Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok

[Alvoram]

6 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

 

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.

I think it's this...

It works both ways though, blokes* at one time were getting absolutely bombarded with unsolicited nude pics from girls, and videos of them doing all sorts, on Snapchat, to promote their Onlyfans, or whatever... It just made me laugh, seemed counter productive to their cause. I was often tempted to reply with "why would I pay, you just gave it me for free!" 

My daughter was being messaged by a bloke when she was still in secondary school, 13 / 14 maybe, thankfully she had the sense to bring the phone to me, let me carry on the conversation, and work out exactly who it was. 

*read 'I was,' I assume it was widespread, but don't actually know for sure.

[StoneCircle]

52 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

 

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.

 

Every single one was wearing a long raincoat known as a flasher mac back then! Sheffield has a lot of underpasses back in the 70's and that's where I saw the majority. Me and my mates would point and laugh hysterically at them. 😂 Thankfully never been sent a d*ck picture. 😱

[GhostOfMaurice]

I was approached by a prostitute at the weekend. That was horrible. Just parked up to go to a gig, then there was a knock at the window 😬 bad start to the night.

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

I was approached by a prostitute at the weekend. That was horrible. Just parked up to go to a gig, then there was a knock at the window 😬 bad start to the night.

How is this relevant? I get that it's gross and unpleasant, but this has nothing to do with public photography laws.

[GhostOfMaurice]

47 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

How is this relevant? I get that it's gross and unpleasant, but this has nothing to do with public photography laws.

 

I was just chatting mate. People were talking about flashers (also not relevant, but not sure why you're taking issue with my post) and it just reminded me. If you reply to every post that isn't relevant around here I imagine you're a very busy person.

[steviewevie]

I trod in some dog sh*t the other day. It was horrific. Totally ruined my walk.

[GhostOfMaurice]

It was a clear continuation of the conversation so @kaosmark2 is there a reason you singled me out over anyone else, I feel I should get an explanation, considering you're a moderator on these forums. Were you replying in your official capacity?

[StoneCircle]

2 hours ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

I was just chatting mate. People were talking about flashers (also not relevant, but not sure why you're taking issue with my post) and it just reminded me. If you reply to every post that isn't relevant around here I imagine you're a very busy person.

 

It's a thread discussing unwanted sexual attention by males. I brought flashers into the chat because it was another form of unwanted sexual behaviour displayed by males towards females. Unwanted attention by males towards females happens everyday from unwelcome wolf whistling to intrusive filming plus too many to list in-between. Do you want your daughter's to be subjected to this sort of behaviour?

[thetime]

8 minutes ago, StoneCircle said:

 

It's a thread discussing unwanted sexual attention by males. I brought flashers into the chat because it was another form of unwanted sexual behaviour displayed by males towards females. Unwanted attention by males towards females happens everyday from unwelcome wolf whistling to intrusive filming plus too many to list in-between. Do you want your daughter's to be subjected to this sort of behaviour?

 

I would say the thread should get back to the legality of filming in public, that's what it was all about.

 

Flashing - criminal offence

Filming in public - legal if not planned upskirting. 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

 

Filming in public - legal if not planned upskirting. 

unless also includes stalking or harassment.

etc forever.

[GhostOfMaurice]

34 minutes ago, StoneCircle said:

 

It's a thread discussing unwanted sexual attention by males. I brought flashers into the chat because it was another form of unwanted sexual behaviour displayed by males towards females. Unwanted attention by males towards females happens everyday from unwelcome wolf whistling to intrusive filming plus too many to list in-between. Do you want your daughter's to be subjected to this sort of behaviour?

 

That's a horrible, personal thing to say. Do you want your children to have no civil liberties (which would inevitably descend into being subjected to heinous things)?

 

And I think the discussion has gone into the direction of "gender is irrelevant", so i think you should review the discussion before making up what you think "this thread is about".

Edited 14 hours ago by GhostOfMaurice

[GhostOfMaurice]

18 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

unless also includes stalking or harassment.

etc forever.

 

Unless "stalking" or "harassment" are just emotive words that can be used freely by the authorities to stop anyone filming anything at any time.

[thetime]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

unless also includes stalking or harassment.

etc forever.

 

Has any one been found guilty of filming in public(strangers), that have been found guilty of stalking and harrasment? 

[thetime]

Just now, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

Unless "stalking" or "harassment" are just emotive words that can be used freely by the authorities to stop anyone filming anything at any time.

 

Harrasment is just a jumped up charge by the police, when they can't get anything else. 

 

I change my mind every day if he will be charged or not. Today I think he will probably get a lesser charge like a public order offence and a SHPO. 

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

It was a clear continuation of the conversation so @kaosmark2 is there a reason you singled me out over anyone else, I feel I should get an explanation, considering you're a moderator on these forums. Were you replying in your official capacity?

No, I was just replying as a user not a moderator. It felt like you were bringing it up to create a sense a slut-shaming.

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

Has any one been found guilty of filming in public(strangers), that have been found guilty of stalking and harrasment? 

don't know.

Always a first time!

[SticklinchJoe]

49 minutes ago, StoneCircle said:

 

It's a thread discussing unwanted sexual attention by males. I brought flashers into the chat because it was another form of unwanted sexual behaviour displayed by males towards females. Unwanted attention by males towards females happens everyday from unwelcome wolf whistling to intrusive filming plus too many to list in-between. Do you want your daughter's to be subjected to this sort of behaviour?

 

Well, that's exactly the narrative certain politicians would use to push a law through in order for it to be used for other means. Look at the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11. 

 

Closer to home, and more recent, there was coconut-gate where racial hate speech laws were weaponised to drag an Asian woman's name through the mud. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwew5v4qyo.amp

 

Knee jerk reactions based on very rare events, which are just a drop in the ocean when compared to what the laws would be used for, should be avoided.

[thetime]

16 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

Knee jerk reactions based on very rare events, which are just a drop in the ocean when compared to what the laws would be used for, should be avoided.

 

To flip the coin a bit. 

 

Men filming women in public isn't a rare occurrence, which take advantage of the current filming in public laws. There are Internet forums like this one, rather than focus on festivals they focus on posting videos of women and making money from it. Again all legal, due to filming in public laws. 

 

For example

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/22/manchester-women-filmed-by-voyeurs-and-stalked-online

 

Also

 

There was a manchester guy taking pictures of women in 2022, who was jailed. But there was no upskirting or harrasment, but he was on a SHPO from previous convictions. 

 

 

The SHPO is probably the polices real aim, which he is perhaps on now through bail conditions. 

 

Big city's there are many many filming women from morning until night. Thats the fact, but again legally. 

Edited 14 hours ago by thetime

[GhostOfMaurice]

24 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

No, I was just replying as a user not a moderator. It felt like you were bringing it up to create a sense a slut-shaming.

 

It was wrong of you to assume that.

[GhostOfMaurice]

Men filming women in public is common, but I'd say 99.9% of it doesn't have bad intentions.

[thetime]

Just now, GhostOfMaurice said:

Men filming women in public is common, but I'd say 99.9% of it doesn't have bad intentions.

 

What would the intention be? 

[Alvoram]

Well, here's the professional legal take on it... Seems like this was posted in February, (earliest wayback machine entry) before any arrests were made, and these solicitors also see it as harassment. 

Also seems I was wrong, kind of, when I said that the initial act, and then posting it, count as 2 occasions, and justify the harassment charge. In actual fact, due to the perpetuity of posting a video online, that single act can be considered as many acts in and of itself, and on it's own lead to a harassment charge. 

 

Quote

Is it a criminal offence to film someone without consent and post their video to the internet?
 

The legality of public filming becomes problematic when it leads to alarm, distress, or constitutes harassment. The nature of the internet, with its potential for infinite replication, means that even a single incident of targeted filming can have disproportionately harmful effects. Legal mechanisms exist for individuals whose reputations are significantly impacted, facilitating actions such as content removal requests and the issuance of cease and desist letters to prevent further harm.

Under UK law, harassment is defined as actions that cause someone alarm or distress.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which provides the legal basis for addressing harassment, traditionally interprets harassment as involving a 'course of conduct'—that is, it requires at least two incidents. However, the digital age challenges traditional interpretations of what constitutes a 'course of conduct', especially given the nature of social media and the internet's permanence and reach. The act of posting a single video may seem, at first glance, not to fit the traditional criterion of a 'course of conduct'.

However, when considering the context of social media, where content can be viewed, shared, and commented on by thousands, if not millions, of individuals, the singular act of posting takes on a new dimension of perpetuity and amplification. Each view, share, or comment effectively renews the act of harassment, creating a continuous cycle of distress for the victim. This digital echo chamber means that a one-time action can have a persistent, pervasive impact, aligning with the essence of what harassment seeks to address: the ongoing distress and alarm felt by the victim. Find more about considering taking legal action for harassment, 

 

https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/can-someone-post-a-video-of-me-without-my-permission-on-tiktok

Again, remember, this was posted long before any arrests were made... 

[steviewevie]

33 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

Men filming women in public is common, but I'd say 99.9% of it doesn't have bad intentions.

ooh. Ok, well I think it's more like 96.5%.

[GhostOfMaurice]

27 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

What would the intention be? 

 

Absolutely anything. Filming the tower of London, filming your friends in a busy place, even using a dash cam.

 

12 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Well, here's the professional legal take on it... Seems like this was posted in February, (earliest wayback machine entry) before any arrests were made, and these solicitors also see it as harassment. 

Also seems I was wrong, kind of, when I said that the initial act, and then posting it, count as 2 occasions, and justify the harassment charge. In actual fact, due to the perpetuity of posting a video online, that single act can be considered as many acts in and of itself, and on it's own lead to a harassment charge. 

 

 

https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/can-someone-post-a-video-of-me-without-my-permission-on-tiktok

Again, remember, this was posted long before any arrests were made... 

 

I don't think that really draws a line under anything, does it? 

[thetime]

1 minute ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

Absolutely anything. Filming the tower of London, filming your friends in a busy place, even using a dash cam.

 

 

But that's a different scenario. We are talking about the main aim is to film women.