🔴 LONDON TURKISH CONSULATE KNIFE ATTACK FOOTAGE EXPOSED

In the latest developments surrounding the shocking Quran burning incident outside the Turkish Consulate, which saw protestor Hamit Coskun from Derby kicked and apparently slashed at with a knife, Moussa Kadri, 59, was allegedly due to appear in court earlier to enter a plea. However, the latest reports indicate that this plea hearing, to charges of actual bodily harm (ABH) and knife offences, will now take place on Monday, March 17th.

Corrections to Widespread Inaccurate Reporting

Several inaccuracies have been circulating in the media regarding the incident. Among the most prominent is the widely circulated claim that Coskun, who has denied a racially aggravated public order offence for burning a Quran in public, was initially remanded in custody before being released on conditional bail.

In fact, this is not true. Coskun was held under standard PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) laws, primarily for his own safety, before being released on bail.

Additionally, there have been repeated suggestions online that the individual who filmed the incident outside the consulate was aware of the protest beforehand and had set out to film it. These claims are also inaccurate.

Regarding the role of the cameraman - ( A Y Audits) an advocate and representative for him - gave Video Production News the following statement for publication, addressing the misreporting of his presence at the scene:

Official Statement on Behalf of Client – Issued by Appointed Advocate

“As the appointed advocate and representative of the A Y Audits who filmed the events outside the Turkish Consulate in Knightsbridge on Thursday the 13th of February, he wishes to correct widespread misreporting regarding his presence at the scene. My client did not attend with prior knowledge of the incident or any intent to film it. He was passing through the area when he witnessed an unfolding situation and chose to record it solely in the public interest.

Any suggestion that he was there for the purpose of filming or provoking events is entirely false. This misrepresentation has been widely circulated and must now cease. I formally request that media outlets and the public refrain from further inaccuracies, as continued false claims risk distorting the facts and unfairly implicating an innocent party. This statement is issued without prejudice to any legal rights my client may seek to enforce.

For the avoidance of doubt, and in order to protect his lawful rights, my client wishes to make it expressly clear that although he was a bystander and an eye-witness to the events in question, he does not consent to being identified publicly as such. He asserts his right to anonymity in relation to this matter and will not be providing any witness statement to the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, or any other authority. My client fully declines to act in any form or capacity as a witness in these proceedings and formally withholds consent for his identity to be disclosed or utilised in connection with this case.

(This statement containing his declaration and wishes has been passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service.)

Summary of the Case So Far

The incident unfolded on Thursday, February 13, - when a man, later identified as Hamit Coskun, burned a Quran outside the Turkish Consulate in Knightsbridge, London. Coskun, a 50-year-old activist and Derby resident, had reportedly announced his intention on social media to carry out the act as part of a protest. However, his actions quickly escalated into violence when an agitated man, later identified as Moussa Kadri, 59, approached him while shouting threats. The confrontation turned violent, with Kadri slashing at Coskun with a knife, although no knife injuries were sustained. As Coskun fell to the ground, he was also kicked in the head by a passing Deliveroo cyclist. In the chaos, Kadri fled the scene, but was later arrested after returning to the area.

The Metropolitan Police responded quickly to the scene and arrested Kadri on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and actual bodily harm. He remains in custody, and the police continue their investigation into the incident. Kadri has been charged and is due to appear in court on March 17th.

Meanwhile, Coskun, who has pleaded not guilty to a racially aggravated public order offence, has been released on conditional bail and is scheduled for trial on May 28th.

Video footage of the incident, which was captured by an independent videographer has been widely circulated. However, as stated earlier, the cameraman had no prior knowledge of the protest and was simply recording the events as they unfolded.

As the investigation continues, Video Production News will keep you updated with the latest information.

ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing

As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:

FILMING IN PUBLIC AND THE RIGHTS SURROUNDING IT

Under normal circumstances, filming strangers in public spaces is not a violation of their privacy or any imagined ‘rights to their image.’ In the UK, the legal framework regarding filming is rooted in the principle that individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy when they are in public places. The general rule is that anyone may film or photograph people in public spaces without the need for their consent, provided the filming does not infringe on other legal protections, such as harassment or defamation.

Filming in Public: Legal Basis

Public spaces, such as streets, parks, or the exterior of buildings, are not private areas, and people who are present in these spaces generally have no legal right to stop others from filming them. The right to freedom of expression, protected under the Human Rights Act 1998, allows individuals to record public events, provided they are not violating other laws. This includes not filming in a way that constitutes harassment or false representation.

Privacy Considerations

While it is true that individuals have a right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights, this right does not extend to situations where they are in public places. When in a public area, individuals have a lower expectation of privacy, meaning that filming, photographing, or recording them is typically permissible. For example, if someone is filming in a public place and unintentionally captures people in the background, this does not constitute an infringement on their privacy.

However, it is important to note that this right to film does not extend to situations where the filming is done in a way that could lead to harassment, harm, or an unlawful invasion of privacy. For example, following someone around or repeatedly filming them with the intent to harass would be considered illegal.

Objecting to Being Filmed

If you do not wish to be filmed, you have the right to walk away from the situation. However, you do not have the legal right to force someone to stop filming simply because it upsets you. The law does not provide individuals with the authority to compel others to cease filming if they are in a public space. Similarly, you do not have the right to prevent someone from publishing a video that you feature in, even if you would prefer that others do not see you. As long as the footage is not being used in a defamatory or harassing manner, the person who filmed it retains the right to publish it, regardless of your objections.

The Responsibility of Footage Use

If the footage is used responsibly and adheres to legal standards, such as not being part of a malicious or unsubstantiated allegation or intended harassment, the person who made the footage holds the copyright. As the copyright owner, they are free to use or distribute that footage as they wish. This includes sharing it publicly or commercially, provided it does not infringe on others’ legal rights or misrepresent the events.

The key consideration in using filmed content is ensuring that it is not manipulated to falsely suggest something that did not occur. Editing or doctored footage intended to mislead or deceive is a violation of both copyright and other legal provisions, such as defamation or the prohibition of misleading representations.

Copyright and Distribution

As the copyright holder of a video or photograph taken in public, the creator has exclusive rights to use or distribute the content. This includes selling, sharing, or licensing the footage to others. However, while the copyright owner has these rights, they must also be mindful of the potential legal risks that could arise if the footage is used in a way that violates the rights of others.

In conclusion, filming strangers in public is generally allowed under UK law, and the person who creates the footage holds the copyright to it. Provided the footage is used in a manner that respects privacy rights, avoids defamation or harassment, and is not manipulated to mislead, the creator is free to distribute or share it as they wish. If you object to being filmed, you have the right to walk away, but you do not have the legal right to stop someone from filming or publishing content that features you in a public space.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.