Carer who stole cash from woman with dementia was caught on camera

THEFT: Kizzi McMaster

THEFT: Kizzi McMaster

First published in News
Last updated
by

A CARER who stole money from an elderly woman with dementia was caught on camera by a relative.

Kizzi Ann McMaster, 20, of Hankinson Road, Bournemouth admitted theft by taking cash from the purse of 82-year-old Frances Gilbert on several occasions between April 15 and May 3 this year while employed as a home carer by Bluebird Care in Bournemouth.

Prosecutor Heather Jackson told Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court that the victim’s son became concerned about money going missing from her purse, so he installed a CCTV camera in her home.

“He installed the CCTV camera in a covert position to try and catch the person responsible,” she said.

“Mr Gilbert reports that £80 went missing on April 16, and a further £20 on April 23.

“On May 2 this year at 9.24am, Kizzi McMaster attends the home and is seen on CCTV removing the purse and taking £20 in cash from it.”

When interviewed by police, McMaster, who had worked for Bluebird since February, said she had taken the money as she needed to buy fuel for her car.

Ms Jackson said: “She couldn’t be specific about the dates and the number of times but it was about six previous occasions.

“She said her outgoings exceeded her incomings by about £300 a month.”

The court heard McMaster was due to move back home to Northern Ireland.

The magistrates imposed a two-month jail term, suspended for 18 months, and ordered that McMaster complete 220 hours of unpaid work and pay £90 compensation to her victim.

She was also ordered to pay £85 costs and an £80 victim surcharge.

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:31am Tue 27 May 14

arthur1948 says...

When you pay peanuts,the temptations are there....
When you pay peanuts,the temptations are there.... arthur1948
  • Score: -53

7:41am Tue 27 May 14

nickynoodah says...

You are a stupid idiot George

So its OK to tealeaf off of sick people

You are the pits you know

Stay in your bedsit

don't forget its bin day today.
You are a stupid idiot George So its OK to tealeaf off of sick people You are the pits you know Stay in your bedsit don't forget its bin day today. nickynoodah
  • Score: 22

7:41am Tue 27 May 14

skydriver says...

arthur1948 wrote:
When you pay peanuts,the temptations are there....
Simply she is a thief.
[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote: When you pay peanuts,the temptations are there....[/p][/quote]Simply she is a thief. skydriver
  • Score: 60

7:43am Tue 27 May 14

skydriver says...

This is the person who should go to prison not the chap on the plane who smacked the stewardess bottom., because they supplied him with too much drink,!
This is the person who should go to prison not the chap on the plane who smacked the stewardess bottom., because they supplied him with too much drink,! skydriver
  • Score: 58

7:55am Tue 27 May 14

djd says...

Thieving from a person who is dependent upon you. There is no excuse.
Admittedly care companies do pay low wages.
Perhaps she will be better off in Northern Ireland.
Thieving from a person who is dependent upon you. There is no excuse. Admittedly care companies do pay low wages. Perhaps she will be better off in Northern Ireland. djd
  • Score: 32

8:12am Tue 27 May 14

High Treason says...

This is due to privatising care. No proper checks, low wages, run just for profit.
Some public services should be run by public bodies where proper checks are made. Councils already have the details for many through social services.
The woman should have been jailed.
This is due to privatising care. No proper checks, low wages, run just for profit. Some public services should be run by public bodies where proper checks are made. Councils already have the details for many through social services. The woman should have been jailed. High Treason
  • Score: 32

8:17am Tue 27 May 14

High Treason says...

skydriver wrote:
This is the person who should go to prison not the chap on the plane who smacked the stewardess bottom., because they supplied him with too much drink,!
Get real! If it had been one of my family he smacked he would get an almighty smack back. They supplied him with to much drink. But M'lud, it wasn't my fault, the stewardess forced the drink down me and it turned me into a groper. I couldn't help myself and had to tell her I loved her and to show as such I assaulted her.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: This is the person who should go to prison not the chap on the plane who smacked the stewardess bottom., because they supplied him with too much drink,![/p][/quote]Get real! If it had been one of my family he smacked he would get an almighty smack back. They supplied him with to much drink. But M'lud, it wasn't my fault, the stewardess forced the drink down me and it turned me into a groper. I couldn't help myself and had to tell her I loved her and to show as such I assaulted her. High Treason
  • Score: 10

9:09am Tue 27 May 14

Baysider says...

skydriver wrote:
This is the person who should go to prison not the chap on the plane who smacked the stewardess bottom., because they supplied him with too much drink,!
Has he been sentenced then?
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: This is the person who should go to prison not the chap on the plane who smacked the stewardess bottom., because they supplied him with too much drink,![/p][/quote]Has he been sentenced then? Baysider
  • Score: 5

9:09am Tue 27 May 14

echor23 says...

Unlike the man who slapped an air stewardess and is possibly facing a jail term this woman should have not had a suspended sentence but should have gone to jail to serve her sentence! A thief of an elderly vulnerable victim is sick and twisted!
Unlike the man who slapped an air stewardess and is possibly facing a jail term this woman should have not had a suspended sentence but should have gone to jail to serve her sentence! A thief of an elderly vulnerable victim is sick and twisted! echor23
  • Score: 27

9:21am Tue 27 May 14

littlevoice234 says...

Pathetic sentence. Financial abuse of an elderly, VULNERABLE person.. disgusting.
Pathetic sentence. Financial abuse of an elderly, VULNERABLE person.. disgusting. littlevoice234
  • Score: 38

9:28am Tue 27 May 14

afcb-mark says...

Wow. You couldn't stoop much lower than stealing from someone with dementia. Disgusting.
Wow. You couldn't stoop much lower than stealing from someone with dementia. Disgusting. afcb-mark
  • Score: 38

9:35am Tue 27 May 14

anotherfatslob says...

There's the next generation.
There's the next generation. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 11

9:59am Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ? Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -65

10:04am Tue 27 May 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 18

10:09am Tue 27 May 14

TheDistrict says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
When does protecting your own come into the equation. Obviously you are wrong, again, as it is obvious from the above story that the CCTV evidence was taken into consideration.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]When does protecting your own come into the equation. Obviously you are wrong, again, as it is obvious from the above story that the CCTV evidence was taken into consideration. TheDistrict
  • Score: 20

10:15am Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Wrongly taken into consideration.
Wrongly taken into consideration. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -31

10:18am Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.
So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.[/p][/quote]So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ? Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -28

10:36am Tue 27 May 14

Hessenford says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
CCTV installation in domestic dwellings do not require and signage to be shown, anything that occurs relating to criminal activity which is recorded on domestic CCTV systems is admissible as evidence in court.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]CCTV installation in domestic dwellings do not require and signage to be shown, anything that occurs relating to criminal activity which is recorded on domestic CCTV systems is admissible as evidence in court. Hessenford
  • Score: 30

10:39am Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Hessenford wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
CCTV installation in domestic dwellings do not require and signage to be shown, anything that occurs relating to criminal activity which is recorded on domestic CCTV systems is admissible as evidence in court.
Yes, but not when the home becomes a workplace, as in this case.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]CCTV installation in domestic dwellings do not require and signage to be shown, anything that occurs relating to criminal activity which is recorded on domestic CCTV systems is admissible as evidence in court.[/p][/quote]Yes, but not when the home becomes a workplace, as in this case. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -29

11:06am Tue 27 May 14

Bob Bournemouth says...

Obviously CCTV was useful in this case, as in several other cases recently. If my elderly or vulnerable relation was in a similar situation I wouldn't hesitate in using a CCTV and I am sure the courts would use the evidence provided by it.
Obviously CCTV was useful in this case, as in several other cases recently. If my elderly or vulnerable relation was in a similar situation I wouldn't hesitate in using a CCTV and I am sure the courts would use the evidence provided by it. Bob Bournemouth
  • Score: 16

11:07am Tue 27 May 14

Hessenford says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
CCTV installation in domestic dwellings do not require and signage to be shown, anything that occurs relating to criminal activity which is recorded on domestic CCTV systems is admissible as evidence in court.
Yes, but not when the home becomes a workplace, as in this case.
Makes no difference, Builders, plumbers, electricians, roofers, chippy's, all work in domestic premises which only becomes a workplace in name only, it is still a domestic dwelling and not a registered workplace under a business name, if any of the above trades, including carers, were filmed stealing from the domestic dwelling in which they were working the cctv footage would be admissible in court.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]CCTV installation in domestic dwellings do not require and signage to be shown, anything that occurs relating to criminal activity which is recorded on domestic CCTV systems is admissible as evidence in court.[/p][/quote]Yes, but not when the home becomes a workplace, as in this case.[/p][/quote]Makes no difference, Builders, plumbers, electricians, roofers, chippy's, all work in domestic premises which only becomes a workplace in name only, it is still a domestic dwelling and not a registered workplace under a business name, if any of the above trades, including carers, were filmed stealing from the domestic dwelling in which they were working the cctv footage would be admissible in court. Hessenford
  • Score: 27

11:24am Tue 27 May 14

ASM says...

heartless scum
heartless scum ASM
  • Score: 19

11:37am Tue 27 May 14

crispy_pants says...

WOW. I never thought that the intricacies of British Law would ever be discussed on this forum. Why on earth do we need a Parliament and House of Lords when we have such learned people here.
WOW. I never thought that the intricacies of British Law would ever be discussed on this forum. Why on earth do we need a Parliament and House of Lords when we have such learned people here. crispy_pants
  • Score: 3

11:44am Tue 27 May 14

O'Reilly says...

She needed petrol money.....well she could have bought a pushbike or got on a bus.
She needed petrol money.....well she could have bought a pushbike or got on a bus. O'Reilly
  • Score: 13

11:45am Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.
And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -30

11:49am Tue 27 May 14

pete woodley says...

So Sir Buckethead condones thieving,not surprised after reading his comments.
So Sir Buckethead condones thieving,not surprised after reading his comments. pete woodley
  • Score: 15

12:05pm Tue 27 May 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.
So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?
No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here..
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.[/p][/quote]So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?[/p][/quote]No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here.. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 10

12:09pm Tue 27 May 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.
No please, we don't need any further comments from you on this post, your understanding is quite embarrassing, I pity you.

This vile creature stole, simple as and has been caught, I'm sure most people in a similar situation to the relative would do the same.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.[/p][/quote]No please, we don't need any further comments from you on this post, your understanding is quite embarrassing, I pity you. This vile creature stole, simple as and has been caught, I'm sure most people in a similar situation to the relative would do the same. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 13

12:14pm Tue 27 May 14

Hessenford says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.
Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.[/p][/quote]Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed. Hessenford
  • Score: 14

1:16pm Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.
So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?
No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here..
Where does privacy start and end Arthur ?

You have a mucky mind, remember your studland comment last week ?
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.[/p][/quote]So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?[/p][/quote]No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here..[/p][/quote]Where does privacy start and end Arthur ? You have a mucky mind, remember your studland comment last week ? Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -7

1:18pm Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Hessenford wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.
Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed.
Untrue there.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.[/p][/quote]Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]Untrue there. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -11

2:05pm Tue 27 May 14

arthur1948 says...

they charge enough for care...perhaps they should pay staff better...lessen the need to steal
they charge enough for care...perhaps they should pay staff better...lessen the need to steal arthur1948
  • Score: -11

2:20pm Tue 27 May 14

rob.carter says...

This is a callous crime committed on a person who is dependent on help. The sentence is a joke and not a deterrent. If she didn't earn enough to cover her outgoings she should of cut back or found a better paid job.
This is a callous crime committed on a person who is dependent on help. The sentence is a joke and not a deterrent. If she didn't earn enough to cover her outgoings she should of cut back or found a better paid job. rob.carter
  • Score: 13

2:53pm Tue 27 May 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.
So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?
No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here..
Where does privacy start and end Arthur ?

You have a mucky mind, remember your studland comment last week ?
Yes, unfortunately I've seen you heading off the Studland bound ferry, all excited and throwing your clothes with abandon as you leap off. I tend to avoid that beach because of you and your friends
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.[/p][/quote]So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?[/p][/quote]No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here..[/p][/quote]Where does privacy start and end Arthur ? You have a mucky mind, remember your studland comment last week ?[/p][/quote]Yes, unfortunately I've seen you heading off the Studland bound ferry, all excited and throwing your clothes with abandon as you leap off. I tend to avoid that beach because of you and your friends Arthur Maureen
  • Score: -2

3:36pm Tue 27 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Arthur Maureen wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.
So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?
No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here..
Where does privacy start and end Arthur ?

You have a mucky mind, remember your studland comment last week ?
Yes, unfortunately I've seen you heading off the Studland bound ferry, all excited and throwing your clothes with abandon as you leap off. I tend to avoid that beach because of you and your friends
Well the studland regulars speak highly of you. As your ban has expired I expect you can return without the DVD ever being mentioned again.
Oh, and I never take the ferry, I sometimes kayak over or sometimes parachute in, depending on the weather.
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Thanks Rumpole QC, sure the legal system will be frantically reviewing the case as we speak.[/p][/quote]So Arthur, you think it would be OK to secretly film the young lady on the toilet do you ?[/p][/quote]No mention of a toilet being filmed moron (only in your mucky mind..) but don't let that get in the way of the drivel you write on here..[/p][/quote]Where does privacy start and end Arthur ? You have a mucky mind, remember your studland comment last week ?[/p][/quote]Yes, unfortunately I've seen you heading off the Studland bound ferry, all excited and throwing your clothes with abandon as you leap off. I tend to avoid that beach because of you and your friends[/p][/quote]Well the studland regulars speak highly of you. As your ban has expired I expect you can return without the DVD ever being mentioned again. Oh, and I never take the ferry, I sometimes kayak over or sometimes parachute in, depending on the weather. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -6

6:45pm Tue 27 May 14

Hessenford says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.
Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed.
Untrue there.
You haven't a clue of what you're talking about otherwise you would have explained you're last response.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.[/p][/quote]Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]Untrue there.[/p][/quote]You haven't a clue of what you're talking about otherwise you would have explained you're last response. Hessenford
  • Score: 6

7:42pm Tue 27 May 14

afcdibby says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Guess who votes liberal.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Guess who votes liberal. afcdibby
  • Score: 3

7:49pm Tue 27 May 14

boardsandphotos says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
Users of small systems or home systems which contain less than 3 cameras, which are not remotely operated i.e. they cannot be moved left / right and zoomed from a controller away from the camera, and the information gathered is passed to no-one but the Police, have no requirement to register with the UK Information Commissioner (Data Protection Act 1998), nor place signs, keep tape records etc although placing signage can assist as a deterrent.

Source: http://www.grampian.
police.uk/Advice.asp
x?id=173&pid=30;34;2
4;190;191

Under the Data Protection legislation (Data Protection Act 1998) CCTV installations within domestic premises do not require to be registered with the Information Commissioner, formerly the Data Protection Registrar. There is therefore no requirement to keep records of recordings or place signage around the premises where CCTV is being used.

Source: http://www.fife.poli
ce.uk/default.aspx?p
age=1747

In June 2001, Fife Contabulary created this page: http://www.fife.poli
ce.uk/default.aspx?p
age=4731
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]Users of small systems or home systems which contain less than 3 cameras, which are not remotely operated i.e. they cannot be moved left / right and zoomed from a controller away from the camera, and the information gathered is passed to no-one but the Police, have no requirement to register with the UK Information Commissioner (Data Protection Act 1998), nor place signs, keep tape records etc although placing signage can assist as a deterrent. Source: http://www.grampian. police.uk/Advice.asp x?id=173&pid=30;34;2 4;190;191 Under the Data Protection legislation (Data Protection Act 1998) CCTV installations within domestic premises do not require to be registered with the Information Commissioner, formerly the Data Protection Registrar. There is therefore no requirement to keep records of recordings or place signage around the premises where CCTV is being used. Source: http://www.fife.poli ce.uk/default.aspx?p age=1747 In June 2001, Fife Contabulary created this page: http://www.fife.poli ce.uk/default.aspx?p age=4731 boardsandphotos
  • Score: 4

8:20pm Tue 27 May 14

ShuttleX says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
You really are a total idiot.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]You really are a total idiot. ShuttleX
  • Score: 7

9:20pm Tue 27 May 14

stevobath says...

nickynoodah wrote:
You are a stupid idiot George

So its OK to tealeaf off of sick people

You are the pits you know

Stay in your bedsit

don't forget its bin day today.
If only you could post, without the pathetic 'in jokes' ?
That aside, the only sensible post (In a kind of retarded way) you've ever made...
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: You are a stupid idiot George So its OK to tealeaf off of sick people You are the pits you know Stay in your bedsit don't forget its bin day today.[/p][/quote]If only you could post, without the pathetic 'in jokes' ? That aside, the only sensible post (In a kind of retarded way) you've ever made... stevobath
  • Score: 6

9:23pm Tue 27 May 14

stevobath says...

Her's an idea scumbag thieving young woman....If you can't afford fuel for your' car, BUY A FECKIN BIKE.

If your' outgoings are more than you earn....STOP BUYING SO MUCH ****. Easy really.
Her's an idea scumbag thieving young woman....If you can't afford fuel for your' car, BUY A FECKIN BIKE. If your' outgoings are more than you earn....STOP BUYING SO MUCH ****. Easy really. stevobath
  • Score: 5

10:38pm Tue 27 May 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

littlevoice234 wrote:
Pathetic sentence. Financial abuse of an elderly, VULNERABLE person.. disgusting.
Well it's robbery really.
.
However I wouldn't want a criminal record for theft at 20. She'll find it hard finding another job in any position of trust for good now.
[quote][p][bold]littlevoice234[/bold] wrote: Pathetic sentence. Financial abuse of an elderly, VULNERABLE person.. disgusting.[/p][/quote]Well it's robbery really. . However I wouldn't want a criminal record for theft at 20. She'll find it hard finding another job in any position of trust for good now. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 4

5:38am Wed 28 May 14

Lord Parkstone says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence.
She could sue for invasion of privacy.

What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ?
Where will it all end ?
No different to cyclists and motorbikes that film without warning in public.
If the cctv is inside your home you dont need to advertise that you are filming. Without the cctv evidence this low life scumbag would have fleeced this elderly lady for more.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: By law when you install a CCTV camera you have to put a sign up informing people that they are being filmed. This applies to public places and work places. As this woman was working in this house, it was, at that time, her workplace. Therefore I conclude the filming was illegal and therefore was inadmissible as evidence. She could sue for invasion of privacy. What was to stop the man hiding a covert camera in the toilet to film the young lady on the pan ? Where will it all end ?[/p][/quote]No different to cyclists and motorbikes that film without warning in public. If the cctv is inside your home you dont need to advertise that you are filming. Without the cctv evidence this low life scumbag would have fleeced this elderly lady for more. Lord Parkstone
  • Score: 5

11:54am Wed 28 May 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Hessenford wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.
Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed.
Untrue there.
You haven't a clue of what you're talking about otherwise you would have explained you're last response.
You've got him there, well done on silencing the know it all
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: And another thing, unless a camera records the time and date it is also inadmissible as evidence. I doubt any covert camera does so.[/p][/quote]Wrong again. time and date is not needed in domestic dwellings, only the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]Untrue there.[/p][/quote]You haven't a clue of what you're talking about otherwise you would have explained you're last response.[/p][/quote]You've got him there, well done on silencing the know it all Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 2

1:11pm Wed 28 May 14

KitKatPuss says...

Really? You're debating on whether the son had the legal right to install a CCTV camera and that the THIEF in this story could sue based on their privacy being violated?! Pathetic!! What about the poor woman who should have been able to trust her carer having her privacy violated by the THIEF going into her purse and stealing her money? If this were my mother I'd have decked the woman before handing her into the hands of the police!
Really? You're debating on whether the son had the legal right to install a CCTV camera and that the THIEF in this story could sue based on their privacy being violated?! Pathetic!! What about the poor woman who should have been able to trust her carer having her privacy violated by the THIEF going into her purse and stealing her money? If this were my mother I'd have decked the woman before handing her into the hands of the police! KitKatPuss
  • Score: 4

11:23am Fri 30 May 14

Stirling151 says...

The legal or illegal ramifications of cctv footage being presented as evidence in court barely arise in the real world. The accused will be presented with the footage in the initial interview at the police station. This invariably results in a guilty plea, negating the need for a trial and arguments over the admissability of the footage. "Takes barristers wig off, opens a beer."
The legal or illegal ramifications of cctv footage being presented as evidence in court barely arise in the real world. The accused will be presented with the footage in the initial interview at the police station. This invariably results in a guilty plea, negating the need for a trial and arguments over the admissability of the footage. "Takes barristers wig off, opens a beer." Stirling151
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Sun 1 Jun 14

stevobath says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Wrongly taken into consideration.
QC are we?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: Wrongly taken into consideration.[/p][/quote]QC are we? stevobath
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree