Yodel courier hands a parcel to the wife and instantly takes a photograph of her with the parcel.
Wife challenges why she's taken a photograph and she states that she has to and only took a photograph of her hands holding the parcel.
Mrs demands to see the photograph and having shown her it shows that she's taken a complete photograph of my wife included. Wife demands that she deletes it as it is illegal to do this. She deleted it and then took a photo of just her hands holding the parcel.
Going to put in a subject access request to yodel under the data protection act 2018 to provide information held about us at our home.
Be aware that there are also other couriers doing the same thing and could/will hold photographs of you or anyone in your household and may also include any vulnerable dependants whilst inside your own home who accepts any parcels from them.
Wife challenges why she's taken a photograph and she states that she has to and only took a photograph of her hands holding the parcel.
Mrs demands to see the photograph and having shown her it shows that she's taken a complete photograph of my wife included. Wife demands that she deletes it as it is illegal to do this. She deleted it and then took a photo of just her hands holding the parcel.
Going to put in a subject access request to yodel under the data protection act 2018 to provide information held about us at our home.
Be aware that there are also other couriers doing the same thing and could/will hold photographs of you or anyone in your household and may also include any vulnerable dependants whilst inside your own home who accepts any parcels from them.
In reply to Post #1
Unlikely. Yodel rarely manage to deliver to the right adress
Unlikely. Yodel rarely manage to deliver to the right adress
Our Yodel guys and girls do their own version of knock down ginger but they leave a parcel
In reply to Post #3
Can't do that around where tazi lives,it would be gone in seconds
Can't do that around where tazi lives,it would be gone in seconds
In reply to Post #5
They're wary of knocking on tazi's door in case the front of the house falls off....
They're wary of knocking on tazi's door in case the front of the house falls off....
In reply to Post #5
In reply to Post #6
SAR completed and acknowledged.
In reply to Post #9
How did you go about doing that?
How did you go about doing that?
In reply to Post #1
It's not illegal.
It's not illegal.
In reply to Post #10
Sent an email informing them I am making a subject access request. I stated that under the data protection act 2018 that I have the right to be provided with all the information that they hold about me. They acknowledged that they have a 1 month deadline to provide me with this information and if they believe that it is going to take them longer than this then they have to inform me within that month.
I'll need to ask the wife and assist my children in making one to make a SAR for themselves.
Sent an email informing them I am making a subject access request. I stated that under the data protection act 2018 that I have the right to be provided with all the information that they hold about me. They acknowledged that they have a 1 month deadline to provide me with this information and if they believe that it is going to take them longer than this then they have to inform me within that month.
I'll need to ask the wife and assist my children in making one to make a SAR for themselves.
In reply to Post #11
Do you not need permission to take photographs of someone inside their own home when photographing on private land, namely your property?.
Do you not need permission to take photographs of someone inside their own home when photographing on private land, namely your property?.
Jesus it's just a photo to prove delivery of a parcel 😂😂
What do you think yodel are going to do with a picture of someone holding a box
What do you think yodel are going to do with a picture of someone holding a box
In reply to Post #12
Have you really not got anything better to do with your time?
Have you really not got anything better to do with your time?
In reply to Post #13
No, your expectation of privacy pretty much went when you opened the front door. Do you really not think these delivery companies would not do a rudimentary check of the law before changing their practices?
No, your expectation of privacy pretty much went when you opened the front door. Do you really not think these delivery companies would not do a rudimentary check of the law before changing their practices?
Count yourself lucky you got the parcel 
In reply to Post #16
If its private property they have to have prior permission to take the photo,if the courier was stood on public property and you are on private then they can take the picture without the permission of the person being photographed.
If its private property they have to have prior permission to take the photo,if the courier was stood on public property and you are on private then they can take the picture without the permission of the person being photographed.
In reply to Post #16
You'd think the police would do too but I dare say 99% aren't fully clued up.
You'd think the police would do too but I dare say 99% aren't fully clued up.
In reply to Post #14
Oddly enough a delivery came later too and he took a photo of the parcel on the doorstep.....
Oddly enough a delivery came later too and he took a photo of the parcel on the doorstep.....
In reply to Post #17
In reply to Post #18
Nope. You can ask them to stop but they don't need permission to start.
Nope. You can ask them to stop but they don't need permission to start.
In reply to Post #18
That's my understanding of the law too.
Watch a lot of auditing photographers and you'd be amazed at just how many who you'd expect to know the law just haven't got a clue.
Check out focus pocus on YouTube and many many more.
Edit - My understanding is that whilst one can reasonably expect deliveries to your home therefore kind of allowing them onto your property they are not allowed to take photo of you inside your home.
That's my understanding of the law too.
Watch a lot of auditing photographers and you'd be amazed at just how many who you'd expect to know the law just haven't got a clue.
Check out focus pocus on YouTube and many many more.
Edit - My understanding is that whilst one can reasonably expect deliveries to your home therefore kind of allowing them onto your property they are not allowed to take photo of you inside your home.
In reply to Post #16
I asked if it was law or not, so doesn't explain exactly by you asking if I didn't stop to think that these delivery companies would do a rudimentary check on the law or not.
I asked if it was law or not, so doesn't explain exactly by you asking if I didn't stop to think that these delivery companies would do a rudimentary check on the law or not.
In reply to Post #22
If they are taking the picture whilst stood on private land then yes they do need prior permission,also you do have an expectation of privacy in your home or garden.If someone takes your picture in your garden/home it is likely to cause a breach of privacy laws.The police probably won't act on it though to be fair
If they are taking the picture whilst stood on private land then yes they do need prior permission,also you do have an expectation of privacy in your home or garden.If someone takes your picture in your garden/home it is likely to cause a breach of privacy laws.The police probably won't act on it though to be fair
Another thing to get one thinking is would this person be allowed to take a photograph of someone in their own home whilst using their personal phone from on my property?.
Whose to say that this wasn't that delivery drivers own phone as some folk wouldn't think on to differentiate.
Whose to say that this wasn't that delivery drivers own phone as some folk wouldn't think on to differentiate.
In reply to Post #24
No, there is no law that states you may not take photographs in the circumstances you describe. The delivery companies would have checked this before making it company policy and instructing their drivers.
No, there is no law that states you may not take photographs in the circumstances you describe. The delivery companies would have checked this before making it company policy and instructing their drivers.
In reply to Post #24
You do realise your future deliveries will have endured Jonny Wilkinson-esque half way line conversions in the sorting office from this day forth
You do realise your future deliveries will have endured Jonny Wilkinson-esque half way line conversions in the sorting office from this day forth
In reply to Post #25
Do the police still turn up at your door when you've being burgled?.
Only ask as the bitch might rob me next time.
Do the police still turn up at your door when you've being burgled?.
Only ask as the bitch might rob me next time.
In reply to Post #28
Frantically searching eBay for a medicine ball.
Frantically searching eBay for a medicine ball.
In reply to Post #29
Rob you? She's a delivery driver, not a builder.
Rob you? She's a delivery driver, not a builder.
In reply to Post #27
You surely cannot be allowed to enter private property, knock on someone's door and then take a photograph of the person that opens it.
I'll gladly stand to be corrected if you can point me in the direction that clearly states otherwise.
You surely cannot be allowed to enter private property, knock on someone's door and then take a photograph of the person that opens it.
I'll gladly stand to be corrected if you can point me in the direction that clearly states otherwise.
In reply to Post #27
Have a check and you will see there is and the couriers are told to take a picture of where the parcel is left not that they can take a picture of the recipient
Have a check and you will see there is and the couriers are told to take a picture of where the parcel is left not that they can take a picture of the recipient
In reply to Post #31
She looks a body builder so there's potential.
She looks a body builder so there's potential.
In reply to Post #32
No you can't,there is no expectation of privacy in public but in your own home or garden there is even if the photographer is on public land.It is very different if its a public building or a workplace
No you can't,there is no expectation of privacy in public but in your own home or garden there is even if the photographer is on public land.It is very different if its a public building or a workplace
In reply to Post #35
My understanding too.
In addition to this if any person enters your garden, knocks on your door and then proceeds to take a photograph of you is that not aggravated trespass?.
My understanding too.
In addition to this if any person enters your garden, knocks on your door and then proceeds to take a photograph of you is that not aggravated trespass?.
In reply to Post #20
Oddly enough a delivery came later too and he took a photo of the parcel on the doorstep.....
Normal practise around here
Oddly enough a delivery came later too and he took a photo of the parcel on the doorstep.....
Normal practise around here
In reply to Post #35
If you stand in your window or at your open door you have reduced your expectation of privacy. There are decency laws to cover some circumstances but they would not apply here. If you can be seen from a public place you are probably fair game.
Because you ordered an item for delivery, coming to your door to fulfil their part of the contract unless you do something to withdraw that permission ahead of time, is not in any way illegal.
If you stand in your window or at your open door you have reduced your expectation of privacy. There are decency laws to cover some circumstances but they would not apply here. If you can be seen from a public place you are probably fair game.
Because you ordered an item for delivery, coming to your door to fulfil their part of the contract unless you do something to withdraw that permission ahead of time, is not in any way illegal.
In reply to Post #37
When I asked him if he had taken a photo of me and the parcel he said ‘no, no need to'.
When I asked him if he had taken a photo of me and the parcel he said ‘no, no need to'.
In reply to Post #38
But it is not from a public place, it's from private land.
Because I ordered an item for delivery I don't believe that they're entitled by law to photograph the recipient in an environment where that person can reasonably expect privacy.
If you could point me in the direction that explains differently then fair enough.
But it is not from a public place, it's from private land.
Because I ordered an item for delivery I don't believe that they're entitled by law to photograph the recipient in an environment where that person can reasonably expect privacy.
If you could point me in the direction that explains differently then fair enough.
In reply to Post #38
There is still expectation of privacy in your home and garden.I did not think that was the case anymore but apparently it still is
There is still expectation of privacy in your home and garden.I did not think that was the case anymore but apparently it still is
In reply to Post #40
You might not believe it but it's true. There isn't a law to prevent what the courier did so there isn't anything to link to unless you want to read through legislation on privacy, trespass and the rest looking for something that isn't there.
Expectation of privacy is on a sliding scale, the more steps you take to make something private, the more private it becomes. Blinds, curtains, tall hedges, walls, etc. will give more protection than public-facing floor to ceiling windows.
You might not believe it but it's true. There isn't a law to prevent what the courier did so there isn't anything to link to unless you want to read through legislation on privacy, trespass and the rest looking for something that isn't there.
Expectation of privacy is on a sliding scale, the more steps you take to make something private, the more private it becomes. Blinds, curtains, tall hedges, walls, etc. will give more protection than public-facing floor to ceiling windows.
In reply to Post #42
Nah, not having that mate.
Nah, not having that mate.
In reply to Post #43
The shows like rogue traders or, dare I say it, cowboy builders would be less interesting if they didn't rock up at the swindlers House and film them on their doorstep....
The shows like rogue traders or, dare I say it, cowboy builders would be less interesting if they didn't rock up at the swindlers House and film them on their doorstep....
In reply to Post #43
Instead of acting like a dick, why don't you put your time to some good and study law.
Instead of acting like a dick, why don't you put your time to some good and study law.
In reply to Post #45
Appears that you may not live too far away, could have nipped up and told me that.
Appears that you may not live too far away, could have nipped up and told me that.
In reply to Post #43
It doesn't matter if you are 'having it' or not.
I only taught photography and related legislation for the last few years so what do I know? Ask a solicitor.
It doesn't matter if you are 'having it' or not.
I only taught photography and related legislation for the last few years so what do I know? Ask a solicitor.
In reply to Post #47
All I have asked is that you direct me somewhere that states what you're saying. Would have thought with you teaching it along with related legislation then it wouldn't prove so difficult directing me to it.
If you can then great, and as said before I'll stand to be corrected.
All I have asked is that you direct me somewhere that states what you're saying. Would have thought with you teaching it along with related legislation then it wouldn't prove so difficult directing me to it.
If you can then great, and as said before I'll stand to be corrected.
The lady turned up earlier this morning and after she had this time taken a photo of the parcel on the step I proceeded to ask her if the phone that she had taken the photo of my wife with was her own or works phone it turns out it his her own personal phone.
I asked her not to delete any previous photos that you may have previously taken of my family because I'll be requesting a copy of that.
I asked her not to delete any previous photos that you may have previously taken of my family because I'll be requesting a copy of that.
In reply to Post #49
Fairly normal occurrence for all my delivery drivers to take a pic, it generally consists of the parcel and mine or my wifes lower legs.
Out of curiosity, what do you think they are going to do with a picture of you holding a box....its hardly w$nk material is it
Fairly normal occurrence for all my delivery drivers to take a pic, it generally consists of the parcel and mine or my wifes lower legs.
Out of curiosity, what do you think they are going to do with a picture of you holding a box....its hardly w$nk material is it
In reply to Post #50
If the police after asking/gaining your details then pass on this information to third parties, ‘which they have' then who am i to doubt any Ill intent by a delivery driver?. Not that I trust the police more....
If the police after asking/gaining your details then pass on this information to third parties, ‘which they have' then who am i to doubt any Ill intent by a delivery driver?. Not that I trust the police more....
In reply to Post #50
That's the issue with society in general that if someone carries on doing something that isn't legal and without education ‘much like the police and couriers that may be allowing an employee to do what they're doing'' then doesn't that becomes the new norm?.
That's the issue with society in general that if someone carries on doing something that isn't legal and without education ‘much like the police and couriers that may be allowing an employee to do what they're doing'' then doesn't that becomes the new norm?.
In reply to Post #50
I used to look after a young lad who knocked one out to pictures of lawnmowers, so whatever floats ones boat really.
I used to look after a young lad who knocked one out to pictures of lawnmowers, so whatever floats ones boat really.
In reply to Post #52
I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal, as if it was I'm certain that all couriers wouldn't be doing it.
I'm not knocking you, but there are bigger things to worry about than some random pic of my legs and a box. Im sure "they" have more info on you just by looking at the device your using to reply to this on.
I dont know you but from posting on here it seems you have enough going on in your life than worry about a picture a courier might have of you
I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal, as if it was I'm certain that all couriers wouldn't be doing it.
I'm not knocking you, but there are bigger things to worry about than some random pic of my legs and a box. Im sure "they" have more info on you just by looking at the device your using to reply to this on.
I dont know you but from posting on here it seems you have enough going on in your life than worry about a picture a courier might have of you
In reply to Post #53
if said courier did have a bloke and box fetish, they get 150 pics a day, that's over a thousand a week, or 55k a year. knowing your luck, your picture wouldnt get pulled out the w$nk hat
if said courier did have a bloke and box fetish, they get 150 pics a day, that's over a thousand a week, or 55k a year. knowing your luck, your picture wouldnt get pulled out the w$nk hat
In reply to Post #55
Bloke?.
Bloke?.
In reply to Post #54
How could one expect a courier to know the law when some ‘well most' police officers don't know it?.
How could one expect a courier to know the law when some ‘well most' police officers don't know it?.
In reply to Post #48
There is nothing to point you towards. Broadly speaking, if something isn't illegal, you can do it. There isn't a law that would preclude either of us from wearing a fez whilst barbecuing. I can't give you a link to any legislation that says so but trust me, give it a go, you'll be fine.
There is nothing to point you towards. Broadly speaking, if something isn't illegal, you can do it. There isn't a law that would preclude either of us from wearing a fez whilst barbecuing. I can't give you a link to any legislation that says so but trust me, give it a go, you'll be fine.
SAVE STARTING A NEW THREAD.
WHAT ARE POSTERS THOUGHTS ON AUDITORS WHO AUDIT POLICE, ETC ETC?.
THEYR'E VERY KNOWLEDGABLE OF THE LAW AND EXACTLY WHAT IS REQUIRED UNTIL ALL THE POLICE ARE AWARE OF LAWS, CODE OF PRACTICES ETC ETC.
WHAT ARE POSTERS THOUGHTS ON AUDITORS WHO AUDIT POLICE, ETC ETC?.
THEYR'E VERY KNOWLEDGABLE OF THE LAW AND EXACTLY WHAT IS REQUIRED UNTIL ALL THE POLICE ARE AWARE OF LAWS, CODE OF PRACTICES ETC ETC.
In reply to Post #57
The courier doesn't need to know the law, their employer has vicarious liability for any tort committed.
Seriously, call a solicitor if you are that exercised about this. Let me know what they say.
The courier doesn't need to know the law, their employer has vicarious liability for any tort committed.
Seriously, call a solicitor if you are that exercised about this. Let me know what they say.
In reply to Post #59
They are argumentative time wasters.
They are argumentative time wasters.
In reply to Post #58
If it isn't illegal, you can do it......Well, blow me down.
If it isn't illegal, you can do it......Well, blow me down.
In reply to Post #61
Do the police not instigate it by approaching them when they're carrying out a legal activity and then continue to break the law themselves resulting in infringing their rights as they clearly do not know it?.
Edit - The police ‘not all as they leave them to carry on to do what they're doing, as they should' are then left with no alternative to do the walk of shame as they haven't a clue of laws, policies etc etc. How worrying is that when they're patrolling the streets they're not knowledgeable themselves of the actual law?.
Do the police not instigate it by approaching them when they're carrying out a legal activity and then continue to break the law themselves resulting in infringing their rights as they clearly do not know it?.
Edit - The police ‘not all as they leave them to carry on to do what they're doing, as they should' are then left with no alternative to do the walk of shame as they haven't a clue of laws, policies etc etc. How worrying is that when they're patrolling the streets they're not knowledgeable themselves of the actual law?.
In reply to Post #53
Mate of mine used to have a similar thing for photos of classic John deere vehicles. He doesn't do it any more
....
He's an ex tractor fan
Thankyou, I'm here all week
Mate of mine used to have a similar thing for photos of classic John deere vehicles. He doesn't do it any more
....
He's an ex tractor fan
Thankyou, I'm here all week
In reply to Post #64
In reply to Post #63
No, the police see someone filming, for instance, the rear gates to a police building. Concerned that they might be recording images of staff and private vehicles the officers can sometimes jump to the conclusion that there is a law to prevent it, which there isn't. Although there have been many attempts to instruct officers of this kind of behaviour sometimes they fall back on the old adage of ‘if it looks wrong it probably is' and engage with the male involved (and it is always a male). Then the ‘auditor' gets what they want which is to have a confrontation.
Their actions seem remarkably similar to yours.
No, the police see someone filming, for instance, the rear gates to a police building. Concerned that they might be recording images of staff and private vehicles the officers can sometimes jump to the conclusion that there is a law to prevent it, which there isn't. Although there have been many attempts to instruct officers of this kind of behaviour sometimes they fall back on the old adage of ‘if it looks wrong it probably is' and engage with the male involved (and it is always a male). Then the ‘auditor' gets what they want which is to have a confrontation.
Their actions seem remarkably similar to yours.
Audit ed well worth a watch with his video around town and how badly wrong security, management of the VANS shoe store, enforcement and police officers get it so so wrong is truly astounding. I'm amazed that the manager of that store was not sacked instantly.
It follows on after he was wrongly served a CPW.
It follows on after he was wrongly served a CPW.
In reply to Post #66
When an officer confronts an auditor and says ‘this is a secure building' and the auditor replies ‘what is there to worry about then', priceless.
Appreciate any officers concerns and interactions to find out why but some abuse there powers and infringe on their rights, in some cases being wrongfully detained or arrested.
The officers who feel threatened by an activity that remains legal then they need to bring it to the attention of their MP so it can be discussed in parliament to bring about a change in the law. Not abuse and prevent a photographers right to film.
Some don't even know the correct legislations or in instances any to use......fcuking dimwits.
Edit- You summed the buffoons up perfectly when stating that they jump to conclusions that there is a law to prevent it, which there isn't.....
Oddly enough other officers allow it to go over their heads and leave them to carry on ‘which as instructed to do so' yet others still approach them, which is fine to do but end up looking a cockwomble and end up doing the walk of shame.
Some don't even know the oath that they undertook before coming an officer.,,.
Tyrants.
Edit - Perhaps courier companies are getting advise from those that train these officers.
When an officer confronts an auditor and says ‘this is a secure building' and the auditor replies ‘what is there to worry about then', priceless.
Appreciate any officers concerns and interactions to find out why but some abuse there powers and infringe on their rights, in some cases being wrongfully detained or arrested.
The officers who feel threatened by an activity that remains legal then they need to bring it to the attention of their MP so it can be discussed in parliament to bring about a change in the law. Not abuse and prevent a photographers right to film.
Some don't even know the correct legislations or in instances any to use......fcuking dimwits.
Edit- You summed the buffoons up perfectly when stating that they jump to conclusions that there is a law to prevent it, which there isn't.....
Oddly enough other officers allow it to go over their heads and leave them to carry on ‘which as instructed to do so' yet others still approach them, which is fine to do but end up looking a cockwomble and end up doing the walk of shame.
Some don't even know the oath that they undertook before coming an officer.,,.
Tyrants.
Edit - Perhaps courier companies are getting advise from those that train these officers.
In reply to Post #53
That's probably the post of the year and its not even the end of January.
That's probably the post of the year and its not even the end of January.
In reply to Post #68
You've been reading to much internet mate.
Get out enjoy yourself and forget about what anyone else is doing.
Just enjoy your life and the things that matter to YOU
You've been reading to much internet mate.
Get out enjoy yourself and forget about what anyone else is doing.
Just enjoy your life and the things that matter to YOU
In reply to Post #69
You'd have a smirk inside when he'd go to his room after asking if we knew where the Argos catalogue was.
You'd have a smirk inside when he'd go to his room after asking if we knew where the Argos catalogue was.
In reply to Post #70
That's great advice......
Can't wait get out even more than a current 8 days a week.
That's great advice......
Can't wait get out even more than a current 8 days a week.
In reply to Post #72
Enjoy your wife, enjoy your daughter, enjoy your fishing
Why would you give a fck about some video a bloke has posted on the internet.
Fck me after the two years weve all had, its made me appreciate the things that are close and matter to me
Enjoy your wife, enjoy your daughter, enjoy your fishing
Why would you give a fck about some video a bloke has posted on the internet.
Fck me after the two years weve all had, its made me appreciate the things that are close and matter to me
In reply to Post #73
You should be a detective assuming so much in such a short space of time.
Crack on and appreciate what the last two years has taught you.
You should be a detective assuming so much in such a short space of time.
Crack on and appreciate what the last two years has taught you.
In reply to Post #74
Now now don't be like that
Haven't you, or any of us got enough going on in our lives to worry about some muppets film on the internet, or request SAR on delivery company, yet your happy enough to tell complete strangers your life on a carp forum
Now now don't be like that
Haven't you, or any of us got enough going on in our lives to worry about some muppets film on the internet, or request SAR on delivery company, yet your happy enough to tell complete strangers your life on a carp forum
In reply to Post #75
Nothing more than everyday life/chat that most folk talk about anyway.
My life, goodness me I've gone really in-depth.
Nothing more than everyday life/chat that most folk talk about anyway.
My life, goodness me I've gone really in-depth.
In reply to Post #76
I'm no stalker mate but, i know more things about your personal life than I know about any other poster on this forum, purely from what your happy to disclose to us strangers.
Do you not see the irony
I'm no stalker mate but, i know more things about your personal life than I know about any other poster on this forum, purely from what your happy to disclose to us strangers.
Do you not see the irony
In reply to Post #77
I'm comfortable with what I've put out in the public eye. Sorry if you think I've being too personal about myself and family.....
I'm comfortable with what I've put out in the public eye. Sorry if you think I've being too personal about myself and family.....
In reply to Post #78
Not at all mate.
Good luck
Not at all mate.
Good luck
In reply to Post #77
Tazi's posts makes me smile, that's not a bad thing is it?
Tazi's posts makes me smile, that's not a bad thing is it?
In reply to Post #80
Not at all mate, same here some times his posts make me smile, and even after the **** his been through actually some make me sad.
My point being for someone who openly tells us strangers about his personal life, I find it strange the lengths his gone to over a picture of receiving a parcel.
I'm no expert but I'm sure there's people out there that could gain more information about him, or most of us for that matter, just by being a member on here than what some parcel firm can from one picture
Maybe it's just me that can see the irony
Not at all mate, same here some times his posts make me smile, and even after the **** his been through actually some make me sad.
My point being for someone who openly tells us strangers about his personal life, I find it strange the lengths his gone to over a picture of receiving a parcel.
I'm no expert but I'm sure there's people out there that could gain more information about him, or most of us for that matter, just by being a member on here than what some parcel firm can from one picture
Maybe it's just me that can see the irony
In reply to Post #81
A lot of ID fraud is done by people rooting through your household waste. But people are too fascinated with challenging traffic wardens or the like to spend time shredding junk mail.
A lot of ID fraud is done by people rooting through your household waste. But people are too fascinated with challenging traffic wardens or the like to spend time shredding junk mail.
In reply to Post #81
Personal life?.
Give over.
Personal life?.
Give over.
In reply to Post #82
Funnily enough just filled 6 bin liners of shredding.
Funnily enough just filled 6 bin liners of shredding.
In reply to Post #83
Tazi, in the upmost respect, you need a hobby.
Tazi, in the upmost respect, you need a hobby.
In reply to Post #85
DIY...?
DIY...?
In reply to Post #68
Tazi, in your incident with the courier you were the person of authority (much akin to the police officer or security guard in those 'auditing' recordings) taking issue with the use of a camera. You are the one that assumed there must be a law preventing the taking of photographs in those circumstances. You jumped to conclusions and called their actions illegal. Maybe you are the one that needs to do 'a walk of shame' for being a 'buffoon' as you so charitably describe those that are ignorant of the facts surrounding their rights and those of others.
If an auditor stood outside your house, erected a tripod and pointed a camera at your house and started live streaming what would your reaction be?
Tazi, in your incident with the courier you were the person of authority (much akin to the police officer or security guard in those 'auditing' recordings) taking issue with the use of a camera. You are the one that assumed there must be a law preventing the taking of photographs in those circumstances. You jumped to conclusions and called their actions illegal. Maybe you are the one that needs to do 'a walk of shame' for being a 'buffoon' as you so charitably describe those that are ignorant of the facts surrounding their rights and those of others.
If an auditor stood outside your house, erected a tripod and pointed a camera at your house and started live streaming what would your reaction be?
In reply to Post #88
I see that you're still unable to point me to a link that backs up your opinion ‘that's all it is - your opinion' that this courier is acting within the law by taking a photograph of my wife inside her own house taken from her own private land. I'll ask again, point me in the direction that what took place is a legal practice and I'll gladly stand to be corrected.
If the auditor was stood outside my house....please expand further. Where is this auditor stood?.
Edit - Please take into consideration that an auditor isn't filming a police officers house, place of work yes, but not their house so I fail to see your point....
I see that you're still unable to point me to a link that backs up your opinion ‘that's all it is - your opinion' that this courier is acting within the law by taking a photograph of my wife inside her own house taken from her own private land. I'll ask again, point me in the direction that what took place is a legal practice and I'll gladly stand to be corrected.
If the auditor was stood outside my house....please expand further. Where is this auditor stood?.
Edit - Please take into consideration that an auditor isn't filming a police officers house, place of work yes, but not their house so I fail to see your point....
In reply to Post #89
Christ, there is no law that states that a courier cannot take a photograph in the circumstances you describe. I can't point you to something that doesn't exist. It's not an opinion, it is a fact. Ask a solicitor.
You agreed to the terms and conditions, probably without reading them, when making your purchase. Read them and see what they say, I'd imagine there's a paragraph in there regarding agreeing to the terms of their delivery agents as well.
The auditor is streaming from the pavement, public land, just like they do in their uploads.
Christ, there is no law that states that a courier cannot take a photograph in the circumstances you describe. I can't point you to something that doesn't exist. It's not an opinion, it is a fact. Ask a solicitor.
You agreed to the terms and conditions, probably without reading them, when making your purchase. Read them and see what they say, I'd imagine there's a paragraph in there regarding agreeing to the terms of their delivery agents as well.
The auditor is streaming from the pavement, public land, just like they do in their uploads.
By way of diffusing things with a little self depreciating humour...
Tazi - I can't direct you to any 'law' that says it's ok for me to wear fishnets on the weekend. For things that are allowed and perfectly reasonable, there isn't a set of written statutes. We can just get on with it.
If I lived in Saudi Arabia, then there probably is a law that would criminalise me for doing so. And maybe have me tarred and stoned at dawn.
And of course, it definitely makes courier drivers think twice about taking photos of me...
Tazi - I can't direct you to any 'law' that says it's ok for me to wear fishnets on the weekend. For things that are allowed and perfectly reasonable, there isn't a set of written statutes. We can just get on with it.
If I lived in Saudi Arabia, then there probably is a law that would criminalise me for doing so. And maybe have me tarred and stoned at dawn.
And of course, it definitely makes courier drivers think twice about taking photos of me...
In reply to Post #90
If they are filming from a public place then they are breaking no law.If they are filming your house they don't need permission but they could be charged with causing distress and harassment but would normally have to be doing it on more than one occasion.The law needs making clearer on what is allowed and not,you cannot record or photograph on private property without the landowners permission that is law.Go have a walk around a shopping centre and record,you will be thrown out.If you have cctv installed on your home you cannot have it recording into your neighbours gardens as you have to respect their privacy,I can't even have mine facing a public access walkway at the side of my house but it can record the pavement at the front of my house.Try to work that one out,the pavement joins the walkway but it can not be recorded
If they are filming from a public place then they are breaking no law.If they are filming your house they don't need permission but they could be charged with causing distress and harassment but would normally have to be doing it on more than one occasion.The law needs making clearer on what is allowed and not,you cannot record or photograph on private property without the landowners permission that is law.Go have a walk around a shopping centre and record,you will be thrown out.If you have cctv installed on your home you cannot have it recording into your neighbours gardens as you have to respect their privacy,I can't even have mine facing a public access walkway at the side of my house but it can record the pavement at the front of my house.Try to work that one out,the pavement joins the walkway but it can not be recorded
In reply to Post #90
A courier or any joe public requires permission from the land owner to take photographs of the occupant when on their land. If they want to take a photograph of the doorstep with a parcel on it ‘they can even photograph the door too if they so wish' as proof that they have delivered as that to me doesn't give cause for concern as I do not see it as an issue. Quite why a courier believes taking a photo of a person inside their own home is acceptable or even required is beyond me.
The circumstances I describe, perhaps you can expand a little on that one as the only circumstance that I've described is of a courier taking a photograph of my wife.
Now you have made it clear that the auditor is on a public footpath, and ‘not on my land' taking photographs of my house. First of all my response to this in short is that there is nothing I could do about it.
Got to love when officers approach an auditor that is filming a public building ‘namely a police station'' from a public place ‘breaking no law' that they throw into the discussion about how suspicious it looks ‘suspicion isn't a crime' to be taking photos of a police building and how it would look to them if someone photographed their house. As soon as they come out with this which isn't relevant, they then proceed to come out with other stuff that has no relevance and just delaying their inevitable walk of shame. If the police have an issue with any of the above then they have a right to lobby their MP in seeking to get the law changed, and should not impinge on a photographers lawful rights as own personal opinions do not trump their rights.
As for auditing I believe they do a great job in exposing tyrants and those that violate people's rights. I got no problem with police, just the bad ones.
A courier or any joe public requires permission from the land owner to take photographs of the occupant when on their land. If they want to take a photograph of the doorstep with a parcel on it ‘they can even photograph the door too if they so wish' as proof that they have delivered as that to me doesn't give cause for concern as I do not see it as an issue. Quite why a courier believes taking a photo of a person inside their own home is acceptable or even required is beyond me.
The circumstances I describe, perhaps you can expand a little on that one as the only circumstance that I've described is of a courier taking a photograph of my wife.
Now you have made it clear that the auditor is on a public footpath, and ‘not on my land' taking photographs of my house. First of all my response to this in short is that there is nothing I could do about it.
Got to love when officers approach an auditor that is filming a public building ‘namely a police station'' from a public place ‘breaking no law' that they throw into the discussion about how suspicious it looks ‘suspicion isn't a crime' to be taking photos of a police building and how it would look to them if someone photographed their house. As soon as they come out with this which isn't relevant, they then proceed to come out with other stuff that has no relevance and just delaying their inevitable walk of shame. If the police have an issue with any of the above then they have a right to lobby their MP in seeking to get the law changed, and should not impinge on a photographers lawful rights as own personal opinions do not trump their rights.
As for auditing I believe they do a great job in exposing tyrants and those that violate people's rights. I got no problem with police, just the bad ones.
In reply to Post #92
One thing I would say ‘I'll gladly be corrected' is that you can legally film in a shopping centre without fear of being kicked out, unless of course you're breaking a law'. A shopping centre can indeed be privately owned land but it is also publicly accessible so legally you're allowed to film and security cannot prevent or kick you out.
A video by the name of Reggie photo uploaded to YouTube titled BURY VLOG PT 1 is an interesting educational watch.
One thing I would say ‘I'll gladly be corrected' is that you can legally film in a shopping centre without fear of being kicked out, unless of course you're breaking a law'. A shopping centre can indeed be privately owned land but it is also publicly accessible so legally you're allowed to film and security cannot prevent or kick you out.
A video by the name of Reggie photo uploaded to YouTube titled BURY VLOG PT 1 is an interesting educational watch.
In reply to Post #91
I'm certain that the poster in question would have no problem pointing me to a link where it states what I am saying. I do admit that it is the posters right to choose not to look too hard though.
I'm certain that the poster in question would have no problem pointing me to a link where it states what I am saying. I do admit that it is the posters right to choose not to look too hard though.
Interesting to see that a PCSO on duty goes into a shopping centre which is patrolled by security staff after it is brought to his attention that he has no right to be in here after claiming that this was his patch. It's not his patch as he is paid from the taxpayers and should be serving the public outside.
Businesses totally oblivious that by having their computer screens facing outwards towards the public with personal information on are breaking DATA protection laws.
The thing I hate about these idiots filming police stations etc is that they are doing it purely to get a rise out of people. Just because something like filming or taking photos of a police station isn't illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged/questioned. What possible reason could you have for wanting to film police stations, schools, hospitals etc? Apart from to stand there like a cock just saying “iM noT DOinG anYThInG iLlEgaL”
Take this scenario for example.
Some weirdo is filming a school, hospital or whatever for weeks and weeks and because it's “legal” they are not challenged or questioned then this weirdo goes on to blow up the hospital or shoot up the school killing untolds of people
Do you think people would be happy when the police come out and say “well we saw them scouting the place out for weeks but because we didn't want to cause offence and what they were doing isn't illegal we decided not to act on it”
There would be uproar!!
Take this scenario for example.
Some weirdo is filming a school, hospital or whatever for weeks and weeks and because it's “legal” they are not challenged or questioned then this weirdo goes on to blow up the hospital or shoot up the school killing untolds of people
Do you think people would be happy when the police come out and say “well we saw them scouting the place out for weeks but because we didn't want to cause offence and what they were doing isn't illegal we decided not to act on it”
There would be uproar!!
In reply to Post #98
The problem you have got is the chief of police sent a memo out to all police stations regarding this.The memo told the police not to challenge these auditors and to leave them be
The problem you have got is the chief of police sent a memo out to all police stations regarding this.The memo told the police not to challenge these auditors and to leave them be
In reply to Post #98
If they left them alone then they wouldn't get a rise. However, when they do and an officer doesn't even understand the law then they get an education, hopefully learn from it and move on. Unfortunately some don't.
Officers copsplaining about this and that over terrorism and that information gained ‘which once again can even be gained from a dash cam' can be used for a terrorism attack ‘so can a dash cam but the drivers aren't confronted' and yet there is nothing to confirm their opinion. That's all it is an opinion so shouldn't abuse their powers by attempting to stop what auditors have a legal right to do. Paranoia at its finest. It's good fun though watching those officers getting tied up in knots due to not knowing the law. I wonder just how many rights of the unsuspected public are actually infringed upon by police because they do not know them?.
A lad on his way to work gets pulled over by police officers, proceeds to demand his name and address and before he knew it he was arrested and bundled into the back of the police car.. Thankfully it was caught on film and the police admitted that they were bang out of order. Hopefully that tyrant lost his job.
If they left them alone then they wouldn't get a rise. However, when they do and an officer doesn't even understand the law then they get an education, hopefully learn from it and move on. Unfortunately some don't.
Officers copsplaining about this and that over terrorism and that information gained ‘which once again can even be gained from a dash cam' can be used for a terrorism attack ‘so can a dash cam but the drivers aren't confronted' and yet there is nothing to confirm their opinion. That's all it is an opinion so shouldn't abuse their powers by attempting to stop what auditors have a legal right to do. Paranoia at its finest. It's good fun though watching those officers getting tied up in knots due to not knowing the law. I wonder just how many rights of the unsuspected public are actually infringed upon by police because they do not know them?.
A lad on his way to work gets pulled over by police officers, proceeds to demand his name and address and before he knew it he was arrested and bundled into the back of the police car.. Thankfully it was caught on film and the police admitted that they were bang out of order. Hopefully that tyrant lost his job.
In reply to Post #93
How can I expand on the circumstances you describe when you are the one that told the story?
As I've explained to you, there is no law that prevents the courier from taking a photograph of your wife at the open door showing the successful delivery of your parcel. If you don't like it, don't order online as it seems to be a widespread practice nowadays for the company to protect themselves from vexatious claims and couriers being less than professional when delivering.
If you put up signs requesting no photos then you may be able to do something about if they continue to do so. This would be a tort and not a criminal matter.
I don't see why you have a hard time understanding why I can't link to something that doesn't exist. The Human Rights Act (1988) gives you a right to privacy but you asked for the delivery. I'd be amazed if you found a solicitor who'd go down that avenue with you but please, give one a ring.
You have requested a delivery, therefore the courier has implied consent to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the agreement you made when you clicked. Part of that service is to take a photograph and their terms for the use and storage of the images should be available to you if you look.
You cannot take images in a shopping centre without permission if their terms forbid it as it is private land. It isn't illegal, they will just ask you to leave. Refuse and they can ask the police to assist in your removal but there is no criminal element in the taking of photographs unless there is reasonable suspicion by the officer of terrorism, but let's not open that can of worms.
Lastly, are you sure that if a guy turned up and set up a big old camera and tripod on the pavement and starting live streaming the front of your house to YouTube you wouldn't be bothered in the slightest? Considering how upset you are by the courier I find that hard to believe.
How can I expand on the circumstances you describe when you are the one that told the story?
As I've explained to you, there is no law that prevents the courier from taking a photograph of your wife at the open door showing the successful delivery of your parcel. If you don't like it, don't order online as it seems to be a widespread practice nowadays for the company to protect themselves from vexatious claims and couriers being less than professional when delivering.
If you put up signs requesting no photos then you may be able to do something about if they continue to do so. This would be a tort and not a criminal matter.
I don't see why you have a hard time understanding why I can't link to something that doesn't exist. The Human Rights Act (1988) gives you a right to privacy but you asked for the delivery. I'd be amazed if you found a solicitor who'd go down that avenue with you but please, give one a ring.
You have requested a delivery, therefore the courier has implied consent to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the agreement you made when you clicked. Part of that service is to take a photograph and their terms for the use and storage of the images should be available to you if you look.
You cannot take images in a shopping centre without permission if their terms forbid it as it is private land. It isn't illegal, they will just ask you to leave. Refuse and they can ask the police to assist in your removal but there is no criminal element in the taking of photographs unless there is reasonable suspicion by the officer of terrorism, but let's not open that can of worms.
Lastly, are you sure that if a guy turned up and set up a big old camera and tripod on the pavement and starting live streaming the front of your house to YouTube you wouldn't be bothered in the slightest? Considering how upset you are by the courier I find that hard to believe.
In reply to Post #101
In legal terms I couldn't do anything, could phone the police claiming that I'm alarmed and distressed. In illegal terms I never said it wouldn't bother me just that legally standing I can't really do anything.
Edit - If it isn't illegal ‘which it isn't in a shopping centre' there terms does not over ride' what is legal. Call the police by all means but even they unless you're causing a disturbance can't make you leave. You do not need the owners permission to film as it is publicly assessable. Edit - I do stand to be corrected but I'm sure it would be a civil and not legal matter.
Edit - I'm not asking you to find something that doesn't exist but to find something which states that it's against the law. It's out there but I cannot do links.
What is tort?. In the context of it I assume you meant civil?.
In legal terms I couldn't do anything, could phone the police claiming that I'm alarmed and distressed. In illegal terms I never said it wouldn't bother me just that legally standing I can't really do anything.
Edit - If it isn't illegal ‘which it isn't in a shopping centre' there terms does not over ride' what is legal. Call the police by all means but even they unless you're causing a disturbance can't make you leave. You do not need the owners permission to film as it is publicly assessable. Edit - I do stand to be corrected but I'm sure it would be a civil and not legal matter.
Edit - I'm not asking you to find something that doesn't exist but to find something which states that it's against the law. It's out there but I cannot do links.
What is tort?. In the context of it I assume you meant civil?.
Are these 'auditors' just a bunch of you tube plicks intentionally looking for confrontation?
If so that's a stupid and shortsighted thing to do, it seems likely to lead to new legislation that further restricts our rights and freedoms.
If so that's a stupid and shortsighted thing to do, it seems likely to lead to new legislation that further restricts our rights and freedoms.
In reply to Post #103
They do a pretty good job of that themselves without an auditors input.
They do a pretty good job of that themselves without an auditors input.
In reply to Post #104
Ive been less than impressed with most of my dealings with them, but if you intentionally look for confrontation with them you deserve to get pepper sprayed imo.
It's not illegal for me to give my front garden a prune with a machete, but I know doing so will likely see me getting a visit.
I really don't get how your so impressed with these auditors while crying about the postman knocking one out over your wife's slippers
Ive been less than impressed with most of my dealings with them, but if you intentionally look for confrontation with them you deserve to get pepper sprayed imo.
It's not illegal for me to give my front garden a prune with a machete, but I know doing so will likely see me getting a visit.
I really don't get how your so impressed with these auditors while crying about the postman knocking one out over your wife's slippers
In reply to Post #105
Wife's slippers?.
I can only see that it's the police intentionally looking for confrontation when confronting someone carrying out a lawful activity, not to mention that they've being informed to leave them be.
They've even being informed that if they suspect hostile reconnaissance ‘excuse the spelling' that they are to inform the anti terrorist squad. Strange how they never do, then again perhaps not as they know they'd laugh their (0(k off.
Wife's slippers?.
I can only see that it's the police intentionally looking for confrontation when confronting someone carrying out a lawful activity, not to mention that they've being informed to leave them be.
They've even being informed that if they suspect hostile reconnaissance ‘excuse the spelling' that they are to inform the anti terrorist squad. Strange how they never do, then again perhaps not as they know they'd laugh their (0(k off.
In reply to Post #102
The fact that it is publicly accessible does not make it a public place. They can refuse you access for pretty much any reason they like provided it does not contravene the Equality Act. Bluewater Shopping Centre in Kent banned the wearing of hoodies and would eject young oiks for wearing them. Another example is a public house (pub) which, despite the name, isn't public, the landlord can refuse to serve you.
If you film without permission in a private place where the owners have forbidden it then they can ask you to leave. If you refuse they may ask for police to assist to prevent a breach of the peace. The fact that images were taken is the same as wearing a hoody, you have broken the conditions of entry to a private place and the owners can have you removed. The removal and reason for it is a civil matter but the prevention of a breach of the peace is a police matter. And they will make you leave, in handcuffs if necessary.
For the last time, there is no law which prohibits the courier from taking a photograph of your wife the way you have described it. If you can't do links, or even copy and paste the site, just tell me what the Act you have found ‘out there' in your reply.
The fact that it is publicly accessible does not make it a public place. They can refuse you access for pretty much any reason they like provided it does not contravene the Equality Act. Bluewater Shopping Centre in Kent banned the wearing of hoodies and would eject young oiks for wearing them. Another example is a public house (pub) which, despite the name, isn't public, the landlord can refuse to serve you.
If you film without permission in a private place where the owners have forbidden it then they can ask you to leave. If you refuse they may ask for police to assist to prevent a breach of the peace. The fact that images were taken is the same as wearing a hoody, you have broken the conditions of entry to a private place and the owners can have you removed. The removal and reason for it is a civil matter but the prevention of a breach of the peace is a police matter. And they will make you leave, in handcuffs if necessary.
For the last time, there is no law which prohibits the courier from taking a photograph of your wife the way you have described it. If you can't do links, or even copy and paste the site, just tell me what the Act you have found ‘out there' in your reply.
In reply to Post #107
Owner - I've just seen a lad with a camera and iv'e asked him to leave and now I suspect he's about to cause a breach of the peace. Can you pop round to prevent it.
Owner - I've just seen a lad with a camera and iv'e asked him to leave and now I suspect he's about to cause a breach of the peace. Can you pop round to prevent it.
I can't wait to walk into a bank later this year and be told I can't wear a mask as its stopping the cctv from seeing my face
In reply to Post #109
In reply to Post #108
I give up. I'd have more luck explaining backgammon to a hamster.
Call a solicitor, see if they will be able to put it in terms you will understand.
I give up. I'd have more luck explaining backgammon to a hamster.
Call a solicitor, see if they will be able to put it in terms you will understand.
In reply to Post #111
Me too. I ain't got a fcuking clue anymore.
Me too. I ain't got a fcuking clue anymore.
In reply to Post #112
As amusing as its been has this now run its course?
Let Tazi do what he thinks is best, I think he has already made up his mind. And going by previous threads he's not about to change his mind.
If we've all had our say maybe it's best to leave it there, its not worth falling out over is it?
As amusing as its been has this now run its course?
Let Tazi do what he thinks is best, I think he has already made up his mind. And going by previous threads he's not about to change his mind.
If we've all had our say maybe it's best to leave it there, its not worth falling out over is it?
In reply to Post #113
Very reason why I poked fun at myself.
Very reason why I poked fun at myself.
Bottle toffee vodka delivered half hour ago. Driver asks for my date of birth, which after typing it into his device is enough ‘as to their terms and conditions' he hands over the alcohol and then asks for my name. I'm under no obligation give it to him ‘even though it's printed on the actual box'. Can only assume he must think I look 7 and not 57.
Because I don't give him my name he then proceeds to start getting agitated and telling me that I will not be getting anything delivered from amazon again because I am banned from ordering anything from amazon.
A call to amazon afterwards and a refund of £19.85 back into my account for such a shocking delivery service.
Should have ordered 2.....
Because I don't give him my name he then proceeds to start getting agitated and telling me that I will not be getting anything delivered from amazon again because I am banned from ordering anything from amazon.
A call to amazon afterwards and a refund of £19.85 back into my account for such a shocking delivery service.
Should have ordered 2.....
In reply to Post #115
Hopefully you'll continue to get the service you deserve from people you pay
Hopefully you'll continue to get the service you deserve from people you pay
In reply to Post #115
Can only assume he must think I look 7 and not 57
Maybe they've got some app that runs on mental age.
It's having to pay office staff to deal with halfwits like you that puts prices up for normal customers and limits the pay for delivery drivers.
Next time you're passing a mirror, have a word (before packing it in a box and demanding a refund because you don't like your haircut).
Can only assume he must think I look 7 and not 57
Maybe they've got some app that runs on mental age.
It's having to pay office staff to deal with halfwits like you that puts prices up for normal customers and limits the pay for delivery drivers.
Next time you're passing a mirror, have a word (before packing it in a box and demanding a refund because you don't like your haircut).
In reply to Post #117
In reply to Post #117
A little bird tells me that paying and other's costs are irrelevant Jon, the state takes care of that
A little bird tells me that paying and other's costs are irrelevant Jon, the state takes care of that
In reply to Post #115
What have you achieved by this? ... apart from not getting what you ordered
The world isn't against you, like I said the other day don't believe everything g you read on the internet or lay off the weed if that's the case. Either one of them things are not doing you any good
Imagine if you had a 13 year old who ordered vodka from your acc and took deliver and got pissed whilst you were out. You'd be quick enough to blame them letting your under aged child get pissed, and no doubt be on here saying what c@nts delivery drivers were
And who orders toffee vodka
What have you achieved by this? ... apart from not getting what you ordered
The world isn't against you, like I said the other day don't believe everything g you read on the internet or lay off the weed if that's the case. Either one of them things are not doing you any good
Imagine if you had a 13 year old who ordered vodka from your acc and took deliver and got pissed whilst you were out. You'd be quick enough to blame them letting your under aged child get pissed, and no doubt be on here saying what c@nts delivery drivers were
And who orders toffee vodka
In reply to Post #120
Explain what is meant by you stating ‘apart from not getting what you ordered?. Errrrrrrr, refunded and kept the vodka.....
Never once thought or said that the world was.
As for the the third part I don't see how that's possible as A , I don't have a 13 year old and B, No one knows my password....
Oh the irony of me being told lay of the weed......
Explain what is meant by you stating ‘apart from not getting what you ordered?. Errrrrrrr, refunded and kept the vodka.....
Never once thought or said that the world was.
As for the the third part I don't see how that's possible as A , I don't have a 13 year old and B, No one knows my password....
Oh the irony of me being told lay of the weed......
In reply to Post #120
And who orders toffee vodka...
Not people who smoke lots of weed for starters
And who orders toffee vodka...
Not people who smoke lots of weed for starters
In reply to Post #121
My mistake I thought the took they vodka away
You come across as the world is against you
Third part was hypothetical, if your daughter took deliver of your free toffee vodka and got pissed. I'm sure you'd have some thing to say about it
Explain the irony? but assuming by that reply you do? Not that I have anything against that, smoked it myself from about 15-27 years of age
My mistake I thought the took they vodka away
You come across as the world is against you
Third part was hypothetical, if your daughter took deliver of your free toffee vodka and got pissed. I'm sure you'd have some thing to say about it
Explain the irony? but assuming by that reply you do? Not that I have anything against that, smoked it myself from about 15-27 years of age
In reply to Post #122
Hahaha a nice joint followed by some caramel chocolate, downed with toffee vodka. Sounds like a match made in heaven..... but what do I know
Hahaha a nice joint followed by some caramel chocolate, downed with toffee vodka. Sounds like a match made in heaven..... but what do I know
In reply to Post #123
No worries, it's not a crime to assume.
No worries, it's not a crime to assume.
In reply to Post #125
I don't get the irony comment?
Or care to explain what you'd have to say if your daughter took deliver if you was out? Would you blame the delivery driver for handing it over or blame yourself for being out at the time of delivery?
I don't get the irony comment?
Or care to explain what you'd have to say if your daughter took deliver if you was out? Would you blame the delivery driver for handing it over or blame yourself for being out at the time of delivery?
In reply to Post #126
First of all I don't have a daughter or anyone else for that matter that is underage.
Secondly. Even if I did, I ordered it on a next day delivery knowing that I'd be home anyway.
Thirdly. If I did have to go out then Amazon would have had to have requested ID photograph to prove her age.
I get advised lay off the weed by someone that got it wrong as you had understood from my previous posts that it was returned anyway. Quite how you'd come to that conclusion I don't know. I thought it must have being you that'd been at the weed.
Edit - Had Amazon not have adhered to their policy regards proof of age and handed over alcohol to my underage daughter ‘if I had one that is' then you'd bet I'd be in touch with them.
Edit - Get back on the 5h1t man.......
First of all I don't have a daughter or anyone else for that matter that is underage.
Secondly. Even if I did, I ordered it on a next day delivery knowing that I'd be home anyway.
Thirdly. If I did have to go out then Amazon would have had to have requested ID photograph to prove her age.
I get advised lay off the weed by someone that got it wrong as you had understood from my previous posts that it was returned anyway. Quite how you'd come to that conclusion I don't know. I thought it must have being you that'd been at the weed.
Edit - Had Amazon not have adhered to their policy regards proof of age and handed over alcohol to my underage daughter ‘if I had one that is' then you'd bet I'd be in touch with them.
Edit - Get back on the 5h1t man.......
In reply to Post #127
“ Had Amazon not have adhered to their policy”
Have you checked the policy on taking pictures upon delivery?
Maybe this whole thread would t have been necessary
“ Had Amazon not have adhered to their policy”
Have you checked the policy on taking pictures upon delivery?
Maybe this whole thread would t have been necessary
In reply to Post #128
WTF....
Couldn't package and courier out an an ounce of that finest Columbian could ya?.
WTF....
Couldn't package and courier out an an ounce of that finest Columbian could ya?.
In reply to Post #111
Reading ALL pages