Thanks for finding it chaps, I’m a tad lost on the interwebnet sometimes.
I did find out that the driver was not on the phone in the first place, possibly why you tube took it down after a call from the company.
The person filming is a cyclist but in this case he was a pedestrian, also he’s South African thereby letting us all breath a sigh of relief over the “call Siri” thing. My mates a Zimbabwean, they call South Africans flatheads, I can see why.
The point of putting it up in the first place is because these days you never know who’s watching you & there’s plenty out there looking to make a name for themselves on these websites.
BillyHunt:
My mates a Zimbabwean, they call South Africans flatheads, I can see why.
Yeah me too…
Lycra ■■■■■■. End of!!! 
Dipper_Dave:
Michael Douglas:
As has already been stated…they are both tool bags. As a photographer though, it is perfectly legal to film or photograph whatever you want in public view. He can film that man all he wants, unless the law of wherever you stand clearly states no photography etc, then you can pull out your camera whenever you want. Still a t|t though.Spent 5 minutes trying to look into the public filming laws but no real joy (I got bored to be honest), sure theres something about not posting for public perusal if requested not too, faces can be pixelated out though to bypass this.
Also some laws about not filming vunerable member of society like children, window lickers and tipper drivers if they arent aware of it…
You can seach for 5 years if you want. THIS IS NO LAW !!!
You can film any where in a public place!!! but it does get people`s backs up.
“you have no right to film me” no you have no right to stop me filming. Simple. Side note ALWAYS FILM THE POLICE ALWAYS!!!
Michael Douglas:
As has already been stated…they are both tool bags. As a photographer though, it is perfectly legal to film or photograph whatever you want in public view. He can film that man all he wants, unless the law of wherever you stand clearly states no photography etc, then you can pull out your camera whenever you want. Still a t|t though.
I’m a photographer as well you can photograph and film anywhere in public areas but I also believe it can be an offense i.e harassment, alarm and distress if you keep on photographing someone who is getting upset and doesn’t want their photograph taken.
LOVE IT !!!
Dipper_Dave:
Michael Douglas:
As has already been stated…they are both tool bags. As a photographer though, it is perfectly legal to film or photograph whatever you want in public view. He can film that man all he wants, unless the law of wherever you stand clearly states no photography etc, then you can pull out your camera whenever you want. Still a t|t though.Spent 5 minutes trying to look into the public filming laws but no real joy (I got bored to be honest), sure theres something about not posting for public perusal if requested not too, faces can be pixelated out though to bypass this.
Also some laws about not filming vunerable member of society like children, window lickers and tipper drivers if they arent aware of it…
If I recall, the ‘guidance’ within the law reads something like you should not film something which is clearly personal, intimate or would cause distress or harassment.
But yes, otherwise you can film/photograph whoever you like.
So, FORS stands for ■■■■ Off Real Sharpish.
You can ‘tog’ whatever you see in public view. If someone asks you to remove a photo of themselves, you don’t even have to do that, but is ‘polite’ to do so. It only matters if it is on private property, it states so on a ‘sign’ (which is still not 100% correct all of the time) or is verging on harassment. We are one of, if not the most monitored country in terms of cctv surveillance, no one cares about the man with a camera. Unless of course he is wearing a trench coats and selling kittens.
I’m not a violent minded type of person but found myself hoping the camera man did get just a little clip round the ear. Just a small one. The reason is this. He wasn’t an innocent. He wasn’t filming some “crime”. He wasn’t a photographer filming a crowd of people (like the old days when people had film cameras).
He was putting himself way above the parapet and asking for trouble. He was intensely filming someone - innocent of wrong doing and minding his business, followed by making accusations and subtle threats to spread the footage. What he rightly got was a little bit of old fashioned annoyance. His first response?! I’m ringing the police!!! For what■■? To report yourself for being a pious over the top nosey git? Some of these folk need their cameras shoving up their backsides. They’re abusing the HELL out of out-of-date legislation that allows open filming. That was bought up in a day when people walked around with SLRs and Polaroids and took pictures of fun things, not for hobbyist surveillance.
This whole subject makes me mad. Especially as the tipper driver was innocent. People have just had enough of these types. They’re normally young, blokes, educated sounding and have some sort of fetish with road policing. It needs stopped.
Freight Dog:
I’m not a violent minded type of person but found myself hoping the camera man did get just a little clip round the ear. Just a small one. The reason is this. He wasn’t an innocent. He wasn’t filming some “crime”. He wasn’t a photographer filming a crowd of people (like the old days when people had film cameras).He was putting himself way above the parapet and asking for trouble. He was intensely filming someone - innocent of wrong doing and minding his business, followed by making accusations and subtle threats to spread the footage. What he rightly got was a little bit of old fashioned annoyance. His first response?! I’m ringing the police!!! For what■■? To report yourself for being a pious over the top nosey git? Some of these folk need their cameras shoving up their backsides. They’re abusing the HELL out of out-of-date legislation that allows open filming. That was bought up in a day when people walked around with SLRs and Polaroids and took pictures of fun things, not for hobbyist surveillance.
This whole subject makes me mad. Especially as the tipper driver was innocent. People have just had enough of these types. They’re normally young, blokes, educated sounding and have some sort of fetish with road policing. It needs stopped.
Yeah, it’s a bit like the knob joys who use dashcams and post the footage on youtube whilst reading out the reg number. No one gives a flying f|/ck!!
truckerjimbo:
You can seach for 5 years if you want. THIS IS NO LAW !!!You can film any where in a public place!!! but it does get people`s backs up.
Broadly speaking, you are correct to say there is no prohibition on filming in public in the UK, not least as there is no general right to privacy. As the law works on the basis that you are free to do anything not prohibited by law, the general position is that filming in a public place is usually lawful.
However, it is important to recognise there are some edge cases. Off the top of my head, these include filming or photography when:* there is an expectation of confidence, for example taking a picture of someone in a private place from your own land or a public place
- there are people present whose identity is protected by the courts, including as victims or witnesses of crime, or in certain sorts of family law proceedings (for example, certain children taken into care or adopted by court order against the wishes of a parent)
- the filming or photography is of a place prohibited under the Official Secrets Act or the law relating to licensed nuclear installations
- you are most types of court - filming in these places is contempt of court which can see you imprisoned
- filming or photography is contrary to byelaw (as applies, controversially, to certain sorts of photography and filming in Trafalgar Square)
Maybe the most common exception is where you are in a public place that is under private ownership (whether outdoors or indoors). In that case, the landowner might prohibit filming - though breaking such a ban will, at most, revoke any rights you have to be there (for example as a ticketholder for an event) meaning the landowner can treat you as a trespasser.
Probably the most famous case relating to photography or filming was to do with the expectation of confidence. Naomi Campbell successfully sued Mirror Group Newspapers for publishing photographs of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. If I remember correctly, the photos were taken from a place where the photographer was entitled to be and were taken when Campbell had reached a public place.
Eventually Campbell won on a 3:2 majority in the House of Lords on the basis that the publishing the photos (not merely taking them) breached the expectation that the location of the meeting be kept confidential, not least in the interests of other group members. This common law right of confidence taken together with the right to respect for private and family life (under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) was felt by the majority to have overcome the Mirror’s right to free speech (under Article 10 of the ECHR) in this instance.
It’s fair, I think, to say that Campbell v MGN relates to rather an unusual set of circumstances, but it makes an important general point. The broadest right to privacy that exists under UK law exists under Article 8 ECHR, whilst modern free speech law derives primarily for Article 10 ECHR. Human rights is not just about failed asylum seekers arguing hardship.
Depending on the uses to which it is put, surveillance camera footage can contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 right to fair use of personal data.
Michael Douglas:
no one cares about the man with a camera. Unless of course he is wearing a trench coats and selling kittens.
This is the stage its getting too now with every jumped up moron with a smart phone taking videos of things they deem to be wrong. And like the lycra muppet with the tipper driver,this amatuer copper was also in the wrong. She didnt run the red light
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -passer-by
Bus driver still got the blame and the sack, all because of some jumped up little ■■■■■ trying to get someone in trouble. Bus driving, as I found out, ain’t the comfy little job that people think it is, and there’s a time when I probably would have done something similar.
Someone filmed the bus driver attacking the woman who filmed her. I wonder if anyone was filming this person as well. Before you know there will be crowds of people filming each other in the hope of getting an exclusive 
Who needs CCTV when the public have gone video daft? I remember years ago the general public were up in arms about big brother and the state watching us, there were several debates on TV about infringement of civil rights but now the general public or at least that section we term “numpties” have turned into private eyes without pay just to expose anyone who they deem to have made a small mistake.
Many trucks and most buses have onboard cameras nowadays that are recording everything around them. My car and my partner’s car film everything out there via the dashcams, most city centres have a myriad of cameras, not just on the high lamposts, but in shop windows and around loading bays etc Even cops have video equipped trucks that can see into the cabs of lorries now. We are probably all being captured on media somewhere the second we step out the door. Stitch them all together and you’d have hours of footage of you and there no getting away from that. The issue though is how that footage is used.
I put it down to a combination of social media & people after their 15 minutes of fame. The majority of the population seem to be after a qiuck way to get on TV, bump up their Twitter follower numbers, have their own sites posting films they’ve made, how many “likes” they can get, hoping their latest bit of film goes “viral”. You can’t go for a meal in a restaurant these days without someone taking a picture of their soup.
They don’t care about the consequences of posting these films only about what kind of response they get, in the form of watchers or “views”.
yorkshire terrier:
I think I’d of gone mad too.
What is it with these cyclists that think they can film who ever they want and are untouchable because no one will hit them because they are on camera.
On a side note on Sunday on a country road I I struggked to pass 4 cyclists who wanted to ride side by side chatting, all of them had the silly camara a straped to there heads (looking like a ■■■■),anyway a couple of mile up the road they all came in to the same cafe me and the Mrs had pulled in to,all four of them had there helmets off,when I confronted them about there inconsiderate riding two of them put back on there helmets and one said in a pompous tone,“you are now on camara this is been recorded for legal purpose” iv never wanted to smash a blokes head in as much in my life.
I ride a bike myself but I totally hate these middle class Lycra wearing dicks who think they own the road.
And breathe
+1 never a truer word spoken. if there ever was a competition for a ultimate fanny tree hugging whale kissing fanny of the year award,then you wouldn’t get near the place for bikes.
BillyHunt:
I put it down to a combination of social media & people after their 15 minutes of fame. The majority of the population seem to be after a qiuck way to get on TV, bump up their Twitter follower numbers, have their own sites posting films they’ve made, how many “likes” they can get, hoping their latest bit of film goes “viral”. You can’t go for a meal in a restaurant these days without someone taking a picture of their soup.
They don’t care about the consequences of posting these films only about what kind of response they get, in the form of watchers or “views”.
This !