₦airaland Forum

They should keep questioning.

tonyuny12:
You're concluding out of nothing. I said he should give same not that he's not advising Soludo.

So don't conclude what I don't mean

Give same what? Is he the governor? do you know what he may have already told the governor? Is the governor bound to take his words?

Like I said before and would say again and again, if you hate the man, just say it. If you have another preferred candidate, dont be ashamed to call their names. But may it be know that your accusation that Obi isn't advising Soludo is just watery, empty and pointless.

tonyuny12:
Oh you're his doctor that confirmed him one

Like I said before, if you dont like Mr Obi and if you dont intend voting him, you can simply just say so boldly. You don't need to run around churning out funny excuses like "Obi not advising Soludo" as the basis of your dislike for Obi. Besides, you don't even know if he indeed has lent a word or two to Soludo...

tonyuny12:
You don't need be in same party before offering solutions to challenges. Goodluck and Buhari are not in same party but he visits aso rock and offer advice where necessary.

And of what value has Goodluck's so called advice been especially given that the person receiving the advice is deaf?

tonyuny12:
Is he a private individual? Someone who was once a governor of a state is same you're calling private. Funny indeed.

What I'm saying is if he has the solutions, let him offer same to Soludo and not wait until he's the president of the country.

I forgot most individuals have turned against Soludo already for the steps taken already.

What authority does an ex governor exactly have over the security apparatus of a state? Please educate us so we may know because there must be something you know which we dont.

From my hazy knowledge of the Nigerian situation, even a sitting governor is borderline powerless and has almost no say on how the security structure in his state is run; that's even the reason Mr Obi today has voiced his support in favour of the argument on state policing.. But somehow, even when a sitting governor lacks the powers, you expect an ex-governor who currently holds no public office to have some influence?

Last time I checked, Obi and Soludo dont belong to the same party, they arent friends and dont even seem to be in good terms. But somehow, your judgement of Peter Obi is predicated on his inability to literally 'take over the government of Soludo' in regards to security?

If you dont like Mr Obi and if you dont intend voting him, you know you can simply just boldly say so instead of hiding behind the bizarre allegation that "he isnt advising Soludo".

tonyuny12:
I can't start repeating myself. Abeg follow up

Follow up on what exactly? You expect a private citizen to influence the security situation in a country where all actionable powers on security are vested on the hands of one man who's deaf to advice and literally now in coma?.... If that's the metric on which you want to judge the suitability of Obi (or even any other one of the principal candidates), then your logic is just flawed (similar judging a fish on its inability to climb a tree).

tonyuny12:
How many has he offered Anambra and south east at large with all the security challenges befalling her?

Is he the president and commander in chief of armed forces? Is he the chairman of the DSS or NIA or the commander of the police, civil defence and other forces directly responsible for maintaining peace and security around the nation?

Jeezuzpick:
They're not clerics.

Whatever they are, their faces look amusing

The faces of those clerics on the queue is what I find most amusing. Kaii... poverty na bastard!

Lol...

Mandem dey hustle for daily bread

Goke7:
I disagree on this. I too wanted osinbajo. The truth is any Yoruba candidate would still have it rough, Imagine if it was fashola. Non yorubas especially our se brothers are always scared of perceived very strong Yoruba politicians. Even when osinbajo was picked as running mate to buhari, don't you see how folks rose against him? Despite the popularity of Obi and the loss of osun why are they still not confident of beating Tinubu, the attacks keep increasing and will continue.

But when campaign officially starts according to INEC, we will see a different trajectory in the trends of popularity of the candidates

Lol... you clearly dont understand Igbos. There's a large number of educated Igbos (including myself) who would have supported PYO had he won the primaries; a lot of people in this group wouldn't have been keen on supporting Obi given his lower winning chances.

It's only the hardcore unenlightened Ipob stock that would rather die than vote PYO, simply because of his tribe; and despite whatever noise you see or hear online, this group doesn't represent the majority at all.

Peter Obi is currently getting the momentum he's getting today cos APC and PDP goofed bigtime. A lot of people (including myself) would rather 'waste' their votes on Obi cos of the candidates fronted by APC and PDP.

Godfullsam:
Are you new in this country? Even if APC presents Osinbajo the igbos will still not vote for him.

It is not just about tinubu, it is about the yoruba race. The igbos hate yoruba with perfect hatred. This is what we all know..

Dont allow anyone here or anywhere to fool you, an average Igbo thinks they are smarter than anyone.

They same Osinbajo they called mere commissioner, aso rock errand boy, traders money distributor etc.

If the VP were the APC presidential flag bearer, you will still accuse him of doing nothing when Christians were brutally murdered under his watch as the vice president and so so..

The igbos are irredeemably hate-filled set of people. Their jealous is equal to none.

I don't like Tinubu, but I am afraid the old man may win the next election. When igbos hate you, it means you are on your way to victory.

Ask Jonathan in 2015

Ask Atiku in 2019

The bolded part of your message is definitely not true; you clearly dont understand Igbos. The only Igbos who would support an Atiku over a PYO are the hardcore IPObians who suffer from serious sense deficiency; this group clearly doesnt make represent the majority of Igbos.

If APC had chosen Osinbajo, it would have been a disaster for the Obidient movement we see today. Half the current day Obidients from the SS, SW, middle belt and even the SE would have supported a PYO (who would be seen as someone with a better chance at winning); a further large number of current day Obidients would have just been on the fence.

The only reason Obi is gaining such global popularity today, despite his obscure party and lack of structure, is because of the nature of the other 2 main contestants.

If APC picked Osinbajo as it's candidate, it would have been an easy win for ApC.

With the exception of hardcore Ipobians who would rather die than vote a Yoruba candidate, a large number of present day 'Obidients' from the SE, SS, SW and middle belt, would have gladly supported PYO as he would be perceived to have a better chance at winning than Obi. A further sizeable number of 'Obidients' (e.g. myself) would have been left with no choice than sitting on the fence in 2023).

APC picking Tinubu and PDP picking a northerner is the reason Obi is gaining global popularity today.

Ralphlauren:
You are talking nonsense.

Go back and read the full story.

Those guys did not have the license to operate a money transmission/remittance business.

They actually had the license in some states; but unfortunately for them, they were caught also operating in some states where they didnt have a license.

babzo:
This story is really inaccurate.

Neither of these two guys were accused of stealing or fraud, but rather not stopping fraudsters? But why has the same system not sent the CEO of Western Union and Moneygram to jail?

Why jail them? Why not fines? Do bank owners or managers get jailed because fraudsters keep money in their banks?.why havnt the managers of Western Union and Moneygram being jailed since all these years?

The story is 100% wrong. Neither of these two men stole any money. I know many grateful Nigerians who used Ping Express to support their loved ones in Nigeria to the anger of the Big 2 ( Western Union and Moneygram). How can you jail a bank MD because fraudsters have accounts with the bank? Something is seriously wrong here. Why have the MDs of Western Union and Moneygram not been jailed for all the billions fraudsters have sent through their companies? Oh I forgot those are not immigrant owned businesses. Worst case they will be given a fine. Or maybe it's because they are "small boys"

All the people who used Ping Express never gave a dime in cash to the company, they sent the money using their bank debit cards. So why have the managers of the banks from where the money came from not being charged?

People will think this is $167 million cash somewhere. No $167 million anywhere. That's the total of funds they legitimately sent on behalf of people.

$50, $100, $200 here and there from 30,000 customers over 5 years. I myself sometimes sent $15 and sometimes $300 or more.

The allegations is on the $1 million + sent by a Fraudster, Collins over a 3 year period. If Ping Express had not verified their customers properly; how would they have been able to track the Collins guy? But Ping did proper verification for all customers.

But the banks where the monies came from to Ping Express are not being questioned.
This is a company I used for years and people came to know.

They followed every rule.

I know the stress I went through to get verified before using their services; license, phone call etc, things I never had to do with Western Union.

They are not accused of fraud, but rather not stopping fraudsters. Then why jail time? To kill their business finally?

When will the CEO of Moneygram and Western Union that Yahoo Boys have been using for over 20 years to send money, be arrested and jailed? NEVER.

Western Union and Moneygram have lost probably billions in the last few Years with the arrival of companies like Ping Express that made sending money to Africa not only faster, but cheaper, direct to bank accounts and 24/7.

Western Union that used to be only available during banking hours. They changed quickly when Ping Express and the new guys positively disrupted the system.

This is really unfortunate.

From what I read, the only reason they were charged was for failing to strictly adhere to some financial regulations. In some instances they were said to not report transactions over a certain amount within the stipulated time, and in other cases, they were accussed of operating in states where they weren't licensed.

aribisala0:
Why are you making that point TO ME ? Do I have a particular need for that point? What is it in our exchanges that highlights a deficiency syndrome of that point that makes you feel you must ram it down my throat. Are you autistic? We were talking about smashing the phone and right to privacy .That argument you were having with someone else must I join BY FORCE
It cannot be classed as harassment . Harassment by law requires AT LEAST TWO incidents You are the one preaching about unnecessary arguments but you just cannot help yourself.

Wonderful!!!.... The last time I checked, I was in a conversation with someone else when you barged into my mentions uninvited to dispute what I said. Apparently you didnt comprehend my point, so in good faith, I took the pains to clarify the statement I made for you.

But now you're asking me why I was explaining my point to you? Wow!

With this brand of reasoning, you actually think it's someone else that has the mental health issues?

Indeed, many are mad but only few are roaming!

aribisala0:
Well You should follow your own advice about no need for long arguments?
Now you are talking about comprehension?
~First the only reason I quoted you was because you talked about smashing his phone. You later said you exaggerated. OK
Next we were talking about reasonable expectation of privacy and you were arguing he is not a public official .
Clearly you are a dishonest fellow with a fondness for pointless arguments. You shifted from that to harassment . Now you are saying I said . I can't tell whether he is close or not so we have move from smashing phone to Privacy to measuring distance . And now you are introducing sentimentality . I made it clear all along what I want to talk about and what I do not want to talk about.
I am not here to discuss facts inside the video or to argue them or buttress them about what happened just the legal principle that ; In the US you can film in public anybody whether they consent or not.
Reflect on that and see who is pursuing pointless arguments. You have been up and down the thread arguing with different people that does not mean I am having those same arguments with you. At some point you even quoted me jointly with one of you opponents as if we are teammates.
Guy I was not there and do not want to discuss the facts of what happened there.
All I am saying is anyone in public can be filmed. If that filming is done in a way that is threatening harassing etc that is another matter but a totally parallel one to whether there is a right to privacy as you have ignorantly stated

Lol... what's with this man running all about in circles? I already made my point; its offensive and can be classed as harrassment if you approach a strangers and start filming them right on their faces... Period!

You're free to disagree if you want. Feel free to approach strangers next time you're abroad and stick a camera to their faces; when you do that, we will know who's running around making irrelevant pointless arguments.

aribisala0:
No need for long arguments ? SO why are you still quoting me? You want to have the last word? You are not saying anything you have not already said . Just recycling the same stuff.You just keep shifting all the time. The issue is not about HOW you film but if you can . You started off mouthing a lot of rubbish about Privacy and I am telling you there is NOTHING like that. Now you are talking about harassment?? WTF
I am not the other person you have jointly quoted me with. Please stop doing that. I am the one that should tell you no need for long argument.
My position is that in the US you have the right to film any person with your phone in any place that is a public place as long as you do not break other laws. I have repeatedly made it clear I am not talking about the specifics or facts of this Aregbesola story because as far as I am concerned I do not have all the facts just a one sided presentation. You have talked as if you were physically there making all kinds of wild assertions. I am not engaging on that.
You have the right to ride your car but not to drive against traffic. If he broke the law WHILST filming I do not Know but FILMIING itself is not against the law. That is all I am talking about whether he was harassing or invading personal space or in Aregbesola's face as far as I am concerned is a mere speculative allegation.
Once you get out of your house you can be filmed subject to the constitution and extant laws.
You know what honestly I am not interested in you silly scenarios they are irrelevant to me

It's unfortunate if you cant comprehend what I'm saying; no one has said anywhere that filming in public spaces is against the law. But when your filming is becoming intrusive of a person's personal space, it becomes an 'invasion', and that cant be right by any law.

You say you cant tell from the video whether he was close to Aregbe or not, but that's your opinion; everyone else who's watched the video can easily tell that that guy was pretty close to Aregbe, possibly within ~6ft away (Aregbe could actual stretch out a hand and almost touch the camera). If you think it's okay to do that to strangers you see on the road, or if you think the law is okay with that, well, I dont know what else to say.

1stGenAmerican:
I’ll ask you kindly to please stop attempting to educate me on the law, especially when you don’t have a good understanding of those very laws.
You’re misinterpreting the law and conflating wiretapping and recording laws with videotaping and it’s like comparing mangoes to garden eggs. Even with wiretapping and recording phone conversations, some states don’t require advance permission.
Video Recording and taking photos of people in public spaces, whether it includes sound or not, is legal in all 50 states.
You continue to beat a dead horse because Aregbe was in a public space and there is no privacy within public spaces. Regardless of how you twist it, the man recording him committed no crime.

aribisala0:
Which law does not permit audio recording without permission?.
Whether or not he was keeping a reasonable distance is debatable. I do not know and neither do you. You say he was "in his face" ? Did he kiss him? We did not even see the guy's face or body and can only infer from the video
At some point in the video it was Aregbesola that moved TOWARD the guy to block recording. So one could argue they were in each other's faces. There is in some US states a principle of stand your ground .

Let us not comment on things we are not witnesses to as if we were.
I am only talking about the legal principles IN GENERAL.
You say he was "harassing" him. Well that is an opinion. others might say he was trolling .I do not want to get into debates about opinions. What is a fact is that at some point Aregbesola invited him to sit with him so if harassment occurred at what point did an invitation to sit change to a harassment experience. I do not know the law for that particular jurisdiction but generally harassment would indicate actions OCCURRING AT LEAST TWICE. on two or more separate occasions

The legal principle of concern is what are the redress options to harassment.
In approaching any debate it is important to clarify what the issues are to avoid being all over the place.

Lol... For a second, expunge it from your minds that this is a 'Nigerian Politician' which we all love to hate; also, imagine that it wasnt a man, but a young lady.

Imagine you walk into a restaurant and you see a young lady, maybe sitting with her child at a corner. Then you walk towards her, rip out your camera, and from a close distance of less than 6ft from her face, you start recording her. She tells you to stop because she feels uncomfortable with your behaviour, but you bluntly refuse and say "this is America so you have a right to do whatever you want".... While trying this social experiment, make sure the police is nearby. When the police is called upon, I would love to hear how you can defend your actions that it wasn't harassment.

No need for long arguments, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an expert in the law, and I know next to nothing about American laws. But my common sense already tells me if I do the bolded above, it definitely constitutes public nuisance and harassment.

drakeli:
First of all, remember that nobody knows you. You are not a public figure. Aregbe is a public figure in public space. In America, he can be recorded. The only problem I have with the guy recording is that he’s too close. He could do that 8 feet’s away with no problem

You're correct, whether he's a private or public figure doesnt matter in this case. Videoing a person in public isnt also the issue; the issue here is that he didnt keep a reasonable distance, and that already constitutes an invasion of private space/harassment.

aribisala0:
Following you around is another matter which may be unlawful
The principle is that it is lawful to make a video recording. Doing so in an intrusive manner e.g shining bright lights on a person's face, invading personal space making abusive or inappropriate remarks etc may be a public order offence but if I am not in your personal space I can record even the police.
If you are in public you cannot assert "privacy" violation. Smashing phone?? Well are you King Kong.? You go look face before you smash. No matter how hard you are there is always a harder man.
This is the US where people carry guns so that approach might get you some surprises . You have no right to smash anyone's phone but could lose your life trying to do that. Violence as tempting as it is solves few things

Was exaggerating when I said "smashing his phone". But the point is that the man was clearly invading another person's privacy. No crime in recording a person in public, but you have to keep a reasonable distance. That man was literally in Aregbe's face and following him around.

1stGenAmerican:
No invasion of privacy occurred. The police would’ve calmly explained that there’s no privacy in a public space.

The law doesnt prohibit video recording a person in a public space, as long as you keep a 'REASONABLE DISTANCE'.

The laws also doesnt permit audio recording a person without their permission. So in this context, 'reasonable distance' may just be defined as 'a distance far enough for you not to capture an audio recording of the person's private conversation in your video'.

Imagine for one second that that was a young lady with a child, and then the man walks up to her, right in her face and starts videoing. You really think the law would permit such invasion simply because it's a public place?

That man was in Aregbe's face literally, that was a clear case of invasion and the police would have dragged him away to at least 10 metres away.

aribisala0:
NO .

You are in public and there is no privacy as long as they keep a reasonable distance . Does not make any difference that he is a public official that is irrelevant.
Anything that is in your visual field that you can record with your eyes in a public space you can record with your phone.
Why not invest a little time and do some research?
The legal positions is that is you are in public you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy

So why not Google

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed

Apparently there's no law against videoing a person in public. But it's important to keep a 'reasonable' distance. The man videoing Aregbe obviously wasn't keeping a 'reasonable' distance, he was right in his face and literally harrassing him - public official or not, that was wrong!

I believe while the law doesnt prohibit videoing a person without their consent, the law doesnt permit you to audio record a person without their permission. So in this context, I guess 'reasonable distance' may be defined as 'a distance far enough to catch an audio recording of whatever the person is saying'.

MALIGNANTGuest:
I will listen to you only if you live in America.
The US has got funny Laws.
I have seen a worse situation than AREGBEsola's

A Female shoplifter can sue you for sexual harassment if you grab her arms in a bid to arrest her & u can't block her from walking away.
Only the police can...however passers by can except in a situation of citizens arrest where the situation becomes life threatening.

freemi:
oga the way the law handles such privacy of public figure is different from normal persons except not in ur shithole.

I just read a piece; there's no law in most parts of the US against recording a video of a person without their permission, as long as your video has no audio recording. Making an audio recording of a person without their permission is against the law.

MALIGNANTGuest:
He may have arrived the US on a diplomatic passport. That makes him a public officer too.
People record videos live in public places in the United States. You can't stop them.
Not even AREGBE would...

The moment he requested to stop being followed and recorded, what that man was doing automatically turned into an invasion of privacy and harrassment. If the police were there, the man would have been dragged away.

You're in a free country doesnt mean you have the right to freely walk up to a person, invade their space and start recording them without their consent.

freemi:
yea that's if u r nt public figure

Where does the law draw the line dividing private and public individuals? Even public figures must have a right to privacy, especially when they arent on any live official engagement. From the moment he requested to stop being followed and recorded, I believe what that man was doing turned into an invasion of privacy/harrasment.

MALIGNANTGuest:
IF AREGBE RASCAL had destroyed that phone he would have suffered immensely.
USA has got funny Laws, unlike Naija oo
That Guy will win the case!
He's a public officer & such extends to him.
He can be recorded at any point in time especially in the public.

Is he a public official in the US? Is he in the US on any assignment as a public official from Nigeria? If a stranger walks up to you with a phone and starts recording, dont you think that's an invasion of your privacy?

I think the guy recording is just being stupid. If a stranger just comes and starts following me around and recording me closely with my camera, I believe I have the right to even smash his phone for invading my privacy and threatening my life.

Hmmm... surgery in Nigeria?

By 2moro when final results are announced, the gbedu nor go easy

Omo.. The brindge don stand gidigba!!