Trump golf course urination case

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,182
Nothing to do with supposed FSB footage of Russian hookers in a Moscow hotel room with the great orange man himself but rather a Scottish woman who was caught short while out and about on his golf course:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39478417

A privacy case against Trump International Golf Clubs Scotland is under way at a small claims court.

Rohan Beyts is accusing the company of breaching data protection law by filming her without her permission or notice.

She claims she was filmed by male employees as she urinated in sand dunes while out walking at the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire a year ago.

Trump International has denied the claims.

The company was run by Donald Trump before he became the US president.

Ms Beyts told the court in Edinburgh that she had gone walking with a friend in April last year and had to pass through the Trump International Golf Club to get access to the beach.

The 62-year-old said that while on the beach she had gone into the dunes after realising that, due to a medical condition, she needed the toilet urgently.
Click to expand...

Interested in opinions on this (ideally not ones swayed by who owns the course). On one hand I don't see an issue with going for a **** when you need to, when out and about in the countryside, especially if you make an effort to conceal yourself.

On the other hand this was on a golf course (there is a right to roam on private land in Scotland) with people around and not rambling in the hills/mountains somewhere. I'm assuming that the staff at the course dislike but begrudgingly accept the odd rambler etc.. and keep an eye on them thus this staff member filming her for ******* in the dunes... he does mention also that the golfers who go for a **** in nature make an effort to go and do it in a hedge out of sight.

Ideally the article could do with a picture of the dune in question - if it is still fairly exposed, aside from the grass she claimed covered her then perhaps she was in the wrong - you don't really want to be rambling or playing a round of golf and catching sight of an old woman's bare arse. If it is genuinely out of sight then perhaps she does have a point re: overzealous staff breaching her privacy.

Anyway - what say you GD on this important topic for debate, was the old lady in the right to bare all in the dunes or were the Trump course staff right to take a mobile phone picture of the event?

Does this require/warrant a poll?
 
Depends why they were filming, for laughs or to report. Not exactly the biggest issue in the world. I don't see a problem, if the employees were concerned they could have had a quiet polite chat and said that it's not acceptable generally, or at least exaplined the companies policy.
 
the claim is they took a picture as evidence as urination in public is against the law, the police then visited her at home as a result of the complaint/evidence though the bloke in charge of prosecutions declined to prosecute
 
If you are out and about you should be able to do a wee where ever you like (within reason). If I were a member of staff and realised that a camera was filming someone taking a wee I'd just point the camera someone else for a couple of minutes (assuming it could be moved). If I found out someone had filmed me I probably wouldn't bother taking them to court though. If someone wants to watch me wee I'm comfortable with that :).
 
Cromulent said:
If I were a member of staff and realised that a camera was filming someone taking a wee I'd just point the camera someone else for a couple of minutes (assuming it could be moved).
Click to expand...

it seems it was a staff member's mobile not something that happened to be caught on CCTV, the picture (or alleged footage) was deliberately taken

If someone wants to watch me wee I'm comfortable with that :).
Click to expand...

@Tefal :D
 
There is more to this than is being reported in the BBC article. There's been aggro between her and the golf course before so I wouldn't be surprised if she did it deliberately.

I'll only have any sympathy for her if she proves the photos/videos were shared with 3rd parties other than the police.
 
Last edited:
It's all politics IMO. She's against that golf course and as such I'm sure has caused problems for them in the past so when they had a chance to get something on her they took it. She's now trying to get back at them, rightly or wrongly.

The male employees in question were apparently told to follow the two women, according to a signed statement to the police. One of them then decided to change his statement in court and say they just happened to be in the exact spot they could see her urinating looking at a "patch of dry turf".

So the question is do you believe the first statement, assumedly taken soon after the incident - that they were sent to follow the two women, and then videoed them quite possibly without their knowledge - or do you believe the second statement in court, after a period of time and quite possibly a lot of legal discussion that they just happened to be in a spot they could see her peeing?
 
She will get laughed out of court...

You have the right to film anything or anyone in a public space. Just because she's commiting a lewd act doesn't give her special rights.

I expect she's one of those "your rights end, when my feelings start" crew.
 
If you can't do the time, don't do the tinkle.










//i don't for one second believe that this was an innocent woman caught short. Given her history with this golf course, I fully suspect that this little peepee was very deliberate and looking for a response. Only problem is that she's now plastered all over the news as a bit of a prat (experience with people like this tells me that she won't care however).
 
dowie said:
the claim is they took a picture as evidence as urination in public is against the law, the police then visited her at home as a result of the complaint/evidence though the bloke in charge of prosecutions declined to prosecute
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it's not against the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom