A gang of yobs has invaded our playground

You have misquoted me. I wasn't saying that they hadn't done it. I said that it was possible and that this was only one side of the story, and that the individuals concerned had no possibility to defend themselves. I have already said numerous times that I disagree with them being there if they are being a nuisance...

As for "immature shapes of faces", some people look younger/older than their actual age - you cannot judge from a photo...

Accused? Their actions at the time of the photo speak for themselves. No need for accusations.

Yes, we have:

Posting someone's image without their permission

where Sarabyrd quite clearly had a different stance with regards to privacy and photos... ;-)

Haven't we had this discussion before and wasn't it decided that it is illegal to post the image of a person without their consent if they are the main focus of the photograph?

Oh FFS! What planet are you on??? ...
Go back to smoking what you are smoking...! <sigh>

I think so, yeah.

By the way, I sometimes enjoy sitting by a playground and watch the kids play when I am walking around town and want to take a break. Maybe I shouldn't do that anymore?
(I realize I may do this in a different fashion than these kids, but according to some here, any adult who is not accompanying a child to the playground has no right to sit on a bench at a playground, if I understood that right?)

Haven't we had this discussion before and wasn't it decided that it is illegal to post the image of a person without their consent if they are the main focus of the photograph?

I was wondering why you didn't ask the same protection for Mini JennyL.

Einwilligung des Abgebildeten
Aufgrund des so genannten Rechts am eigenen Bild (Teil des Persönlichkeitsrechts) dürfen Fotos von Personen in der Regel nur mit deren Einwilligung veröffentlicht werden (§ 22 Satz 1 Kunsturhebergesetz). Dies gilt auch für Gruppen- wie etwa Klassenfotos, wenn die abgebildeten Personen den zentralen Bestandteil des Fotos darstellen. Die Einwilligung selbst ist schriftlich einzuholen, sollte so präzise wie möglich die geplanten Nutzungen des Fotos beschreiben und eine Widerrufsmöglichkeit vorsehen. Bei Schülerinnen und Schüler unter 12 Jahren haben die Erziehungsberechtigten einzuwilligen; Volljährige willigen selbst ein. Bei Personen zwischen 12 und 18 Jahren kommt es auf deren Einsichtsfähigkeit an, ob sie bereits selbst einwilligen können oder die Erziehungsberechtigten einwilligen müssen. Aus "Sicherheitsgründen" empfiehlt sich zumindest bei Schülerinnen und Schülern bis 16 Jahren die Einwilligung sowohl dieser Personen als auch deren Erziehungsberechtigten

but according to some here, any adult who is not accompanying a child to the playground has no right to sit on a bench at a playground, if I understood that right?)

I don't see much difference between "hesitating to believe" and saying that something is "possible". That's sort of like Creationists calling evolution "an interesting theory". And yes, you can judge someone's age from a photo, especially unpixeled. Not to mention the fact that they are zipping around on Vespas as opposed to making a nuisance of themselves in a VW Golf GTI. If they were old enough to drive a car they would be hanging around smoking in it and not at playgrounds.

I have heard things from other neighbours about this family and I could go posting pics of them online and accusing them of these things, but this also wouldn't be right...

For the record, I actually didn't take the photo with the intent of posting it online. I took about 100 pictures that afternoon- most of which do not include the guys in the background. It was only after I went home and stewed around about their behavior that I decided to post the picture. It was a 7 megapixel photo-- I reduced it down enough to where I felt you could view the scenario without getting enough detail on the guys to actually be able to identify them.

The focus was the situation at hand, not the individuals involved.

The point wasn't to say that they might not have done it. I was merely playing devil's advocate by saying that it was "possible" that they may or may not have done something. ALL I WAS SAYING is that everyone has rights, and has the right to put their case forward when being accused of something and their identities are made publicly available. There is such a thing as "innocent before proven guilty" isn't there?

True, but then if we are going down that road, there's a big difference between what you heard from your other neighbours and what JennyL witnessed with her own eyes.

Not if you ask Bild Zeitung. They also tend to have an issue with keeping privacy rights of people whose pictures they put in their paper / online.

Maybe JennyL posted the pictures as evidence of the youths' behavior just in case anyone chose to doubt her word.

Hydro, when your mom caught you masturbating, did you have long explanations of how it wasn't you, because the blanket was just moving that instant, and it didn't necessarily mean that there were other movements immediately before, or that movements would have continued thereafter, had she not walked in that particular moment?

With a better thesaurus, you might consider a career in politics, my friend.

As I said, I don't have a problem with that - and it indeed makes it more interesting. I said that they should merely be anonymised first.

And with this proof, what kind of version do you expect these kids to come up with? The cigarettes fell into their hands as they were resting their feet after helping little old ladies across the street? I still do not understand how you can cast any doubt on JennyL's description of the scene.

Surprised nobody has yet complained about the "gang of yobs" in the thread title. Shouldn't that just be "three potentially misguided teenagers"?

just a thought, but perhaps if you (JennyL) just took a leaf out of your daughters book and asked them to quit it, they may have responded in the same way as they did to your daughter - by complying?!

I just think that, before having even tried to talk to the kids, posting their pics and a God-knows-how-many-page thread seems out of place. You've stamped them with the much loved term "yob" and criminalised them before actually giving them the benefit of the doubt. Teenagers tend to be nasty and do things one is later ashamed of...I did too!! But if asked to quit it, which I frequently do, I've never been met with anything but compliance.

So perhaps just try that before imagining lots of scenarios where these kids beat up people, take heroin (seems this was already one thing you pictured them doing next).

Die Erfordernis einer Einwilligung ist nach deutschem Recht allerdings nach § 23 Absatz 1 KUG für „Personen der Zeitgeschichte“ eingeschränkt.

In der deutschen Rechtsprechung hat sich dabei eine Unterscheidung zwischen „absoluten Personen der Zeitgeschichte“ und „relativen Personen der Zeitgeschichte“ eingebürgert.

Absolute Person der Zeitgeschichte ist, wer aufgrund seiner Stellung, Taten oder Leistungen außergewöhnlich herausragt und deshalb derart im Blickpunkt der Öffentlichkeit steht, dass ein besonderes Informationsinteresse an der Person selbst, sowie an allen Vorgängen, die ihre Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben ausmachen, besteht (z. B. Helmut Kohl, Caroline von Hannover, Boris Becker). Diese Personen dürfen auch ohne ihre Einwilligung fotografiert, das Material verbreitet und veröffentlicht werden.

Relative Personen der Zeitgeschichte sind Menschen, die in Zusammenhang mit einem zeitgeschichtlichen Ereignis in den Blick der Öffentlichkeit geraten sind (beispielsweise die Opfer des Gladbecker Geiseldramas oder Sportler während eines Wettkampfs). Bilder dieser Personen dürfen nur im Zusammenhang mit diesem Ereignis ohne deren Einwilligung veröffentlicht werden. Einige Prominente sind der Meinung, sie seien keine absoluten Personen der Zeitgeschichte und hätten damit wiederum Anspruch auf Privatsphäre.

Nach der sogenannten Begleiterrechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs zählen zu den relativen Personen der Zeitgeschichte auch Lebenspartner oder Kinder von absoluten Personen der Zeitgeschichte. Über sie darf dann in Zusammenhang mit einem gemeinsamen Auftritt ebenfalls ohne Einwilligung berichtet werden.

Als Faustformel gilt: Je mehr eine Person im öffentlichen Interesse steht, desto mehr wird sie zu einer Person aus dem Bereich der Zeitgeschichte. Allerdings gilt auch für diese Personen die Schutzzone der unantastbaren Intimsphäre. Diese Einschränkung findet sich bereits in § 23 Absatz 2 KUG: Das Recht, eine Person ohne Einwilligung abzubilden, erstreckt sich „nicht auf eine Verbreitung und Schaustellung, durch die ein berechtigtes Interesse des Abgebildeten“ verletzt wird.

Diese Güterabwägung findet sich auch in § 32a Stasiunterlagengesetz.

I assume that every person here who has a problem with photos of people being shown anywhere other than places those people have expressly put them also never buys any magazine or newspaper, watches the news, or frequents any website anywhere, which features photos of celebrities, public figures outside photo ops, or covers local or world events or human interest stories featuring actual people who are not being paid to model. Because if posting photos of strangers is bad, then being PAID for such is surely worse.

Honestly. What world do you people think we're living in?

Cigarette smoking is not illegal. In the photos there is no sign of littering or throwing cigarettes on the floor...

Mariposa, while I do strain to appreciate your very German efforts to enlighten me with book and verse, I would refer you to the world at large to familiarize yourself with the reality of the world.

It is naiive and idealistic to assume that your likeness, whether you are of public interested this instant or not, in this day and age- whether in Germany, Barcelona, the US, or the Amazon-- is or could possibly be categorically protected by laws of privacy.

I can see what look like two cigarettes below the guy on the left, just by childs head. Another below the seat on the right of the photo and another toward the bottom right of the photo. Now they might not be cigarette ends but they certainly look like them.

Can you prove that they dropped them? Have you DNA-tested them?

Rilana, put them in a little tin to be disposed of elsewhere. It's not rocket surgery. Or, as per my original stance on the subject, they shouldn't be there in the first place. No smoking teenagers, no cigarette ends.

you realise these are teenagers you are talking about.

if the bin has been removed, what are they supposed to do with the ends?

EDIT after your last post: Bring them a peace offering of a pocket ashtray. They will respect you all the more - I hope.

you realise these are teenagers you are talking about.

From what I understand this is not a child-only playground but a communal swing and bench next to the apartment blocks in which Jenny L lives. Or have I misread that? So I don't see why thy are not allowed to be there. As yet they have displayed no violent behaviour nor have they really caused any trouble. There were 2 things that bothered the OP 1) the cigarette ends on the floor and 2) the spitting. Both simple issues that can most likely be dealt with easily.

I find it has always worked much to my advantage if I've offered them a solution

HS, she called them "little hoodlum wannabes", not "yobs". Komland introduced the Yob label.

17.Feb.2008 - 16:05:08 Komland
A gang of yobs have invaded our playground

17.Feb.2008 - 16:03:04 Jenny L
Gang of Youths have invaded our playground

Do you not see the 'Edit' button on the title of the thread?