- cross-posted to:
- manchester@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- manchester@feddit.uk
A man has become the first in the UK to be arrested over videos filmed of women on nights out without their consent, with some in vulnerable states.
The 27-year-old from Bradford was taken into custody on suspicion of stalking and harassment after reports of women being followed, filmed and harassed in Manchester city centre.
…
Though filming on a public street is not a crime, it can cross the line into harassment, and women who discovered they had been targeted were asked to report it to police.
Greater Manchester police (GMP) said they had received a number of reports and, while investigating, found more content locked under paywalled accounts, which included footage of suspected non-consensual nudity and upskirting.
The arrest is thought to be the first of its kind in the country linked with viral videos of women filmed on nights out, some of them while drunk or alone on the street.
You must log in or register to comment.
Bad title. He was arrested for stalking and harassing them, a feature of which was videoing them. Filming in public remains completely legal and consent isn’t required.
Yeah it’s a bit creepy to film people without their consent but it’s a bad precedent to said because how do you tell if someone’s deliberately filming you or you’re just in the background of the video. It’s all subjective.
Probably if they’re following the person/group and interacting with them in some way. The article specifically mentions upskirting, which requires obvious motion. Cameras following you despite moving away also makes it pretty obvious. If you’re in a state of partial nudity for whatever reason your drunk brain has decided, and somebody is persistently filming you, you have every right to feel concerned about it.
If some dude is talking to himself and live blogging it’s probably not as suspicious, unless he specifically starts mentioning the women in his recording.
Either way, reviewing the footage will clear or condemn them. I’m personally on the side of better safe than sorry since they’ve mentioned this behaviour has led to further harassment.
I wonder why the police don’t name and shame this guy like they do for protesters
They’d usually release the name when it goes to court, often when someone is charged. As they’ve only been arrested its’s a bit early.
Again that’s not the case for protesters but the police just do whatever they like, who am I gonna complain to … the police?
I’m in no way a fan of cops or the ‘legal’ system and its only recourse being arresting/charging people.
However, I am glad it’s being recognised as an actual problem, just hoping something actually useful and sustainable can come out of it, such as teaching folks this is a horrible thing to do and getting them to think about why.
I doubt it will as punishment is not shown to necessarily make people think about the patriarchy or feelings of entitlement to people’s bodies, but it might stop this behaviour and might be talked about inadvertently leading to that outcome, we can only hope.
He was arrested for harassment, which was already illegal. This is one of those laws that they use as an “enhancement”, on top of the actual reason for arrest, rather than the reason for arrest itself.
Thanks for letting us know!
Wait, how long has there been a weird squiggly thing in Exchange Square?
It’s an old picture. It shows a sign for the Triangle Shopping Centre, which hasn’t existed for ~10 years, if memory serves.
Huh. You must be right, but I don’t even remember that being there.
arrest
not to be doomer but I’m not interested unless they bring charges. arrests aren’t even permanently recorded unless you accept an official warning.
