r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	dddiamonddd
Comment	I don't see what the relevance is of that. If that is indeed woman who phoned the police, then the police would speak with her separately. OP isn't preventing them from speaking to her. They are fine to inform her that she is being recorded, so if she doesn't want what she says to be recorded, then she is aware that she shouldn't speak. OP had no obligation to stop filming. It is perfectly legal to film in a public place and the law places absolutely no obligation on any member of the public to inform anyone that they are filming. It's certainly considered polite to notify people that you're filming, if it's not blatantly obvious, but not illegal to not inform people. > I don't know what specific law it would be, but I do know that the police do have a right to move you on in such instances as you are disrupting them. In this case, OP is not disrupting them. They are carrying out their duties, presumably lawfully, and OP has done absolutely nothing to prevent it. Police certainly can ask people to move on, but when it is a public place, they don't have unilateral powers to actually force people to move on from a public place unless the person is actually disrupting their duties (which starts to become potentially a crime, like breach of the peace). Which OP was not doing. So they can ask OP to stop filming and they can ask OP to move on, but OP was in a public place that they have every right to be in. OP isn't, say, trying to cross a police cordon or anything of the sort. Or trying to stay in a private location where they have no right to be. They are just standing in a public place filming, completely legally. > Whether or not that extends to seizing the phone itself, I don't know. Did you read the linked memo? It would not extend to seizing the phone itself. They could only seize if they have a reasonable suspicion of criminality, and, as I said, they would be extremely hard pressed to argue that OP, a random member of the public who is (as far as we can tell) not involved in whatever incident incited the arrest, declining to move from a public place constitutes criminality.
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/uwmmg9/follow_up_from_my_earlier_post_about_wether_the/i9sftuv/
Created	Tue 24th May 2022 11:03am
Status	normal ()

I don't see what the relevance is of that.

If that is indeed woman who phoned the police, then the police would speak with her separately. OP isn't preventing them from speaking to her. They are fine to inform her that she is being recorded, so if she doesn't want what she says to be recorded, then she is aware that she shouldn't speak. OP had no obligation to stop filming. It is perfectly legal to film in a public place and the law places absolutely no obligation on any member of the public to inform anyone that they are filming. It's certainly considered polite to notify people that you're filming, if it's not blatantly obvious, but not illegal to not inform people.

> I don't know what specific law it would be, but I do know that the police do have a right to move you on in such instances as you are disrupting them.

In this case, OP is not disrupting them. They are carrying out their duties, presumably lawfully, and OP has done absolutely nothing to prevent it. Police certainly can ask people to move on, but when it is a public place, they don't have unilateral powers to actually force people to move on from a public place unless the person is actually disrupting their duties (which starts to become potentially a crime, like breach of the peace). Which OP was not doing. So they can ask OP to stop filming and they can ask OP to move on, but OP was in a public place that they have every right to be in. OP isn't, say, trying to cross a police cordon or anything of the sort. Or trying to stay in a private location where they have no right to be. They are just standing in a public place filming, completely legally.

> Whether or not that extends to seizing the phone itself, I don't know.

Did you read the linked memo? It would not extend to seizing the phone itself. They could only seize if they have a reasonable suspicion of criminality, and, as I said, they would be extremely hard pressed to argue that OP, a random member of the public who is (as far as we can tell) not involved in whatever incident incited the arrest, declining to move from a public place constitutes criminality.