Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok

[Alvoram]

1 hour 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

You mean like this one.

I think the 'highlights reel' at the start makes the video's intentions clear enough, don't they? 

And it's a bloke, a bloke who lives (or at least studied) in Sweden, as his older 'student days' videos are still up.

 

If you think this is acceptable behaviour then we're probably never going to agree. I 'believe' that in Spain you also need to ask permission to film somebody in public, if you're close to the subject and they're recognisable or if you single out a subject. So this act in itself is seemingly illegal(*). I don't think this will come under 'right to panorama,' but then again, with no actual understanding of Spanish law, I don't really know. Point is, it's these kinds of stricter restrictions that I am worried this behaviour will lead to in the UK. 

* https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-spain 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Alvoram

[steviewevie]

28 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

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?

You were the one that said it.

[GhostOfMaurice]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

You were the one that said it.

 

No, you tried to put those words in my mouth a few times during this discussion. But what you don't realise is that if you're saying these videos should only be illegal if the woman is wearing a certain thing, it's you who is making a distinction based on clothing. Women should be able to wear what they want, and for it not to affect the law. If the law needs to change, so be it. 

Edited 8 hours ago by GhostOfMaurice

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

No, you tried to put those words in my mouth a few times during this discussion. But what you don't realise is that if you're saying these videos should only be illegal if the woman is wearing a certain thing, it's you who is making a distinction based on clothing. Women should be able to wear what they want, and for it not to affect the law. 

jeez, ok whatever. Let's see how this case goes, if it ever becomes a case.

[thetime]

2 hours ago, Alvoram said:

 

If you think this is acceptable behaviour then we're probably never going to agree. I 'believe' that in Spain you also need to ask permission to film somebody in public, if you're close to the subject and they're recognisable or if you single out a subject. So this act in itself is seemingly illegal(*). I don't think this will come under 'right to panorama,' but then again, with no actual understanding of Spanish law, I don't really know. Point is, it's these kinds of stricter restrictions that I am worried this behaviour will lead to in the UK. 

* https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-spain 

 

 

It's hard to police up imagine. I've done street photography in Barcelona, no issues. 

 

 

[Alvoram]

6 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

It's hard to police up imagine. I've done street photography in Barcelona, no issues. 

 

 

Me too, I absolutely love Gaudi's work, and have spent lots of time photographing it (along with thousands of other tourists) and those shots obviously include other tourists at times.

I don't think they try and police it, but it's there, (apparently) and could be used to protect people from behaviour like this. Could this be where the UK is heading? 

[thetime]

7 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

I don't think they try and police it, but it's there, (apparently) and could be used to protect people from behaviour like this. Could this be where the UK is heading? 

 

I don't see an issue with tighter rules, my concern is how the police deal with and know the actual law. 

 

As not many of them know the actual law on public photography.

 

They don't know the law even on drone weight and flying. 

 

What those laws could be, I'm unsure. For example Spain is strong on personal data, even going as far as installing home security. 

 

 

[Alvoram]

18 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

I don't see an issue with tighter rules, my concern is how the police deal with and know the actual law. 

 

As not many of them know the actual law on public photography.

 

They don't know the law even on drone weight and flying. 

 

What those laws could be, I'm unsure. For example Spain is strong on personal data, even going as far as installing home security. 

 

 

No I 100% agree with you on that, they're seriously undertrained when it comes to many things. Considering their sole purpose is to uphold the law, not knowing the legality of a sub 250g drone is laughable, but most don't, and it leads to so much police time wasted, when they're called out because 'a drone is flying over my property / garden!'

[SticklinchJoe]

5 hours ago, Alvoram said:

You mean like this one.

I think the 'highlights reel' at the start makes the video's intentions clear enough, don't they? 

And it's a bloke, a bloke who lives (or at least studied) in Sweden, as his older 'student days' videos are still up.

 

If you think this is acceptable behaviour then we're probably never going to agree. I 'believe' that in Spain you also need to ask permission to film somebody in public, if you're close to the subject and they're recognisable or if you single out a subject. So this act in itself is seemingly illegal(*). I don't think this will come under 'right to panorama,' but then again, with no actual understanding of Spanish law, I don't really know. Point is, it's these kinds of stricter restrictions that I am worried this behaviour will lead to in the UK. 

* https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-spain 

 

 

Well, there are a few things here that need addressing.

 

-Why does the fact that it's a man make a difference? 

 

-The only thing he is doing is filming in a public space. Anyone with eyes could go there and see these sights (man, woman, or child - which could be another rabbit hole. Do you see their choice of attire as obscene? Is that the issue? I don't think you'd be against it or even notice anything untoward if they were wearing overalls. Maybe it's our own perverted male minds that makes it seem wrong. I didn't see him verbally harassing anyone or doing anything that could constitute as stalking)

 

-I don't think any of the women in these clips could be identified from their rear ends....yet, some of the blokes wandering about could be ID'd by face 🤣

 

-I definitely DO NOT think this is acceptable. But that doesn't mean it's illegal. Most people would say cheating on your spouse is unacceptable, but you wouldn't get arrested for it. Not in the UK, at least.

 

People often use these things to push laws through that the police/government then abuse in other ways, and the public go along with it smiling just because a handful of pervs have posted things on YouTube. Suddenly the coppers are ripping phones out of your hands and confiscating all of your tech because you filmed them kicking a black man to death.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by SticklinchJoe

[Alvoram]

26 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

Well, there are a few things here that need addressing.

 

-Why does the fact that it's a man make a difference?

 

-The only thing he is doing is filming in a public space. Anyone with eyes could go there and see these sights (man, woman, or child - which could be another rabbit hole. Do you see their choice of attire as obscene? Is that the issue? I don't think you'd be against it or even notice anything untoward if they were wearing overalls. Maybe it's our own perverted male minds that makes it seem wrong. I didn't see him verbally harassing anyone or doing anything that could constitute as stalking)

 

-I don't think any of the women in these clips could be identified from their rear ends....yet, some of the blokes wandering about could be ID'd be face 🤣

 

-I definitely DO NOT think this is acceptable. But that doesn't mean it's illegal. Most people would say cheating on your spouse is unacceptable, but you wouldn't get arrested for it. Not in the UK, at least.

 

People often use these things to push laws through that the police/government then abuse in other ways, and the public go along with it smiling just because a handful of pervs have posted things on YouTube. Suddenly the coppers are ripping phones out of your hands and confiscating all of your tech because you filmed them kicking a black man to death.

 

- I didn't say it does, you (pretty much / all but) asked if it was a man. Irrespective of whether the person doing it is male, female or other, it's the reason it's being done, the manner in which it's done and the purpose the images will be used for, that matters. 

-In the highlights no, but throughout the video, those scenes are longer, and many can be identified, which covers the next point too, and makes it technically illegal in Spain. (Although from what we've seen of the wording, the 'focus on one subject without their permission' clause seems to be an aside, and does not require the ability to be identified. But let's not get hung up on pedantics, because I think we're closer on this than seems.) 

I agree with your final paragraph, entirely. It's my worry, and why I do hope they get them on other charges. Like everything, common-sense should prevail. If you're behaving like a pervert, and they get you on some nonsense harassment charge, so be it, job well done in my eyes. If they can't do that, and start looking at changing the laws instead, that's when I start to worry, for all of the same reasons as you, it seems.

If we see behaviour that we all agree is wrong, which, seems to be the case here. We can't just ignore it, can we, because the letter of the law may or may not outlaw it? I don't think we can, nor do I think the police should, protect and serve and all that.  
 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, SticklinchJoe said:

-I definitely DO NOT think this is acceptable. But that doesn't mean it's illegal. Most people would say cheating on your spouse is unacceptable, but you wouldn't get arrested for it. Not in the UK, at least.

 

really not comparable.

[SticklinchJoe]

42 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

- I didn't say it does, you (pretty much / all but) asked if it was a man. Irrespective of whether the person doing it is male, female or other, it's the reason it's being done, the manner in which it's done and the purpose the images will be used for, that matters. 

-In the highlights no, but throughout the video, those scenes are longer, and many can be identified, which covers the next point too, and makes it technically illegal in Spain. (Although from what we've seen of the wording, the 'focus on one subject without their permission' clause seems to be an aside, and does not require the ability to be identified. But let's not get hung up on pedantics, because I think we're closer on this than seems.) 

I agree with your final paragraph, entirely. It's my worry, and why I do hope they get them on other charges. Like everything, common-sense should prevail. If you're behaving like a pervert, and they get you on some nonsense harassment charge, so be it, job well done in my eyes. If they can't do that, and start looking at changing the laws instead, that's when I start to worry, for all of the same reasons as you, it seems.

If we see behaviour that we all agree is wrong, which, seems to be the case here. We can't just ignore it, can we, because the letter of the law may or may not outlaw it? I don't think we can, nor do I think the police should, protect and serve and all that.  
 

 

42 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

- I didn't say it does, you (pretty much / all but) asked if it was a man. Irrespective of whether the person doing it is male, female or other, it's the reason it's being done, the manner in which it's done and the purpose the images will be used for, that matters. 

-In the highlights no, but throughout the video, those scenes are longer, and many can be identified, which covers the next point too, and makes it technically illegal in Spain. (Although from what we've seen of the wording, the 'focus on one subject without their permission' clause seems to be an aside, and does not require the ability to be identified. But let's not get hung up on pedantics, because I think we're closer on this than seems.) 

I agree with your final paragraph, entirely. It's my worry, and why I do hope they get them on other charges. Like everything, common-sense should prevail. If you're behaving like a pervert, and they get you on some nonsense harassment charge, so be it, job well done in my eyes. If they can't do that, and start looking at changing the laws instead, that's when I start to worry, for all of the same reasons as you, it seems.

If we see behaviour that we all agree is wrong, which, seems to be the case here. We can't just ignore it, can we, because the letter of the law may or may not outlaw it? I don't think we can, nor do I think the police should, protect and serve and all that.  
 

 

Well, to be honest, to me, it does make a difference whether it's a man or woman doing the filming. It would feel a whole lot more innocent if it was a woman. But legally it shouldn't.

 

As for Spanish law, that's getting a bit off topic (will recording laws in Afghanistan be next?), but I highly doubt the law can be construed in such a way as you're saying otherwise any public recording, including newsreels could be deemed illegal.

 

The problem is with being able to obtain any items from someone that a copper or member of the public "claims" to be a pervert, and looking for other offences they may have committed is obvious IMO. There will always be people who take advantage.

 

Also, we are assuming women don't want to be looked at in a certain way, which is also wrong. Some people want to go out in high fashion bikinis and be seen. Some people would be offended that we're assuming they don't want to be admired.

Edited 3 hours ago by SticklinchJoe

[SticklinchJoe]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

really not comparable.

 

I didn't directly compare that to anything. It's just something that is a sh*t thing to do but not illegal. There are lots of things like that. A fifty year old bloke can have sex with an eighteen year old. A lot of people would frown upon that. A lot of people would say "fair enough".

[steviewevie]

yeah, no difference if it's a woman or a man doing it...if you're going round filming people without their consent to upload to a w*nk site for money then it doesn't matter...just so happens that it is usually men doing the filming and women being filmed...

[steviewevie]

Just now, SticklinchJoe said:

 

I didn't directly compare that to anything. It's just something that is a sh*t thing to do but not illegal. There are lots of things like that. A fifty year old bloke can have sex with an eighteen year old. A lot of people would frown upon that. A lot of people would say "fair enough".

still not comparable.

[SticklinchJoe]

Just now, steviewevie said:

still not comparable.

 

 Comparable to what? You seem to think I'm comparing something...

[steviewevie]

Just now, SticklinchJoe said:

 

 Comparable to what? You seem to think I'm comparing something...

you keep coming up with things that are unacceptable to some but legal...whereas what we're talking about is something that is possibly illegal because there's police raids etc, and is acceptable to some and unacceptable to others.

 

[SticklinchJoe]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

you keep coming up with things that are unacceptable to some but legal...whereas what we're talking about is something that is possibly illegal because there's police raids etc, and is acceptable to some and unacceptable to others.

 

 

The point I'm getting across is just because you think something is unacceptable, that doesn't make it illegal. Do you agree with that much?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

The point I'm getting across is just because you think something is unacceptable, that doesn't make it illegal. Do you agree with that much?

Ok...I'll agree with that....but...people don't normally get arrested unless the legality is suspect...ask Phillip Schofield.

[SticklinchJoe]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Ok...I'll agree with that....but...people don't normally get arrested unless the legality is suspect...ask Phillip Schofield.

 

You're very trusting of the police. I'd argue that the police have a long history of perjury, extortion, planting evidence, and obstructing justice. I would extensively question any knee-jerk reaction powers the government try to grant them.

[steviewevie]

Just now, SticklinchJoe said:

 

You're very trusting of the police. I'd argue that the police have a long history of perjury, extortion, planting evidence, and obstructing justice. I would extensively question any knee-jerk reaction powers the government try to grant them.

oh god...well maybe I am...maybe I'm just an authoritarian....because in fact I think the whole wild west libertarian internet sewer where anything goes needs to end, and someone needs to regulate it and someone needs to police it. It's a sh*t show where the algorithms push sh*t to the top and we have people exploiting it to make likes and cash...so when I'm in something still called a liberal democracy I'd prefer to trust in the state and the police rather than some tech bro c**t from f**k knows where running some site and the little w*nky pricks making a quick buck doing sh*t things like filming women outside bars and clubs for spunk money.

[Alvoram]

32 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

 

Well, to be honest, to me, it does make a difference whether it's a man or woman doing the filming. It would feel a whole lot more innocent if it was a woman. But legally it shouldn't.

 

As for Spanish law, that's getting a bit off topic (will recording laws in Afghanistan be next?), but I highly doubt the law can be construed in such a way as you're saying otherwise any public recording, including newsreels could be deemed illegal.

 

The problem is with being able to obtain any items from someone that a copper or member of the public "claims" to be a pervert, and looking for other offences they may have committed is obvious IMO. There will always be people who take advantage.

 

Also, we are assuming women don't want to be looked at in a certain way, which is also wrong. Some people want to go out in high fashion bikinis and be seen. Some people would be offended that we're assuming they don't want to be admired.

Why should it make a difference, women can be perverts too. Also, they are quite often 'enablers' for male perverts.

As far as I know, the Spanish require a license / permit to film things professionally in public. As for the general public, there's a 'freedom of panorama' clause, that covers you if strangers are not your primary subject. But you're right, not really relevant, other than to say this is where we could be heading if we can't stop people behaving like animals. 

As for the last paragraph, then ask permission. 🤷‍♂️ There's plenty of content creators, street photographers etc that do just that, go about it the right way, and ask permission first. There's a lad in New York that goes around asking pretty girls if they'd like their portrait taken, and when they say yes, he produces some incredibly flattering, but decent, photos, pops up on my feed all the time, and never bothers me, because there's absolute consent. 

Lets not get silly here, you can admire somebody's looks / beauty without being a total creep about it, a passing glance, a smile or nod of appreciation is a little different, even if it's unsolicited, to focusing your camera on their half naked arse for 20 seconds, and uploading that footage to the internet for 'other like minded individuals,' all entirely without their permission, and sometimes without their knowledge. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Alvoram

[SticklinchJoe]

13 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

oh god...well maybe I am...maybe I'm just an authoritarian....because in fact I think the whole wild west libertarian internet sewer where anything goes needs to end, and someone needs to regulate it and someone needs to police it. It's a sh*t show where the algorithms push sh*t to the top and we have people exploiting it to make likes and cash...so when I'm in something still called a liberal democracy I'd prefer to trust in the state and the police rather than some tech bro c**t from f**k knows where running some site and the little w*nky pricks making a quick buck doing sh*t things like filming women outside bars and clubs for spunk money.

 

Ok, cool, man 👍🏻 

 

10 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Why should it make a difference, women can be perverts too. Also, they are quite often 'enablers' for male perverts.

As far as I know, the Spanish require a license / permit to film things professionally in public. As for the general public, there's a 'freedom of panorama' clause, that covers you if strangers are not your primary subject. But you're right, not really relevant, other than to say this is where we could be heading if we can't stop people behaving like animals. 

As for the last paragraph, then ask permission. 🤷‍♂️ There's plenty of content creators, street photographers etc that do just that, go about it the right way, and ask permission first. There's a lad in New York that goes around asking pretty girls if they'd like their portrait taken, and when they say yes, he produces some incredibly flattering, but decent, photos, pops up on my feed all the time, and never bothers me, because there's absolute consent. 

Lets not get silly here, you can admire somebody's looks / beauty without being a total creep about it, a passing glance, a smile or nod of appreciation is a little different, even if it's unsolicited, to focusing your camera on their half naked arse for 20 seconds, and uploading that footage to the internet for 'other like minded individuals,' all entirely without their poermission, and sometimes without their knowledge. 

 

 

But I'm being honest. It does make a difference to me. A great big hairy bastard with a camera seems more intimidating than a petite old lady. I'm not saying it makes actions more or less illegal. I think you probably agree with me there, even if you don't want to admit it. It feels like a natural instinct to me.

 

As for asking permission 1) people will say "why should I? It's a free country" and 2) you're going to get people who are intimidated into giving permission, or feel like they can't say no because of peer pressure or being seen as acting like a prude. I saw a video once of a guy asking random girls to kiss him. Some said yes, some said no, some said yes but I could see they really didn't want to.

 

And yes, I agree you can admir someone without being a creep about it. I feel like you keep reverting to the viewpoint that I'm defending a dickhead. I'm not. I'm just saying we can't just say everything is illegal on a whim. "Illegal" is a very big word to use.

 

I think we agree on more aspects of this than we disagree.

Edited 2 hours ago by SticklinchJoe

[philipsteak]

On 12/1/2024 at 7:20 PM, StoneCircle said:

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. 

 

There's a thought. I do wonder now you've said it. 

Was weirdly almost part of popular culture years ago, like a comedy trope.

Would imagine d*ck picks have mostly replaced actual flashing.

[Alvoram]

2 hours ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

Ok, cool, man 👍🏻 

 

 

But I'm being honest. It does make a difference to me. A great big hairy bastard with a camera seems more intimidating than a petite old lady. I'm not saying it makes actions more or less illegal. I think you probably agree with me there, even if you don't want to admit it. It feels like a natural instinct to me.

 

As for asking permission 1) people will say "why should I? It's a free country" and 2) you're going to get people who are intimidated into giving permission, or feel like they can't say no because of peer pressure or being seen as acting like a prude. I saw a video once of a guy asking random girls to kiss him. Some said yes, some said no, some said yes but I could see they really didn't want to.

 

And yes, I agree you can admir someone without being a creep about it. I feel like you keep reverting to the viewpoint that I'm defending a dickhead. I'm not. I'm just saying we can't just say everything is illegal on a whim. "Illegal" is a very big word to use.

 

I think we agree on more aspects of this than we disagree.

I think we do to be fair. 

What is a free country? Do we live in a free country? I have no idea, but I do know that being in a free country doesn't mean you're free to do what you like, if your actions have a negative impact on others. Never has, never should, and hopefully never will. That's why we have a judicial system in the first place. 

Ultimately it's down to the police, CPS and courts to decide if any laws were broken. But from a very selfish point of view, I hope they can get them on this harrassment charge, because they won't give in now, and nor should they, we all agree this behaviour is wrong. But I'd rather not see tighter restrictions on those who go about their hobbies, and using a camera in public, the right way. 

You're right about the risk of somebody feeling pressured into saying yes, 100%. Whether that pressure is real / intended or not, it's still a risk. But better than the alternative, of not being asked at all. 

For the record, I know you're not in any way condoning his / their actions. I picked that up a while back, I completely understand your point of view (or at least I think I do,) and generally I do agree with you, you're right. The laws are there, they are set, and a whole system is in place to uphold them. It's not our place, or the police's place, to go around interpreting the law however we / they see fit. But in cases like this, where it's something we've not really seen before, and where the general public are almost unanimously in agreement, that what is happening is fundamentally wrong, something absolutely has to be done. Whether that's charging them with an existing, loosely related, offence, (my preference here, for selfish reasons.) Or changing the law.