Re: Dazed and confused ...
"unexpected outbreak of common sense in a Regulator's judgement."
How on earth is this common sense? CCTV cameras are not there for amusement, they are supposed to be there for protection. I was always under the impression that there were rules regarding what the footage could/couldn't be used for, and that the purpose was supposed to be protection.
Given this usage has now been ruled legitimate, I'm forced to conclude that I am no longer in favour of the millions of CCTV cameras "protecting" us. Regardless of what she was doing, it shouldn't have been broadcast on TV for entertainment purposes.
If she was committing a crime, then use the tape as evidence.
If she couldn't be identified, use just enough footage to ask the public to help identify her.
Given that they don't appear to be prosecuting her for urinating in the lift (the only actual crime described, assuming that's illegal) then the footage should be destroyed.
When did the rules on CCTV change?