ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

3 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

The devil is in the detail.

The first two points to begin with are;

Are there any contractual terms agreed to either writing or by clear implication?

Is the school a private or public institution ?

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

I'm not sure about the contractual terms agreed to either writing or by clear implication. I will have a look into it. If there isn't any? Then what? If I complained about the footage, then they might draft one specific for the complaint that we have the right to delete the footage as we see fit.

It's a college. So I guess, it's a public institution. What will that mean then?

3 years, 9 months ago - Marlom Tander

You need to talk to the school management.

Esp as you mention other issues.

Not all colleges are public institutions.

Resolution ; maybe some action against the course leader, who, on the face of it, seems to be, at best, very badly organised. Refunds are unlikely, unless that course was a separately billable module, for which you now have no evidence of completion. POSSIBLY you could be given the chance to redo.

3 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

In addition to Marlom's sensible observations, any new policies that the college might draw up are unlikely to have retrospective force in law.

It's an onerous fact that a great many institutions and their placemen assume an authority of office that only exists in their unlearned presumption. Such goes all the way up to government and Parliament itself.

Whether or not a rule or policy is asserted, or indeed where none is asserted at all, Law, in it's fundamental constitutional form, being Common Law and the entrenched Constitutional Instruments, always apply, in all and any circumstance, and always have force.

The challenge of successfully asserting actual Law however is often above the cognisance of even QC's. It may be better to use diplomacy and charm if such a champion isn't available or affordable.

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

I have used diplomacy already. It doesn't seem to work with these people. No matter what I do or say is going to change their minds. It seems. So, the only way left is to use the Law

3 years, 9 months ago - Darren Brade

Do you have funds to hire a solicitor or is it easier/cheaper to reshoot?

Also, what discussions have you had with your tutor?

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

Maybe it's cheaper to reshoot. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that the course leader thinks he can just do whatever he wants with the footage. I am afraid it's not going to be the last time he did it. It may happen again and again.

3 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

The devil is still in the detail.

Was there any form of agreement? Either formally or by clear construction, including what would a reasonable person have reason to understand in all of the circumstances.

Is the college a public or private institution? In general, even if not always, a public institution is wholly or substantially funded by the public; and/or, it's staff are regulated by statutory oversight.

The devilish details should be easy to discover, and then comes the nitty gritty of the issue itself.

As many a miscarriage of justice suggests, umbrage is not enough.

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

I am not sure about if it's a public or private institution. I am contacting my local LEA to find out and to see what they say.

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

Now the Faculty Director doesn't me to continue my course there until we have discussed about the issue first? What is that? Does she have the right to do that?

3 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Rights, obligations and jurisdictions of law differ according to context and circumstances. The standing of the college and it's staff will be subject to those specifics.

Presumably they took a fee from you or they recieved public money to pay for your course. The true extent and limits of anyone's powers are coming under increasing scrutiny, but the devilish details are of the essence.

There's a hierarchy of law and supremacy, at the bottom of which are policies, rules and regulations, only slightly raised by any affecting statute or bylaw. Everything can be challenged in the Courts; but the unlearned ought to consult with the learned, which, scarily doesn't guarantee that all qualified lawyers, including even more scarily some QC's, despite any disarming confident aplomb, are actually learned.

Often where an impasse of stubborn presumption has occurred, in a civil non criminal matter, the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law, tribunals and other types of 'Unlawful Administrative Hearings' (as defined in Halsbury's Laws of England), are insufficient or incapable of clarity. In such an impasse the issue will need elevating to one of Common Law Tort, at which point perhaps 80% of qualified lawyers are wholly or significantly incompetent. We're talking here of sueing people or entities. Such becomes challenging and financially risky for the weak and poor. One had better know exactly what one is talking about. Mere umbrage isn't enough.

So on balance, if the director has offered to discuss your complaint, it's probably wise to have that conversation. Rely upon rationality, fairness and common sense, because once all the posturing and reliance upon low level administrative assertions (institutional rules and policies etc.) have been exhausted, that's what matters in Tort Law, often regardless of statute legislation that might otherwise still have force.

It's one of the biggest issues that hardly anyone is properly aware of even though affecting nearly everything in society.

So Buppha, unless you're up for a Battle Royale in the Higher Courts, best to try and sweet talk a remedy that everyone can live with.

For the learned and confident however, Tort action can be entertaining and rewarding.

3 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

There's an important factor not yet discussed.

The entity who records on a camera or device owns and controls that footage, and can do anything they like with it, unless;

A clear agreement, on paper or by other substantive construction is in effect.

Or

If the footage was obtained unlawfully or for unlawful purpose. A long list of examples is available (none of which, on the face of it so far, seems likely in this case)

Or

Where no clear agreement is in effect but the footage becomes subject to ownership rights as a consequence of devilish payment processes. For example where a camerman accepts payment, on a 'fit for purpose' basis to record something on behalf of the payer. It's come up on these lists a few times where a disagreement has arisen between a producer or director and a self employed camera person providing their own equipment. Where that camera person has accepted due payment, as opposed to a gratuity or some other form of non binding arrangement, then usually the footage belongs to the entity who payed the camera person. It's not a definitive circumstance, but it's a rule of thumb that has decided many a case.

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

I want to have that conversation. But to prevent me from coming back into the classroom (victim blaming), is just wrong. Now, I miss out on my education. The things I am supposed to be learning I can't do it because I am not allowed to go back into the classroom, not until we have the meeting first. Victim blaming is her tactic. It seems. I don't think it's right.

3 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Hmm, what can I say to that ?

How about - Compose a statement that articulates those specific concerns in an impassionate and technical manner. Anticipate what they're going to say, and provide a rational 'pro former' defencive explanation. Lodge this as a letter before the meeting that stating an intend to assist the meeting to go forwards.

Being so prepared and confident of your own propriety should help on the human level by standing gracefully on moral and technical ground and the properly articulated letter. Be as kind and as compromisg as you can reasonably be. As ought they.

It's just an imagined hypothesis
Other realities are available.

3 years, 9 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

Go to class. You can probably sue for them not allowing you on campus unless you are a threat or a disruption. (Or somehow your presence harms others.). Just show up, tell them Vasco sent you.

Back to the original question about the footage. I don't tend to supply raw footage to actors because raw footage is rubbish, it is not even a first draft. I never had it sent to me for the films I was in. Also, there can be a lot of it.

Whether it is your right to see the footage is an interesting question. It does cost money to store footage, and many low-cost options have storage limits (a terabyte is not that much data for video if you are shooting every day.). Footage can easily be lost or erased. Even if it is stored, it can be hard to retrieve if you have a lot of data and you are not an expert at organising it. (I once had a full-time job involving finding data that other people couldn't.)

Most US, European and UK universities have some kind of guidance counsellor you can discuss these things with. I would suggest speaking to these people. They are there to help, and they are supposed to be confidential.

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

Well, it will be difficult for me to go to class. What if they won't let me in?

Back to the footage. The course leader deleted on purpose to discriminate against me, and it's also one of his ways of discreetly pursuing a vendetta against me. There're more to it than I say it all here.

I consider suing them, so.

3 years, 9 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

The male course leader also sent me about 30 or more emails over the course of just 1 month?! Most of them coming from his personal email, not school email. And he and the school know that I am going to complain about his misconduct. So, this is what I get as a consequence for trying to expose him.

3 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Did I mention that devil is in the detail ? None of which has yet been articulated here, none.

Notions of 'duty of care' in most institutions that I've felt with over the last half century tend to be self serving and risk averse even if ironically vulnerable to some astonishing improprieties.

Suing people isn't for the unlearned. Before going to the High Court in a Tort action, it's often best to constructively win your case at a hearing or audit by an oversight body qualified by either statute or other form of respected authority. It costs little or nothing with minimal risk. Given that such a qualified audit of the facts supports your argument, the results of which can usually successfully relied upon in court. Very often the evidence provided a qualified oversight authority is sufficient to bring the other side to a settlement out of Court, or as I've observed so often, an out of settlement only submitted to on the proverbial steps of the Court on the day of the hearing.

Functionaries, placemen and familiers of public institutions are notoriously incompetent when it comes to actual law.

Policies and rules are not above the Law. It also why the current government is so keen to obstruct access to Judicial Review. A consequential Constitutional crisis awaits the Supreme Court in that matter. It affects absolutely everything, even if ostrich like one keeps one head in a hole.

3 years, 8 months ago - Kim Mawson-Scott

Maybe the Tutor didn't save it because it ended up on the cutting room floor, the footage wasn't good enough. This is the case with a lot of footage. It doesn't mean that you were discriminated against....not everything is a big discrimination issue. I say that as a women.

3 years, 8 months ago - John Lubran

Who knows? There's nothing yet disclosed that provides anything sufficient for a definitive opinion.