A controversial YouTuber has accused police and the media of orchestrating a “hatchet job” against him following a major investigation that reignited scrutiny of his criminal past and online activities.
Curtis Arnold — who also uses the names Curtis Edwards and Daniel James Edwards online and operates the channel DJE Media — published an 85-minute YouTube video in which he claims he has been “set up” by authorities and subjected to an abuse of process after fresh reporting highlighted his status as a convicted sex offender.
The video was uploaded shortly after a front-page investigation by the Manchester Evening News detailed Arnold’s criminal convictions and raised renewed concerns about the nature of his content, which involves filming vulnerable people in public spaces.
Subscriber Drop and Public Backlash
Data from social media analytics sites indicates Arnold lost around 2,000 subscribers within 24 hours of the article’s publication, amid mounting criticism across social platforms.
In his response video, Arnold dismisses the reporting as a coordinated attack, repeatedly describing the situation as a “stitch-up” and a “hatched job”, while denying wrongdoing and accusing police of fabricating or exaggerating allegations against him.
Throughout the lengthy recording, Arnold accepts no personal responsibility, instead claiming he is the victim of corruption, selective prosecution and targeted enforcement.
Criminal Convictions and Sex Offender Status
Court records confirm Arnold is a convicted sex offender. In February 2019, he appeared at Harrow Crown Court, where he was sentenced after pleading guilty to 12 counts of fraud, voyeurism, causing a person to engage in sexual activity, and making indecent images of a child.
The offences involved posing as a modelling agent to photograph women in gyms without consent, images which were later used to promote fitness products. He was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment, later reduced to 34 months, and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.
A Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) was also imposed and remains in force until February 2029, restricting certain behaviours and monitored by Thames Valley Police.
Arnold also has previous convictions for arson and other offences. Most recently, in November this year, he received a suspended prison sentence for trespass on a protected site.
Police Contact and Ongoing Scrutiny
In his video, Arnold claims police officers “burst into” his home during an unrelated arrest, examined his phone, and uncovered what he describes as a legitimate business venture involving gym clothing — an issue he says was wrongly framed as fraud.
He alleges that officers then began “trawling” his phone in search of witnesses and potential victims, which he characterises as an unlawful fishing expedition.
Arnold further claims he was remanded in custody for nine months after entering a not guilty plea, alleging that police withheld information and engaged in conduct amounting to an abuse of process.
Police have not supported these claims. There is no public evidence that charges were fabricated, and courts have previously rejected similar arguments.
Filming Vulnerable People and Public Criticism
Arnold has built a following of more than 250,000 subscribers by filming what he describes as the “good, bad and ugly” of Britain’s streets. His content frequently features homeless people, individuals experiencing mental health crises, and people under the influence of drugs.
Charities, councillors and senior police officers have criticised the practice, describing it as exploitative and harmful.
Manchester charity Coffee4Craig has described the videos as “exploitation for profit”, warning that those filmed are stripped of dignity and exposed to stigma, harassment and risk.
Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has also criticised YouTubers who, he says, promote a negative image of the city for personal gain, while Greater Manchester Police have warned about individuals provoking incidents for online content.
Claims of Corruption Rejected
In his latest video, Arnold claims police “fabricated charges” and insists that others involved in past cases refused to make statements against him. He also attempts to justify previous controversies, including filming incidents involving deceased individuals and vulnerable people, and addresses unrelated issues such as drug use and a disputed gymwear photoshoot.
Despite the claims, Arnold offers no new evidence to substantiate allegations of police misconduct.
Legal experts note that accusations of corruption or fabrication require a high evidential threshold, and courts have consistently upheld Arnold’s convictions.
No Accountability, Critics Say
Observers and campaigners have described Arnold’s video as an exercise in deflection rather than accountability, pointing out that it fails to acknowledge the seriousness of his convictions or the impact of his actions on victims.
“He presents himself as the victim in every scenario,” one critic said. “Everyone else is to blame — police, media, councils, charities — except him.”
Arnold continues to deny wrongdoing and maintains he has been unfairly targeted. Police and courts have not supported those claims.
