Chinese Student Claims Wrongful UK Imprisonment, Surprises Netizens with 200GB Secret Prison Footage
SingTao · 1 SOURCES1 day ago7 MIN
Summary
A Chinese international student has become an internet sensation after claiming he spent six months in a London men's prison following what he describes as a false accusation. The individual, who operates a social media account under the name "Li Binxun's Drift Records" (李賓遜漂流記), reportedly acquired a second-hand iPhone 7 from a French inmate for £200 (approximately HK$2,060) and concealed it inside a toilet cistern, later relocating it to a hollowed-out Oxford dictionary . After his release, he compiled over 200 gigabytes of prison footage into a series titled "London Odyssey" (倫敦奧德賽), documenting the inner workings of the British penal system. The videos have attracted massive online attention, with netizens praising the content as the "most hardcore blogging in short-video history," though critics have raised questions about authenticity and prison security protocols .
Key Points
- The student claims he was imprisoned for six months in a London men's prison after being wrongfully accused, during which he secretly recorded over 200GB of footage using a smuggled iPhone 7 .
- He reportedly purchased the device from a French inmate for £200 (approximately HK$2,060) and hid it in a toilet cistern, later transferring it to a cavity inside an Oxford dictionary—a direct reference to the film "The Shawshank Redemption" .
- To address charging challenges, he reportedly traded for cables and power adapters, using his physics knowledge to modify a concealed power strip hidden under his bed .
- After joining the dominant white gang in the prison and paying "protection fees" with supplies, he became a prison medical officer responsible for escorting inmates to the medical unit .
- He allegedly created a "queuing appointment system" that allowed inmates to pay bribes—cigarettes and quality food—to jump the escort line, effectively establishing his own informal economy .
Why It Matters
This case has ignited widespread debate about the integrity of British prison security, as critics question how a detainee could maintain a functioning smartphone undetected for an extended period . The incident also raises legal concerns, as filming inside UK prisons without authorization constitutes an offence under Section 40D of the Prison Act 1952, carrying a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment . For Hong Kong viewers, the story resonates as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of legal troubles abroad, especially given the territory's strong connections to the United Kingdom through education and migration channels.
This case has ignited widespread debate about the integrity of British prison security, as critics question how a detainee could maintain a functioning smartphone undetected for an extended period . The incident also raises legal concerns, as filming inside UK prisons without authorization constitutes an offence under Section 40D of the Prison Act 1952, carrying a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment . For Hong Kong viewers, the story resonates as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of legal troubles abroad, especially given the territory's strong connections to the United Kingdom through education and migration channels.