Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok

[thetime]

32 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

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.

 

Yep a person can make a complaint to the police, someone they don't like or fell out with.

 

Then you get questioned, released on bail without charges and have all your devices siezed. Life turned upside down, then you get them all back a year later and not charged. 

 

People have used these devices for work, or the devices are employers property. 

 

Sacked. 

 

All because someone makes a complaint, police go the lazy route and sieze all devices. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

As a slight aside - there has been no permission givven in parliament for fascial recognition systems to be used by the police, yet use them they do. 

 

[steviewevie]

it's terrible, won't someone think of the poor creepy phone freak uploading pics of women for w*nkers.

[thetime]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it's terrible, won't someone think of the poor creepy phone freak uploading pics of women for w*nkers.

 

You are missing the point, its about public filming/photography in general not just this specific case. It's a very interesting case, due to public photography. I doubt he will be charged with anything, certainly not harrasement or upskirting. 

 

Also you are jumping the gun somewhat. He hasn't even been charged, released pending further enquiries. 

 

How incompetent are the police, they've been investigating this case for 6 months and still can't get a charge to stick. 

 

On releasing footage of his house being rammed, has that happened before? When They've been found guilty, but not on an arrest. 

 

For me they knew it wouldn't stick, it was just about the Manchester nightlife economy for Christmas. 

 

 

 

[Alvoram]

I don't think the case is about public filming at all, not really. I think the media are just going with that line because it's what he does.

Looks to me, like they're trying to build a stalking and harassment charge against him, due to the way he actually goes about it. I haven't seen his videos, or any like them, thankfully, but it sounds, in the articles, like he follows drunk girls around and harasses them. That's a bit different to filming in public in general, capturing strangers in that footage and posting your videos online. And it's very different to taking photos of public life. 

As far as I understand it, the law provides for no protection of your privacy when in a public place. But it does protect you from being stalked, upskirted or feeling harassed. 

 

Quote

Ch Insp Stephen Wiggins said: "Filming in public is legal, however where this filming crosses the line into offences such as upskirting, stalking or harassment, it’s important that we don’t allow that behaviour."

 

[Alvoram]

3 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

I don't think the case is about public filming at all, not really. I think the media are just going with that line because it's what he does.

Looks to me, like they're trying to build a stalking and harassment charge against him, due to the way he actually goes about it. I haven't seen his videos, or any like them, thankfully, but it sounds, in the articles, like he follows drunk girls around and harasses them. That's a bit different to filming in public in general, capturing strangers in that footage and posting your videos online. And it's very different to taking photos of public life. 

As far as I understand it, the law provides for no protection of your privacy when in a public place. But it does protect you from being stalked, upskirted or feeling harassed. 

 

 

I just went and searched Youtube for 'Manchester nightlife.' I don't know if it's the same guy or not, but the first video I came across is one from 11 days ago by "Rocky Travel." (I am not going to link it here, as I don't want to give it more exposure.) 

I only got 40 seconds into that video before I was in agreement, that this behaviour absolutely, without a doubt, counts as stalking and harassment, then turned it off.

Disgusting. If that's the kind of thing they're clamping down on, then they should have all of our backing, and I say that as somebody that films in crowded places in public myself! It's a VERY different thing. If they can't protect people from this king of creepy behaviour under current harassment laws, then you can expect changes to filming in public laws to come. So it's in our interests that they get a result, not a threat to our liberty at all. 

[thetime]

7 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

I just went and searched Youtube for 'Manchester nightlife.' I don't know if it's the same guy or not, but the first video I came across is one from 11 days ago by "Rocky Travel." (I am not going to link it here, as I don't want to give it more exposure.) 

I only got 40 seconds into that video before I was in agreement, that this behaviour absolutely, without a doubt, counts as stalking and harassment, then turned it off.

Disgusting. If that's the kind of thing they're clamping down on, then they should have all of our backing, and I say that as somebody that films in crowded places in public myself! It's a VERY different thing. If they can't protect people from this king of creepy behaviour under current harassment laws, then you can expect changes to filming in public laws to come. So it's in our interests that they get a result, not a threat to our liberty at all. 

 

By definition it isn't harrasment or stalking, it has to do it on more than one occasion to the same person. 

 

You would of thought he wouldn't have been released on bail with no charges. If they had enough evidence for harrasment. 

 

Morally its wrong, legally I'm less sure it is. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by thetime

[Alvoram]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

 

By definition it isn't harrasment or stalking, it has to do it on more than one occasion to the same person. 

 

You would of thought he wouldn't have been released on bail with no charges. If they had enough evidence for harrasment. 

 

Morally its wrong, legally I'm less sure it is. 

 

 

 

 

The video I watched, the person does do it on more than one occasion, in seperate locations, but to the same girls, in the first 40 seconds of the video! It's also prolonged and really creepy, following them constantly.

Also, there's a very good chance that somebody who stands on the streets of the same city every Friday and Saturday night, following girls, and filming them constantly, is going to end up filming the same girls multiple times across different nights. 

Regardless, I'm not a lawyer, solicitor, or any kind of legal professional. But my understanding is as follows... Whilst you're right, stalking and harassment has to be on more than one occasion, it doesn't have to be the same offence, so long as it's behaviour that "causes someone alarm or distress." It's important to note that this can also include online. In this case, if he's following and filming somebody, when repeatedly asked not to, he knows he's causing distress. If he then goes and uploads that video too, and the fact that him uploading the video has damaged their reputation, as can be evidenced by the degrading comments section of these videos, he's then guilty of stalking. 

 

Quote

"Stalking"

Section 2A (3) PHA 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which are ones associated with stalking. The listed behaviours are:

• following a person
• contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means
• publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person
• monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email, or any other form of electronic communication
• loitering in any place (whether public or private)
• interfering with any property in the possession of a person
• watching or spying on a person

Cyber Stalking

Stalking or harassment can take place on the internet and via other technologies. This is sometimes known as "cyberstalking". This can include the use of social networking sites, email, chat rooms and other forums facilitated by technology. The internet can be used for a range of purposes, for example:

• to locate personal information about a victim
• to communicate with the victim
• as a means of surveillance of the victim
• identity theft such as subscribing the victim to services, purchasing goods and services in their name
• damaging the reputation of the victim
• electronic sabotage such as spamming and sending viruses
• accessing spyware or malware
• tricking other internet users into harassing or threatening a victim

2 different actions, including online actions, that cause the victim alarm or distress on 2 different occasions... It's stalking. But again, this is just my ignorant interpretation, and understanding. 

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

The video I watched, the person does do it on more than one occasion, in seperate locations, but to the same girls, in the first 40 seconds of the video! It's also prolonged and really creepy, following them constantly.

Also, there's a very good chance that somebody who stands on the streets of the same city every Friday and Saturday night, following girls, and filming them constantly, is going to end up filming the same girls multiple times across different nights. 

Regardless, I'm not a lawyer, solicitor, or any kind of legal professional. But my understanding is as follows... Whilst you're right, stalking and harassment has to be on more than one occasion, it doesn't have to be the same offence, so long as it's behaviour that "causes someone alarm or distress." It's important to note that this can also include online. In this case, if he's following and filming somebody, when repeatedly asked not to, he knows he's causing distress. If he then goes and uploads that video too, and the fact that him uploading the video has damaged their reputation, as can be evidenced by the degrading comments section of these videos, he's then guilty of stalking. 

 

2 different actions, including online actions, that cause the victim alarm or distress on 2 different occasions... It's stalking. But again, this is just my ignorant interpretation, and understanding. 

 

Good post.

 

It's just strange with all that and perhaps more if they are going down the harrasment route, why he hasn't been charged and released on bail. 

[Alvoram]

Just now, thetime said:

 

Good post.

 

It's just strange with all that and perhaps more if they are going down the harrasment route, why he hasn't been charged and released on bail. 

They often do not charge straight away when they're building a case. Charges can even come years later. Or maybe never at all. I actually know for sure that this is quite normal... There was an old bloke near us stung by one of those hunter gangs, I thought for sure he'd be charged and maybe even remanded straightaway, a clear cut case. But nothing, for almost 2 years, whilst they built a case from all of his electronic devices and other evidence, then 2 years later, he's arrested and charged on the original offence, and loads more that came to light. 

My guess is they'll now be going through all of his accounts and electronic devices looking for evidence. Contacting those who've 'featured' in his videos previously. They're building an ironclad case based on evidence that shows a repeated pattern of behaviour, and multiple victims. 

Or they overreached, have no evidence, no victims willing to pursue charges, and just wanted to be seen to be acting on public opinion. 🤷‍♂️

[SticklinchJoe]

16 hours ago, Alvoram said:

The video I watched, the person does do it on more than one occasion, in seperate locations, but to the same girls, in the first 40 seconds of the video! It's also prolonged and really creepy, following them constantly.

Also, there's a very good chance that somebody who stands on the streets of the same city every Friday and Saturday night, following girls, and filming them constantly, is going to end up filming the same girls multiple times across different nights. 

Regardless, I'm not a lawyer, solicitor, or any kind of legal professional. But my understanding is as follows... Whilst you're right, stalking and harassment has to be on more than one occasion, it doesn't have to be the same offence, so long as it's behaviour that "causes someone alarm or distress." It's important to note that this can also include online. In this case, if he's following and filming somebody, when repeatedly asked not to, he knows he's causing distress. If he then goes and uploads that video too, and the fact that him uploading the video has damaged their reputation, as can be evidenced by the degrading comments section of these videos, he's then guilty of stalking. 

 

2 different actions, including online actions, that cause the victim alarm or distress on 2 different occasions... It's stalking. But again, this is just my ignorant interpretation, and understanding. 

 

I'm really still not seeing anything illegal. If I decided I wanted to walk around the streets where I live with a go pro on, I'd like to think I'd be able to without getting arrested. If I happened to film someone doing something they regret in public, isn't that their problem? 

 

Also if they did find something illegal on his devices, how would they go about prosecuting him? Because if he isn't found guilty for the thing they originally ceased his devices for, isn't that obtaining evidence illegally? 

Edited 3 hours ago by SticklinchJoe

[thetime]

45 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

Also if they did find something illegal on his devices, how would they go about prosecuting him? Because if he isn't found guilty for the thing they originally ceased his devices for, isn't that obtaining evidence illegally? 

 

Police can change/add/remove charges at anytime. 

 

Let's take the example that they've arrested him on voyeurism(which covers upskirting). Then they find child porn for example on his hard drive, but no upskirting or non consensual nudity. 

 

They will drop voyeurism and charge him with child porn. Which is the main reason they sieze equipment imo. 

[Alvoram]

38 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

I'm really still not seeing anything illegal. If I decided I wanted to walk around the streets where I live with a go pro on, I'd like to think I'd be able to without getting arrested. If I happened to film someone doing something they regret in public, isn't that their problem? 

 

Also if they did find something illegal on his devices, how would they go about prosecuting him? Because if he isn't found guilty for the thing they originally ceased his devices for, isn't that obtaining evidence illegally? 

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. 

[thetime]

3 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

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. 

 

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. 

 

[Alvoram]

8 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

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. 

 

Yep, as long as those with hobbies that involve filming and photographing in public continue to do it respectfully, without upsetting others, and with some common sense, there's no reason the small minority like this have to ruin it for us. 

When in theme parks I purposely try not to get anybody in shot most of the time, obviously if I'm filming a ride, that's unavoidable, but it's usually so fast, that nobody cares. If, after I upload something, somebody was to contact me and ask to be blurred out, I'd do it, no sweat (I think Youtube Studio now includes the tools to do this, so no need to even edit, encode and upload again.)

I do worry that we're getting close to a change in legislation though, with things like upskirting, and now auditing, nightlife monitoring, and drone misuse. 😕 If people keep pushing they will tighten the laws. Best outcome for us is that they can get those doing wrong on other related charges, such as harassment. After all, we all agree that what they are doing is wrong, even if we don't agree on the technical legality of things. 👍