Report

Interesting part of causing harm or distress, it doesn't have to be the victim so to speak. But a passer by for example.   The only ones I've seen, so perhaps different to the ones you've seen. Is he isn't following anyone, more standing still and they walk into shot.    Getting away from the case, street photography is all about how you conduct yourself and lots of grey areas.    For example if someone wanted to photograph/film children that is totally legal. Taking photographs of military/police station, totally legal if you are on a public footpath.    I was taking pictures of the bull by the bullring in brum, totally legal. But security say its an offence to do that. I knew they were wrong, but OK no probs mate.    If someone comes into frame and are annoyed and ask you to delete, I've no problems with that. When the PCOS or officers ask to see my camera/details, no issue with that. There's been many street photographers, that have had equipment siezed for being a bit arsey.   

Hmmm - I get the burning Will of the People logo as shared in a follow-up post but it's not necessarily what I've seen with their iconography.   But I guess we'll find out in due course. Be Monday at 8am before we know it.

I seem to recall they played a Milton Keynes concert at the Craufurd Arms venue in Wolverton 5 years ago (cap around 300) and didn't sell it out.

There even anything left to leak before Monday?

Have you watched any of the actual videos? Like I said, I don't know whether this is the same guy or not, I doubt it to be honest, but the one I watched could not even remotely be compared to the actions you describe. This was a bloke, following two very young girls, and filming them, with a focus on their more sensitive areas, for considerable time and distance. It wasn't somebody who 'happens to be in a go pro shot,' and definitely enough to cause alarm and distress to the victims, without a shadow of a doubt. To then post it online, without their consent, is where that distress continues, so by my (limited) understanding of the letter of the law, he can, (and should) be done for harassment / stalking.  There's a good reason why the big auditors on Youtube blur people's faces when requested, and this is it.  It's not going to stop you from being able to walk around with a gopro, provided you do it in a way that doesn't cause anybody any distress. It's not going to stop me from filming and photographing roller coasters and theme parks, then publishing online and it's not going to stop thetime's street photography, as long as we're not causing distress (even if we are a bit geeky.) It's a completely different thing, he's been arrested on suspicion of harassment and stalking, and the above is why, I think, that potential charge fits what we know so far.