Video's/pictures of you working to then be put onto social media?

[ellal]

If anyone ever tries to film you in a public place and they're in your face, call the cops.

Wrong...

There is no law saying that filming in a public place is against the law.

Feel free to come up with any verifiable legal statute to prove that wrong...

It is however illegal to film in any private property (including commercial) unless you are the owner/occupant or have permission to do so...

 

[johnny2007]

If anyone ever tries to film you in a public place and they're in your face, call the cops.
Tell them exactly this: by filming me with insistence i have felt alarmed and distressed.
Section 5 applies, easy nick for the blues, box ticked.
If it's a c#nt like this cyclist just beat him up and don't forget to nick his camera and burn it.

Wrong...

There is no law saying that filming in a public place is against the law.

Feel free to come up with any verifiable legal statute to prove that wrong...

It is however illegal to film in any private property (including commercial) unless you are the owner/occupant or have permission to do so...

I know it's difficult for you to read past the first line, but please, try, try very hard, one day you might be successful.
See what i wrote past the first line???
For reference see section 5 here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

I save your 3 neurons the work:

"5. Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

As it will be impossible for you to read a whole paragraph, see the key words
"behaviour" and "person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress".

In other words, if you shove the camera in someone's face like you friend here, the cyclist c#nt, it is likely they'll feel harassed, alarmed or distressed and thus you'll be committing an offence.

Most likely you haven't made it this far down the page as your brain capacity won't allow it, but this is for others' information and benefit.

 

[teaboyjim]

I also recon he's an hard barsterd who doesn't give a fluck... the driver could see he wasn't going to be intimated The driver was to blame for holding traffic up and getting shirty...

Bicycle guy didn't seem nervous

 

[mattylad]

wrote some bullshit.

Wrong!
It has been shown, proven and stated by judges many time that the use of a camera alone cannot be used for a section 5.
Read the damn act yourself, there is no mention of use of a camera, taking photo's or video.

The police chief's themselves have stated this.

1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],

Using a camera to record images is outwith the above requirements for contravening the POA.

 

[securespark]

Johnny. Without being rude or insulting your "brain capacity", I need to make a point.

(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

The really important bit is "uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour"

Photography is not threatening, abusive or disorderly. You just cannot, however hard you try, make a lawful activity fit that description.

Even the police misinterpret this law.
They seem to take cues from the "injured" party; if they feel aggrieved, the police cite Section 5.

The police can't do someone under Section 5 (though they frequently try) for alarm, harassment and distress unless those conditions are met.

Otherwise any snowflake could claim A, H or D and demand the "aggressor" is dealt with by the police.

 

[johnny2007]

The really important bit is "uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour"

Note the word "or".
Shoving a camera in someone's face IS disorderly behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress.
In fact, most people's reaction to this would be to challenge the c#nt shoving the camera in their face.
Wouldn't you?

 

[johnny2007]

It has been shown, proven and stated by judges many time that the use of a camera alone cannot be used for a section 5.

In fact i said "call the police" so they can assess the situation and see if there's been a breach of legislation.
The c#nts filming usually don't know the legislation and will admit filming and provide the footage as CORROBORATING evidence.
So at least there will be the victim statement, the c#nt admission of filming in their face and the footage, all considered to be evidence.
A good police officer will proceed to report the c#nt.

Also, with regards to the phone offence or any other offence, the footage alone is worth nothing without a witness supporting the facts in the footage (and they must submit a witness statement as well as being prepared to go to court -apart from rare circumstances) and/or the admission from the offender.
That's why I doubt the fact that this cyclist c#nt has had this driver and other drivers done so easily.
All a show to make money off YouTube imo.

 

[securespark]

North Wales police used to ask for people's dash cam footage of other drivers and prosecuted some based on the footage.

 

[JohnD]

Shoving a camera in someone's face IS disorderly behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress.

In the same way as shoving a bible or a meat pie or a bicycle in someones face.

But using a camera in a public place is not an offence.

 

[mattylad]

Note the word "or".
Shoving a camera in someone's face IS disorderly behaviour likely to cause alarm or distress.
In fact, most people's reaction to this would be to challenge the c#nt shoving the camera in their face.
Wouldn't you?

Actually physically shoving a camera into someones face, so it makes contact - yes that may constitute an offence.
However the offence will not be one of photography, it will be one of assault.

Merely recording images of one, no matter how it is held is not unlawful.

How many time do you need to be told.
Photography is not a crime.

Apart from a very few specific locations:
Photography in a public place is not a crime.
Photography in a private place is not a crime (now I know that some are going to bleat over this statement but they will be wrong - in a private place you may be committing trespass which is all that can be used to stop you).

physically assaulting someone may be a crime, using hate speech against someone in a public place may be a crime, threatening someone may be a crime.
Taking their photo however is not, Simples.

 

[johnny2007]

Actually physically shoving a camera into someones face, so it makes contact - yes that may constitute an offence.
However the offence will not be one of photography, it will be one of assault.

Merely recording images of one, no matter how it is held is not unlawful.

How many time do you need to be told.
Photography is not a crime.

Apart from a very few specific locations:
Photography in a public place is not a crime.
Photography in a private place is not a crime (now I know that some are going to bleat over this statement but they will be wrong - in a private place you may be committing trespass which is all that can be used to stop you).

physically assaulting someone may be a crime, using hate speech against someone in a public place may be a crime, threatening someone may be a crime.
Taking their photo however is not, Simples.

You're simply wrong.
You don't have to make contact with someone to be breaching section 5.
In fact, if i followed you around for a length of time shouting Merry Christmas, most likely I would be causing distress, hence I would be breaching section 5.
Taking a discreet picture in a public place is one thing, following people around and insistently film them is a complete different thing, likely to cause harassment, alarm and/or distress.

 

[johnny2007]

Photography is not a crime

I never said so, you need to read past the first 3 words.
Photography is not an offence, shoving a camera in someone's face and follow them around shouting "you'll be on YouTube" is a breach of the public order act.

 

[johnny2007]

North Wales police used to ask for people's dash cam footage of other drivers and prosecuted some based on the footage.

They invite the likely driver for an interview and ask if they were the drivers.
Once they admit of being the drivers they are interviewed and asked why they passed a red light.
Anything else than "the driver never passed a red light" is an admission of guilt.
In these situations always deny that the video is genuine.
They have no way to verify it as it's not an approved device and as said, footage on its own is worth nothing in court.

 

[mattylad]

I never said so, you need to read past the first 3 words.
Photography is not an offence, shoving a camera in someone's face and follow them around shouting "you'll be on YouTube" is a breach of the public order act.

Codswallop!
bull shi t
the only thing you have there is "shoving a camera in someones face" so can you please define what you mean by that?

 

[mattylad]

Having re-watched that video, the only offenses I see are those from the van driver, instant aggression, assault, using offensive words.
As well as the offence of using a mobile phone while in charge of a vehicle, obstruction.

The cyclist did not shove his camera in the drivers face, he simply tapped on his window and then the driver started his aggressive behavior.

I think the comment on the video of "the driver pleaded guilty in court to both red light and the phone offences" says it all really, the police have obviously seen the video and used it.
Fined £110, costs £100 for the phone offense and £55 for the red light offense.

The driver too was under the misguided impression that ha cannot be filmed when on a public highway - seems he paid dearly for this.