Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Residents living in luxury flats neighboring the Tate Modern extension have sued and won a case where they say the viewing platform that looks directly into their windows breaches their human rights and created a state of near constant surveillance   (npr.org) divider line
38
    More: Creepy, Law, Apartment, Supreme court, Lawyer, London, Common law, Tate, Lawsuit  
•       •       •

2762 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2023 at 2:02 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



38 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
edmo [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-03 11:13:38 AM  
Henceforth, all buildings will be windowless, beginning with new construction. Existing buildings will need to have windows bricked over within ten years. Problem solved.
 
Ambitwistor [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 2:05:18 PM  
Tourist pro-tip: the Tate Modern terrace bar has an amazing view of the Thames and the London skyline (and, apparently, these apartments), and you don't have to pay admission to the museum to get in.  I had a great gooseberry-and-elderflower crumble there over tea.
 
Hoblit [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 2:05:27 PM  

edmo: Henceforth, all buildings will be windowless, beginning with new construction. Existing buildings will need to have windows bricked over within ten years. Problem solved.


This goes for residential dwellings that neighbor public parks because people can't be bothered to shut their blinds or curtains.

/to be fair...
//sings to be fair
///It's a constant stream of people, all day, and you shouldn't have to shut your drapes that long
 
Samfucious [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 2:05:49 PM  
Welcome to city living, where you're almost always on public display.

If they were really rich, they could afford better urban peivacy.
 
maxandgrinch [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-03 2:06:55 PM  
Should have found the percentage of the population who like that kind of thing.
 
GoodHomer
2023-02-03 2:08:27 PM  
Which one was there first?
 
mongbiohazard
2023-02-03 2:09:50 PM  

edmo: Henceforth, all buildings will be windowless, beginning with new construction. Existing buildings will need to have windows bricked over within ten years. Problem solved.


Only the buildings of the poor though.
 
whither_apophis [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 2:11:21 PM  
Millionaires inconvenienced, courts are right on it.

Middle-class people living in a fire trap, we'll wait until the embers are cold
 
DonkeyDixon
2023-02-03 2:12:07 PM  

GoodHomer: Which one was there first?


I'm assuming the one the poors use
 
HotWingConspiracy
2023-02-03 2:12:17 PM  
The apartment owners, in turn, offered to pay for a screen to block off the terrace, which Tate Modern declined.

I mean...this seems like a reasonable offer for everyone.
 
drayno76
2023-02-03 2:13:10 PM  
...

Why buy a completely glass apartment and then complain when someone looks up your pants/skirt?

If you want to look down on the serfs from high, install a cam on top of a brutalist structure and put up 203cm plasma screens inside to mock them without them seeing you do it. 

They'll gawk at your wealth either way.

/Don't buy glass houses if you throw things or want privacy.
//Or throw orgies.
 
Somaticasual [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 2:13:56 PM  
You know,
If you choose to live in a floor-to-ceiling, 360-degree windowed unit in the middle of a huge metropolitan area - even on a fairly high floor - you need to accept the burden of privacy is on you.

Sadly, the court chose money over sanity.
 
RandomInternetComment
2023-02-03 2:16:38 PM  
Are curtains or one way reflective glass something people have not heard of?
 
ski9600 [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 2:18:33 PM  
It seems to me that if the male members grouped together to not hide anything and just go about their lives the problem would solve itself.

/all wang, all of the time!
 
gunther_bumpass
2023-02-03 2:24:27 PM  

Samfucious: Welcome to city living, where you're almost always on public display.

If they were really rich, they could afford better urban peivacy.


I need some urban peivacy. It sounds dirty.
 
oldfarthenry [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 2:25:15 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

My face when I have to rise from the settee to close the drapes before I can toss one off.
 
ReapTheChaos
2023-02-03 2:32:13 PM  
There's no expectation of privacy in your home if you insist on leaving your windows uncovered by curtains or blinds. It's one thing if someone is crouching in the shrubs outside your window, but if you can be seen from next door or across the street then that's on you.
 
cew-smoke
2023-02-03 2:38:35 PM  

ReapTheChaos: There's no expectation of privacy in your home if you insist on leaving your windows uncovered by curtains or blinds. It's one thing if someone is crouching in the shrubs outside your window, but if you can be seen from next door or across the street then that's on you.


Your missing a big piece of this puzzle. It is a public buildout that is specifically designed for people to go up and take in the view. So, imagine your city built a giant set of bleachers across the street from your house and tens of thousands of people sat on the bleachers looking into your house. Every single farking day. I'm willing to bet you might actually get pretty pissed off about that.
 
SirMadness
2023-02-03 2:40:44 PM  
Uh, one-way curtains exist.
media-amazon.comView Full Size

So, I'm smarter than a multi-millionaire? who knew?
 
rpm
2023-02-03 2:46:33 PM  

whither_apophis: Millionaires inconvenienced, courts are right on it.

Middle-class people living in a fire trap, we'll wait until the embers are cold


Bullshiat.

They'll wait for several more buildings to burn down before they're absolutely sure, and then maybe fine the developer $10, while there are still hundreds of buildings they won't do anything about.
 
sinko swimo
2023-02-03 2:46:34 PM  
some day son, all this will be yours

what? the curtains?
 
ReapTheChaos
2023-02-03 2:56:23 PM  

cew-smoke: ReapTheChaos: There's no expectation of privacy in your home if you insist on leaving your windows uncovered by curtains or blinds. It's one thing if someone is crouching in the shrubs outside your window, but if you can be seen from next door or across the street then that's on you.

Your missing a big piece of this puzzle. It is a public buildout that is specifically designed for people to go up and take in the view. So, imagine your city built a giant set of bleachers across the street from your house and tens of thousands of people sat on the bleachers looking into your house. Every single farking day. I'm willing to bet you might actually get pretty pissed off about that.


They'd be looking AT my house, not into it, I have curtains.

I don't see how it's any different than your average suburb where the houses are built 10-12 feet apart. You can't build a giant glass apartment building then complain that the neighbors are disrespecting your privacy. Buy curtains like everyone else has to.
 
iron de havilland [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-03 2:58:47 PM  

rpm: whither_apophis: Millionaires inconvenienced, courts are right on it.

Middle-class people living in a fire trap, we'll wait until the embers are cold

Bullshiat.

They'll wait for several more buildings to burn down before they're absolutely sure, and then maybe fine the developer $10, while there are still hundreds of buildings they won't do anything about.


Grenfell Tower fire: 2017. There are still buildings in the UK clad with flammable material, and some Tory scumbag (might've been Gove) was on the news the other night saying they'll get right onto thinking about doing something about it. WTAF.
 
Another Government Employee
2023-02-03 3:00:36 PM  

rpm: whither_apophis: Millionaires inconvenienced, courts are right on it.

Middle-class people living in a fire trap, we'll wait until the embers are cold

Bullshiat.

They'll wait for several more buildings to burn down before they're absolutely sure, and then maybe fine the developer $10, while there are still hundreds of buildings they won't do anything about.


And if 10 or 100 immigrants die in the process, so be it.
 
Arkanaut
2023-02-03 3:02:02 PM  

SirMadness: Uh, one-way curtains exist.
[media-amazon.com image 850x872]
So, I'm smarter than a multi-millionaire? who knew?


They can afford to be dumb.
 
scruffythecat
2023-02-03 3:10:11 PM  
You pay more for that attention with buildings near The High Line in NYC.
 
PvtStash
2023-02-03 3:13:17 PM  
everyone involved in the condo side of this should die.


A existed before B.
A is a public improvement/civilization kind of thing, a fooking museum with a viewing balcony
B: is some private ass wealthy luxury condos that came along much later than the museum. building where the viewing deck was already known about.


And apparently the people can't have nice things, only the privet wealthy people can have the nice things.


And this is why it's not that i want t see the world burn, but i would exert no effort to extinguish the fire as we are unworthy of the efforts and sacrifices that would be required to do so.
 
abmoraz
2023-02-03 3:37:06 PM  
Is this why Greta Thunberg hates on him so much?
 
Mrtraveler01
2023-02-03 3:46:23 PM  

scruffythecat: You pay more for that attention with buildings near The High Line in NYC.


I was just thinking the same thing. Being able to be gawked at by tourists is a selling point for those condos near the High Line.
 
WickerNipple [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-03 5:00:13 PM  

PvtStash: A existed before B.
A is a public improvement/civilization kind of thing


The terrace in question was built four years after the apartments.
 
stray_capts
2023-02-03 5:10:16 PM  

ReapTheChaos: cew-smoke: ReapTheChaos: There's no expectation of privacy in your home if you insist on leaving your windows uncovered by curtains or blinds. It's one thing if someone is crouching in the shrubs outside your window, but if you can be seen from next door or across the street then that's on you.

Your missing a big piece of this puzzle. It is a public buildout that is specifically designed for people to go up and take in the view. So, imagine your city built a giant set of bleachers across the street from your house and tens of thousands of people sat on the bleachers looking into your house. Every single farking day. I'm willing to bet you might actually get pretty pissed off about that.

They'd be looking AT my house, not into it, I have curtains.

I don't see how it's any different than your average suburb where the houses are built 10-12 feet apart. You can't build a giant glass apartment building then complain that the neighbors are disrespecting your privacy. Buy curtains like everyone else has to.


I have no curtains.  Of course, I live on a small acreage in the woods and can't see any other houses or a road from any of my windows, so there's that.
 
Pert
2023-02-03 5:26:54 PM  
I hate to be the voice of reason, but......

1. These rich farkers bought their apartments and had privacy before The Tate opened the viewing platform, which looks directly into their property. This is an extension of the law that prevents my neighbours putting in new windows that look directly into my property. Tourists were literally zooming in to take pictures inside their apartments.

2. This was a private and privately funded case by the property owners, and has literally nothing to do with the government's horrifically incompetent and farkwitted response to any safety issues in Tower blocks.
 
Mrtraveler01
2023-02-03 5:32:14 PM  

Pert: I hate to be the voice of reason, but......

1. These rich farkers bought their apartments and had privacy before The Tate opened the viewing platform, which looks directly into their property. This is an extension of the law that prevents my neighbours putting in new windows that look directly into my property. Tourists were literally zooming in to take pictures inside their apartments.

2. This was a private and privately funded case by the property owners, and has literally nothing to do with the government's horrifically incompetent and farkwitted response to any safety issues in Tower blocks.


You would be right. Except for this one detail.

The gallery, in its Weeners, pointed out that the construction plans for the terrace were publicly available when the apartments went on sale in 2012.

So then it falls on the real estate agency not being fully transparent with its buyers.
 
gameshowhost [OhFark]
2023-02-03 5:47:04 PM  
So what's it going to be, lolbertarians -- NANNY STATE!!! or M'PROPERTYRIGHTS!!!
 
Pert
2023-02-03 6:12:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Pert: I hate to be the voice of reason, but......

1. These rich farkers bought their apartments and had privacy before The Tate opened the viewing platform, which looks directly into their property. This is an extension of the law that prevents my neighbours putting in new windows that look directly into my property. Tourists were literally zooming in to take pictures inside their apartments.

2. This was a private and privately funded case by the property owners, and has literally nothing to do with the government's horrifically incompetent and farkwitted response to any safety issues in Tower blocks.

You would be right. Except for this one detail.

The gallery, in its Weeners, pointed out that the construction plans for the terrace were publicly available when the apartments went on sale in 2012.

So then it falls on the real estate agency not being fully transparent with its buyers.


Well, if it was in the Weeners, I have no sympathy...

But: The platform opened to the public in 2016, four years after the flats were completed.

It seems likely to me that once the flats (apartments) were completed, it wasn't then reasonable for the Tate to argue that they should be able to open a viewing platform looking directly into them. If the platform was there first, I doubt the ruling would have gone the same way.

/fun fact, I've met the judge whose original ruling was overturned
 
jtown
2023-02-03 8:28:17 PM  

edmo: Henceforth, all buildings will be windowless, beginning with new construction. Existing buildings will need to have windows bricked over within ten years. Problem solved.


A window tax worked for them in the past...
 
vudukungfu [TotalFark]
2023-02-03 11:54:28 PM  

SirMadness: Uh, one-way curtains exist.
[media-amazon.com image 850x872]
So, I'm smarter than a multi-millionaire? who knew?


Smarter than that dumb chick who orders her microwave dinner for one delivered to her apartment in that tv commercial. You know the one.
She wears plastic gloves because why wash your hands if you can create plastic trash, then prances around in front of treatment devoid windows facing walls of other windows.
Recipe for a victim in an urban setting.
 
stuffy
2023-02-04 2:57:24 PM  
Now they can go back to farking in the window.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want more stories with less ads? Try

TotalFark

It's what the cool kids are doing.
It also helps us pay the bills.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.