Man arrested after secret filming shared on TikTok

[Alvoram]

1 minute ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

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

As far as this thread goes, yes it does, the question was "is this an arrestable offence now" and the answer is yes, it already was.

It's up to the CPS and Courts to decide on the outcome of this specific case though. 

[GhostOfMaurice]

15 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

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

 

 

 

I'm talking about the impact of bringing in new legislation and the reality of how it could be used against us.

[GhostOfMaurice]

16 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

As far as this thread goes, yes it does, the question was "is this an arrestable offence now" and the answer is yes, it already was.

It's up to the CPS and Courts to decide on the outcome of this specific case though. 

 

No, because all the nuances brought up in this thread still remain. Your quote changes none of that. Many definitions are thrown around in that quote that are open to interpretation to render it meaningless. And there are a spectrum of situations that you could try to apply that blanket quote to.

 

Also, I don't have a clue who it was you quoted, or if there are differing interpretations (I assume you just googled something to specifically try to prove your point, with no balance). 

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

I'm talking about the impact of bringing in new legislation and the reality of how it could be used against us.

probably will just mean you can't go round filming women without their consent outside bars and clubs and posting it on youtube or tiktok for money....which is a shame.

[lost]

As already mentioned there is probably existing legislation that can be used if your being a real pest though saying that, that Charles Veitch chap who has already been mentioned and is obviously looking to create confrontations to monitise. I'm amazed he doesnt get nicked more often.

[thetime]

20 minutes ago, lost said:

As already mentioned there is probably existing legislation that can be used if your being a real pest though saying that, that Charles Veitch chap who has already been mentioned and is obviously looking to create confrontations to monitise. I'm amazed he doesnt get nicked more often.

 

The audits are everywhere.

 

 I quite enjoy DJ audits who goes round industrial estates and films with his drone and gets confronted, probably says a lot about me. 😄

 

He knows every aspect of public filming, which in turn runs rings around the police. Which is chucklesome and there incompetency. 

[steviewevie]

34 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

The audits are everywhere.

 

 I quite enjoy DJ audits who goes round industrial estates and films with his drone and gets confronted, probably says a lot about me. 😄

 

He knows every aspect of public filming, which in turn runs rings around the police. Which is chucklesome and there incompetency. 

and when they nick him we can have another thread about scary police state bastards and these poor freedom fighter vigilantes with their cameras and terrified men confronted by prostitutes and how people need to clean up after their dogs.

[thetime]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

and when they nick him we can have another thread about scary police state bastards 

 

They have twice, sued one police force. I've not seen all his videos, but twice the ones I've seen. Questioned by the police multiple times also. 

 

His doing a great service, auditors give the public there legal rights on public filming and drone flying. 

 

Always carry the public filming law in your bag whilst you are out, always. 

 

 

 

 

[GhostOfMaurice]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

and when they nick him we can have another thread about scary police state bastards and these poor freedom fighter vigilantes with their cameras and terrified men confronted by prostitutes and how people need to clean up after their dogs.

 

You're a bit clueless, really aren't you? After the talk of people flashing in the backstreets, I mentioned a recent story of how I was made to feel very uncomfortable in a similar setting. Was I terrified? No. Was I concerned a cop car would come around the corner and accuse me of something? Yes, definitely. I shouldn't have been put in that situation when simply meeting up with some mates for a gig.

 

How would you have felt? Delighted? 

Edited 22 hours ago by GhostOfMaurice

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

You're a bit clueless, really aren't you? After the talk of people flashing in the backstreets, I mentioned a recent story of how I was made to feel very uncomfortable in a similar setting. Was I terrified? No. Was I concerned a cop car would come around the corner and accuse me of something? Yes, definitely. I shouldn't have been put in that situation when simply meeting up with some mates for a gig.

 

How would you have felt? Delighted? 

Yes it must have been very traumatic 

[GhostOfMaurice]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yes it must have been very traumatic 

 

Nope. It was uncomfortable and worrying. I don't know why you keep bringing it up though. I wasn't making a point with the story, I was just sharing because someone was saying something similar that reminded me.

 

What are you hoping to achieve? Is it just an opportunity to be sarcastic, or wind someone up? You're not making a coherent point, that's for sure. You haven't made one in this whole discussion as far as I can tell.

[Alvoram]

5 hours ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

No, because all the nuances brought up in this thread still remain. Your quote changes none of that. Many definitions are thrown around in that quote that are open to interpretation to render it meaningless. And there are a spectrum of situations that you could try to apply that blanket quote to.

 

Also, I don't have a clue who it was you quoted, or if there are differing interpretations (I assume you just googled something to specifically try to prove your point, with no balance). 

The link is provided. It takes you to the law firms website. 

 

You’re clearly here looking for an argument, so I think I’ll leave you to it. As I said, my interest in the thread is no more, the original question has been answered, I’m satisfied the police have the tools needed to deal with these incidents, and that there will not necessarily need to be a change in the law, so that concludes any constructive conversation on the original subject, at least as far as I’m concerned. 🙂

 

  

4 hours ago, thetime said:

 

The audits are everywhere.

 

 I quite enjoy DJ audits who goes round industrial estates and films with his drone and gets confronted, probably says a lot about me. 😄

 

He knows every aspect of public filming, which in turn runs rings around the police. Which is chucklesome and there incompetency. 

I watch DJ too, and I've seen him blur many many people on request. I think he even has a public contact email address. 

Sensible. 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Alvoram

[thetime]

18 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

I watch DJ too, and I've seen him blur many many people on request. I think he even has a public contact email address. 

Sensible. 

 

It's about respect, if someone asks me to delete I comply.

 

All my street photography is B&W stuff, it's about reading the room. 

 

For example. 

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by thetime

[Alvoram]

1 minute ago, thetime said:

 

It's about respect, if someone asks me to delete I comply.

 

All my street photography is B&W stuff, it's about reading the room. 

 

For example. 

 

 

That's a great shot, did you give them a copy? 

[thetime]

Just now, Alvoram said:

That's a great shot, did you give them a copy? 

 

Yes, always do. Always provide my business card to arrange emailing shots. 

 

Heres another one from that specific day. 

 

 

 

[SticklinchJoe]

Well, I'm never getting my camera out again based on this thread.

[GhostOfMaurice]

11 hours ago, Alvoram said:

The link is provided. It takes you to the law firms website. 

 

You’re clearly here looking for an argument, so I think I’ll leave you to it. As I said, my interest in the thread is no more, the original question has been answered, I’m satisfied the police have the tools needed to deal with these incidents, and that there will not necessarily need to be a change in the law, so that concludes any constructive conversation on the original subject, at least as far as I’m concerned. 🙂

 

  

I watch DJ too, and I've seen him blur many many people on request. I think he even has a public contact email address. 

Sensible. 

 

 

I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm willing to argue for something that feels important to me. If that quote comes from a law firm, they have other interests at heart. They will be looking for clients, etc, and although the wording and caveats are true, it's another thing proving any breach of them beyond reasonable doubt (I.e. has the person putting in the complaint actually been harassed, are do they just not like what has happened?). And let's not forget, all those things come under the original umbrella of: it is NOT illegal to film in public. It didn't take me long on Google to find quotes that are pretty similar to that one, but puts the opposite slant on it.

 

So, we could start issuing licences to film in public, but do we really want the government deciding who can and can't bring us images for news stories?

 

 

[Alvoram]

1 hour ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm willing to argue for something that feels important to me. If that quote comes from a law firm, they have other interests at heart. They will be looking for clients, etc, and although the wording and caveats are true, it's another thing proving any breach of them beyond reasonable doubt (I.e. has the person putting in the complaint actually been harassed, are do they just not like what has happened?). And let's not forget, all those things come under the original umbrella of: it is NOT illegal to film in public. It didn't take me long on Google to find quotes that are pretty similar to that one, but puts the opposite slant on it.

 

So, we could start issuing licences to film in public, but do we really want the government deciding who can and can't bring us images for news stories?

 

 

Yes they will have a motive, they'll be looking to get paid, Can't get paid if there's no offence. Given Cohen Davis specialise in online defamation, harassment, cyberbullying, social media litigation (whatever that is) and judging by their positive reviews, they seem to be good at getting paid. 

With the greatest of respect, when it comes to what is and isn't illegal, I think on this occasion, when both the police and a law firm are saying the opposite to you, I'll take the word of two different professional bodies over some random stranger on the internet. 

And they say that filming / photographing in public is perfectly legal, until you cross the line into harassment. It's up to the CPS and, ultimately, the courts to decide what does cross that line on a case by case basis.

Do you want licenses, and more restrictions? Because to me it seems the whole point of being able to bring these charges against people who overstep the freedoms we enjoy, is to avoid the need for more restrictions on those who don't overstep. It sounds like you, and others, would prefer more clear cut and better defined restrictions on public filming and photography in general. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Alvoram

[GhostOfMaurice]

2 hours ago, Alvoram said:

Yes they will have a motive, they'll be looking to get paid, Can't get paid if there's no offence. Given Cohen Davis specialise in online defamation, harassment, cyberbullying, social media litigation (whatever that is) and judging by their positive reviews, they seem to be good at getting paid. 

With the greatest of respect, when it comes to what is and isn't illegal, I think on this occasion, when both the police and a law firm are saying the opposite to you, I'll take the word of two different professional bodies over some random stranger on the internet. 

And they say that filming / photographing in public is perfectly legal, until you cross the line into harassment. It's up to the CPS and, ultimately, the courts to decide what does cross that line on a case by case basis.

Do you want licenses, and more restrictions? Because to me it seems the whole point of being able to bring these charges against people who overstep the freedoms we enjoy, is to avoid the need for more restrictions on those who don't overstep. It sounds like you, and others, would prefer more clear cut and better defined restrictions on public filming and photography in general. 

 

Oh, I haven't got a clue with the original specific case that was originally brought up. He might have done something illegal, who knows? I agree with the OP that the evidence sounds thin on the ground based on the BBC article (but none of us know the full story). 

 

But your term "overstepping the freedoms we enjoy" is so elastic, it could mean anything to anyone. 

 

To be honest, I think you can put the issue of recording in a public place aside completely. I think it should be allowed. Full stop (for self protection as much as anything). It's the other things such as harassment, up skirting, bullying, etc, that's the problem. 

 

If someone is doing something dodgy and they record it, that's just potential evidence against them. I don't think the recording itself should be illegal at all in a public place. Doesn't that solve everything? 

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

 

If someone is doing something dodgy and they record it, that's just potential evidence against them. I don't think the recording itself should be illegal at all in a public place. Doesn't that solve everything? 

 

Think about it? Are they going to stop public filming. Of course they won't. 

 

That would mean all landscape photograpgers for example gone.

 

On the bright side if it stops people filming at gigs/festivals, go ahead. 

Edited 4 hours ago by thetime

[Alvoram]

36 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

Oh, I haven't got a clue with the original specific case that was originally brought up. He might have done something illegal, who knows? I agree with the OP that the evidence sounds thin on the ground based on the BBC article (but none of us know the full story). 

 

But your term "overstepping the freedoms we enjoy" is so elastic, it could mean anything to anyone. 

 

To be honest, I think you can put the issue of recording in a public place aside completely. I think it should be allowed. Full stop (for self protection as much as anything). It's the other things such as harassment, up skirting, bullying, etc, that's the problem. 

 

If someone is doing something dodgy and they record it, that's just potential evidence against them. I don't think the recording itself should be illegal at all in a public place. Doesn't that solve everything? 

 

It's elastic, but it's not my place to decide where these lines are drawn, and what oversteps those freedoms. That's up to people with far more training, knowledge and understanding of the laws tham me. We can only hope and trust that those people know when those lines are crossed.

And yes, it does, that's pretty much what I've been trying to say (poorly?) I 100% agree with that, I think we can, and should, put the issue of public filming aside, that's not really what this is all about in the first place, it's an harassment charge. An analogy could be that it's not illegal to walk down a street behind somebody, but if I do that a few steps behind the same person, on multiple occasions, and this makes them feel scared and / or distressed, it then potentially becomes illegal, under harassment and stalking laws. It's a silly analogy, but valid nonetheless, I hope you can see through it's silliness, to the point I'm making. 

We wouldn't make walking behind people illegal, nor then, should this affect filming and photography laws. 

As a wider topic of conversation, outlawing or restricting tools used by criminals is not usually the answer, if we start going down that path where does it stop? In this case, it seems the camera, public filming rights and video sharing platforms may have been used as tools for his depravity. There are a million more cases, with a million different tools in use, do we restrict them all? 

I think we're actually in agreement here. 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Alvoram

[GhostOfMaurice]

4 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

 

It's elastic, but it's not my place to decide where these lines are drawn, and what oversteps those freedoms. That's up to people with far more training, knowledge and understanding of the laws tham me. We can only hope and trust that those people know when those lines are crossed.

And yes, it does, that's pretty much what I've been trying to say (poorly?) I 100% agree with that, I think we can, and should, put the issue of public filming aside, that's not really what this is all about in the first place, it's an harassment charge. An analogy could be that it's not illegal to walk down a street behind somebody, but if I do that a few steps behind the same person, on multiple occasions, and this makes them feel scared and / or distressed, it then potentially becomes illegal, under harassment and stalking laws. It's a silly analogy, but valid nonetheless, I hope you can see through it's silliness, to the point I'm making. 

We wouldn't make walking behind people illegal, nor then, should this affect filming and photography laws. 

As a wider topic of conversation, outlawing or restricting tools used by criminals is not usually the answer, if we start going down that path where does it stop? In this case, it seems the camera, public filming rights and video sharing platforms may have been used as tools for his depravity. There are a million more cases, with a million different tools in use, do we restrict them all? 

I think we're actually in agreement here. 

 

 

Handshake on that one 🤝