| Comment | >This is getting a bit out of hand for my liking. I'm not a fan of long paragraphs / debates.
Well, I am? And when you're disputing what I'm saying, I'm going to reply. If replying properly requires a paragraph, I'll use a paragraph.
From what OP has said, the police haven't actually seized his phone. The title of the first video included this:
> he said we might not need to seize your phone if you delete the video so he went on my phone and deleted the video
Which reads to me like the officer said they could seize OP's phone, but then backtracked, and positioned it as them doing OP a favour, like we won't seize your phone if you let me delete the video. Presumably because they realised they would have a shakey basis for seizing the phone. Because the police have no right to compel OP to delete it either. If the police believed that they should have the video (whether it be evidence of criminality on the part of OP, of someone else, or anything like that), then they wouldn't tell OP to delete it, right? |
|---|