Cycling Mikey doesn't deserve the hate he's getting

Actually, you started trying to divert from the subject by telling me that if I'm happy with women's thighs being filed then I'm weird. Why would you even bring up women's thighs given you know Mikey doesn't film for sexual gratification?

I’ve never said his motivation was sexual gratification. I was talking about other, hypothetical cyclists, not Vigilante Mikey. Which was blindingly obvious.

Generally, you really, really don’t understand, do you?

Please just read what I’ve written, carefully, and think beyond the magistrates’ courts and guilt of minor traffic offences.

I’ve never said his motivation was sexual gratification. I was talking about other, hypothetical cyclists, not Vigilante Mikey. Which was blindingly obvious.

Generally, you really, really don’t understand, do you?

Please just read what I’ve written, carefully, and think beyond the magistrates’ courts and guilt of minor traffic offences.

Are you a lawyer? Even so I remember clearly black belt barrister and Mikey collabing and black belt barrister clearly saying what Mikey does is right?

Also remember a solicitor video saying "yeah you can't really challenge the way Mikey got his evidence" public spade and all that.

Peering into cars and recording is not filming a public space.

There’s ECtHR authority on breach of Article 8 by taking but not even publishing photographs where expectations of privacy arise.

But, to be honest, I’m tired of arguing with people who know nothing about it and are just happy to be cheerleaders for a vigilante.

Peering into cars and recording is not filming a public space.

There’s ECtHR authority on breach of Article 8 by taking but not even publishing photographs where expectations of privacy arise.

But, to be honest, I’m tired of arguing with people who know nothing about it and are just happy to be cheerleaders for a vigilante.

If his filming reveals no wrongdoing or the person manages to defend themselves (as with Frank Lampard) then the driver doesn't receive a traffic offense. Who are you to say it's intrusive? He's in public, the person on their phone is in public. And there's a window.

Mikey's intent has never been sexual gratification. It's catching motoring offense. Stop making stuff up.

Since you love making up these hypotheticals.

If there's a home and you can see through a window and can see and record Person A stabbing Person B to death, is that intrusive?

What are you talking about? He’s a terrible interfering little cunt. Was probably bullied at school and seeking revenge ever since..Get a life

I think you’ve just proved me right. You're admitting that private spaces exist in public contexts.

I never said misuse of private information was illegal, in the sense of criminal. It’s a tort. And his defence to the tort would be in revealing wrongdoing.

But what if his intrusive filming doesn’t reveal wrongdoing? What’s his defence then?

You still haven’t answered my question. Do women drivers have privacy rights against intrusive pervy cyclists filming them below the waist?

It takes 5 seconds to Google the law.

And it will show...

• you can film using a dashcam or helmet cam in the UK on public roads.
• you can upload it to the Internet if you blur faces and number plates.
• if you are recording audio in your own vehicle you need to tell your passengers.

If you are a business you need to have stronger rules, but not as a private individual.

Love him or hate him, he isn't breaking the law

You're very very wrong. A toilet is a private area within a larger public space. Do you have a brain?

Also you know the magistrates court use the evidence. Never once (at least to my knowledge) has someone got off because the evidence (Mikey's recording) was illegally obtained (invasion of privacy) they get off if they argue that the recording doesn't show enough phone use to justify an offence

What he does is perfectly legal, given the fact the courts use his evidence.

No, you're wrong and you're desperately trying to convince yourself otherwise.

All your nonsensical diversions to toilets and women's thighs don't hide that you're wrong.

Again, given Cycling Mikey has sent hundreds of those videos to police and the police have got many convictions as a result of Mikey's footage, don't you think the police would have told him what he was doing was illegal?

You really don’t get it, do you?

His defence to snooping on and publicly showing people who are using phones in cars is the public interest in revealing ‘wrongdoing’.

But he obviously does intrusively film people who haven’t done wrong, but that this warrior for justice just suspected of doing wrong. So what does he do with the intrusive footage of those people?

More importantly, police powers or other statutory authorisation is needed for surveillance of people suspected of crime. What’s Vigilante Mikey’s authorisation? What codes and data rights does he work to?

No, I’m right. Public spaces are not inevitably open to all recording or reporting. The most obvious example is a public lavatory. Even secretly recording and publishing what’s said by people talking privately in a pub would be a breach of privacy rights.

If you think cyclists can go around filming women’s thighs in cars because there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy, I can only say that you’re weird.

Even if he does so what? None of his footage suggests that though, so don't make things up.

It's not a private space. You're in public. Tue law is on Mikey's side anyway. As it's been used to prosecute many people.

No, I’m right. Public spaces are not inevitably open to all recording or reporting. The most obvious example is a public lavatory. Even secretly recording and publishing what’s said by people talking privately in a pub would be a breach of privacy rights.

If you think cyclists can go around filming women’s thighs in cars because there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy, I can only say that you’re weird.

No, you're wrong, someone inside a car doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy if they're on a public place like a road, and you're not harassing or stalking someone.

Given Cycling Mikey has sent hundreds of those videos to police and the police have got many convictions as a result of Mikey's footage, don't you think the police would have told what he was doing was illegal?

So it's you that knows nothing about it.

Are you seriously trying to say that he’s never snooped into a car where the driver’s doing nothing wrong? Sorry, I call bullshit of the stinkiest sort.

So what does he do with such footage? And what’s this justification for surveillance of private spaces? Does it extend to bugging or spying on homes suspected of drug taking or, maybe, watching the BBC without a TV licence?

Someone inside a car does have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It won’t be complete, because some of the car is open to public view. But that’s not the same as filming intrusively into it. Are you suggesting that a woman driver wouldn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not have her thighs and legs filmed by a cyclist with a helmet cam?

‘Reasonable expectation of privacy’ is a flexible term. I suspect you know nothing about it.

It's not illegal to film people in their cars in a public place without their consent, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public settings.

No, it’s not. Those cameras aren’t directed into private spaces. Unless the helmet cams are used to peer into cars, like Vigilante Mikey does.

Home cctv that intrudes into others’ private land are liable for data protection enforcement against them, including financial damages.

But that's the same for every dash cam, cctv camera, helmet cam, doorbell cam...