What Law IS Being Broken

[dundarach]

Creepy - yes
Should anyone be doing it - no

Illegal - don't think so is it?

[Silverbullet767]

Not condoning the behaviour in any way.

It's public filming, the "victim" is unaware.

It's not illegal unless it's causing distress. So I fail to see the crime.

Still creepy AF and if there was any justice the guy doing it should have his hard drives seized.

[Skeptisk]

In a country where there was a countdown in the newspapers to Emma Watson’s 16th birthday and the paparazzi try to get crotch shots of women getting out of cars (or bikini shots especially topless) it is hardly surprising. Especially when everyone carries a camera and means of instantly uploading pictures to the internet.

[Rufus Stone]

Every bank holiday weekend the Daily Mail publishes pics and videos of young people partying. Guess it must be legal.

[Randy Winkman]

S600BSB said:

bhstewie said:

Let's see how many pages this turns into of men justifying some really fking creepy behaviour.

Indeed. Why are people filming anyway FFS.

I wonder if anyone on PH is concerned about falling foul of this law? And whilst some will talk of a "slippery slope" I'm just not a slippery slope type person.

[untakenname]

Don't see much difference between this and the 'ladies of Ascot' type pictures of drunk females in varying states of disrepair.

I've been out in Manchester on Friday and Saturday nights and though I haven't lived a sheltered life (born and raised in London) it was certainly eye opening in comparison.

[768]

Public space, public videography. Can't see much legally wrong with that. Not sure why the online comments are relevant if it's the videographer being called in, or vice versa.

[Sporky]

Rufus Stone said:

Someone who no doubt posts loads of videos of herself on the internet is upset someone else has posted a video of her too.

Ah - the "it's impossible to rape a prostitute" argument.

[Randy Winkman]

768 said:

Public space, public videography. Can't see much legally wrong with that. Not sure why the online comments are relevant if it's the videographer being called in, or vice versa.

Do you think there should be any limits on what people film? Children perhaps? If so, why?

[chrispmartha]

768 said:

Public space, public videography. Can't see much legally wrong with that. Not sure why the online comments are relevant if it's the videographer being called in, or vice versa.

When were the laws about public videography written. I would imagine before pretty much everyone had a 4k video recorder in their pocket.

[StevieBee]

Randy Winkman said:

768 said:

Public space, public videography. Can't see much legally wrong with that. Not sure why the online comments are relevant if it's the videographer being called in, or vice versa.

Do you think there should be any limits on what people film? Children perhaps? If so, why?

Any law is only of use if it can be properly and evenly enforced.

If you imagine a film crew or news reporting team filming a generic street scene for something, it would be impossible to segregate out those members of the public that couldn't be filmed from those who could. So the choice is to either not film something or film it and suffer the consequence. In the case of a film crew, the film they're shooting may net many millions at the box office so a £5k fine is neither here or there. And who would you prosecute? The cameraman, who's under the control of the director, who's answerable to the producer who works for the production company that has a complex overseas ownership structure...?

At the other end of the scale, what if you are on holiday and filming a scene of a Cornish beach, perfectly innocently and a toddler runs into your shot in the buff?

In the case of the story here, the only law that 'might' be at risk of being broken is incitement to act contrary to civil decency. So the person filming is themselves not breaking any law directly but is enabling others to do so. Very difficult to prove though.

[Getragdogleg]

Rufus Stone said:

Someone who no doubt posts loads of videos of herself on the internet is upset someone else has posted a video of her too.

"TikTok influencer" no less.

[Countdown]

The $64m question - it's not illegal for blokes to be disgusting creepy perverts no matter how many resources you throw at it.

[Ian Geary]

These occasionally pop onto my Facebook feed, and have always seemed creepy.

It's clear they're being filmed covertly, but covert filming is just as legal as non covert filming (by a member of the public in public). Obviously there are specific things that it would be illegal to film.

I struggle to see how legally or practically any police action can progress, so this falls in the "make it look like we're doing something" column.

Morally is where it gets interesting - there are people who drop litter, or let their dog crap anywhere. That winds me up, but it's just part of society unfortunately, and part of a tolerant society is tolerating things we wouldn't ourselves do.

In this case, the guy (fairly certain) is doing it for Facebook traffic monetary gain. I'm sure there's far worse available on the internet, so what he's doing is reasonable benign on that scale if looked at dispationaltly.

If he was doing it non covertly the guy would probably get the crap kicked out of him, so tacitly he knows what he is doing is a bit stty.

[Evanivitch]

over_the_hill said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-6...

from above
"Greater Manchester Police (GMP) says it is actively working to catch the people making the videos."

But if filming in a public space they do not need permission and everyone is fair game - shirley !

Don't the Daily Mail do this most University Freshers and Cardiff Rugby matches?

[Evanivitch]

Sporky said:

Rufus Stone said:

Someone who no doubt posts loads of videos of herself on the internet is upset someone else has posted a video of her too.

Ah - the "it's impossible to rape a prostitute" argument.

I think that's somewhat unfair. If the video was voyeuristic or had been taken in what was believed to be a private place (like a private garden or members club) then I'd agree with tour sentiment. But these are literally people walking down the street. It's on a dozen or more CCTV cameras.

A guy, well know around Swansea as "Spielberg" used to film such things in Swansea from mid 90s up until the 2010s.

[Sporky]

Evanivitch said:

Sporky said:

Rufus Stone said:

Someone who no doubt posts loads of videos of herself on the internet is upset someone else has posted a video of her too.

Ah - the "it's impossible to rape a prostitute" argument.

I think that's somewhat unfair.

I'm pointing out that there is a difference between monetising your own image, and someone else monetising your image without your consent.

[Evanivitch]

Sporky said:

Evanivitch said:

Sporky said:

Rufus Stone said:

Someone who no doubt posts loads of videos of herself on the internet is upset someone else has posted a video of her too.

Ah - the "it's impossible to rape a prostitute" argument.

I think that's somewhat unfair.

I'm pointing out that there is a difference between monetising your own image, and someone else monetising your image without your consent.

Wtf has that got to do with raping a prostitute?

[ChocolateFrog]

My gut feeling is its more about them feeling a bit embarrassed being on video falling all over the place pissed up.

A video is much less dangerous than being around a few hundred pissed up guys while you're doing the same thing.

But then I don't have any daughters, maybe I'd feel differently if it was my own.

[768]

Randy Winkman said:

768 said:

Public space, public videography. Can't see much legally wrong with that. Not sure why the online comments are relevant if it's the videographer being called in, or vice versa.

Do you think there should be any limits on what people film? Children perhaps? If so, why?

I'm not sure what I think should be the case is relevant here. But I don't think there should be a law, certainly against any private individual, filming in public, even when there are children.