I thought I had found an auditor that stood up for his rights. Then you. gave them your op id. I hope you do not do this again - you just need to show a bit of it to prove you have one. Hopefully you will learn from this and I can become a subscriber. Overall I do like your style!
Like your relaxed style PA shame you gave your op id expect you can get another one easy enough though. Keep up the good work. But please stay anonymous they have no more right to ID you than I do
@@BG-ef8sk schedule 9 tells you all you need to know, but basically, if they reasonably suspect that a drone is or has been flown and reasonably suspect it needs a OP ID then using schedule 8 they can ground the drone and under schedule 9 they can require the OP ID.. If you tell them your going to or have flown it and also tell them it has a camera then that's all the info they need to gain the OP ID. Best of saying nothing if they have not seen the drone in the air or even seen the drone itself.
Why did you show the OP ID straight away should of waited for her to produce the correct legislation to ask for it. Never tell them you have been flying it and that it has a camera therefore they then have no reasonable suspicion under schedule 9 to have the OP ID
To be fair, she didn't make a fuss about being recorded. And she didn't say how she felt about recording the public. She may not be a fan of that either. She didn't record the auditor.
@Legislationloverauditors love to think they are correct though when wrong, but yeah schedule 9 is pretty clear, but alot of people read section 1 not section 2, they then quote section 1 which does not apply to under 250g drones that are not toys.
You don't have to break the law for them to get the OP ID 🤷🏻♂️ they have to have reasonable suspicion that it is being flown or has been flown and it requires the operator ID ie has a camera..
You refused to give your name, yet made a big mistake by giving your operator ID. Now you are in the system permanently, and they have your name and address etc you registered your drone to. They have no valid reason to request your operator ID.
I think that used to be true, but legislation has only very recently been changed, if you drone has a camera you are required by law to provide your operator ID. Of course, they can't inspect your drone too see if it has a camera but if they have witnesses on site that say they know it has a camera Youd be done for.
Breach of the peace:- Regina versus Howell 1982 states a breach of the peace occurs when someone has the fear of being harmed. To give someone the fear of being harmed you have to use threatening and or abusive language or hold a threatening and or abusive sign. (The wording is VERY IMPORTANT when it comes to an offence) so not everything can be classed a breach of the peace. You HAVE to use threatening and or abusive language. So for instance a dislike of something or hurt feelings is NOT a breach of the peace. Also the tyrant pigs are not the arbitrators of what a breach of the peace is. The law is. Regina versus Howell also goes on to say once a breach of the peace has passed there is NO breach of the peace. IT'S PASSED. The police have no powers to demand a name and address and NO powers to detain. I solicitor could easily argue that as soon as the tyrant pigs turned up any possible beach of the peace has passed. You had no legal or lawful obligation to give up your drone I.d number. Learn the law and you will outsmart them every time.
Do not let them take pictures or write down the ID … you only have to show them.. those officers were terrible absolutely disgraceful behaviour… surreptitiously obtaining your ID … You are carrying out a legal activity. You can’t breach the peace by definition… The only offence was committed by the persons calling the police. and them illegally obtaining you id … The security guard was an idiot and vulgar to bring up the nonsense about girls… Next time you are in this situation… remind the police to stand on their oaths .. section five criminal law act 1967. It’s an offence to waste the police employment.. which is what they did.
I agree with others. Should not give up operator ID unless legally required. The idea is to exercise your rights. That includes NOT giving up ANY details unless legally required to do so. PC reports "Refusing" to give details. When in fact you have "Declined". Saying "Refused" is Passive Aggressive behaviour. When they ask for your details they should say" You are not required to give me your details but are you prepared to tell me who you are?"
@@PureAudits I believe it is important that you adopt your own style in order to appeal to a wider audience. I think most auditors would do well to watch how @focuspocus3690 deals with the police. Keep up the great work PA 👍
When the guy in the suit came out, the police were totally wrong IMO. The guy specified about girls 18 to 19 being on site and about the boundary going upwards. The police should have stepped in at that point and explained that their boundary doesn't go up but more imortantly, gain control on the guy in the suit specifying about girls - someone's sex should be irrelevant and by him saying that and focussing on that only point, he's making a loose accusation IMO that you are there to film young girls. Legally, I would think being 18 and 19 that they are adults and thus women, not girls. That guy should have a serious talking to by his management team. Deleting a picture on a phone does not usually delete it fully as it places it in the 'bin' - I would have got the guy who took the photo to prove that the image had been deleted from the bin. The police were polite, but totally wrong in not explaining the law to the guy in the suit.
The guy at 11.00 is concerned about girls 18 and 19 years old who can have sex and alcohol and vote get married but a photo might somehow effect them, what a plonker
Suggesting that a person with a camera peaceful exercising their rights in a public might be a breach of the peace if someone objects to their presence is nonsense, especially as they allow hate marches through London every week and don't suggest that those persons might be arrested if someone objects to their presence.
No but I did say I had been recording from it, which in turn gives police the powers under schedule 9 to take down the operator ID. Early days and Big Lesson learnt and thanks for your advice. 👍 PA
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
You probably didn't need to give them your operator ID. I believe they can only request if they have seen you fly it and able to quote what law you are required to . Now they have your details on record on some secret police or government database.
That copper is as thick as mince, you can not arrest for breach of the peace retrospectively, if she does arrest for it it must be at the time it is happening and once over she has to de arrest. This is basic common law, why are we forced to pay the wages and pensions of kids who do not understand it?
they want us to think we're forced to, but council tax is unlawful .,.,. because they can't produce a liability order as one doesn't exist because there's no contract.. no contract, no debt
Aye, and not only that after the case of “Foulkes v Merseyside police” the breach must,i repeat must be both “real and Imminent” . I would have thought that any possible breach would be by others.
Why did you let them take the ID on the Drone?? You can show them but they can't take it down.. that is effectively giving them your ID when you haven't broken the law
To all you commenters criticising Pure Audits for giving up his operator ID: since when have you become so bloody perfect that you haven’t made a mistake? To me he is the rising star of this CZcams genre. He stands out with his calm non combative approach compared the some of the better known auditors. Once he becomes Au Fait with the law around his activities he will be one to beat.
If you're going to 'educate' people then learn the law and your rights about what you are doing first. You didn't have to provide them with your drone OP ID unless they had reasonable ground to suspect an offence ( schedule 8 ) or that you had or were flying it and it required a registration ( schedule 9 )
@@PureAudits I've seen some of Geeksvana's videos before and don't think he's always 100% correct in how he interprets the legislation. He also likes to interview actual drone police who would love for everyone to just comply with anything they said rather than follow the actual letter of the law. Personally I'll go by what the legislation says rather than what the police say it is because we all know how they like to twist the law to suit themselves and leave important bits out.
To be fair he did admit to flying and recording but that was after she asked for the OP ID. Also as I read schedule 9 section 2 i actually can't see anything that says to show the OP ID, it only mentions the ID of the person
@@Mrchipsv2 Read on to section 8....(1)A constable may require a person in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether a power conferred by any of paragraphs 1 to 7 is exercisable.
@@PINACI thankyou 👍🏻 you should watch auditing Lancashire video, he had tape holding his camera on, a broken propella, and NO operators ID on his drone, and was still going to fly it, but cop used schedule 8 to check it over. *EDIT * just looked and you did alreasy see it
So does deleting the picture still mean the company have still broken GDPR rules? How do we know that the company doesn’t immediately recover the file. Photo probably still in the security guys recently deleted file. Did the WPC check?
It's funny how that bloke wants to ask you not to film young girls on a bloke to bloke basis. but yet calls the police on you for a lawful activity. Why did he not come and talk on a bloke to bloke basis before. Instead he waits until the police arrive then comes over acting all friendly trying to clutch at straws because he knows the police can't stop you. It just shows the kind of mind he has when he starts going down the route of filming young girls🤔
Thanks @pureaudits for the content. Very calm, polite and considerate, please don't change. Your ongoing mission to educate people around the photography/drone law is admirable. Keep up the great work. 🎯
I really like his calm no drama approach. All the combatative drama comes from those who have a perception he is breaking the law and that includes the stupid police.
Nice video and Lloyds does receive special consideration from local government. Originally constructed early 90s for Trustee Savings Bank which merged with Lloyds Bank in 1995. 1998 added a 2 storey rear extension in addition to other modifications and portakabin kitchen. 2005 included interior refurbishments, main entrance and on site restaurant changes and car park expansion. 2007 the Bank directed to remove the temporary portakabin kitchen/restaurant by 2009 and restore the grounds (rather long temporary, special privileges). Then in 2009 Lloyds granted permission to retain the portakabin structures an additional five years and included statement "The buildings are environmentally sustainable since they were built some 10 years ago and remain in good condition despite inclement weather & global warming." Location is white structure on the rear at 17:52 right side and did not see any further planning allowing the extension to remain beyond 2014 (may be in some other application perhaps).
Unless the cops have a direct line to the CAA, the Operator ID on its own is useless unless it is accompanied by the Name of the registered Operator ... and they can (if they have reasonable suspicion based on some kind of facts / evidence) require the identity the Operator and the Pilot (if different) ... BUT ... like someone else said, it's not your job to admit to anything and especially not wise to volunteer any information that they can use (and you never know what that might be) to convict you. If they don't know the legislation, let them consult with someone who does, OR drop themselves in the poop for a potentially nice little payout if they're the type who deserves it. Other than that, keep up the good work edumacating the UK Ignoramuses on what FREEDOM (albeit in a small but nonetheless significant way) looks like 😉👍 ********** *Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021* *SCHEDULE 9* *Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016* *Commencement Information* 1 _Sch. 9 in force at 29.4.2021 for specified purposes and 29.6.2021 for all other purposes, see s. 21(1)(a)(2)_ *Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators* 2 (1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable - (a) has reasonable grounds for believing that - (i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and (ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and (b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight. (2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of - (a) the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or (b) the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P. (3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016 - (a) article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator); (b) article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (c) article 265A(6)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator); (d) article 265A(6)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (e) article 265A(7)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator); (f) article 265A(7)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (g) article 265A(9)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator); (h) article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (i) article 265E(1)(a) (registration of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more); (j) article 265E(1)(b) (display of registration number of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more). (4) P is guilty of an offence if - (a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, information as to the identity of a person, (b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, (c) the relevant registration requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and (d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide. (5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. (6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Lloyds Bank. Now I understand. When I try to call because I have to. All the banks have closed down it takes ages to get an answer then the person answering has poor communication skills. Now I know why they are employing locals who don’t speak a logical English 🏴
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
The guy who was passively saying you could be filming young girls should be more concerned with picking a suit that actually fkn fits him. The sleeves would fit an orang-utan. Ffs
Another polite interaction from yourself , we know you're new at auditing but you'll pick up on the technicality's as you go along . Take no notice of the negative and some impolite comments , there's always those who make judgements when not knowing the first thing about the law . Keep it up and enjoy your hobby
With the operator ID they only know the owner, not the person flying. If they were to place a report against the owner's ID and that were a different person that would be an interesting legal challenge.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, SCHEDULE 9, Paragraph 1 "Provision by remote pilots of evidence of competency" does not apply to the sub 250g drone, as you only need to have read the instructions (as a PILOT (P)). No competency requirements. Paragraph 2 "Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators" would apply. Meaning you'd have to provide the constable a means of identifying the operator (e.g. Operator ID). There's no need for any suspicion of criminality, only "reasonable grounds for believing that... a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place" for a constable to request the Pilot to provide information regarding the operator's identity. To be clear, it's not you _per se_ that needs an Operator ID. It's the drone that needs it (kind of like a car needing a number plate, rather than the driver). It's incidental If you happen to be the pilot and the operator. For example; I could let you fly my 6oz drone and you don't need to do anything other than read the instructions and fly safely. I'm not sure if you'd be responsible if I hadn't put the OPID on the drone though? e.g. you just give them my name to comply with the act? Hmm 🤔
The police officer could find herself being prosecuted if she were to cause an accident whilst responding with blue lights for what is clearly not an emergency situation.
Wow patronisation someone isn't a crime.... I wouldn't have allowed the police the operator I'd since no crime was committed..... But your such a nice guy..... The police were fishing for everything tho even tho no laws are broken and then she says "if any breach of peace is reported they come back" but does that mean if its towards you or from you Why the hell did he bring up filming your girls for... What a pleb. that's him trying to get the police to engage for something else
Don't video the 18-19 year olds?!? From 200ft up?! Does he think young adults are afraid of a camera when they're on social media recording themselves all the time. Ridiculous.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Oh honey, never show them your ID.. unless they suspect you of committing a crime.. they now have all your personal details and they WILL circulate to every station 😢..
Operator ID is the registered drone owner not your ID. There is a difference. BTW unless you are suspected of committing a crime, you do not need to supply the OP ID especially when you have not even taken the thing out of the bag.
What's the point of showing your id number which they get your name in seconds and then refusing to give your name which you basically just handed them ?????????? i really dont get this auditor or channel it just seems pointless , i get the point of dj , pj ,the great ab and the rest and the point they are proving ,but i just don't get or understand what the point is here , maybe im missing something ?
@@PureAudits fair play to you for getting out and giving it a go and good luck mate , I just thought I was missing something but now realise you’re new and just dropped a bollock oh well shit happens 👍 I’ll subscribe 👍👍👍👍 good luck with it pal
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Don't forget the other member of staff who recorded you from within the grounds. Ask for a copy of that. Unless the security guard deleted the image from his deleted folder it will still be on his phone.
Blue lights....for a photographer!
Why would police be interested in criminals, far easier to deal with non-crimes (and still get paid).
Ya he was pointing the camera at them 😮😮😮😮😮😮
Preventing and detecting crime is expensive. Chaper and easier to support the requests of private companies and mediating civil disputes.
Adrenaline junkies
Rookie mistake letting them take a picture of your operator ID. you're in the system now.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits Get another id!
I thought I had found an auditor that stood up for his rights. Then you. gave them your op id. I hope you do not do this again - you just need to show a bit of it to prove you have one. Hopefully you will learn from this and I can become a subscriber. Overall I do like your style!
Like your relaxed style PA shame you gave your op id expect you can get another one easy enough though. Keep up the good work. But please stay anonymous they have no more right to ID you than I do
Can't believe you gave them I'd. 🤔
How strange, Police can respond double crewed when a corporate entity complains. Yet you try report an actual crime and nobody is available
They prefer to go after 'awkward people'. Complete and utter cowards
No crime= no operator ID
That's not how it works
@@Mrchipsv2 you have to be suspected of committing an offence and as he wasn’t flying when they turned up so they aren’t entitled to anything
@@BG-ef8sk wrong it's absolutley nothing to do with criminal offence
@@Mrchipsv2 enlighten me then
@@BG-ef8sk schedule 9 tells you all you need to know, but basically, if they reasonably suspect that a drone is or has been flown and reasonably suspect it needs a OP ID then using schedule 8 they can ground the drone and under schedule 9 they can require the OP ID..
If you tell them your going to or have flown it and also tell them it has a camera then that's all the info they need to gain the OP ID. Best of saying nothing if they have not seen the drone in the air or even seen the drone itself.
I see the tyrant pigs were NOT interested in your GDPR complaint....
i noticed that
Probably as GDPR breaches are dealt with by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) not the police
Why did you show the OP ID straight away should of waited for her to produce the correct legislation to ask for it.
Never tell them you have been flying it and that it has a camera therefore they then have no reasonable suspicion under schedule 9 to have the OP ID
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits Learn the basics, boomer
@@PureAudits came to ask the same question. I'd have told the patronising wee madam eff all.
@@AuldScot1888 Yup. I saw straight through her attitude.
She belongs in the kitchen.
Yes, tell them nothing!!
Police lady says she is not a fan of being recorded 😂 , but happy for herself to record an innocent member of the public.
To be fair, she didn't make a fuss about being recorded. And she didn't say how she felt about recording the public. She may not be a fan of that either. She didn't record the auditor.
No legal requirement to show it and from that they will now add you to police national computer
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@Legislationloverauditors love to think they are correct though when wrong, but yeah schedule 9 is pretty clear, but alot of people read section 1 not section 2, they then quote section 1 which does not apply to under 250g drones that are not toys.
Never give them you’re ID no law was broken never give them anything
You don't have to break the law for them to get the OP ID 🤷🏻♂️ they have to have reasonable suspicion that it is being flown or has been flown and it requires the operator ID ie has a camera..
@MrChipsv2 you have to show them there is an operator id on the drone, you don't have to give them the number unless they suspect you of a crime
@@scottjohnston999 wrong
You refused to give your name, yet made a big mistake by giving your operator ID. Now you are in the system permanently, and they have your name and address etc you registered your drone to. They have no valid reason to request your operator ID.
Thanks for letting me know. Although operator ID does not relate to me but Lesson learnt. PA
We all know that. Sometimes it’s best to be on the system for your own good 😊
I think that used to be true, but legislation has only very recently been changed, if you drone has a camera you are required by law to provide your operator ID. Of course, they can't inspect your drone too see if it has a camera but if they have witnesses on site that say they know it has a camera Youd be done for.
@@petertaylor9384 I would love to know what that law is, do you know?
@@petertaylor9384 what law's that officer 9384 ?.
I hope they got the security guards details. He was the only one breaking any laws.
Breach of the peace:- Regina versus Howell 1982 states a breach of the peace occurs when someone has the fear of being harmed. To give someone the fear of being harmed you have to use threatening and or abusive language or hold a threatening and or abusive sign. (The wording is VERY IMPORTANT when it comes to an offence) so not everything can be classed a breach of the peace. You HAVE to use threatening and or abusive language. So for instance a dislike of something or hurt feelings is NOT a breach of the peace. Also the tyrant pigs are not the arbitrators of what a breach of the peace is. The law is. Regina versus Howell also goes on to say once a breach of the peace has passed there is NO breach of the peace. IT'S PASSED. The police have no powers to demand a name and address and NO powers to detain. I solicitor could easily argue that as soon as the tyrant pigs turned up any possible beach of the peace has passed. You had no legal or lawful obligation to give up your drone I.d number. Learn the law and you will outsmart them every time.
Well said
Wow! She took a picture of your operator ID. I couldn't bear to watch it anymore.
Do not let them take pictures or write down the ID … you only have to show them..
those officers were terrible absolutely disgraceful behaviour… surreptitiously obtaining your ID …
You are carrying out a legal activity. You can’t breach the peace by definition…
The only offence was committed by the persons calling the police. and them illegally obtaining you id …
The security guard was an idiot and vulgar to bring up the nonsense about girls…
Next time you are in this situation… remind the police to stand on their oaths .. section five criminal law act 1967. It’s an offence to waste the police employment.. which is what they did.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
Police priorities seem to be misplaced.The man in the suit said he knows what you are doing but still tries to enforce non laws and rules.
I agree with others. Should not give up operator ID unless legally required. The idea is to exercise your rights. That includes NOT giving up ANY details unless legally required to do so. PC reports "Refusing" to give details. When in fact you have "Declined". Saying "Refused" is Passive Aggressive behaviour. When they ask for your details they should say" You are not required to give me your details but are you prepared to tell me who you are?"
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAuditsrookie mistake PA... they will have put your name down on the suspected terrorist list on their system now
@@PureAudits I believe it is important that you adopt your own style in order to appeal to a wider audience. I think most auditors would do well to watch how @focuspocus3690 deals with the police. Keep up the great work PA 👍
When the guy in the suit came out, the police were totally wrong IMO. The guy specified about girls 18 to 19 being on site and about the boundary going upwards. The police should have stepped in at that point and explained that their boundary doesn't go up but more imortantly, gain control on the guy in the suit specifying about girls - someone's sex should be irrelevant and by him saying that and focussing on that only point, he's making a loose accusation IMO that you are there to film young girls. Legally, I would think being 18 and 19 that they are adults and thus women, not girls. That guy should have a serious talking to by his management team. Deleting a picture on a phone does not usually delete it fully as it places it in the 'bin' - I would have got the guy who took the photo to prove that the image had been deleted from the bin. The police were polite, but totally wrong in not explaining the law to the guy in the suit.
How many of those 18/19 year old "girls" put themselves all over tictoc and the other silly look-at-me sites.
Lol gave operator ID for no reason
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
The guy at 11.00 is concerned about girls 18 and 19 years old who can have sex and alcohol and vote get married but a photo might somehow effect them, what a plonker
Who knows what some sick deviant like you might do with it?😒
No disturbance of the peace! And absolutely nothing for anyone to have been alarmed about, as we can see!!😊
Yes no question! And thankyou!!
Suggesting that a person with a camera peaceful exercising their rights in a public might be a breach of the peace if someone objects to their presence is nonsense, especially as they allow hate marches through London every week and don't suggest that those persons might be arrested if someone objects to their presence.
Only down the road from me. Shameful behaviour from the police 😔🤦♂️
So she was running on blue lights for some one on the suspicion off being awkward 😂😂
What a patronising police officer, well done for remaining patient and polite.
Thanks for your support 👍 PA
They had no right to see your Operator ID.
No but I did say I had been recording from it, which in turn gives police the powers under schedule 9 to take down the operator ID. Early days and Big Lesson learnt and thanks for your advice. 👍 PA
You gave them your operator ID when you weren't obliged to = FAIL❌
Thanks for letting me know. I had been flying so thought that I had to show it if requested. I’ll check. PA
Not correct!
@@scottmarwild7711so schedule 9 means nothing then
Soon as you showed then ID I switched off
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
She acts nervous and doesnt like being filmed.....the hippocrit
hippocrit pmsl
You probably didn't need to give them your operator ID. I believe they can only request if they have seen you fly it and able to quote what law you are required to . Now they have your details on record on some secret police or government database.
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
That copper is as thick as mince, you can not arrest for breach of the peace retrospectively, if she does arrest for it it must be at the time it is happening and once over she has to de arrest.
This is basic common law, why are we forced to pay the wages and pensions of kids who do not understand it?
they want us to think we're forced to, but council tax is unlawful .,.,. because they can't produce a liability order as one doesn't exist because there's no contract.. no contract, no debt
Aye, and not only that after the case of “Foulkes v Merseyside police” the breach must,i repeat must be both “real and Imminent” . I would have thought that any possible breach would be by others.
@@TheGrimReaper1 Quite, but the plod maybe trying to lift Marti just in case they hit him??
Complete and utter bollocks!!. If your going to quote statute law, get some training on it first !🤦
@@501sqn3you're*
Not quite sure why you immediately id'd yourself.....
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
Typical Police instead of telling the complainants its legal they harass you
Notice the Police talk to the business owners like they are victims
Bad move showing id
Great video thank you 👍
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks. PA
Why did you let them take the ID on the Drone?? You can show them but they can't take it down.. that is effectively giving them your ID when you haven't broken the law
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
DONT GIVE EM INFO FELLA YOU DO NOT HAVE TO
They should bring back fitness tests for the Plods, Sick and tired of seeing overweight cops .. shows a lack of self respect
7:23 _"Not a big fan of being recorded."_ Said the constable with a camera and asking for details which will be recorded on their system.
Busy day , whats a slow day look like ?
18 19 year old girls are adults... what's the issue ?
They didn't even inform you if they were recording you....
Top man love your vids getting better all the time
Much appreciated
To all you commenters criticising Pure Audits for giving up his operator ID: since when have you become so bloody perfect that you haven’t made a mistake?
To me he is the rising star of this CZcams genre. He stands out with his calm non combative approach compared the some of the better known auditors. Once he becomes Au Fait with the law around his activities he will be one to beat.
I wouldn't have given them your full operator ID mate, why do that ?
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
18/19 year old girls don't want to be filmed what makes them😊. Special?
If you're going to 'educate' people then learn the law and your rights about what you are doing first. You didn't have to provide them with your drone OP ID unless they had reasonable ground to suspect an offence ( schedule 8 ) or that you had or were flying it and it required a registration ( schedule 9 )
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
@@PureAudits I've seen some of Geeksvana's videos before and don't think he's always 100% correct in how he interprets the legislation. He also likes to interview actual drone police who would love for everyone to just comply with anything they said rather than follow the actual letter of the law. Personally I'll go by what the legislation says rather than what the police say it is because we all know how they like to twist the law to suit themselves and leave important bits out.
To be fair he did admit to flying and recording but that was after she asked for the OP ID.
Also as I read schedule 9 section 2 i actually can't see anything that says to show the OP ID, it only mentions the ID of the person
@@Mrchipsv2 Read on to section 8....(1)A constable may require a person in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether a power conferred by any of paragraphs 1 to 7 is exercisable.
@@PINACI thankyou 👍🏻 you should watch auditing Lancashire video, he had tape holding his camera on, a broken propella, and NO operators ID on his drone, and was still going to fly it, but cop used schedule 8 to check it over. *EDIT * just looked and you did alreasy see it
Did that PC just threaten you? I believe she did for a legal activity, they now have all of your details, beware fella.
So does deleting the picture still mean the company have still broken GDPR rules? How do we know that the company doesn’t immediately recover the file. Photo probably still in the security guys recently deleted file. Did the WPC check?
It's funny how that bloke wants to ask you not to film young girls on a bloke to bloke basis. but yet calls the police on you for a lawful activity. Why did he not come and talk on a bloke to bloke basis before. Instead he waits until the police arrive then comes over acting all friendly trying to clutch at straws because he knows the police can't stop you. It just shows the kind of mind he has when he starts going down the route of filming young girls🤔
That says it all doesn't it.... He thinks he votes for different people than anyone who does things that annoy him.
Banking/investing institutions are always the most protected entity.
Thanks @pureaudits for the content.
Very calm, polite and considerate, please don't change.
Your ongoing mission to educate people around the photography/drone law is admirable.
Keep up the great work.
🎯
I appreciate that. Thank you 👍 PA
I really like his calm no drama approach. All the combatative drama comes from those who have a perception he is breaking the law and that includes the stupid police.
My thoughts were why you allowed her to document the Operator ID, when you didn't need too . Let them work for it at the very least
Great video 👍 ❤
Thank You 👍 PA
Almost all the auditors have been caught out. The only one that I believe who has never given out his details is BP Visits.
But he messed up because BP Visits is his real name
@@peterhemmings2929 Bill Payer - If you look at some of his earlier videos you can see his face in a glass reflection.
Nice video and Lloyds does receive special consideration from local government.
Originally constructed early 90s for Trustee Savings Bank which merged with Lloyds Bank in 1995. 1998 added a 2 storey rear extension in addition to other modifications and portakabin kitchen. 2005 included interior refurbishments, main entrance and on site restaurant changes and car park expansion. 2007 the Bank directed to remove the temporary portakabin kitchen/restaurant by 2009 and restore the grounds (rather long temporary, special privileges). Then in 2009 Lloyds granted permission to retain the portakabin structures an additional five years and included statement "The buildings are environmentally sustainable since they were built some 10 years ago and remain in good condition despite inclement weather & global warming."
Location is white structure on the rear at 17:52 right side and did not see any further planning allowing the extension to remain beyond 2014 (may be in some other application perhaps).
A nice informal conclusion to the proceedings, by the Female officer waving 2 you like that!!😊
When are they going to prosecute these companies wasting police time? Of course they won’t they are the company private police service.
Unless the cops have a direct line to the CAA, the Operator ID on its own is useless unless it is accompanied by the Name of the registered Operator ... and they can (if they have reasonable suspicion based on some kind of facts / evidence) require the identity the Operator and the Pilot (if different) ... BUT ... like someone else said, it's not your job to admit to anything and especially not wise to volunteer any information that they can use (and you never know what that might be) to convict you. If they don't know the legislation, let them consult with someone who does, OR drop themselves in the poop for a potentially nice little payout if they're the type who deserves it. Other than that, keep up the good work edumacating the UK Ignoramuses on what FREEDOM (albeit in a small but nonetheless significant way) looks like 😉👍
**********
*Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021*
*SCHEDULE 9*
*Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016*
*Commencement Information*
1 _Sch. 9 in force at 29.4.2021 for specified purposes and 29.6.2021 for all other purposes, see s. 21(1)(a)(2)_
*Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators*
2 (1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable -
(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that -
(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and
(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and
(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.
(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of -
(a) the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or
(b) the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P.
(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016 -
(a) article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator);
(b) article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(c) article 265A(6)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);
(d) article 265A(6)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(e) article 265A(7)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);
(f) article 265A(7)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(g) article 265A(9)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);
(h) article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(i) article 265E(1)(a) (registration of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more);
(j) article 265E(1)(b) (display of registration number of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more).
(4) P is guilty of an offence if -
(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, information as to the identity of a person,
(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,
(c) the relevant registration requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and
(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.
(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.
Thanks for your advice and support PA
Blue lights for that really muppets
Contact. Higgs Newton Kenyon Solicitors. Liverpool.
No win. No fee. Mita breach of GDPR
Dont need to get your details they have them all on drone id now.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
My job is to educate people 😂😂😂 but I’ll give my operator id when not required to
Lloyds Bank. Now I understand. When I try to call because I have to. All the banks have closed down it takes ages to get an answer then the person answering has poor communication skills. Now I know why they are employing locals who don’t speak a logical English 🏴
Uneducated cops can be pleasant even if they are clueless and feel they must try and flex themselves with directives.
Your details will now be everywhere!
Why give the operator ID??
They knew I had been flying but Lesson learnt. PA
They have no right to photograph the operator I’d if you’re e not committing a crime
Nothing to do with committing a crime, they can take down the ID under schedule 9
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
The guy who was passively saying you could be filming young girls should be more concerned with picking a suit that actually fkn fits him. The sleeves would fit an orang-utan. Ffs
Putting lives at risk racing to the scene, My deaf niece almost come a cropper avoiding these street racers.
Another polite interaction from yourself , we know you're new at auditing but you'll pick up on the technicality's as you go along . Take no notice of the negative and some impolite comments , there's always those who make judgements when not knowing the first thing about the law . Keep it up and enjoy your hobby
Thanks for your support and encouragement 👍 PA
Un bloody believable these coppers , when will they learn
Dumber and Dumber, how the hell did they get into the Police
You just told your self the answer 😂😂😂😂😂
Oh good lord
With the operator ID they only know the owner, not the person flying. If they were to place a report against the owner's ID and that were a different person that would be an interesting legal challenge.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, SCHEDULE 9, Paragraph 1 "Provision by remote pilots of evidence of competency" does not apply to the sub 250g drone, as you only need to have read the instructions (as a PILOT (P)). No competency requirements.
Paragraph 2 "Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators" would apply. Meaning you'd have to provide the constable a means of identifying the operator (e.g. Operator ID). There's no need for any suspicion of criminality, only "reasonable grounds for believing that... a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place" for a constable to request the Pilot to provide information regarding the operator's identity.
To be clear, it's not you _per se_ that needs an Operator ID. It's the drone that needs it (kind of like a car needing a number plate, rather than the driver). It's incidental If you happen to be the pilot and the operator.
For example; I could let you fly my 6oz drone and you don't need to do anything other than read the instructions and fly safely.
I'm not sure if you'd be responsible if I hadn't put the OPID on the drone though? e.g. you just give them my name to comply with the act? Hmm 🤔
Should of asked if you was being detained.
Big mistake showing them the operator ID. Please don't do that again. But we are still Your fans
Thanks for your advice and support as well. 👍 PA
Operator ID is person responsible for the drone. Nothing to do with the pilot of the drone. Clueless.
The police officer could find herself being prosecuted if she were to cause an accident whilst responding with blue lights for what is clearly not an emergency situation.
Wow patronisation someone isn't a crime.... I wouldn't have allowed the police the operator I'd since no crime was committed..... But your such a nice guy..... The police were fishing for everything tho even tho no laws are broken and then she says "if any breach of peace is reported they come back" but does that mean if its towards you or from you
Why the hell did he bring up filming your girls for... What a pleb. that's him trying to get the police to engage for something else
They truly had nothing else to do if they spent this long for the scene of no crime. At least they were decent cops which is good to see.
“Any breach of the peace, and we will come back”. But who for? You’re doing what you’re legally entitled to do, so it must be for them. Yeah sure.
Don't video the 18-19 year olds?!? From 200ft up?! Does he think young adults are afraid of a camera when they're on social media recording themselves all the time. Ridiculous.
Sarcastic cow, and literally the size of one!
Sickeningly Patronising tone she uses and says. ''I thin k you've been asked a few times not to though''. Horrible.. Not Fit for the Job.
2 sows thats been covered multiple times by multiple boars at the same time
Was that a 999 call - get a copy of the report made P.A. Did those Police record you? 🤔
She is not a fan of being recorded but is recording herself. Tyrants, both of them.
Doesnt like being recorded yet records you ffs.
The police are not entitled to the operators ID on your drone if you haven't broken the law
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits you should know the law.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Oh honey, never show them your ID.. unless they suspect you of committing a crime.. they now have all your personal details and they WILL circulate to every station 😢..
Operator ID is the registered drone owner not your ID. There is a difference. BTW unless you are suspected of committing a crime, you do not need to supply the OP ID especially when you have not even taken the thing out of the bag.
Blimey how much do thay eat must like Thier pies
Plod cant demand to see an operator id unless they have reasonable suspicion you have commited an offense. Tell them to jog on
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
Agree with other’s stop giving your drone ID . Straight away they have your details. Remember they are not your friends.
Thanks for your advice. This was the first time I had encountered Police asking for Op ID. Thanks for your support. PA
Can the person registering the drone be different from the drone operator?
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
What's the point of showing your id number which they get your name in seconds and then refusing to give your name which you basically just handed them ??????????
i really dont get this auditor or channel it just seems pointless , i get the point of dj , pj ,the great ab and the rest and the point they are proving ,but i just don't get or understand what the point is here , maybe im missing something ?
He's a beginner.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits fair play to you for getting out and giving it a go and good luck mate , I just thought I was missing something but now realise you’re new and just dropped a bollock oh well shit happens 👍 I’ll subscribe 👍👍👍👍 good luck with it pal
The point you’re missing is he’s not perfect like you. Give him time he’s just learning.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Don't forget the other member of staff who recorded you from within the grounds. Ask for a copy of that. Unless the security guard deleted the image from his deleted folder it will still be on his phone.
Hilarious
The cop that is all artificial smiles and friendliness, is a sick individual, and a danger to law-abiding citizens.