Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok

[SticklinchJoe]

4 hours ago, Alvoram said:

I don't blame you!!!

Yes, it's very subjective, which must make it difficult to police. In this case though, even I'd find their actions distressing, and I'm a thick skinned, 6'3" 18 stone bloke!

 

What do they do on these videos? Is there a lot of taunting and sexual harassment? With the description I read in the article, it seemed like he was literally just filming people on a night out.

 

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

it's subjective like lots of things...which is why we have judges and juries etc

 

But they make their decision based on whether or not a law has been broken. It can't be one rule for one and a different rule for another just because you don't like the look of them.

[Alvoram]

2 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

What do they do on these videos? Is there a lot of taunting and sexual harassment? With the description I read in the article, it seemed like he was literally just filming people on a night out.

So the first one I saw, and to be clear, I've seen more innocent ones since, that are more focused on the crowd, rather than certain girls, but in that first one he was following 2 young girls, in hot pants (or skirts, not sure) and crop tops, filming them from quite closely behind, around corners, up roads, just glued to their tales. He loses the girls a couple of times, and picks them up again in other places. Like I say though, I only watched 40 odd seconds, and I'd seen enough. So I am conscious that I don't have anything like the whole picture.

Also, I don't think this is the same person, as this youtuber travels the world doing this in different countries. It seems the person arrested focuses on Northern English cities. 

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

But they make their decision based on whether or not a law has been broken. It can't be one rule for one and a different rule for another just because you don't like the look of them.

yes, so whether this is classed as stalking, harassment, upskirting etc. Evidence is shown in a court and a decision is made. Maybe the judge will decide it's the fault of the women for going out in short skirts as seems to be the conclusion of some on here.

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes, so whether this is classed as stalking, harassment, upskirting etc. Evidence is shown in a court and a decision is made. 

 

Few hurdles they have to jump over, before it gets to court yet. 

 

Bail conditions would have nipped in the bud of this certain individual.

 

 

[steviewevie]

hopefully he'll get life.

[GhostOfMaurice]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

They're just asking for it etc

 

Those are your words, don't try to put them in my mouth. Out of all the comments on here, yours are least helpful to the debate.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

Those are your words, don't try to put them in my mouth. Out of all the comments on here, yours are least helpful to the debate.

I put nothing in anyone's mouth. 

 

Ok, sorry to be contrarian to the view on here, so the actual problem is not that some bloke is filming these women and putting it on youtube. The problem is these women who are going out in short skirts and being publicly shamed?

[thetime]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I put nothing in anyone's mouth. 

 

Ok, sorry to be contrarian to the view on here, so the actual problem is not that some bloke is filming these women and putting it on youtube. The problem is these women who are going out in short skirts and being publicly shamed?

 

The thread has never been about that though, more about the legality of the case and filming in public. 

 

Where the line crosses at a legal stand point. 

 

That's where I and others find interesting. Rather than lock them up and throw away the key brigade.

[Crazyfool01]

its f**king weird of all the things that are available to film its certainly an oddball out filming this for clicks on a night , Girls have enough worries without twats like this filming them ..... on occasion ive felt uncomfortable walking home , the poor sh*t girls have to put up with is likely many many times worse than that ... id love some female perspective in here 

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

The thread has never been about that though, more about the legality of the case and filming in public. 

 

Where the line crosses at a legal stand point. 

 

That's where I and others find interesting. Rather than lock them up and throw away the key brigade.

and that is tbd. Who know what else police have found, and what the case will be. Could be stalking, harassment or upskirting; or could be that he is just an innocent bloke out expressing his art and these women feel bad about being out dressed like that so are reporting him. 

Hopefully they throw away the key.

[Alvoram]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I put nothing in anyone's mouth. 

 

Ok, sorry to be contrarian to the view on here, so the actual problem is not that some bloke is filming these women and putting it on youtube. The problem is these women who are going out in short skirts and being publicly shamed?

Nope, that is exactly the problem, and is why he was arrested, by professionals, who will be acting on a little more understanding of the situation than us social media commentators. 

What people choose to wear is never an excuse for predatory behaviour.

But as @thetime has tried to say, let's keep the thread on topic, and discuss whether this behaviour is passable under current rights to film and photograph in public, whether it should be passable, whether it comes under any other laws, such as stalking and harassment, and what the implications are, if any, to those that film and take photos in public without being a nuisance.  

On the subject of filming in public. I've had my own concerns about auditors in the last few years, not because I think that what they are doing is fundamentally wrong, most of the time it isn't. But because I feel that, if they keep pushing boundaries, then we'll all lose the right the fly a drone in the open sub 250g category, wherever we like, and may even face more restrictions on public filming in general.

[thetime]

2 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

But as @thetime has tried to say, let's keep the thread on topic, and discuss whether this behaviour is passable under current rights to film and photograph in public, whether it should be passable, whether it comes under any other laws, such as stalking and harassment, and what the implications are, if any, to those that film and take photos in public without being a nuisance.  

 

 

What i think it might lead to, is perhaps a tightening of the law of being photographed/filmed in public. In the same way the upskirt law came in, when someone got upskirted at a festival. As currently it is a very grey area, with no boundaries for women unless upskirted. 

 

How can they tighten the law? Now that is really difficult.

 

For example if I photographed a guys face twice on 2 different occasions during street photography, that is technically harrasment. If I followed a nightclub lady for 5 minutes filming every movement then that isn't harrasment. 

 

There are certain countries that have banned all public photography, France and Hungary are 2 if memory serves me right. 

 

 

[steviewevie]

Or women will be told to dress appropriately otherwise they might get filmed.

[thetime]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Or women will be told to dress appropriately otherwise they might get filmed.

 

What's the legal argument if you film someone with a long dress or a short dress? Doesn't it amount to the same thing, no different law? 

[StoneCircle]

Had this happened to me in my younger days I would have challenged him, as I did every bloke that felt the need to get his penis out as I was passing by. Do blokes still flash at young girls or is videoing them how they get their kicks these days? 

And I certainly wouldn't stand by and let it happen to other young girls if I saw someone doing this, I  would make a scene and attract attention to the person filming. Like flashing it's not acceptable behaviour. Girls should be allowed to dress as they please without harassment or judgement. 

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

What's the legal argument if you film someone with a long dress or a short dress? Doesn't it amount to the same thing, no different law? 

Probably none, but that's a good point....maybe there's a gap in the market..might start some tuesday afternoon in Manchester videos and see if I get many clicks.

[thetime]

51 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Probably none, but that's a good point....maybe there's a gap in the market..might start some tuesday afternoon in Manchester videos and see if I get many clicks.

 

Fill your boots, reinforce your front door though. 

[SticklinchJoe]

14 hours ago, thetime said:

 

What i think it might lead to, is perhaps a tightening of the law of being photographed/filmed in public. In the same way the upskirt law came in, when someone got upskirted at a festival. As currently it is a very grey area, with no boundaries for women unless upskirted. 

 

How can they tighten the law? Now that is really difficult.

 

For example if I photographed a guys face twice on 2 different occasions during street photography, that is technically harrasment. If I followed a nightclub lady for 5 minutes filming every movement then that isn't harrasment. 

 

There are certain countries that have banned all public photography, France and Hungary are 2 if memory serves me right. 

 

 

 

There's so many terms that would have to be defined. Such as "followed" - you can easily be walking behind the same person for five minutes if you're going in the same direction. It becomes very difficult to prove. It's tough.

 

14 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Or women will be told to dress appropriately otherwise they might get filmed.

 

So if they were dressed differently, the same behaviour from the man wouldn't be classes as harassment? That doesn't seem right to me.

[SticklinchJoe]

17 hours ago, Alvoram said:

So the first one I saw, and to be clear, I've seen more innocent ones since, that are more focused on the crowd, rather than certain girls, but in that first one he was following 2 young girls, in hot pants (or skirts, not sure) and crop tops, filming them from quite closely behind, around corners, up roads, just glued to their tales. He loses the girls a couple of times, and picks them up again in other places. Like I say though, I only watched 40 odd seconds, and I'd seen enough. So I am conscious that I don't have anything like the whole picture.

Also, I don't think this is the same person, as this youtuber travels the world doing this in different countries. It seems the person arrested focuses on Northern English cities. 

 

The closest thing I've seen that's similar to this is go pro videos of someone walking on an exotic beach, and is titled as such ("Walking in Miami Beach" or something like that). There are lots of women in bikinis, and I think that might've been the main reason for the video. BUT, it was also just some person walking on the beach, which could be useful for potential holiday goers. So should be assume the worst?

 

I assume it was a guy taking the video, but it could've been a woman. I don't know if the gender or the sexual orientation of the person has an impact of whether the action is right or wrong. A woman would get just as many clicks from such a video as a man...then we go down the rabbit hole of 'what is gender?' lol

[steviewevie]

48 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

 

So if they were dressed differently, the same behaviour from the man wouldn't be classes as harassment? That doesn't seem right to me.

Would still be harassment.

[GhostOfMaurice]

16 hours ago, steviewevie said:

I put nothing in anyone's mouth. 

 

Ok, sorry to be contrarian to the view on here, so the actual problem is not that some bloke is filming these women and putting it on youtube. The problem is these women who are going out in short skirts and being publicly shamed?

 

What you don't seem to get is that the "going out" but is what makes it public. Not the video.

 

47 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

The closest thing I've seen that's similar to this is go pro videos of someone walking on an exotic beach, and is titled as such ("Walking in Miami Beach" or something like that). There are lots of women in bikinis, and I think that might've been the main reason for the video. BUT, it was also just some person walking on the beach, which could be useful for potential holiday goers. So should be assume the worst?

 

I assume it was a guy taking the video, but it could've been a woman. I don't know if the gender or the sexual orientation of the person has an impact of whether the action is right or wrong. A woman would get just as many clicks from such a video as a man...then we go down the rabbit hole of 'what is gender?' lol

 

I must've looked up waterslides once because videos keep popping up of waterslide reviews on my youtube. It is GoPro footage, and you get the whole experience of walking up the steps etc. However, while going up the steps they are always behind a lady in a swimming outfit, with the camera facing her bum (which I know is the view anyone would have while climbing stairs). 

 

This footage is definitely taken by another woman. It seems fairly innocent, to be honest. She isn't somewhere she shouldn't be, and if I remember rightly, you see her getting permission to take the camera up the slide. Some people might see this as illegal though.

 

Is this right or wrong??

Edited 2 hours ago by GhostOfMaurice
Typo

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

What you don't seem to get is that the "going out" but is what makes it public. Not the video.

 

yes, so the problem is the women going out dressed like that.

[GhostOfMaurice]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yes, so the problem is the women going out dressed like that.

 

I don't know whether this is what you're implying I'm saying or whether it's what you actually think. If it's the former, then no. The illegality of it has to be the action of the person in question. If there was footage of a girl in a short skirt and the same footage, but of an elderly woman in a burkha, one shouldn't be considered illegal and the other legal just because of what the person chose to wear in public.

 

If the latter, then that's a very backwards view of things.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

I don't know whether this is what you're implying I'm saying or whether it's what you actually think. If it's the former, then no. The illegality of it has to be the action of the person in question. If there was footage of a girl in a short skirt and the same footage, but of an elderly woman in a burkha, one shouldn't be considered illegal and the other legal just because of what the person chose to wear in public.

 

If the latter, then that's a very backwards view of things.

maybe...just following up what you said before, that some women feel ashamed for how they look so blame someone else...I guess meaning they are ashamed of how they look in videos of themselves posted online so are taking it out on the poor guy just making a living hanging round outside bars and clubs filming women for his incel w*nk channel.

[GhostOfMaurice]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

maybe...just following up what you said before, that some women feel ashamed for how they look so blame someone else...I guess meaning they are ashamed of how they look in videos of themselves posted online so are taking it out on the poor guy just making a living hanging round outside bars and clubs filming women for his incel w*nk channel.

 

But it seems like you're saying they're ashamed because they're wearing a certain type of clothing. Are you saying they wouldn't feel ashamed if they were well covered up?