Jump to content
🎄 30% off annual ad-free GOLD membership! Treat yourself to an ad-free experience and support the site. Code FRIDAY30 at checkout. Ends Monday 🎅🏻

  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok

SticklinchJoe

By SticklinchJoe
in Discussions

 Share

Recommended Posts

SticklinchJoe Enthusiast

SticklinchJoe

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2450d5993vo

 

I found this story interesting. Basically, someone has been filming ladies who are out on the town and posting the videos online.

 

This guy is obviously a creep, and a weirdo (it's not Thom Yorke, by the way), but is that an arrestable offence now? I was wondering what your thoughts on this are, because as far as I can tell he wasn't upskirting or anything. Isn't it his right to film in public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steviewevie Grand Master

steviewevie

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2450d5993vo

 

I found this story interesting. Basically, someone has been filming ladies who are out on the town and posting the videos online.

 

This guy is obviously a creep, and a weirdo (it's not Thom Yorke, by the way), but is that an arrestable offence now? I was wondering what your thoughts on this are, because as far as I can tell he wasn't upskirting or anything. Isn't it his right to film in public?

err...not sure it is his right to film people then put it online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lost Veteran

lost

Posted
Posted

There are loads on them on youtube and I guess they make big money. Mainly because girls particularly from northern towns and cities in the UK tend to dress on a night out in ways men from other countries are not used to seeing.

 

Like alot on things on the net (streaming sites) they are probably fighting a losing battle and playing wack a mole trying to shut them all down.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thetime Mentor

thetime

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SticklinchJoe said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2450d5993vo

 

I found this story interesting. Basically, someone has been filming ladies who are out on the town and posting the videos online.

 

This guy is obviously a creep, and a weirdo (it's not Thom Yorke, by the way), but is that an arrestable offence now? I was wondering what your thoughts on this are, because as far as I can tell he wasn't upskirting or anything. Isn't it his right to film in public?

 

Filming in public isn't illegal, but behind the paywall is where the alleged upskirting was put. 

 

I highly doubt he will be charged. He will have his devices sent away for analysis, which could take a year or so to be searched.

 

Proving he actually took the videos, is perhaps harder task. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SticklinchJoe Enthusiast

SticklinchJoe

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

Filming in public isn't illegal, but behind the paywall is where the alleged upskirting was put. 

 

I highly doubt he will be charged. He will have his devices sent away for analysis, which could take a year or so to be searched.

 

Proving he actually took the videos, is perhaps harder task. 

 

It wasn't clear to me if that was the same person though. 

 

Edit: re-reading the article, I think the paywall thing is probably a different case. It's certainly not mentioned in the quotes regarding this individual.

Edited by SticklinchJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
thetime Mentor

thetime

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

It wasn't clear to me if that was the same person though. 

 

Edit: re-reading the article, I think the paywall thing is probably a different case. It's certainly not mentioned in the quotes regarding this individual.

 

Aaah yes stalking and harrasment, I was reading the case on manchester evening news website. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SticklinchJoe Enthusiast

SticklinchJoe

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, thetime said:

 

Aaah yes stalking and harrasment, I was reading the case on manchester evening news website. 

 

 

 

Yes, I feel those charges would be pretty much impossible to prove, which makes me wonder why there's even an article about it on the BBC. To what end?

 

Unless there's more to it that isn't public yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thetime Mentor

thetime

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

Yes, I feel those charges would be pretty much impossible to prove, which makes me wonder why there's even an article about it on the BBC. To what end?

 

Unless there's more to it that isn't public yet.

 

Well it was a very big in the media 6-9 months ago. Perhaps they want to put people's mind at rest, before the Christmas party season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GhostOfMaurice Apprentice

GhostOfMaurice

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Grey area...but I expect filming someone secretly in a certain state without their consent which is then posted on tiktok or YouTube for people to w*nk over is probably on the wrong side of the law.

 

If you're in a public place you can be filmed. I'd always present myself in a way that I'm happy to be seen when I'm out and about. We're getting filmed all the time by CCTV 🤷🏻‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thetime Mentor

thetime

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

Why not? Not saying it's ethical, but I don't see why it would be illegal.

Its not, they are going down the copyright stance. Which is debatable, but its owned by the one filming/photographer. 

 

Are the youtube auditors, asking for release forms? Like Veitch in Manchester? No. 

 

I'm a street photographer, have been for 30 years. The biggest culprits not knowing the law, are the police. 

 

 

Edited by thetime
Link to comment
Share on other sites
thetime Mentor

thetime

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not defending him, I'm defending civil liberties 

 

It's interesting case, more so about filming/photography in public rather than this case. 

 

It will certainly will give more heat to legit street photographers, especially from PCOS, Police and security who don't know the law. 

 

I've been hassled a few times down the years, for a long time I keep the law for taking photographs in public printed in my bag. 

 

They ask to look at pictures/video on my nikon d850, I oblige and off I go. I don't have to do that or give personal details, I do so to give myself an easier time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SticklinchJoe Enthusiast

SticklinchJoe

Posted
  • Author
Posted
53 minutes ago, thetime said:

He has been bailed for further investigations, basically his devices siezed. 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-issue-bradford-man-arrested-134441639.html

 

 

 

Do you think that will be a voluntary thing, or can the police literally just take whatever they want from you if they feel like it? lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thetime Mentor

thetime

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

Do you think that will be a voluntary thing, or can the police literally just take whatever they want from you if they feel like it? lol.

 

Police wouldnt need permission to search and can take whatever they want, which will be sent away for forensic analysis. I'd imagine laptops, cameras, phones, hard drives have all been siezed. 

 

Some people wait 1-2 years before they are looked at. But as this is a very public case, it might be pushed to the front of the backlog. Police get lazy, rather than police work just sieze devices. Then they moan about backlogs. 

 

Even those victims of crime, that have there devices siezed for evidence have the same issue. 

Edited by thetime
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SticklinchJoe Enthusiast

SticklinchJoe

Posted
  • Author
Posted
15 hours ago, thetime said:

 

Police wouldnt need permission to search and can take whatever they want, which will be sent away for forensic analysis. I'd imagine laptops, cameras, phones, hard drives have all been siezed. 

 

Some people wait 1-2 years before they are looked at. But as this is a very public case, it might be pushed to the front of the backlog. Police get lazy, rather than police work just sieze devices. Then they moan about backlogs. 

 

Even those victims of crime, that have there devices siezed for evidence have the same issue. 

 

Mad, innit? I watched a documentary on Netflix the other day about the power police have in the US, and it's absurd. It's similar here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...