were discovered that Ann had made such I can see the headline:>unauthorised recordings, she might have all care withdrawn from her, at >least by the hospital, and likely by her local NHS trust. CONFUSED WOMAN MAKES RECORDING, SO HOSPITAL REFUSES TREATMENT Coroner slates RHO... The sad thing is, it just might happen :-( In message <jn9fa21m9dn8ksdrus6s8j0t73ku2rh***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 01:14:56 +0100, Tony Morgan The trick is to get LHA procedures and policies to work *for* you, and ><tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: > >>Because of this, if it were discovered that Ann had made such >>unauthorised recordings, she might have all care withdrawn from her, at >>least by the hospital, and likely by her local NHS trust. > >I can see the headline: > >CONFUSED WOMAN MAKES RECORDING, SO HOSPITAL REFUSES TREATMENT >Coroner slates RHO... > >The sad thing is, it just might happen :-( not against you. On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:36:04 +0100, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: >>I can see the headline: We're not dealing with a rational thinker here. The problem is that a>> >>CONFUSED WOMAN MAKES RECORDING, SO HOSPITAL REFUSES TREATMENT >>Coroner slates RHO... >> >>The sad thing is, it just might happen :-( > >The trick is to get LHA procedures and policies to work *for* you, and >not against you. healthcare provider, of all people, might penalise her for this.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message But then if one plays with fire one should expect the possibility ofnews:p3kfa2lbhaso6qs08cmj35c2u9234sudnp@4ax.com... > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:36:04 +0100, Tony Morgan > <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: > > >>I can see the headline: > >> > >>CONFUSED WOMAN MAKES RECORDING, SO HOSPITAL REFUSES TREATMENT > >>Coroner slates RHO... > >> > >>The sad thing is, it just might happen :-( > > > >The trick is to get LHA procedures and policies to work *for* you, and > >not against you. > > We're not dealing with a rational thinker here. The problem is that a > healthcare provider, of all people, might penalise her for this. getting burnt - the point is, if the OP does have issues with her health care she should go through the correct channels as Tony says. On 02 Jul 2006, :::Jerry::::<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I intend to go through the correct channels. It's just that I prefer > "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message > news:p3kfa2lbhaso6qs08cmj35c2u9234sudnp@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:36:04 +0100, Tony Morgan >> <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: >> >> >>I can see the headline: >> >> >> >>CONFUSED WOMAN MAKES RECORDING, SO HOSPITAL REFUSES TREATMENT >> >>Coroner slates RHO... >> >> >> >>The sad thing is, it just might happen :-( >> > >> >The trick is to get LHA procedures and policies to work *for* >> >you, and >> >not against you. >> >> We're not dealing with a rational thinker here. The problem is >> that a >> healthcare provider, of all people, might penalise her for this. > > But then if one plays with fire one should expect the possibility > of getting burnt - the point is, if the OP does have issues with > her health care she should go through the correct channels as Tony > says. to do so with some video evidence. > I intend to go through the correct channels. It's just that I prefer Sweetie, it ain't gonna fly...even 60 Minutes gets releases..!> to do so with some video evidence. Can you have a trusted friend or advocate be in the room with you as a credible witness able to testify if need be..? On 02 Jul 2006, Laurence Payne<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote: Show quoteHide quote > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:36:04 +0100, Tony Morgan On what grounds?> <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: > >>>I can see the headline: >>> >>>CONFUSED WOMAN MAKES RECORDING, SO HOSPITAL REFUSES TREATMENT >>>Coroner slates RHO... >>> >>>The sad thing is, it just might happen :-( >> >>The trick is to get LHA procedures and policies to work *for* you, >>and not against you. > > We're not dealing with a rational thinker here. The problem is > that a healthcare provider, of all people, might penalise her for > this. > On 02 Jul 2006, Tony Morgan<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote >>A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being Isn't article 8 saying that a public authority is not allowed to force >>illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with >>their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in >>any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it >>could lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more >>than you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera >>that you need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small >>portable video recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 >>USD / GBP. >> > You're quite right Jerry. Such unauthorised recording is in > contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human > Rights which was introduced into UK law by the Human Rights Act > 1998. > > There are exceptions of course, i.e. > o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety > or the economic well-being of the country. > o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime. > o Acting for the protection of public health or morals. > > These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see > that Ann can include her specific case in any of the above. > > Because of this, if it were discovered that Ann had made such > unauthorised recordings, she might have all care withdrawn from > her, at least by the hospital, and likely by her local NHS trust. > > If she has a complaint about her diagnosis or treatment, she should > make a formal complaint (in writing) to her LHA. That way she would > not be dis-enfranchised from health care - irrespective of whether > or not there was any outcome from her complaint. LHAs are > particularly sensitive about formal complaints, since any outcome > (whether or not in Ann's favour) could result in litigation (and > the award of substantial damages) in years to come. So Ann is > likely to have any issues quickly resolved. intself onto a member of the public. But in my case it is the other way around. On 02 Jul 2006, Tony Morgan<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > In message What if I am preventing a crime, which is what I believe I will be > <44a6dab4$1$79787$892e7***@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, > ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> writes >> >>"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >>news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to >>> what they probably use in TV documentaries. >>> >>> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >>> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >>> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and >>not >>> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >>> >> >><snip crap> >> >>A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being >>illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with >>their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in >>any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it >>could lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more >>than you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera >>that you need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small >>portable video recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 >>USD / GBP. >> > You're quite right Jerry. Such unauthorised recording is in > contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human > Rights which was introduced into UK law by the Human Rights Act > 1998. > > There are exceptions of course, i.e. > o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety > or the economic well-being of the country. > o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime. > o Acting for the protection of public health or morals. > > These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see > that Ann can include her specific case in any of the above. > > Because of this, if it were discovered that Ann had made such > unauthorised recordings, she might have all care withdrawn from > her, at least by the hospital, and likely by her local NHS trust. > > If she has a complaint about her diagnosis or treatment, she should > make a formal complaint (in writing) to her LHA. That way she would > not be dis-enfranchised from health care - irrespective of whether > or not there was any outcome from her complaint. LHAs are > particularly sensitive about formal complaints, since any outcome > (whether or not in Ann's favour) could result in litigation (and > the award of substantial damages) in years to come. So Ann is > likely to have any issues quickly resolved. doing? Surely Article 8 applies to individuals and not to people working in public institutions. The Freedom of Information Act makes this distinction in permitting others to ask about all the workings of public institutions except for private and personal matters. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm A consultation given by an employee of a public institution would seem to be something available under the FOIA (provided privacy of the patient were observed). In the same way, it may be seen as possible to record that consulatation. Certainly if I were the patient I would most probably have access to the records of the consultation under the Data Protection Act. Again, if I make my own records and I do so electronically then I do not see that as being a matter for prosecution. I will add again ... I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now small enough to hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't want to spend a ton of cash. Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with the lens pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I would need one with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking up conversation in a small room. Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? Especially if they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at the moment.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message Try the Spy Shop on South Audley Street, just down from the US Embassy - news:Xns97FEF2567CE65D4AM2@127.0.0.1... > On 02 Jul 2006, Tony Morgan<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: > >> In message >> <44a6dab4$1$79787$892e7***@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, >> ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> writes >>> >>>"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >>>news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>>> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to >>>> what they probably use in TV documentaries. >>>> >>>> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >>>> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >>>> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and >>>not >>>> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >>>> >>> >>><snip crap> >>> >>>A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being >>>illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with >>>their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in >>>any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it >>>could lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more >>>than you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera >>>that you need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small >>>portable video recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 >>>USD / GBP. >>> >> You're quite right Jerry. Such unauthorised recording is in >> contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human >> Rights which was introduced into UK law by the Human Rights Act >> 1998. >> >> There are exceptions of course, i.e. >> o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety >> or the economic well-being of the country. >> o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime. >> o Acting for the protection of public health or morals. >> >> These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see >> that Ann can include her specific case in any of the above. >> >> Because of this, if it were discovered that Ann had made such >> unauthorised recordings, she might have all care withdrawn from >> her, at least by the hospital, and likely by her local NHS trust. >> >> If she has a complaint about her diagnosis or treatment, she should >> make a formal complaint (in writing) to her LHA. That way she would >> not be dis-enfranchised from health care - irrespective of whether >> or not there was any outcome from her complaint. LHAs are >> particularly sensitive about formal complaints, since any outcome >> (whether or not in Ann's favour) could result in litigation (and >> the award of substantial damages) in years to come. So Ann is >> likely to have any issues quickly resolved. > > What if I am preventing a crime, which is what I believe I will be > doing? > > Surely Article 8 applies to individuals and not to people working in > public institutions. The Freedom of Information Act makes this > distinction in permitting others to ask about all the workings of public > institutions except for private and personal matters. > > http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm > > A consultation given by an employee of a public institution would seem > to be something available under the FOIA (provided privacy of the > patient were observed). In the same way, it may be seen as possible to > record that consulatation. > > Certainly if I were the patient I would most probably have access to the > records of the consultation under the Data Protection Act. Again, if I > make my own records and I do so electronically then I do not see that as > being a matter for prosecution. > > I will add again ... I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now > small enough to hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't > want to spend a ton of cash. > > Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with the lens > pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I would need one > with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking up conversation in a > small room. > > Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? Especially if > they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at the moment. they probably have exactly what you need. It really doesn't seem like you need a visual record of what is occurring, because your first post mentioned only discussions. A simple digital voice recorder would probably suffice for your purposes, you can get them anywhere and there is no tape involved. http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_vr_digitalrecorders.asp -- Nigel Brooks "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message Snip Snip ALL this long quote stringnews:Xns97FEF2567CE65D4AM2@127.0.0.1... > What if I am preventing a crime, which is what I believe I will be If you were in the USA you *might* have *some* protection as a> doing? "whistle blower", but you're not in the us so that is a moot point > Surely Article 8 applies to individuals and not to people working in How on earth does the Freedom Of Information Act in the US apply to somebody > public institutions. The Freedom of Information Act makes this > distinction in permitting others to ask about all the workings of public > institutions except for private and personal matters. > > http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm > > A consultation given by an employee of a public institution would seem > to be something available under the FOIA (provided privacy of the > patient were observed). In the same way, it may be seen as possible to > record that consulatation. in the UK..? Beside invasion of privacy (Doctors privacy, not just the patients privacy) there's the issue of confidential doctor / patient communications that is sacrosanct Show quoteHide quote > Certainly if I were the patient I would most probably have access to the You're going to alot of trouble for dubious results, and you might be > records of the consultation under the Data Protection Act. Again, if I > make my own records and I do so electronically then I do not see that as > being a matter for prosecution. > > I will add again ... I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now > small enough to hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't > want to spend a ton of cash. > > Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with the lens > pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I would need one > with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking up conversation in a > small room. > > Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? Especially if > they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at the moment. hurting, not helping your case and or cause to be approaching it in such a covert fashion which would be highly illegal here in the USA... For all the hassle you're going thru...GET ANOTHER DOCTOR...! You say you can't get another MD, yet you're willing to spend time and money that could be spend on another doctor... Yikes..!
Show quote
Hide quote
:::Jerry:::: ha scritto:
http://s4.bitefight.it/c.php?uid=19648
> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... > > I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what > > they probably use in TV documentaries. > > > > I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I > > want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as > > proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and > not > > a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. > > > > <snip crap> > > A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being > illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with > their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in > any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it could > lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more than > you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera that you > need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small portable video > recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 USD / GBP. > > If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say that > the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio recording > do? > > [1] you don't say which jurisdiction you are in, the US, UK or > Timbuktu... On 01 Jul 2006, :::Jerry::::<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message I don't expect to ever get near the courts. The video may well be > news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to >> what they probably use in TV documentaries. >> >> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and > not >> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >> > > <snip crap> > > A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being > illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with > their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in > any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it > could lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more > than you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera > that you need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small > portable video recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 > USD / GBP. accepted by a variety of other people such as complaints invstigators. > I have made audio recordings but I want video.> If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say that > the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio > recording do?
Show quote
Hide quote
"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message Either one is inadmissible as evidence, and probably illegal.news:Xns97FBF0E4670385D4AM2@127.0.0.1... > On 01 Jul 2006, :::Jerry::::<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote: > >> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to >>> what they probably use in TV documentaries. >>> >>> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >>> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >>> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and >> not >>> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >>> >> >> <snip crap> >> >> A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being >> illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with >> their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in >> any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it >> could lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more >> than you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera >> that you need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small >> portable video recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 >> USD / GBP. > > I don't expect to ever get near the courts. The video may well be > accepted by a variety of other people such as complaints invstigators. > > >> >> If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say that >> the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio >> recording do? > > I have made audio recordings but I want video. It is not hard to understand...you cannot do it yourself. If video or audio is to be used as evidence, it has to be done under court order, under controlled conditions, by certified methods, and the chain of possession must be demonstrable. Bobby On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:58:01 -1000, "NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote: Video and/or audio evidence is treated in the same way as any other evidence.>Either one is inadmissible as evidence, and probably illegal. > >It is not hard to understand...you cannot do it yourself. > >If video or audio is to be used as evidence, it has to be done under court >order, under controlled conditions, by certified methods, and the chain of >possession must be demonstrable. > >Bobby I have supplied links to show this, so please cite your sources to backup your statement. regards Stuart www.mckears.com >If video or audio is to be used as evidence, it has to be done under court Rubbish. The only thing you have got right is about disclosure of>order, under controlled conditions, by certified methods, and the chain of >possession must be demonstrable. evidence.
Show quote
Hide quote
"NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote in message You most certainly can do it yourself depending on the particular news:XeudnSO9p8qwCC_ZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net... > > "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns97FBF0E4670385D4AM2@127.0.0.1... >> On 01 Jul 2006, :::Jerry::::<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote: >> >>> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >>> news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>>> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to >>>> what they probably use in TV documentaries. >>>> >>>> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >>>> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >>>> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and >>> not >>>> a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >>>> >>> >>> <snip crap> >>> >>> A, what you are proposing to do is probably [1] very close to being >>> illegal (before TV companies use secret cameras they clear it with >>> their legal depts.), any evidence gained might not be admissible in >>> any form in legal, disciplinary and other proceedings whilst it >>> could lead to a claim against you. You will also need to spend more >>> than you will be able to afford I suspect - the pin hole camera >>> that you need can be bought cheaply BUT you then need a small >>> portable video recorder and this will set you back around a 1000 >>> USD / GBP. >> >> I don't expect to ever get near the courts. The video may well be >> accepted by a variety of other people such as complaints invstigators. >> >> >>> >>> If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say that >>> the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio >>> recording do? >> >> I have made audio recordings but I want video. > > Either one is inadmissible as evidence, and probably illegal. jurisdiction you live in. For example - some jurisdictions in the United States prohibit covert recordings unless both parties to the recording are aware that it is being done. Linda Tripp was prosecuted by Maryland for secretly recording a conversation she had with Lewinsky. But that is not the case in all jurisdictions, in fact most jurisdictions allow covert taping if one of the parties to the conversation has consented (in other words the person who is doing the taping). Either way - the contents of the recording are admissable as evidence regardless of how they were obtained. The rules regarding admissability apply to evidence obtained by and sought to be introduced by the Government - not private individuals. For example, in a criminal prosecution the Government may introduce evidence unlawfully obtained by a private individual as long as it can be shown the Government did not cause or recruit the individual to gather the evidence. > It is not hard to understand...you cannot do it yourself. It is easy to understand actually - you might be prohibited from doing it, or it might be perfectly permissable. It is totally dependant on the jurisdiction you are in. > If video or audio is to be used as evidence, it has to be done under court Rubbish - Chain of Custody does not have anything to do with audio or video > order, under controlled conditions, by certified methods, and the chain of > possession must be demonstrable. evidence. If the evidence is permitted then all that has to be done to properly introduce it is to ask the person who is testifying about it - if the recording or the video accurately represents what happened. Court orders have nothing to do with audio or video evidence - unless it is obtained non-consensually (wiretap etc). The whole issue revolves around "consent" - if one party to the conversation consents then it is ok and no court order, warrant or any other legal process is required. The person asking the question was from the UK and it might be perfectly legal for a private individual to make a consensual recording. It is not illegal for individuals to tape conversations providing the recording is for their own use, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Nigel Brooks In message <4hhoanF1rqvl***@individual.net>, Nigel Brooks
<nbro***@msn.com> writes >The person asking the question was from the UK and it might be Rubbish. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be read at: >perfectly legal for a private individual to make a consensual >recording. It is not illegal for individuals to tape conversations >providing the recording is for their own use, under the Regulation of >Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--b.htm#1 It's scope is clearly defined in Clause 1 as relating to "a public postal service or a public telecommunication system". It also make it clear that it's scope is restricted to interception of transmission by means of a public or private telecommunication system. I do wish that people did not take things completely out of context (or in this case - out of scope). I'd argue that it is transparently clear that the OP's recording of a face-to-face conversation without one party's permission or knowledge can never be interpreted as an interception of a transmission of a telecommunication system.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message And I'd argue that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.news:7RudlWBk28sEFwNX@zen54488.zen.co.uk... > In message <4hhoanF1rqvl***@individual.net>, Nigel Brooks > <nbro***@msn.com> writes >>The person asking the question was from the UK and it might be perfectly >>legal for a private individual to make a consensual recording. It is not >>illegal for individuals to tape conversations providing the recording is >>for their own use, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 >>(RIPA). > > Rubbish. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be read at: > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--b.htm#1 > > It's scope is clearly defined in Clause 1 as relating to "a public postal > service or a public telecommunication system". It also make it clear that > it's scope is restricted to interception of transmission by means of a > public or private telecommunication system. > > I do wish that people did not take things completely out of context (or in > this case - out of scope). > > I'd argue that it is transparently clear that the OP's recording of a > face-to-face conversation without one party's permission or knowledge can > never be interpreted as an interception of a transmission of a > telecommunication system. > -- > Tony Morgan > http://www.camcord.info It is a fact that it is perfectly legal for an individual to covertly record a consensual conversation made by means of a public or private telecommunications system. It follows that if it is permissable to consensually record a conversation made over the wire - it is also permissable to record a face to face conversation consensually. There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted by telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation. The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no blanket authorization or prohibition. -- Nigel Brooks On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:39:49 -0500, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro***@msn.com> If it's consensual, how is it covert?wrote: >The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual >recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no >blanket authorization or prohibition. Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a lawyer. Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in principle it's admissible, and it's often used. In message <c3p7b2l4lbuc53tt2hvc1b5mcvnladl***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:39:49 -0500, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro***@msn.com> ROFL.... I was waiting for someone to dismiss well defined, tried and >wrote: > >>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual >>recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no >>blanket authorization or prohibition. > >If it's consensual, how is it covert? > >Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a >lawyer. tested statutes on the basis of "XXXX" says differently. Why not quote Lord Phillips? >Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given In which case what is your father's view of the Human Rights Act 1998 in >opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in >principle it's admissible, and it's often used. the context being discussed ? There have been a number of well publicised cases in both District and High Courts which seem to deny your father's learned view. On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:38:52 +0100, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: > That covert evidence is sometimes challenged on the basis of the HRA,>>Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given >>opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in >>principle it's admissible, and it's often used. > >In which case what is your father's view of the Human Rights Act 1998 in >the context being discussed ? but none the less frequently admitted. I don't think being a Google-expert is enough here, Tony. In message <39v7b29o2ceml3se07btvsif9e4do34***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >I don't think being a Google-expert is enough here, Tony. True - it does additionally require the ability to read and comprehend the statutes that are there on-line for all to read. Of course some folks will find that a little difficult.... On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:54:09 +0100, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: >In message <39v7b29o2ceml3se07btvsif9e4do34***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne Tony, you're wrong. I know you can't admit it, but why not just let><lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >>I don't think being a Google-expert is enough here, Tony. > >True - it does additionally require the ability to read and comprehend >the statutes that are there on-line for all to read. > >Of course some folks will find that a little difficult.... this one fade away? >Tony, you're wrong. I know you can't admit it, but why not just let 20:1 Tony shuts up.>this one fade away? 2:1 Tony will soon make a lengthy post (with footnotes). Prolonged Googling will have dredged up some contexts in which he might be partly correct. 10000:1 Tony posts "Sorry, I was mistaken." Show quoteHide quote :-)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message The Act applies to Governmental bodies - specifically Article 8 prohibits a news:$SosFfC8A$sEFw9m@zen54488.zen.co.uk... > In message <c3p7b2l4lbuc53tt2hvc1b5mcvnladl***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne > <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:39:49 -0500, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro***@msn.com> >>wrote: >> >>>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual >>>recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no >>>blanket authorization or prohibition. >> >>If it's consensual, how is it covert? >> >>Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a >>lawyer. > > ROFL.... I was waiting for someone to dismiss well defined, tried and > tested statutes on the basis of "XXXX" says differently. Why not quote > Lord Phillips? > >>Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given >>opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in >>principle it's admissible, and it's often used. > > In which case what is your father's view of the Human Rights Act 1998 in > the context being discussed ? "Public Authority" - in other words The State from violating the Right to Privacy without due process. Private bodies and individuals are under no obligation to comply with the act. > There have been a number of well publicised cases in both District and Kindly cite a couple - specifically cases involving private individuals who > High Courts which seem to deny your father's learned view. > are alleged to have contravened the HRA Nigel Brooks "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message If both parties consent to a recording then there is no problem - we are news:c3p7b2l4lbuc53tt2hvc1b5mcvnladlfkn@4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:39:49 -0500, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro***@msn.com> > wrote: > >>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual >>recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no >>blanket authorization or prohibition. > > If it's consensual, how is it covert? speaking of a situation where the person doing the recording is doing so covertly. The person doing the covert recording is a party to the conversation and is consenting to the recording - the other party is not be aware that the conversation is being recorded. It is covert if one employs a hidden device to record the conversation and that is not known by the other participants of the conversation. > Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a I could find nothing which would prohibit the use of a covert consensual > lawyer. Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given > opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in > principle it's admissible, and it's often used. audio/video under UK law. In fact UK law is somewhat more lenient than US law. For example although an order of the court must be obatined to intercept a conversation over the phone (non-consensual) - it is perfectly permissable for a law enforcement officer to bug a room to record conversations of non consenting individuals inside that room (or at least it was 6 years ago). In the United States however, both types of intercept require a Court Order . Nigel Brooks In message <4hi636F1ruvj***@individual.net>, Nigel Brooks
<nbro***@msn.com> writes >There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted by Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Anne's intent.>telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation. > Please Nigel - stop blowing smoke !!! >The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual Firstly, I should remind you that Anne's proposition is not consensual - >recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is >no blanket authorization or prohibition. that is the whole issue. Further, jurisdiction is not an issue Nigel - Anne lives in the UK - so why start babbling on about jurisdiction?
Show quote
Hide quote
"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message Rubbish - She is a party to the conversation and is the one who is news:nDv6x6Ahx+sEFwPT@zen54488.zen.co.uk... > In message <4hi636F1ruvj***@individual.net>, Nigel Brooks > <nbro***@msn.com> writes >>There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted by >>telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation. >> > Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Anne's intent. > Please Nigel - stop blowing smoke !!! >>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual >>recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no >>blanket authorization or prohibition. > > Firstly, I should remind you that Anne's proposition is not consensual - > that is the whole issue. consenting to the recording. You only need one party to consent. You are confused about the definition of what constitutes a consensual recording - it doesn't need every party to consent - only one...... > Further, jurisdiction is not an issue Nigel - Anne lives in the UK - so What specific UK law prohibits an individual from recording their > why start babbling on about jurisdiction? conversations with others covertly? If there were such a law - every television show which utilizes the hidden camera technique would be subject to prosecution. The fact is that if the person doing the recording is a party to the conversation - it's legal. Nigel Brooks On 11 Jul 2006, Tony Morgan<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > In message <4hi636F1ruvj***@individual.net>, Nigel Brooks Sorry for these harsh words. They are not directed specificaly at > <nbro***@msn.com> writes >>There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted >>by telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation. >> > Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Anne's intent. > Please Nigel - stop blowing smoke !!! > >>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert >>consensual recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are >>in and there is no blanket authorization or prohibition. > > Firstly, I should remind you that Anne's proposition is not > consensual - that is the whole issue. > > Further, jurisdiction is not an issue Nigel - Anne lives in the UK > - so why start babbling on about jurisdiction? Tony but this part of the thread seems approx the right place to post. Sorry Tony if you feel I am pointing only at you! I am not. I didn't post to uk.legal because I don't really need a theoretical discussion about laws and regulations and common practise and all that. I posted to several technology groups because I wanted some information about what was available on the market. I think it has to be my business how I use it. As was once observed: "morals" are standards one applies to oneself and "ethics" are morals which one applies to others. I will determine my own morality and that will not be done here. I don't care for other people's personal morality being foisted upon me. On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:42:52 +0100, Anne R <n*@nomail.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote >Sorry for these harsh words. They are not directed specificaly at You started a discussion. It grew. That's what happens on Usenet and>Tony but this part of the thread seems approx the right place to >post. Sorry Tony if you feel I am pointing only at you! I am not. > >I didn't post to uk.legal because I don't really need a theoretical >discussion about laws and regulations and common practise and all >that. > >I posted to several technology groups because I wanted some >information about what was available on the market. I think it has >to be my business how I use it. > >As was once observed: "morals" are standards one applies to oneself >and "ethics" are morals which one applies to others. I will >determine my own morality and that will not be done here. I don't >care for other people's personal morality being foisted upon me. there's nothing you can do about it :-) I think you got your answer very early on. Use audio. "Nigel Brooks" <nbro***@msn.com> wrote in message Here in the USA if the doctor was unaware he/she was being recorded,news:4hi636F1ruvjiU1@individual.net... > It follows that if it is permissable to consensually record a conversation > made over the wire - it is also permissable to record a face to face > conversation consensually. > > There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted by > telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation. > > The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual > recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no > blanket authorization or prohibition. then it would NOT be consensual...it would be a covert act, intending to deliberately make a recording without the knowledge or consent... You can't give "Informed Consent" if you don't know you're being recorded... The courts in the USA have held this to be true and have awarded substatial damages to the victims ... Are we done with this topic yet, folks..? On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 00:47:25 -0700, "Long John" <mcra***@pacific.net> er.....YOU'VE made 7 posts on the topic today :-)wrote: >Are we done with this topic yet, folks..? Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
news:tf16d2lm9gavpursqdei1plp8rh9fujsij@4ax.com: On other threads in other NGs as well, and so far always three or four > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 00:47:25 -0700, "Long John" <mcra***@pacific.net> > wrote: > >>Are we done with this topic yet, folks..? > > er.....YOU'VE made 7 posts on the topic today :-) weeks after the threads had dried up. -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") OK folks, we've beat this topic to death, and we're
going in useless circles here at this point... Good luck Ann (we need to move on here)... On 10 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote:
>>> If you really want to make a secret recording, and as you say It may be inadmissable in an English court of law but it is definitely >>> that the consultations are non physical why wont a simple audio >>> recording do? >> >> I have made audio recordings but I want video. > > Either one is inadmissible as evidence, and probably illegal. admissable where O wish it to be heard. > Thank you but your contention following "if" is not applicable.> It is not hard to understand...you cannot do it yourself. > > If video or audio is to be used as evidence, it has to be done > under court order, under controlled conditions, by certified > methods, and the chain of possession must be demonstrable. "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message Concerning the legality or otherwise I suggest you ask in uk.legal.news:Xns97FBF0E4670385D4AM2@127.0.0.1... > On 01 Jul 2006, :::Jerry::::<me@privacy.INVALID> wrote: > I have made audio recordings but I want video. I doubt if audio recordings are illegal when you are one of the parties being recorded as the product is similar to written notes.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors knowledge news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... > I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what > they probably use in TV documentaries. > > I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I > want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as > proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and not > a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. > > I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now small enough to > hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't want to spend a > ton of cash. > > Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with the > lens pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I would > need one with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking up > conversation in a small room. > > Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? Especially > if they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at the moment. > > Thank you. > Anne > will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order to do so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district court judge, would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, and the video would have to be maintained in law enforcements hands at all times to insure that the video had not been altered. Bobby "NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote in message What rubbish.news:a9WdnXqr_sok7jrZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net... > You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors > knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order to do > so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district court judge, > would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, and the video would > have to be maintained in law enforcements hands at all times to insure > that the video had not been altered. The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get evidence of them illegally hunting. Of course it's admissible. Pete In message <12an6tprgbve***@corp.supernews.com>, P Darby
<DontUseThisEm***@All.com> writes Show quoteHide quote >"NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote in message You are a shining example of "a little knowledge is dangerous".>news:a9WdnXqr_sok7jrZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net... > >> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors >> knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order to do >> so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district court judge, >> would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, and the video would >> have to be maintained in law enforcements hands at all times to insure >> that the video had not been altered. > > >What rubbish. >The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get evidence >of them illegally hunting. >Of course it's admissible. > I'd suggest you clue yourself up before applying something completely out of context to what the OP asked. As I pointed out already in this thread: <QUOTE> Such unauthorised recording is in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which was introduced into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. There are exceptions of course, i.e. o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country. o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime. o Acting for the protection of public health or morals. These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see that Ann can include her specific case in any of the above. </QUOTE> Your example is within the context of "Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime", while Anne's is OUTSIDE the exceptions listed in the HRA (1998) above - so is not only inadmissible in court, but is in itself illegal. And because it is illegal, could be (and likely would be) used as a reason to refuse treatment by the relevant LHA. -- Tony Morgan On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:16:17 +0100, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: >Your example is within the context of "Acting for the prevention of You really think they'd treat a paranoid-obsessive so cruelly? After>disorder or crime", while Anne's is OUTSIDE the exceptions listed in the >HRA (1998) above - so is not only inadmissible in court, but is in >itself illegal. And because it is illegal, could be (and likely would >be) used as a reason to refuse treatment by the relevant LHA. all, she's saved them the trouble of making a diagnosis :-) Anyway, this would never come near a court of law. If she DID get evidence of malpractice, the hospital would publicly deny everything but have an effective word with the doctor in question. I have a pretty jaded view of the world, but not QUTE as jaded as Tony's. Yet Show quoteHide quote :-) In message <btdqa2pnc123bcu3l14p43tj1tgmdph***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >Anyway, this would never come near a court of law. There I would wholeheartedly agree with you - but not for the reason that you appear to suggest, but simply because any recording made as suggested is in contravention of the HRA and such a recording would seem to be the only evidence. > If she DID get evidence of malpractice, the hospital would publicly Malpractice is AFAIK in the domain of the BMA, and not the courts. >deny everything but have an effective word with the doctor in question. Negligence can be determined in the courts - malpractice no. It might seem to be hair-splitting but there is a considerable difference. I have had personal experience of LHAs (or more accurately the Luton & Dunstable Hospital Trust). My present wife had a bad RTA in which she fractured a vertebrae and four bones in her foot. She was taken to the L&D where she had her leg put in plaster which was removed three months later - but she was unable to obtain any subsequent physiotherapy or further treatment. The result was a misshapen foot and considerable difficulty in walking. A year later because she was still unable to walk properly, she signed up for treatment and surgery on my private health insurance (which fortunately covered her). The irony is that her subsequent private BUPA diagnosis, treatment and surgery was with the very same orthopaedic specialist who treated her in the L&D hospital. We then sent a letter to the Luton & Dunstable Hospital Trust, complaining about the treatment that she had received following her accident. After two months of silence, my wife's GP received a letter saying that the L&D could no longer accept referrals for any diagnosis or treatment of my wife. And yes. My opinions of health services are jaded..... >We then sent a letter to the Luton & Dunstable Hospital Trust, Because you'd written a (doubtless calm and well-reasoned) letter of>complaining about the treatment that she had received following her >accident. After two months of silence, my wife's GP received a letter >saying that the L&D could no longer accept referrals for any diagnosis >or treatment of my wife. complaint? Or because having removed this treatment to the private sector, they felt that (excepting acute complications, which the NHS tends to deal with very well) it should stay there? Were you ASKING to be referred back to the NHS? In message <lurqa2l76rcc2v6p3ga5593ikr6quss***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >>We then sent a letter to the Luton & Dunstable Hospital Trust, Before we went private - yes. Obviously getting a referral back to the >>complaining about the treatment that she had received following her >>accident. After two months of silence, my wife's GP received a letter >>saying that the L&D could no longer accept referrals for any diagnosis >>or treatment of my wife. > >Because you'd written a (doubtless calm and well-reasoned) letter of >complaint? Or because having removed this treatment to the private >sector, they felt that (excepting acute complications, which the NHS >tends to deal with very well) it should stay there? > >Were you ASKING to be referred back to the NHS? NHS AFTER private diagnosis/surgery/treatment/physiotherapy wasn't appropriate. The letter to her GP wasn't in response to a referral - simply a response (after two months silence) to the complaint - which I should add was couched in reasonable, polite language. Interestingly, when notifying my wife of the letter, my wife's GP observed that he "wouldn't by choice refer any of his patients to the L&D". The L&D did have a pretty poor reputation, with the exception of it's cardiac unit. So physio wasn't available. You went private and got things sorted.
Some clerk read your letter of complaint as a request for further treatment. He sent a standardised response. Out of interest - when the BUPA physio DID arrive, what was it? Anything you couldn't have done for yourself? Many years ago I was in hospital following a road accident. The physio came round. "Let's try to lift the leg a few inches off the bed, shall we?" "Er....thanks....but I did 20 circuits of the main corridor last night. It's loosening up nicely!" In message <mo8ra2possjngdr1qm1mcl00h7bbljp***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >So physio wasn't available. You went private and got things sorted. Again you're inventing things. Because of the failure to give proper >Some clerk read your letter of complaint as a request for further >treatment. He sent a standardised response. treatment [1], my wife had to have major surgery on her foot - followed by the usual physiotherapy [1] Failure to set the bones correctly, which resulted in tendons being trapped (which would/should have been spotted if physio had been provided once the plaster had been removed). On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:57:39 +0100, Tony Morgan
<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote: >>So physio wasn't available. You went private and got things sorted. But what you SAID was:>>Some clerk read your letter of complaint as a request for further >>treatment. He sent a standardised response. > >Again you're inventing things. Because of the failure to give proper >treatment [1], my wife had to have major surgery on her foot - followed >by the usual physiotherapy > >[1] Failure to set the bones correctly, which resulted in > tendons being trapped (which would/should have > been spotted if physio had been provided once the > plaster had been removed). " She was taken to the L&D where she had her leg put in plaster which was removed three months later - but she was unable to obtain any subsequent physiotherapy or further treatment. The result was a misshapen foot and considerable difficulty in walking." You're now angling the story rather differently. Never mind. I trust she is walking without problems now.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message And like a boat adrift, this conversation is getting further and further news:S58XPqDzwkrEFwyB@zen54488.zen.co.uk... > In message <mo8ra2possjngdr1qm1mcl00h7bbljp***@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne > <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >>So physio wasn't available. You went private and got things sorted. Some >>clerk read your letter of complaint as a request for further treatment. >>He sent a standardised response. > > Again you're inventing things. Because of the failure to give proper > treatment [1], my wife had to have major surgery on her foot - followed by > the usual physiotherapy > > [1] Failure to set the bones correctly, which resulted in > tendons being trapped (which would/should have > been spotted if physio had been provided once the > plaster had been removed). from video and DVD's On 06 Jul 2006, Tony Morgan<tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > In message <btdqa2pnc123bcu3l14p43tj1tgmdph***@4ax.com>, Laurence I think this breaches code 16 (?) of the Healthcare Commission > Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes >> [...] > > There I would wholeheartedly agree with you - but not for the > reason that you appear to suggest, but simply because any recording > made as suggested is in contravention of the HRA and such a > recording would seem to be the only evidence. > >> [...] > > Malpractice is AFAIK in the domain of the BMA, and not the courts. > Negligence can be determined in the courts - malpractice no. It > might seem to be hair-splitting but there is a considerable > difference. > > I have had personal experience of LHAs (or more accurately the > Luton & Dunstable Hospital Trust). My present wife had a bad RTA in > which she fractured a vertebrae and four bones in her foot. She was > taken to the L&D where she had her leg put in plaster which was > removed three months later - but she was unable to obtain any > subsequent physiotherapy or further treatment. The result was a > misshapen foot and considerable difficulty in walking. A year later > because she was still unable to walk properly, she signed up for > treatment and surgery on my private health insurance (which > fortunately covered her). The irony is that her subsequent private > BUPA diagnosis, treatment and surgery was with the very same > orthopaedic specialist who treated her in the L&D hospital. > > We then sent a letter to the Luton & Dunstable Hospital Trust, > complaining about the treatment that she had received following her > accident. After two months of silence, my wife's GP received a > letter saying that the L&D could no longer accept referrals for any > diagnosis or treatment of my wife. > > And yes. My opinions of health services are jaded..... Inspectorate which says, among other things, that if you complain it should not affect your treatment. ISTR that the hospital's star rating is based on aherence to these codes although 100% compliance is not usually required. On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:16:17 +0100, Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com>
wrote: Show quoteHide quote >In message <12an6tprgbve***@corp.supernews.com>, P Darby AIU, Article 8 covers what the state can or can't do to invade the privacy of><DontUseThisEm***@All.com> writes >>"NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote in message >>news:a9WdnXqr_sok7jrZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net... >> >>> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors >>> knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order to do >>> so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district court judge, >>> would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, and the video would >>> have to be maintained in law enforcements hands at all times to insure >>> that the video had not been altered. >> >> >>What rubbish. >>The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get evidence >>of them illegally hunting. >>Of course it's admissible. >> >You are a shining example of "a little knowledge is dangerous". > >I'd suggest you clue yourself up before applying something completely >out of context to what the OP asked. > >As I pointed out already in this thread: > ><QUOTE> >Such unauthorised recording is in contravention of Article 8 of the >European Convention on Human Rights which was introduced into UK law by >the Human Rights Act 1998. > >There are exceptions of course, i.e. >o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety > or the economic well-being of the country. >o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime. >o Acting for the protection of public health or morals. > >These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see that >Ann can include her specific case in any of the above. ></QUOTE> > >Your example is within the context of "Acting for the prevention of >disorder or crime", while Anne's is OUTSIDE the exceptions listed in the >HRA (1998) above - so is not only inadmissible in court, but is in >itself illegal. And because it is illegal, could be (and likely would >be) used as a reason to refuse treatment by the relevant LHA. the individual and family. I don't see how it applies to a private individual filming a state employed individual whose duty of care is to the individual. You would have to show that the medical professional's human rights outweighed the human rights of the patient who is collecting evidence of mis-treatment. In any case, it could not come to that as secret audio/video recordings are quite legal and acceptable as evidence - you must have seen secret videos made for/by insurance companies when attempting to disprove accident compensation claims (civil matters not criminal) AIH, I agree that, from the facts presented by the OP, that surreptitious filming is over the top in this case. regards Stuart www.mckears.com In message <uceqa25m8srgb3uoijsdatq13h4dmpl***@4ax.com>, Stuart McKears
<postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> writes >AIU, Article 8 covers what the state can or can't do to invade the The HRA is legislation applicable to *anybody* - not just the "state", >privacy of the individual and family. as you seem to be suggesting. -- Tony Morgan
Show quote
Hide quote
"P Darby" <DontUseThisEm***@All.com> wrote in message Not according to any jurisdiction that I know of.news:12an6tprgbve6fe@corp.supernews.com... > "NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote in message > news:a9WdnXqr_sok7jrZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net... > >> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors >> knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order to do >> so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district court judge, >> would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, and the video would >> have to be maintained in law enforcements hands at all times to insure >> that the video had not been altered. > > > What rubbish. > The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get > evidence of them illegally hunting. > Of course it's admissible. > > Pete > Perhaps you have a legal precedent you would like to cite where such a video was used to convict anyone? Bobby
Show quote
Hide quote
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:09:48 -1000, "NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote: Suggest you read> >"P Darby" <DontUseThisEm***@All.com> wrote in message >news:12an6tprgbve6fe@corp.supernews.com... >> "NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote in message >> news:a9WdnXqr_sok7jrZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net... >> >>> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors >>> knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order to do >>> so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district court judge, >>> would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, and the video would >>> have to be maintained in law enforcements hands at all times to insure >>> that the video had not been altered. >> >> >> What rubbish. >> The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get >> evidence of them illegally hunting. >> Of course it's admissible. >> >> Pete >> >Not according to any jurisdiction that I know of. > >Perhaps you have a legal precedent you would like to cite where such a video >was used to convict anyone? > >Bobby > http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_r.html regards Stuart www.mckears.com On 07 Jul 2006, Stuart McKears<postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com>
wrote: I am confused! Does that link say that you do, or do not, need the permission of the other party to be able to use your video evidence in court? On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:49:08 +0100, Anne R <n*@nomail.com> wrote:
>On 07 Jul 2006, Stuart McKears<postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> The judge is the one who decides what evidence is allowed and what isn't.>wrote: > >> >> Suggest you read >> >> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_r.html > > >I am confused! > >Does that link say that you do, or do not, need the permission of the >other party to be able to use your video evidence in court? Video and audio evidence can be a double edged sword as you will have to disclose all recordings not just the ones/bits that fit your case. regards Stuart www.mckears.com
Show quote
Hide quote
"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message The other party *MUST* be informed.news:Xns97FBF24CBEB125D4AM2@127.0.0.1... > On 07 Jul 2006, Stuart McKears<postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> > wrote: > >> >> Suggest you read >> >> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_r.html > > > I am confused! > > Does that link say that you do, or do not, need the permission of the > other party to be able to use your video evidence in court? Bobby On 10 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message And if they are not?> news:Xns97FBF24CBEB125D4AM2@127.0.0.1... >> On 07 Jul 2006, Stuart McKears<postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Suggest you read >>> >>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_r.html >> >> >> I am confused! >> >> Does that link say that you do, or do not, need the permission of the >> other party to be able to use your video evidence in court? > > > The other party *MUST* be informed. In message <s5ydnaNaYsrMOzDZnZ2dnUVZ_sydn***@hawaiiantel.net>,
NoNoBadDog! <Diespammers@notme.com> writes >> What rubbish. Have a look at the Human Rights Act (1998) in the "exclusions" clauses. >> The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get >> evidence of them illegally hunting. >> Of course it's admissible. >> >> Pete >> >Not according to any jurisdiction that I know of. Specifically "Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime.". > It's there in the Statute.>Perhaps you have a legal precedent you would like to cite where such a >video was used to convict anyone?
Show quote
Hide quote
"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message Can people please note that people are talking at cross purposesnews:o4YJPTEj0krEFw0Z@zen54488.zen.co.uk... > In message <s5ydnaNaYsrMOzDZnZ2dnUVZ_sydn***@hawaiiantel.net>, > NoNoBadDog! <Diespammers@notme.com> writes > >> What rubbish. > >> The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get > >> evidence of them illegally hunting. > >> Of course it's admissible. > >> > >> Pete > >> > >Not according to any jurisdiction that I know of. > > Have a look at the Human Rights Act (1998) in the "exclusions" clauses. > Specifically "Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime.". > > > >Perhaps you have a legal precedent you would like to cite where such a > >video was used to convict anyone? > > It's there in the Statute. here, 'Pete' was talking about UK law, 'NoNoBadDog!' seems to be talking about USA law, 'Tony Morgan' is talking about EU law.... On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:25:59 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote: Somebody's been reading and believing the tabloids.>'Tony Morgan' is talking about EU law The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into english law - I don't know whether it applies to NI, Wales, Scotland etc which would make it British law The quoted, and misinterpreted in this thread, Article 8 is from the Human Rights Act 1998. US law and English are very similar in how video evidence is acquired and used. regards Stuart www.mckears.com "Stuart McKears" <postmaster@!$!mckears.delobvious.com> wrote in <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote:message news:gt4ta21hk33m9po20tp5ncr4pcr32hkvvt@4ax.com... > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:25:59 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" > I don't know> >'Tony Morgan' is talking about EU law > > Somebody's been reading and believing the tabloids. > > The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into english law - > whether it applies to NI, Wales, Scotland etc which would make it But all EU law has to be incorporated into UK law, it's still EU lawBritish law though! > acquired and used.> The quoted, and misinterpreted in this thread, Article 8 is from the Human > Rights Act 1998. > > US law and English are very similar in how video evidence is > But not the same, my the point was that people are talking aboutdifferent jurisdictions. In message <44ae8de3$0$17981$892e7***@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> writes No. I was specifically talking about UK law i.e Human Rights Act (1998), >'Tony Morgan' is talking about EU law.... though it (like other statutes) is based on EU legislation. "Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message <44ae8de3$0$17981$892e7***@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,news:l2Pq82A$wrrEFwFQ@zen54488.zen.co.uk... > In message > ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> writes It is technically UK law but is actually EU law that has been> >'Tony Morgan' is talking about EU law.... > > No. I was specifically talking about UK law i.e Human Rights Act (1998), > though it (like other statutes) is based on EU legislation. > incorporated, the UK parliament had no role in it's drafting IYSWIM. On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:41:48 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" <me@privacy.INVALID> wrote: It's not an EU law.>It is technically UK law but is actually EU law that has been >incorporated, the UK parliament had no role in it's drafting IYSWIM. The European Convention for Human Rights was set up in 1950 and was based on the UN declaration of 1948. (AFAIK, Article 8 was one of the original articles from that 1950 declaration.) The UK ratified the convention in 1951 The EEC came into existence in 1958 The European Court of Human Rights came into existence in 1959 The last protocol was added to the ECHR in 1966. UK government allowed UK citizens to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights in 1966 The EU came into existence in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty. UK incorporates convention into UK law in 1998. AFAIAW, there has been no significant changes to the ECHR since 1966, all that has changed is that UK citizens now have the right to take cases directly to the British courts rather than having to go through the lengthy and very expensive procedure of going to European Court at Strasbourg. This does mean that trivial and daft cases are started, much to the glee of the Daily Mail et al, but the vast majority fall at the first hurdle - which what they always did. regards Stuart www.mckears.com On 02 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote:
> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message It is not necessary for the video evidence to be used in a civil action > news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >> [...] > > You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors > knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order > to do so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district > court judge, would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, > and the video would have to be maintained in law enforcements hands > at all times to insure that the video had not been altered. > in the courts. I do not expect it to go so far.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message Then what purpose would it serve?news:Xns97FBF157EDF215D4AM2@127.0.0.1... > On 02 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote: > >> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>> [...] >> >> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors >> knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order >> to do so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district >> court judge, would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, >> and the video would have to be maintained in law enforcements hands >> at all times to insure that the video had not been altered. >> > > It is not necessary for the video evidence to be used in a civil action > in the courts. > > I do not expect it to go so far. Bobby On 7/10/2006, NoNoBadDog! posted this:
Show quoteHide quote > "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message Here's an analogy: many criminals, when seeing the evidence gathered > news:Xns97FBF157EDF215D4AM2@127.0.0.1... >> On 02 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote: >> >>> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >>> news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>>> [...] >>> >>> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors >>> knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order >>> to do so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district >>> court judge, would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, >>> and the video would have to be maintained in law enforcements hands >>> at all times to insure that the video had not been altered. >>> >> >> It is not necessary for the video evidence to be used in a civil action >> in the courts. >> >> I do not expect it to go so far. > > Then what purpose would it serve? > > Bobby against them, choose to plead guilty rather than insisting on a jury trial. HTH. -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") On 10 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message I could show the hospital internal management what is happening. > news:Xns97FBF157EDF215D4AM2@127.0.0.1... >> On 02 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote: >> >>> "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message >>> news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >>>> [...] >>> >>> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the >>> doctors knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. >>> In order to do so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a >>> district court judge, would have to be accomplished by trained >>> personnel, and the video would have to be maintained in law >>> enforcements hands at all times to insure that the video had not >>> been altered. >>> >> >> It is not necessary for the video evidence to be used in a civil >> action in the courts. >> >> I do not expect it to go so far. > > Then what purpose would it serve? The management could then mount their own investigation secure in the knowledge that if they looked hard enough they would find for themselves what I had demonstrated to them. I will have shown them an undesirable end-point. I leave it to them to find how to get from the beginning to an end-point which they will know exists. That is quite different to the management mounting an investigation but uncertain that the allegation made is true or false.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message We can eliminate this big waste of our time on this forum if we just call in news:Xns97FEF3932AFA45D4AM2@127.0.0.1... > I could show the hospital internal management what is happening. > > The management could then mount their own investigation secure in the > knowledge that if they looked hard enough they would find for > themselves what I had demonstrated to them. > > I will have shown them an undesirable end-point. I leave it to them > to find how to get from the beginning to an end-point which they will > know exists. > > That is quite different to the management mounting an investigation > but uncertain that the allegation made is true or false. Perry Mason Anne, this has blown up way beyong proportion...I think you're making this way more complicated than it is or needs to be, and this has become a major distraction for us, digressing from video to legal issues...this is NOT a forum for legal diiscussions... Thank you for understanding this...I'm trying to be very kind, soft and fluffy when I say that this conversation really needs to be moved elsewhere... Good luck... On 02 Jul 2006, NoNoBadDog!<Diespammers@notme.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Then it's a good job I have no intention at all of showing it in a > "Anne R" <n*@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns97F3C793C66874C1H4@127.0.0.1... >> I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to >> what they probably use in TV documentaries. >> >> I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I >> want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as >> proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and >> not a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. >> >> I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now small enough to >> hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't want to spend >> a ton of cash. >> >> Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with >> the lens pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I >> would need one with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking >> up conversation in a small room. >> >> Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? >> Especially if they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at >> the moment. >> >> Thank you. >> Anne >> > > You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors > knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order > to do so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district > court judge, would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, > and the video would have to be maintained in law enforcements hands > at all times to insure that the video had not been altered. > court. Anne R ha scritto:
Show quoteHide quote > I'm in the UK and am looking for a secret camcorder similar to what http://s4.bitefight.it/c.php?uid=19648> they probably use in TV documentaries. > > I'm getting really messed up by a doctor (NHS hospital doc) and I > want to record the stuff I have to go through in consultations as > proof for a complaint. The consultations are only discussion and not > a physical exam. Hard to explain but can't change doc easily. > > I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now small enough to > hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't want to spend a > ton of cash. > > Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with the > lens pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I would > need one with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking up > conversation in a small room. > > Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? Especially > if they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at the moment. > > Thank you. > Anne <p.vale***@email.it> wrote in message
news:1151835550.949345.136750@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... <snip OT spam>> 
Other interesting topics
North American buying Camcorder in Europe
The Latest Info on Panasonic AMQ Mini DV Tape Software quality issues? After effects and effect pallet. Video camera's picture turns red. Please Help! VHS to DVD: Do I have to have a combo? Distorted sounds on different camcorders - miniDV Getting white flicker spot on Sony TRV460 camcorder D8 tapes? which Type camcorder do i buy digital 8 players? current camcorders w/analog in? xferring vhs > pc for editiing? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
