I am just realising. These police officers seem to have a huge issue with this man taking photos without people's consent. Yet they have an entire camera crew with them- to which most people being flimed would have been filmed, without consent. And I am not defending taking pictures of people, in this context. But even though it was blurred. That image looks more tame that what those girls probably put on their social media anyway. So is this really an "abuse of trust". As the officer said. I agree with how people seem to have summed this up in the comments. What that man did was weird, but not illigal. And while the officers are respectable for ensuring their is no laws being broken. Is does seem like they were letting their emotions get the better of them- esspecially that female officer. infact. I am sure if a male went up to them, saying a female took a picture of him. There is every chance, nobody would care.
What has the car done to get scrapped. Its the owners fault and should always remain that. Just like we have the XL bullies - it’s not their fault the owners can’t handle them. The same way it’s not the cars fault, if the drivers can’t handle them.
That guy should of stayed silent. The police should be more concerned about upholding the rule of law than looking into people's mobile phones. That WPC had no legal right to delete photos, only a court can.
She's part of the woke/radical feminist brigade and thinks she is stunning and brave and she can do whatever she pleases without ever being held accountable just like most modern women
I would like to note that although its not illegal to take pictures in the uk, and in this situation the creep taking the photos broke no laws, he did consent to the officer searching his phone, then when the officer stated they would delete the image he consented to that to, and did not state that he didn't want the image removed. The officer could have worded their statement better, saying "Can I delete this image" but considering the consent of the person and the legitimate reason for the detainment (responding to a 911 call and making sure this man was not spiking people) I don't find these officers completely out of order like some in the comments suggest.
A pub is not a public space, it is a business, and the manager/owner has the right to dictate what does and does not happen in their pub within reason. The pub was perfectly in their rights to ask him to leave.
The CREEP had caused the female, alarm, fear and or distress, and THAT is a Criminal Offence in the UK, its called Harassment, regardless of exactly what he was actually doing, its the "causing" of someone alarm, fear, and or distress, that counts in UK law,
Everyone is jumping to the defence of the creep taking the photos without for a moment considering the rights and safety of the girl being photographed without her consent. What a sick world!
Yeah because it initially sounds like upskirt type shit and it's hard to tell given it's blurred out, but It looks like a normal photograph. If I'm out in public, I generally assume someone might take a photo of me and there's nothing wrong with that. If some dude wants to jerk off to that, I could care less. People take photos of other people all the time and you can't justify it as criminal based on an assumed intent. Even if I don't want my photo taken, there is no tangible impact on me if someone does knowingly or unknowingly. Typically laws regarding consent for recording/photography are commercial in nature, otherwise you wouldn't be able to use a cellphone in public. Yes, the guy is most likely being a creep and yes the bouncer did exactly the right thing in removing a customer that might be making others uncomfortable.
It's absolutely disgusting! Taking a picture of someone without their consent in a public space! Wait, police, paramedic, traffic warden, bailiff body cams. CCTV everywhere, shops, streets, in the workplace. Dash cams. Cameras on buses. Cameras in taxis. Cameras on cyclist helmets. Cameras.........every bloody where! I think it's disgusting!......I secretly hope and don't tell anyone, it's a fit bird at the other end of that camera, thinking he's quite fit, bit of alright......just a thought!
@@bbumble_bee Perhaps I should have concluded with, 'unless they are utter morons'. My thanks to you and the previous poster for demonstrating this so clearly.
I was a Traffic Officer for ten years. Rule of thumb was, You either give a ticket, or a lecture. Never both. It's condescending and bloody annoying. Rubbing salt into the wound.
When that female officer took down a suspect driving away in another video I had great respect for her. But her behaviour here diminishes that respect a great deal!
I doubt she cares less what someone hiding behind a username and keyboard thinks. She is being filmed publically doing her job for all to see, pretty easy to work out who is the better person between the two of you.
You're not allowed to ask to look through a member of the public's phone without a warrant. Those 2 officers are jobsworths. Also for a PACE 1 search, you're looking for misc. stuff, not spike stuff. If you're trying to find things that could spike women, it should be a MoDA 23 search. It's not illegal to take photographs in the UK, because of freedom of act, so these police officers conducted themselves terribly, and deleting someone's photographs on their phone without consent is actually illegal. Power abusing police, just like most of them.
There is no lawful basis for a police officer to delete a photograph on someone's phone, and whilst being followed with a camera crew taking film of people getting stopped when they have in fact not committed any offence and where they are said to be suspected of 'spiking' when they have not been seen doing anything remotely connected with such a crime..
00:56 Ooh, stop the press. Who is that???. Even though, I am law abiding citizen with a clean criminal record she can arrest me any day of the week and twice on the weekends. With all due respect that any woman deserves, she is a beautiful woman.
Firstly, yes, the guy is a creep for taking the photo of the women but there is no law preventing anyone from doing this, sadly. It should be an offence to film or take photographs in public if it is considered inappropriate or there could be some sinister motive, but the law is clear, there is NO law preventing this. That said, the police officer who deleted this photo has just committed an offence. A police officer does not have the right to stop or search you unless they believe you have committed an offence, which none has been committed, and more so they would require a court order to delete things from your phone or any other digital device. So even though the message is good enough, the actual law has been broken here by the police, who should know better and the man in question could in fact pursue them for wrongful stop, search and the deletion of this image. The entire "spiking" thing is a complete red herring. If they truly believed this man had spiked someone's drink, CCTV within the pub would easily have identified this. If I believed this as a police officer, he would have been detained whilst the camera footage of the pub was reviewed. The fact this didn't happen tells me it was a poor excuse to stop and search.
As much as I don't agree with this guys actions; the same laws that allow a camera crew to film these interactions are the same laws that allow him to photograph in public. Its not against the law, however deleting the photographs without a court order is. Im not happy about depending a weirdo but that's the law ATM
@@Ed.E Define how one perceives sexual. Ultimately it's a photo of a girl, who what we can see from the blurred photo appears to be fully clothed. I doubt that would be deemed as "voyerism". That law is more about taking photos i.e upskirting in public, taking images of someone where they would expect privacy, for example a toilet, not about taking photos of members of public on the street. Also, the Voyeurism act only covers specific body parts, usually the reproductive organs, and NOT "any part of the body". As much as I disagree with what he did ultimately he did not commit any offence and the officer (i'm a serving officer myself) could have found herself in trouble as she has deleted a photo from a person's phone without their consent, for which she has no legal power or authority to do so. A court can order destruction of images but nobody else. Especially as it's NOT an offence it especially means she has no authority or legal power to do what she did.
@@thefiestaguy8831 Lol just stop backing up this behaviour. Taking a photo in that scenario could look like intent to rape or spike a girl because you now know what she looks like. Creep sympathiser isn’t a good look.
@@ryder883 Eh? Not backing it up at all. I don't condone his behaviour one bit. The point i'm making though is that what he did isn't illegal and therefore they don't have any powers to start going through his phone and deleting photos without his consent. I'm a UK officer myself but what the officer did here could have got her into a civil legal case, had the bloke complained.
If he'd been taking photos in a public space, such as in a street, I'd agree. But a pub is not a public space, it is a retail business, and businesses can decide what is and is not acceptable behaviour.
As they mentioned, you really don’t need to look at or touch your phone in modern cars. Apple car play is a dream, and I can do everything I need whilst concentrating on the road in front
Police did the right thing with the guy who took a picture....those who are saying he did nothing wrong, how would they feel if it was their daughter or partner being photographed. Guy was out of order....
IF the female who had been photographed, had told the Police, that caused her, fear and alarm, he would have had to have been arrested (and later investigated), for "Suspicion of Causing Harassment" (IF the guy, had just been looking at the female, while appearing to be rubbing his crotch, IF that caused her ALARM, "he would have been arrested for that")
They have 2 cartridges loaded into the taser as default, and usually they have a pouch on their kitbelt with another 2. So essentially they get at least 4 discharges from it should it be necessary.
If it's not illegal, then he's done no wrong, the nightclub records people via CCTV without consent. I'm not saying i agree with the guy taking photos of people, but to say its predatory behavior is a bit much. He's in an establishment full of party goers whos probably got there phones out recoring anyways
Ok the guy seems a bit creepy, and I wouldn't do that, but these days just about everyone has a phone with a camera. How many people can put their hand on their heart and say they never took a photo in a public place with strangers in it. There is no law in the UK against members of the public taking photos of whatever, or whoever, they want in a public place, unless, they're indecent. Simple rule, don't do (or wear) anything in public you wouldn't be happy being photographed and shared online.
@@peterclarke7240 Which is a public place. Retail business is just words... it's a public place, it's a pub. There's no offence committed here and I can't see how you see differently.
@@thefiestaguy8831 Because a retail establishment abides by the rules that the owner/manager decrees. Tell me, have you ever witnessed anyone getting kicked out of a pub? or seen a sign saying "patrons must wear a shirt" or the like? Yeah, exactly.
@@peterclarke7240 No. Whilst they make the rules, it's only rules of the establishment. You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between a private establishment open to the public making rules/policies being different to law. A pub could say "No photography inside" however it does not make it an offence to walk in and take a photograph, it just means you are liable to be ejected as you have breached their terms of "service" in effect, to the point where they are now "Refusing you service" and ask you to leave. There are very few places where taking a photograph inside or video recording is actually a crime, and to my knowledge the only one I can immediately think of is a court room, who strictly forbid court proceedings being photographed/filmed. I know of a colleague who arrested someone for doing exactly this however it is very rare. Just because a privately owned business doesn't want someone to photograph inside, it doesn't suddenly become a crime if they do so, they don't make the law do they?
@@thefiestaguy8831 Oh god... Look. Watch the video again. Where does it say that the the guy "committed an offence?" It doesn't. He was kicked out of the pub for doing something not allowed in that pub, because it follows different rules to being on the street. The idiot then got approached by the cops, and he willingly surrendered his phone, without being asked. At that point, the cops deleted his photos, with his permission, and off he went. I guess I'm just confused why people seem to think the cops violated his rights. They didn't. They simply stopped him.
Albeit, it is strange behaviour. Legally he isn’t doing anything wrong taking a photo of someone in the public. Granted it isn’t going down the lines of voyeurism etc…
First of all, please use commas next time. Second of all, the man would have definitely said if it was a family member and the photo of the girl would have shown as being taken in the pub. The man was also kicked out of the pub for taking a photo. There’s enough evidence in plain sight to conclude that is not the case. I understand why you are concerned, but please think before posting a comment like that. I am not trying to be rude, just hoping to teach you something! Have a good day :)
@@stacileharve7084 NO its actually illegal, BUT, you need to KNOW exactly what you have to say to the Police, for instance, telling the Police, "the man took my photo and I didn't want him to do that" wouldn't get you very far, BUT, telling the Police "the man took my photo, and THAT caused me FEAR and ALARM", gets the man arrested for "suspicion of Causing Harassment" a Criminal Offence, that would have to be investigated by the Police.
I thought this would be a video about drink spikers and the misuse of GHB, it turned out to be a video about how easily the police can be misdirected simply by shouting "drugs", make a false allegation about misuse of drugs and Kent Police will detain, arrest and search people that have not broken the law. By taking a photograph in a club the guy got trespassed and banned from private property as he broke the club's policy but he hadn't broken the law. Unless someone saw him spiking a drink or someone suffered the effects of being spiked near to him drugs are not part of this story. Perhaps the young woman photographed had self administered drugs and was claiming she's been spiked to avoid being trespassed from the club herself.
They go after anyone , Last month at Leeds Festival , Two 17 yr girls got spiked , one of them had a seizure on the car ride home , she felt a sharp pain and saw the man behind her taking the syringe out before he disappeared into the crowd , it is scary indeed .
@@mandymetcalfe2610 If you were injected you would either feel it immediately or you wouldn't feel it at all as it didn't reach a vein. Sounds like a made up story where somebody got caught taking drugs and they needed an excuse. You got the story wrong anyway. The girl in the car ride home somebody told her she was spiked and felt ill the next day.
My male cousin was recently In Italy on his own, he went to a bar, started feeling funny. He left the club, only to realise some guys were following him, he realised he’d been injected and he was rendered useless and he was mugged. It’s so dangerous with hiv risk as well as they’re probably reusing needles or injecting multiple people with one.
Taking photos is perfectly legal to do in a public place And deleting data,pictures,videos Can only be done by a judges authorisation So the officers was the only ones who broke the law
No, if its private property then you cant take pictures of someone without their consent. You might also have to get the land owners permission. If taking a picture of a person where there is expected privacy its likely to breach privacy laws as well.
@@thegamingscientist9188 if its private property but has public access then the only thing they can ask you to do is leave Most Police station are private property but these auditors still go there and take videos and photos because they can Like I said a judge is the only person who can order for removal of data/anything from your device Which means the police would have to seize the phone and the officers didnt have the grounds to do so Because its legal to do Taking photo in public isn't an offence And takin pictures from private property which has public access isn't an offence
@@thegamingscientist9188 what kind of expected privacy are you hoping for from a pub or a club its open to the public And If you want privacy then its up to you to make that privacy Don't think for 1 second im defending this guy because I'm not and I totally disagree with taking photos of people with permission but unfortunately the law says they can
Happens all the time. Double standards. The guy was wrong to do it, but we all know the massive double standards around. I've been S£Xually assaulted multiple times by women and its all a big joke. One tried to take my belt off and grabbed my private area quite hard it hurt, when I told her to get off she threw a drink on my privates. Everybody laughed.
@@Scottish1996this ain't Scotland tho is it... and if you look anywhere it states the police give out fines, fixed penalty notices etc. It doesn't specify traffic police do. They are just more likely to give you one with the nature of their job
@@Kaisive yeh only in England and wales probs, Scotland is totally different, prefer it up there. Only traffic officers can give out fines for road traffic offences
I'm sure they cannot search someone's phone without RIPA authority, secondly using blue-lights and engaging pursuit essentially for using a mobile phone and endangering other road users was silly from those officers. Poor, poor policing really...
Wrong. I'm a serving officer. We "triage" phones in custody, i.e we arrest someone for possession with intent to supply, we are expected to "triage" their phone, which means looking at messages on their phone which may indicate or suggest drug dealing activity, there are certain caveats with the main one being that we can't start browsing through the whole phone and looking at photographs etc, or as I understand read "unread" messages. But we can look at received/sent messages and whatsapp/social media messages. Under police operating procedure it's only deemed a "pursuit" if they believe the vehicle is likely to fail to stop,, or has failed to stop, hence if a non-pursuit trained police driver is behind a stolen vehicle, and they suspect it will "not stop" because it is stolen, they are not supposed to activate blue lights to attempt to stop it, this is known as a "pre-emptive pursuit". Each force has slightly different policies but most are effectively aligned and follow guidance from NPCC and College of Policing. This would not be considered "a pursuit". Is he likely to fail to stop for them? No. He simply drove off and tried to hide, with them losing sight of him as he was driving in the other direction. Has he failed to stop for them? No - they haven't requested him to stop at any point by activating blue lights or siren, they've merely turned around to try and catch up to him.
people should have an expectation of privacy but that's not how this world works with social media and smart phones. What is in question here is the actions of the police and abuse of authority as they had no information that he had committed an actual crime. This female officer loves the camera, it is not the first questionable incident she has been involved in. Did the pub have a no photo policy and how many women took photos of men without their knowledge in the pub that night. Spiking is a serious problem that needs to be stamped out but thats not what this report was about and she had no cause to stop him, no one reported him having committed an offence, their stop and search was unlawful, if this was a black man there would be uproar
Not impressed with this at all one minute the guy saying no offence has been committed next minute he saying the guys done something wrong The officer even needs to make up his mind and arrest him all they need to let him go but not be changing the story one minute to the next
I think you'll find that he was talking about a moral wrong. There is a difference between something you know to be wrong and morally disgusting behaviour and what is a legal wrong and an arrestable offence. He even said that he couldn't take the matter further but it would still be behaviour you wouldn't want to take place and a decent parent, for eg, would endeavour to discourage from their children.
i do not get this, we are allowed to take pictures of people in public places correct, doesnt matter if is a boy or a girl. i thought women and man are equal. and they are not under age beacuse they were drinking so. nothing wrong here just police try to justify there presence were they shouldnt be.
There is something wrong here The police are the ones who broke the law by deleting data from the man's phone without the order from a judge And I he was breaking the law in order for a judge to order that The man's phone would of been seized But the police didn't have grounds to do that because what he was doing is (legal) I totally disagree with him takin photo without consent By unfortunately the law say he can
With all respect to police and that females who are on that photo...police dont have a power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search soo? all what you could do is make that note....
@@Mrwm117 It's not. It's done regularly especially in cases relating to drug dealing. I've searched through several phones and so have my colleagues usually when looking for messages that relate to drug supply. There are certain caveats to it but no authority under RIPA is required. Ultimately for certain offences they can seize and triage or download a phone, only some offences require approval or a warrant for a phone download to be completed and examined.
What's the difference between an idiot using a phone whilst driving, and a police officer using a radio whilst driving? Both divert attention from driving.
So not only did the officers accuse him of predatory behaviour without arresting him for being a predator they also forcefully delete a picture without a court order (which is required by law), questionable action from the police there.
@@Th3L0wK1Because I know how the UK Law works doesn’t make me a predator at all, it should show you I am well educated in the law of the land and don’t go off my butt hurt feelings on how I think the law should be. Grow up
@@UserName-br5zu With the public in the venue …so you saying if they had a wedding in a private venue they could not take photos?🤔 give yourself a shake ffs
Hi Kevin, I am a professional photographer, the law states that in a public place you can take a photograph of any person, the one thing with this guys situation is that he took the photograph on private property, i think a club.
He offered for them to search his phone, they also did find evidence of him taking photos of women without consent. Also he was a suspected drink spiker because he was engaging in predatory behaviour.
Err.. the hint is in the word ‘suspected’ lol. He wasn’t accused of anything. And he gave permission for them to look through his phone, he unlocked it himself & handed it over to them, so how is that a ‘sackable offence?! Lawdy, you folk really do reach when it comes to your dislike for the police don’t you..?!
Driving into the back of someone because you're crawling forward, and then the traffic stops but you don't notice because you're on your phone, is still "an accident". I've seen plenty of accidents caused this way. It also causes another issue, if you take your eyes off the road to stare at your phone, especially if you are in a taller vehicle, say a van, a small child could run in front of your car, due to the height of the child and your vehicle you won't see them and will drive forward crushing them underneath. Now compare that same scenario but this time you are looking forward, you will notice the child walking from right to left / left to right and disappear from view by the bonnet, and you won't drive forward crushing them.
Some of the man in these comments are definitely acting like this.
I am just realising. These police officers seem to have a huge issue with this man taking photos without people's consent. Yet they have an entire camera crew with them- to which most people being flimed would have been filmed, without consent. And I am not defending taking pictures of people, in this context. But even though it was blurred. That image looks more tame that what those girls probably put on their social media anyway. So is this really an "abuse of trust". As the officer said. I agree with how people seem to have summed this up in the comments. What that man did was weird, but not illigal. And while the officers are respectable for ensuring their is no laws being broken. Is does seem like they were letting their emotions get the better of them- esspecially that female officer. infact. I am sure if a male went up to them, saying a female took a picture of him. There is every chance, nobody would care.
The worst thing about needle spiking is that you don't know where that needle's been!
People caught driving on the phone should instantly lose their licence and the car scrapped.
Yess but instead of scrapped, turned into an electric one and resold or given to low-income people who really need them!
@@lunchtimelunatic2536 yep a bit harsh but it'd work as a deterrent. 😁
@@Cassxowary Yesssss lets give a money sinking machine to a low income family who realllyyy neeeed to lose more money. Electric cars are scams
What has the car done to get scrapped.
Its the owners fault and should always remain that.
Just like we have the XL bullies - it’s not their fault the owners can’t handle them. The same way it’s not the cars fault, if the drivers can’t handle them.
scrapping a car for that is a bit too harsh, but they should just loose their licence. And their car goes to a car reseller
That guy should of stayed silent. The police should be more concerned about upholding the rule of law than looking into people's mobile phones. That WPC had no legal right to delete photos, only a court can.
She's part of the woke/radical feminist brigade and thinks she is stunning and brave and she can do whatever she pleases without ever being held accountable just like most modern women
I would like to note that although its not illegal to take pictures in the uk, and in this situation the creep taking the photos broke no laws, he did consent to the officer searching his phone, then when the officer stated they would delete the image he consented to that to, and did not state that he didn't want the image removed.
The officer could have worded their statement better, saying "Can I delete this image" but considering the consent of the person and the legitimate reason for the detainment (responding to a 911 call and making sure this man was not spiking people) I don't find these officers completely out of order like some in the comments suggest.
The suspect would have been intimidated by the presence of the Camera Crew.
It’s not that it is legal. It’s because taking photos of people without their consent isn’t a done thing.
A pub is not a public space, it is a business, and the manager/owner has the right to dictate what does and does not happen in their pub within reason.
The pub was perfectly in their rights to ask him to leave.
The CREEP had caused the female,
alarm, fear and or distress,
and THAT is a Criminal Offence in the UK,
its called Harassment,
regardless of exactly what he was actually doing,
its the "causing" of someone
alarm, fear, and or distress, that counts in UK law,
*999 call you mean
Everyone is jumping to the defence of the creep taking the photos without for a moment considering the rights and safety of the girl being photographed without her consent. What a sick world!
"there is no criminal offence here" have you ever heard of CCTV?
Yeah because it initially sounds like upskirt type shit and it's hard to tell given it's blurred out, but It looks like a normal photograph.
If I'm out in public, I generally assume someone might take a photo of me and there's nothing wrong with that. If some dude wants to jerk off to that, I could care less.
People take photos of other people all the time and you can't justify it as criminal based on an assumed intent. Even if I don't want my photo taken, there is no tangible impact on me if someone does knowingly or unknowingly.
Typically laws regarding consent for recording/photography are commercial in nature, otherwise you wouldn't be able to use a cellphone in public.
Yes, the guy is most likely being a creep and yes the bouncer did exactly the right thing in removing a customer that might be making others uncomfortable.
It's absolutely disgusting! Taking a picture of someone without their consent in a public space! Wait, police, paramedic, traffic warden, bailiff body cams. CCTV everywhere, shops, streets, in the workplace. Dash cams. Cameras on buses. Cameras in taxis. Cameras on cyclist helmets. Cameras.........every bloody where! I think it's disgusting!......I secretly hope and don't tell anyone, it's a fit bird at the other end of that camera, thinking he's quite fit, bit of alright......just a thought!
No right to privacy in a PUBLIC place.
@@GairikGhosh this isn’t America
They really need to stop saying, 'obviously', every 10 seconds.
Obviously.
obviously
@@bbumble_bee Perhaps I should have concluded with, 'unless they are utter morons'. My thanks to you and the previous poster for demonstrating this so clearly.
@@resnonverba137 Ha, ha. Res 2 Idiots 0
I was a Traffic Officer for ten years. Rule of thumb was, You either give a ticket, or a lecture. Never both. It's condescending and bloody annoying. Rubbing salt into the wound.
this show really needs another season. it’s really good and the officers handle each situation so well ❤
When that female officer took down a suspect driving away in another video I had great respect for her.
But her behaviour here diminishes that respect a great deal!
ik she’s really cool and i have a lot of respect for her 🙂
I doubt she cares less what someone hiding behind a username and keyboard thinks. She is being filmed publically doing her job for all to see, pretty easy to work out who is the better person between the two of you.
You're not allowed to ask to look through a member of the public's phone without a warrant. Those 2 officers are jobsworths. Also for a PACE 1 search, you're looking for misc. stuff, not spike stuff. If you're trying to find things that could spike women, it should be a MoDA 23 search. It's not illegal to take photographs in the UK, because of freedom of act, so these police officers conducted themselves terribly, and deleting someone's photographs on their phone without consent is actually illegal. Power abusing police, just like most of them.
He gave them permission to though when he said you can look through my phone
There is no lawful basis for a police officer to delete a photograph on someone's phone, and whilst being followed with a camera crew taking film of people getting stopped when they have in fact not committed any offence and where they are said to be suspected of 'spiking' when they have not been seen doing anything remotely connected with such a crime..
00:56 Ooh, stop the press. Who is that???. Even though, I am law abiding citizen with a clean criminal record she can arrest me any day of the week and twice on the weekends. With all due respect that any woman deserves, she is a beautiful woman.
She’s fit this officer
Stopp 🤤🤤
@@bfdmanbfd i’d go as far as to saying beautiful 🤩
I was thinking the same
The one with the 2007 boys hair cut i hope you are talking about 😉
I hate people who have Bluetooth and can't be arsed to link the phone to the car
Was this show originally shown on a satellite channel ? I don't remember ever seeing it on telly.
Firstly, yes, the guy is a creep for taking the photo of the women but there is no law preventing anyone from doing this, sadly. It should be an offence to film or take photographs in public if it is considered inappropriate or there could be some sinister motive, but the law is clear, there is NO law preventing this. That said, the police officer who deleted this photo has just committed an offence. A police officer does not have the right to stop or search you unless they believe you have committed an offence, which none has been committed, and more so they would require a court order to delete things from your phone or any other digital device.
So even though the message is good enough, the actual law has been broken here by the police, who should know better and the man in question could in fact pursue them for wrongful stop, search and the deletion of this image. The entire "spiking" thing is a complete red herring. If they truly believed this man had spiked someone's drink, CCTV within the pub would easily have identified this. If I believed this as a police officer, he would have been detained whilst the camera footage of the pub was reviewed. The fact this didn't happen tells me it was a poor excuse to stop and search.
As much as I don't agree with this guys actions; the same laws that allow a camera crew to film these interactions are the same laws that allow him to photograph in public. Its not against the law, however deleting the photographs without a court order is. Im not happy about depending a weirdo but that's the law ATM
The law changed with the vo3erism act (typo deliberate) which makes it illegal to take some photos of people in a sexual way
@@Ed.E Define how one perceives sexual. Ultimately it's a photo of a girl, who what we can see from the blurred photo appears to be fully clothed. I doubt that would be deemed as "voyerism". That law is more about taking photos i.e upskirting in public, taking images of someone where they would expect privacy, for example a toilet, not about taking photos of members of public on the street.
Also, the Voyeurism act only covers specific body parts, usually the reproductive organs, and NOT "any part of the body".
As much as I disagree with what he did ultimately he did not commit any offence and the officer (i'm a serving officer myself) could have found herself in trouble as she has deleted a photo from a person's phone without their consent, for which she has no legal power or authority to do so. A court can order destruction of images but nobody else. Especially as it's NOT an offence it especially means she has no authority or legal power to do what she did.
@@thefiestaguy8831 Lol just stop backing up this behaviour. Taking a photo in that scenario could look like intent to rape or spike a girl because you now know what she looks like. Creep sympathiser isn’t a good look.
@@ryder883 Eh? Not backing it up at all. I don't condone his behaviour one bit. The point i'm making though is that what he did isn't illegal and therefore they don't have any powers to start going through his phone and deleting photos without his consent. I'm a UK officer myself but what the officer did here could have got her into a civil legal case, had the bloke complained.
If he'd been taking photos in a public space, such as in a street, I'd agree. But a pub is not a public space, it is a retail business, and businesses can decide what is and is not acceptable behaviour.
Injecting someone and publicly filming are different matters
You know that CCTV cameras are everywhere, I can just look there .
Coming from one of the most police surveilled cities I find what she’s saying quite ironic.
Where?
As they mentioned, you really don’t need to look at or touch your phone in modern cars. Apple car play is a dream, and I can do everything I need whilst concentrating on the road in front
Some people don’t have modern cars though. I use my phone daily whilst driving and never crashed
Police did the right thing with the guy who took a picture....those who are saying he did nothing wrong, how would they feel if it was their daughter or partner being photographed. Guy was out of order....
IF the female who had been photographed,
had told the Police, that caused her, fear and alarm, he would have had to have been arrested (and later investigated), for "Suspicion of Causing Harassment" (IF the guy, had just been looking at the female, while appearing to be rubbing his crotch, IF that caused her ALARM, "he would have been arrested for that")
U deleted the photo but u literally can recover the photo
The police is there protect and look after us I love the authorities they give us freedom of religion thank you great Brittan
How would they not notice being stabbed
He made a mistake giving these officers access to his cellphone. Some people can't help themselves.
I’ve seen cops texting in standstill traffic. How do they get away with it? Are they above the law?
No one is above the law no one not even them
No its because they are using their police devices to update records
@@matintavakoli8796they can’t pull over to do that nah?
Has it gotten to the point where women have to dress in protective gear to go out in public now? Under armor to go out to the pub, so sad.
You might want more than just one taser cartridge just for safety
They have 2 cartridges in 1 taser.
They have 2 cartridges loaded into the taser as default, and usually they have a pouch on their kitbelt with another 2. So essentially they get at least 4 discharges from it should it be necessary.
If it's not illegal, then he's done no wrong, the nightclub records people via CCTV without consent. I'm not saying i agree with the guy taking photos of people, but to say its predatory behavior is a bit much. He's in an establishment full of party goers whos probably got there phones out recoring anyways
It isnt illegal to photograph people
he is obviously in the wrong but the female officer is so clearly in her emotions, she was almost going to cry
why would you take photos of any young person? unless you are doing a project or learning photography
The female officer is quite attractive
And strong , she did well against a very heavy guy in the previous video
Ewww a simp
Officers leng
*_Maidstone has really good nightlife, Mu Mu cabaret club is awesome_*
The blonde officer! 😍😍😍😍😍😍
…
Is it a crime to have a picture of girl on your phone ? - It could be his daughter.
Ok the guy seems a bit creepy, and I wouldn't do that, but these days just about everyone has a phone with a camera. How many people can put their hand on their heart and say they never took a photo in a public place with strangers in it. There is no law in the UK against members of the public taking photos of whatever, or whoever, they want in a public place, unless, they're indecent. Simple rule, don't do (or wear) anything in public you wouldn't be happy being photographed and shared online.
Sadly, he wasn't doing it in a public place. He was doing it in a retail business.
@@peterclarke7240 Which is a public place. Retail business is just words... it's a public place, it's a pub. There's no offence committed here and I can't see how you see differently.
@@thefiestaguy8831 Because a retail establishment abides by the rules that the owner/manager decrees.
Tell me, have you ever witnessed anyone getting kicked out of a pub? or seen a sign saying "patrons must wear a shirt" or the like? Yeah, exactly.
@@peterclarke7240 No.
Whilst they make the rules, it's only rules of the establishment. You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between a private establishment open to the public making rules/policies being different to law.
A pub could say "No photography inside" however it does not make it an offence to walk in and take a photograph, it just means you are liable to be ejected as you have breached their terms of "service" in effect, to the point where they are now "Refusing you service" and ask you to leave.
There are very few places where taking a photograph inside or video recording is actually a crime, and to my knowledge the only one I can immediately think of is a court room, who strictly forbid court proceedings being photographed/filmed. I know of a colleague who arrested someone for doing exactly this however it is very rare.
Just because a privately owned business doesn't want someone to photograph inside, it doesn't suddenly become a crime if they do so, they don't make the law do they?
@@thefiestaguy8831 Oh god... Look. Watch the video again. Where does it say that the the guy "committed an offence?" It doesn't.
He was kicked out of the pub for doing something not allowed in that pub, because it follows different rules to being on the street.
The idiot then got approached by the cops, and he willingly surrendered his phone, without being asked. At that point, the cops deleted his photos, with his permission, and off he went.
I guess I'm just confused why people seem to think the cops violated his rights. They didn't. They simply stopped him.
She still a cutie
who cares if he took the photos its not illegal police cannot delete a photo breaking the law
We do live in a different time now .
The Smartphone era
Smartphones that turn people into idiots.
Que bien actuo la funcionaria ,con esa belleza yo dejo detener❤❤
Albeit, it is strange behaviour. Legally he isn’t doing anything wrong taking a photo of someone in the public. Granted it isn’t going down the lines of voyeurism etc…
The only way to get the Police to attend to an incident of any kind, is to have a film crew with you 🤷🏻♂️
Bullshit.
What if u have deleted a family member female police officer do u think about that no just be u KARMA will come one day
First of all, please use commas next time. Second of all, the man would have definitely said if it was a family member and the photo of the girl would have shown as being taken in the pub.
The man was also kicked out of the pub for taking a photo. There’s enough evidence in plain sight to conclude that is not the case.
I understand why you are concerned, but please think before posting a comment like that. I am not trying to be rude, just hoping to teach you something! Have a good day :)
Never ID the guy. Wow
He took photos in a public venue 🤔 so what ??
A middle age man taking photos of young woman is creepy
@@stacileharve7084 NO its actually illegal, BUT, you need to KNOW exactly what you have to say to the Police, for instance, telling the Police, "the man took my photo and I didn't want him to do that" wouldn't get you very far, BUT, telling the Police "the man took my photo, and THAT caused me FEAR and ALARM", gets the man arrested for "suspicion of Causing Harassment" a Criminal Offence, that would have to be investigated by the Police.
I thought this would be a video about drink spikers and the misuse of GHB, it turned out to be a video about how easily the police can be misdirected simply by shouting "drugs",
make a false allegation about misuse of drugs and Kent Police will detain, arrest and search people that have not broken the law.
By taking a photograph in a club the guy got trespassed and banned from private property as he broke the club's policy but he hadn't broken the law. Unless someone saw him spiking a drink or someone suffered the effects of being spiked near to him drugs are not part of this story. Perhaps the young woman photographed had self administered drugs and was claiming she's been spiked to avoid being trespassed from the club herself.
An injection ?! Thats some scary stuff.
They go after anyone ,
Last month at Leeds Festival ,
Two 17 yr girls got spiked ,
one of them had a seizure on the car ride home ,
she felt a sharp pain and saw the man behind her taking the syringe out before he disappeared into the crowd , it is scary indeed .
They just jumped to conclusions on the spiking because a number of these events have happened
@@mandymetcalfe2610 If you were injected you would either feel it immediately or you wouldn't feel it at all as it didn't reach a vein. Sounds like a made up story where somebody got caught taking drugs and they needed an excuse.
You got the story wrong anyway. The girl in the car ride home somebody told her she was spiked and felt ill the next day.
My male cousin was recently In Italy on his own, he went to a bar, started feeling funny. He left the club, only to realise some guys were following him, he realised he’d been injected and he was rendered useless and he was mugged. It’s so dangerous with hiv risk as well as they’re probably reusing needles or injecting multiple people with one.
Taking photos is perfectly legal to do in a public place
And deleting data,pictures,videos
Can only be done by a judges authorisation
So the officers was the only ones who broke the law
No, if its private property then you cant take pictures of someone without their consent. You might also have to get the land owners permission. If taking a picture of a person where there is expected privacy its likely to breach privacy laws as well.
@@thegamingscientist9188 if its private property but has public access then the only thing they can ask you to do is leave
Most Police station are private property but these auditors still go there and take videos and photos because they can
Like I said a judge is the only person who can order for removal of data/anything from your device
Which means the police would have to seize the phone and the officers didnt have the grounds to do so
Because its legal to do
Taking photo in public isn't an offence
And takin pictures from private property which has public access isn't an offence
@@thegamingscientist9188 what kind of expected privacy are you hoping for from a pub or a club its open to the public
And If you want privacy then its up to you to make that privacy
Don't think for 1 second im defending this guy because I'm not and I totally disagree with taking photos of people with permission but unfortunately the law says they can
Wasn’t a public place. Do your research before spouting rubbish.
@@thegamingscientist9188 utter nonsense
The last one is that there so bored
Believe in Christ? remember he is like the police. He upholds the Law
If that was a woman taking a photo of a lad nothing would happen! Other than being a bit odd he didn’t brake no law .
Break any...
Happens all the time. Double standards. The guy was wrong to do it, but we all know the massive double standards around. I've been S£Xually assaulted multiple times by women and its all a big joke. One tried to take my belt off and grabbed my private area quite hard it hurt, when I told her to get off she threw a drink on my privates. Everybody laughed.
@@resnonverba137 he's obviously in
"I dunno nuffin bout brakin no law"
gang of 1 (as that's his IQ)
Ther playing up out ther
Argue that
I take photo of foods only and post on my Instagram story
Hi
I thought it was only traffic police that can give you points for a traffic violation
Police are police, any officer can arrest/fine/do someone for any offence. Although traffic cops specify with traffic offences.
@@notmattur3499 na not in Scotland, a road traffic offence can only be given by a road traffic officer.
@@Scottish1996this ain't Scotland tho is it... and if you look anywhere it states the police give out fines, fixed penalty notices etc. It doesn't specify traffic police do. They are just more likely to give you one with the nature of their job
@@Kaisive yeh only in England and wales probs, Scotland is totally different, prefer it up there. Only traffic officers can give out fines for road traffic offences
@@Scottish1996 Scottish man prefers Scotland, turn of the century
I wonder what other stuff he's been up to 🤔💉💉💉
This police lady l like by look cute face
Pople litteting doing drugs
Wow i think i got in love with that UK girl
Whoever become instant fan of her, post ❤
Why are you all more bothered about the film crew than him spiking drinks?
because he wasn't...
I'm sure they cannot search someone's phone without RIPA authority, secondly using blue-lights and engaging pursuit essentially for using a mobile phone and endangering other road users was silly from those officers. Poor, poor policing really...
🤣
"Do you want to look through my phone" ... procedes to unlook his Phone ans gives it to the police 🤣
@@InFiNiTy-ut4ov Did it cause he was nervous, I’m just saying it’s shit policing and if anything illegal
@@Mrwm117 How is looking through someone's phone shit policing??
Wrong. I'm a serving officer. We "triage" phones in custody, i.e we arrest someone for possession with intent to supply, we are expected to "triage" their phone, which means looking at messages on their phone which may indicate or suggest drug dealing activity, there are certain caveats with the main one being that we can't start browsing through the whole phone and looking at photographs etc, or as I understand read "unread" messages. But we can look at received/sent messages and whatsapp/social media messages.
Under police operating procedure it's only deemed a "pursuit" if they believe the vehicle is likely to fail to stop,, or has failed to stop, hence if a non-pursuit trained police driver is behind a stolen vehicle, and they suspect it will "not stop" because it is stolen, they are not supposed to activate blue lights to attempt to stop it, this is known as a "pre-emptive pursuit". Each force has slightly different policies but most are effectively aligned and follow guidance from NPCC and College of Policing.
This would not be considered "a pursuit". Is he likely to fail to stop for them? No. He simply drove off and tried to hide, with them losing sight of him as he was driving in the other direction. Has he failed to stop for them? No - they haven't requested him to stop at any point by activating blue lights or siren, they've merely turned around to try and catch up to him.
people should have an expectation of privacy but that's not how this world works with social media and smart phones. What is in question here is the actions of the police and abuse of authority as they had no information that he had committed an actual crime. This female officer loves the camera, it is not the first questionable incident she has been involved in. Did the pub have a no photo policy and how many women took photos of men without their knowledge in the pub that night. Spiking is a serious problem that needs to be stamped out but thats not what this report was about and she had no cause to stop him, no one reported him having committed an offence, their stop and search was unlawful, if this was a black man there would be uproar
Using a phone in the car? It's a shame most police don't follow that law. They have been caught out many times.
Not impressed with this at all one minute the guy saying no offence has been committed next minute he saying the guys done something wrong The officer even needs to make up his mind and arrest him all they need to let him go but not be changing the story one minute to the next
I think you'll find that he was talking about a moral wrong. There is a difference between something you know to be wrong and morally disgusting behaviour and what is a legal wrong and an arrestable offence. He even said that he couldn't take the matter further but it would still be behaviour you wouldn't want to take place and a decent parent, for eg, would endeavour to discourage from their children.
i do not get this, we are allowed to take pictures of people in public places correct, doesnt matter if is a boy or a girl. i thought women and man are equal. and they are not under age beacuse they were drinking so.
nothing wrong here just police try to justify there presence were they shouldnt be.
Yes you can take pictures in public. But taking pictures of randon women on a night out is noncey behaviour.
There is something wrong here
The police are the ones who broke the law by deleting data from the man's phone without the order from a judge
And I he was breaking the law in order for a judge to order that
The man's phone would of been seized
But the police didn't have grounds to do that because what he was doing is (legal)
I totally disagree with him takin photo without consent
By unfortunately the law say he can
@@Nanodise true but legal.
She is so beautiful wow
Simp
What’s that officers @ she fine
With all respect to police and that females who are on that photo...police dont have a power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search soo? all what you could do is make that note....
she just acted unlawfully by deleting that photo!
Right there goes the evidence
It's illegal to search his phone without RIPA authority.
@@Mrwm117 he literally said “do you want to look on my phone” gts💀
@@Mrwm117 It's not. It's done regularly especially in cases relating to drug dealing. I've searched through several phones and so have my colleagues usually when looking for messages that relate to drug supply. There are certain caveats to it but no authority under RIPA is required. Ultimately for certain offences they can seize and triage or download a phone, only some offences require approval or a warrant for a phone download to be completed and examined.
4 god sake they had no right to check his phone without warrant i dont agree with his behaviour but screw the police
Here. even the police be using their phone while driving 😂
Sounds about white
Casual racism. Funny that, would be quick to cry if it was reversed.
Black at it again
What's the difference between an idiot using a phone whilst driving, and a police officer using a radio whilst driving? Both divert attention from driving.
Auditing is not a crime.
So not only did the officers accuse him of predatory behaviour without arresting him for being a predator they also forcefully delete a picture without a court order (which is required by law), questionable action from the police there.
@@Th3L0wK1Because I know how the UK Law works doesn’t make me a predator at all, it should show you I am well educated in the law of the land and don’t go off my butt hurt feelings on how I think the law should be. Grow up
Camera is Latin
it is not illegal to take pictures of anyone in a public place
A nightclub isn’t a public place, it’s private property.
@@UserName-br5zu
With the public in the venue …so you saying if they had a wedding in a private venue they could not take photos?🤔 give yourself a shake ffs
@@daverman68 I didn’t say anything about photos. I said a nightclub isn’t a public place. Do you have difficulty understanding English?
Bet you're one of them weird auditor fans...
@@UserName-br5zu
Privately owned venue that the public are in 🤣🤔 go argue with your shadow as you are wasting digital ink you loon
taking photos of people without their consent,
could be classed as harassment.
So Paparazzi then?
Hi Kevin, I am a professional photographer, the law states that in a public place you can take a photograph of any person, the one thing with this guys situation is that he took the photograph on private property, i think a club.
@@DennisAinsworth-xj9jb IF he caused the female, alarm, fear and or distress,
its Harassment a Criminal Offence,
be it on private or public property.
Whilst not morally right, there's nothing illegal in taking photos.
YES there is, IF it causes the victim,
fear, alarm and or distress,
its classed as Harassment a Criminal Offence.
cover your face in the club. there is no privacy expectation in a club. sorry. sorry. and cover drinks.
Stop victim-blaming
I think its creepy taking the picture but is there proof he was spiking drinks aswell.
They just jumped to conclusions on the spiking because a number of these events have happened
Drink spiking. You mean somebody cheated on their boyfriends, regrets it and needs an excuse as to why they didn't come home on Saturday night.
Alot of the time people make idiots of themselves on nights out after drinking to much and want something to blame.
@@jamesflaherty59 Somebody ends up in prison to protect an image
Haha youse got dusted through Maidstone town by us 3's up on a 125 ped 😉💨
Wow he took a picture. 🙄 Do that in America and police can’t do anything.
Why call him a suspected drink spiker when he didn't spike any drinks? and going through his phone without a warrant is a sackable offence.
He offered for them to search his phone, they also did find evidence of him taking photos of women without consent. Also he was a suspected drink spiker because he was engaging in predatory behaviour.
Do you understand the meaning of the word 'suspected'? He offered to show them the contents of his phone so no warrant required. Don't chat shit.
“Do you want to look at my phone?” That’s good enough.
Err.. the hint is in the word ‘suspected’ lol. He wasn’t accused of anything. And he gave permission for them to look through his phone, he unlocked it himself & handed it over to them, so how is that a ‘sackable offence?! Lawdy, you folk really do reach when it comes to your dislike for the police don’t you..?!
He offered for them to look and they did! Even so the proof there.
Her red face mean.everything......what she needs😂
These videos seem staged.
by people "acting????" like idiots, LOL.
She should lose her job for looking through his phone. Getting “a feeling” isn’t good enough reason. Stating that taking pictures of girls, is sexist
He literally said she could have a look. Stop being a prat.
@@solartaire1 But he didn't give her consent to delete the photo, moron.
Ur stupid af mate. He gave consent for her to look.
No wonder police response times are so slow if this is the kind of nonsense they spend their time on during the weekends, nothing short of ridiculous.
In America nobody would call police over that
09:18 if he’s in traffic he’s hardly going to cause a crash is he
Driving into the back of someone because you're crawling forward, and then the traffic stops but you don't notice because you're on your phone, is still "an accident".
I've seen plenty of accidents caused this way. It also causes another issue, if you take your eyes off the road to stare at your phone, especially if you are in a taller vehicle, say a van, a small child could run in front of your car, due to the height of the child and your vehicle you won't see them and will drive forward crushing them underneath. Now compare that same scenario but this time you are looking forward, you will notice the child walking from right to left / left to right and disappear from view by the bonnet, and you won't drive forward crushing them.
IF he was sat in a prison cell,
he would have NO CHANCE of causing a crash.
Can I take a photo of the police lady
screenshot it it's not illegal
I need the female officers @
oh 😭