Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok

[SticklinchJoe]

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?

[steviewevie]

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.

[lost]

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.

 

 

[SticklinchJoe]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

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

 

What law does that break? If there is a law against that, the BBC break it every day. 

[thetime]

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. 

[SticklinchJoe]

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 Wednesday at 06:27 PM by SticklinchJoe

[thetime]

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. 

 

 

[SticklinchJoe]

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.

[thetime]

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. 

[steviewevie]

2 hours ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

What law does that break? If there is a law against that, the BBC break it every day. 

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.

[GhostOfMaurice]

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 🤷🏻‍♀️

[thetime]

18 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.

 

Morally wrong, not legally. 

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

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 🤷🏻‍♀️

Not if you then publish it online... especially for personal gain.

[GhostOfMaurice]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Not if you then publish it online... especially for personal gain.

 

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

[thetime]

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 Wednesday at 09:19 PM by thetime

[SticklinchJoe]

It's how they say he was "secretly" filming too. That must be very hard to prove. 

 

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

[thetime]

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. 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, SticklinchJoe said:

It's how they say he was "secretly" filming too. That must be very hard to prove. 

 

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

what about the civil liberties of the women getting their pics posted online without their consent?

[GhostOfMaurice]

But if you're going out in the public, isn't it a given that people will see you anyway? 😂🤣 

[SticklinchJoe]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

what about the civil liberties of the women getting their pics posted online without their consent?

 

I don't see how going out and people seeing them affects their civil liberties. That's just a day to day occurrence.

[kerplunk]

I think the line is when it's deemed to be harrassment, but how that's judged I'm not sure. Targetting and following people around maybe - but then that's what paparazzi do isn't it...

[thetime]

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

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

 

 

Edited Thursday at 05:18 PM by thetime

[SticklinchJoe]

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.

[thetime]

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 Thursday at 06:17 PM by thetime

[SticklinchJoe]

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.