But instead of showcasing her singing, it shows a man approaching her repeatedly, coming closer and closer. He reaches out and touches her - wiping something wet on her arm.
"At first I thought it was coffee," she says. "But when I watched the video back - you can hear him saying 'that's my pee'. My jaw dropped. I was horrified."
It's hard to believe what she's showing me, but she says this kind of behaviour is "unfortunately standard for a woman doing this kind of work".
She has many more videos - of men touching her without her consent, or demanding hugs or kisses for the money they've given.
"I've gotten a lot better at dealing with it," she says. "When I was 21, 22, when I first started doing this, I would go home in tears.
"It's just so degrading. It makes you feel objectified. Like - is that all you think of me?"
Sarah Everard's murder in 2021 caused outrage across the country. There was an outpouring of anger as women shared their stories of feeling unsafe, threatened and sexualised on the streets.
The Angiolini Inquiry - which was established to investigate the circumstances surrounding Sarah Everard's murder - is due to publish its latest report later today.
It is examining whether there a risk of it happening again, police culture, and broader concerns surrounding women's safety in public spaces.
After Ms Everard's killing, there were promises - assurances to women that things would have to change. But four years on, many women in Merseyside say they have the same feelings they did then.
"Men are honestly shocked when we tell them 'we don't feel safe'," says Kate Chadwick, from the Wirral charity Tomorrow's Women. "Pretty much every woman has had some kind of experience."
I meet her at a regular lunch club they host - at their building where men are not allowed inside. It's intended as a safe space for their members, who they are helping through everything from domestic violence to sexual assault. There's a medical clinic here, beauty treatment rooms, a computer lab - all staffed by women.
Kate shows me the pocket rape alarm they give out to the women who come here. She hopes they never have to use it, but "it makes them feel safer just having it".
"As a woman, in the winter it's a hard time just to exist," Kate says. "Women don't feel safe coming out of their homes. Routines will change. They don't want to walk in certain places.
"One of our members gets two buses home because it's safer than waiting at a dark bus stop to just get the one."
They are about to launch a photography exhibition around stalking and harassment. For this, they gave their members a camera and asked them to submit photos that show their experience being a woman.
There are several photos of dimly lit streets, bus stops with no one else there. One photo is a fist holding a key through the knuckles - an image most women will recognise.
Another picture is of an outfit laid out on the floor - a T-shirt, denim skirt and tights. It's titled What Were They Wearing?
"This can often be the first question in a sexual assault case," Kate says. "It really doesn't matter what the woman was wearing."
"It's definitely not getting better," she says. "In 2024, violence against women and girls was declared a national emergency. The statistics you read every day are shocking."
Later that evening, back in Liverpool, we meet Girls on the Go - a running club started with the express purpose of allowing women to exercise safely in the winter. It's 5.15pm when we meet for the run, and already dark.
The women running here list a collection of similar experiences. They have been catcalled, yelled at from cars, even chased while out running alone.
Run leader Madeline Cole tells me that, as a women-only club, they have had to modify their warm-ups because "as soon as you bend over to touch your toes, or go into a squat, the shouting starts".
Read more UK news:
OBR chief resigns after budget leak investigation
King officially strips Andrew of two more titles
Founder Steph Barney says she started the club because it is still "intimidating running alone as woman".
"Far too many women experience harassment and catcalling - we wanted to create a group where women would feel safer doing it together" she says. "Even in the summer you get sexualised just for wearing shorts. You have to restrict what you do. None of my male friends have ever had to worry about that."
I ask if anything would help them feel safer when out on their runs. "Better street lighting is a really obvious one," she says. "And one of the issues is that it's still not taken seriously by society. When you're catcalled, it feels embarrassing to say 'this is scary'.
"If it was taken more seriously - more women would speak out. And more could be done."
The Independent Office for Police Misconduct (IOPC) has been investigating South Yorkshire Police since 2012.
It is the largest independent investigation into alleged police misconduct and criminality ever carried out in England and Wales.
Hillsborough remains to this day the worst disaster in British sporting history.
How did we get here?
A crush on the terraces during the FA Cup semi-final at the stadium in Sheffield resulted in the death of 97 Liverpool fans - men, women, and children aged from 10 to 67.
Even as fans lay dying, police were claiming that Liverpool supporters, arriving in large numbers late, drunk and without tickets, caused the disaster. But after decades of campaigning, that narrative was debunked.
In April 2016, new inquests - held after the original verdicts of accidental death were quashed in 2012 - determined that those who died had been unlawfully killed.
The IOPC told victims' families in March that no officers would face misconduct proceedings because legislation in place at the time did not require police to have a duty of candour.
Dozens of allegations of misconduct against officers had been upheld, it said, but none would face disciplinary proceedings because they had all left the police service.
What has this probe looked at?
The IOPC investigation focused on amendments made in accounts of officers who were present at Hillsborough and allegations that misleading information was passed by the police to the media, MPs, parliament, and the inquiries set up immediately after the disaster.
It has also been looking into the role of West Midlands Police, which led the investigation into the disaster, and allegations that family members and campaigners were subject to surveillance by the police.
The IOPC has already confirmed that its investigation "aligned" with the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel investigation and the 2016 inquests.
It said: "We found no evidence to support police accounts to the media, the Taylor Inquiry and both sets of inquests, which suggested that the behaviour of supporters caused or in any way contributed to the disaster."
Read more from Sky News:
PM emotional talking about Hillsborough
Long-awaited Hillsborough Law introduced
Officer cleared of gross negligence manslaughter
In September, the government introduced the so-called Hillsborough Law to the House of Commons.
The legislation will include a duty of candour, forcing public officials to act with honesty and integrity at all times or face criminal sanctions.
The batter, who was one of England's most popular cricketers in the 90s, passed away "unexpectedly at his South Perth apartment" on Monday, his family said in a statement.
The cause of his death is at present unknown, his family added.
Smith played 62 Test matches for England, finishing his international career in 1996.
He was a part of the England squad which finished as runners-up at the 1992 Cricket World Cup.
Smith's family said in a statement: "A brave and dashing batsman, he excelled both for Hampshire and his adopted country collecting legions of admirers and friends along the way.
"Since his retirement from the game in 2004, his battles with alcohol and mental health have been well documented but these should not form the basis of speculation about the cause of death, which will be determined at postmortem investigation.
"This is an immensely difficult period for us all whilst we try to come to terms with our bereavement, and we would therefore much appreciate consideration for our privacy by media and cricket followers alike."
Read more from Sky News:
OBR chief resigns after budget leak investigation
'I was busking - what a man did to me left me horrified'
Smith, affectionately known as The Judge, played for Hampshire across a 21-year period between 1982-2003, captaining the county between 1998-2002.
His one-day international (ODI) top score of 167 not out, against Australia in 1993, stood as an England record for 23 years until Alex Hales scored 171 against Pakistan in 2016.
Smith averaged 43.67 in Test cricket, hitting 28 fifties and nine centuries, with his top score of 175 coming in 1994 against West Indies and their feared pace attack of that era.
Following the news, Rod Bransgrove OBE, the chairman of the Hampshire County Cricket Club, said: "Robin Smith is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time Hampshire Cricket heroes.
"He was a batsman of awesome power and control and amongst the most courageous players this club has ever seen - especially against bowling of real pace."
Mr Bransgrove went on to say: "More than anything, The Judge connected with everyone he came into contact with.
"He was one of the most popular players ever to play the game we all love, and he will be hugely missed by players, members, staff and supporters - not only in Hampshire, but throughout the country and beyond."
In the years since his retirement from cricket in 2004, Smith spoke of struggles with his mental health and addiction to alcohol.
England Cricket reacted to news of Smith's death saying: "Everyone at the England & Wales Cricket Board is deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Robin Smith.
"An England and Hampshire legend," the post on X said.
Jack Russell, who played with Smith for England in the 90s, paid tribute to him on X saying he was "one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet".
Some 37% told a YouGov-Sky News poll that Ms Reeves made out things were worse than they really are. This is much higher than the 18% who said she was broadly honest, and the 13% who said things were better than she presented.
This comes in an in-depth look at the public reaction to the budget by YouGov, which suggests widespread disenchantment in the performance of the chancellor.
Just 8% think the budget will leave the country as a whole better off, while 2% think it will leave them and their family better off.
Some 52% think the country will be worse off because of the budget, and 50% think they and their family will be worse off.
This suggests the prime minister and chancellor will struggle to sell last week's set-piece as one that helps with the cost of living.
Some 20% think the budget worried too much about help for older people and didn't have enough for younger people, while 23% think the reverse.
The poll found 57% think the chancellor broke Labour's election promises, while 13% think she did not and 30% are not sure. Some 54% said the budget was unfair, including 16% of Labour voters.
And it arguably gets worse…
This comes as the latest Sky News-Times-YouGov poll showed Labour and the Tories are now neck and neck among voters.
The two parties are tied on 19% each, behind Reform UK on 26%. The Greens are on 16%, while the Liberal Democrats are on 14%.
This is broadly consistent with last week, suggesting the budget has not had a dramatic impact on people's views.
However, the verdict on Labour's economic competence has declined further post-budget.
Asked who they would trust with the economy, Labour are now on 10% - lower than Liz Truss, who oversaw the 2022 mini-budget, and also lower than Jeremy Corbyn in the 2019 election.
The Tories come top of the list of parties trusted on the economy on 17%, with Reform UK second on 13%, Greens on 8% and Lib Dems on 5%. Nearly half, 47%, don't know or say none of them.
Only 57% of current Labour voters say the party would do the best job at managing the economy, falling to 25% among those who voted Labour in the 2024 election.
Some 63% of voters think Ms Reeves is doing a bad job, including 20% of current Labour voters, while just 11% of all voters think she is doing a good job.
A higher proportion - 69% - think Sir Keir Starmer is doing a bad job.
It's a good question, and we'll come to it in a second, but let's begin with an even bigger one: is the prime minister continuing to mislead the public over the budget?
The details are a bit complex but ultimately this all comes back to a rather simple question: why did the government raise taxes in last week's budget?
To judge from the prime minister's responses at a news conference on Monday morning, you might have judged that the answer is: "because we had to".
"There was an OBR productivity review," he explained to one journalist. "The result of that was there was £16bn less than we might otherwise have had. That's a difficult starting point for any budget."
Time and time again throughout the news conference, he repeated the same point: the OBR had revised its forecasts for the UK economy and the upshot of that was that the government had a £16bn hole in its accounts. Keep that figure in your head for a bit, because it's not without significance.
But for the time being, let's take a step back and recall that budgets are mostly about the difference between two numbers: revenues and expenditure; tax and spending. This government has set itself a fiscal rule - that it needs, within a few years, to ensure that, after netting out investment, the tax bar needs to be higher than the spending bar.
At the time of the last budget, taxes were indeed higher than current spending, once the economic cycle is taken account of or, to put it in economists' language, there was a surplus in the cyclically adjusted current budget. The chancellor had met her fiscal rule, by £9.9bn.
Read more:
Main budget announcements - at a glance
Enter your salary to see how the budget affects you
This, it's worth saying, is not a very large margin by which to meet your fiscal rule. A typical budget can see revisions and changes that would swamp that in one fell swoop. And part of the explanation for why there has been so much speculation about tax rises over the summer is that the chancellor left herself so little "headroom" against the rule. And since everyone could see debt interest costs were going up, it seemed quite plausible that the government would have to raise taxes.
No news like bad news
Then, over the summer, the OBR, whose job it is to make the official government forecasts, and to mark its fiscal homework, told the government it was also doing something else: reviewing the state of Britain's productivity. This set alarm bells ringing in Downing Street - and understandably. The weaker productivity growth is, the less income we're all earning, and the less income we're earning, the less tax revenues there are going into the exchequer.
The early signs were that the productivity review would knock tens of billions of pounds off the chancellor's "headroom" - that it could, in one fell swoop, wipe off that £9.9bn and send it into the red.
That is why stories began to brew through the summer that the chancellor was considering raising taxes. The Treasury was preparing itself for some grisly news. But here's the interesting thing: when the bad news (that productivity review) did eventually arrive, it was far less grisly than expected.
True: the one-off productivity "hit" to the public finances was £16bn. But - and this is crucial - that was offset by a lot of other, much better news (at least from the exchequer's perspective). Higher wage inflation meant higher expected tax revenues, not to mention a host of other impacts. All told, when everything was totted up, the hit to the public finances wasn't £16bn but somewhere between £5bn and £6bn.
The real reasons taxes went up
Why is that number significant? Because it's short of the chancellor's existing £9.9bn headroom. Or, to put it another way, the OBR's forecasting exercise was not enough to force her to raise taxes.
The decision to raise taxes, in other words, came down to something else. It came down to the fact that the government U-turned on a number of its welfare reforms over the summer. It came down to the fact that they wanted to axe the two-child benefits cap. And, on top of this, it came down to the fact that they wanted to raise their "headroom" against the fiscal rules from £9.9bn to over £20bn.
These are all perfectly logical reasons to raise tax - though some will disagree on their wisdom. But here's the key thing: they are the chancellor and prime minister's decisions. They are not knee-jerk responses to someone else's bad news.
Yet when the prime minister explained his budget decisions, he focused mostly on that OBR report. In fact, worse, he selectively quoted the £16bn number from the productivity review without acknowledging that it was only one part of the story. That seems pretty misleading to me.