I remember years ago some kind of Joy in people walking around in that places. You can now here the silence apart from the inductive music to manipulate your current feelings.
People are doing more shopping on line like myself, as it,s faster,more convenient and no ignorant, arrogant, deluded, threatening security guards to have the misfortune of dealing with. Deano should have replied to the joker of a s g when he said go and get some education, ' YOU SHOULD TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE THEN YOU WILL MOST PROBABLY FIND YOURSELF DOING A FINANCIALLY, MORE REWARDING CAREER'. 🙄🤯🤡🤪
All shopping centres and shops big or small and restaurants cafes are privately owned private property. They are publicly accessible but on these private property premises there are rules for shoppers to follow. And if not followed you will be asked to leave. If not than you can be removed off the premises with reasonable force.
@@happyguy201 True but the security guard didn’t even ask him to leave, which is the first step. Instead he immediately started talking about forcibly removing him.
What a CLOWN of a so called security guard brain dead NOT A CLUE on the law just saying anything that comes into its head should be brushing up in there I'm afraid to say bad attitude! Stay Safe ------ PINAC!
6:45 The shopping centre better have a policy under GDPR to take pictures of people who haven't caused any problem to others. If not, then that's a serious breach. And the guard just put the company into serious trouble because of the crap training he was given.
He cannot forcefully remove you from the premises unless you refuse to leave when asked. If you leave when asked he cannot touch you. He needs to have the authority to ask you to leave, as well. He cannot demand you stop filming.
If it is rule of shopping centre not to film than he can enforce it as that is there rules. If he doesn't leave after being asked to leave they can pysically with reasonable force remove you from premises.
@@happyguy201 If it's a 'rule of the shopping centre not to film' it needs to be clearly sign posted at all entries as a condition of entry. It also has to be a lawful condition, you can't, for example, have a rule that says 'No Scottish people allowed'. And I did say 'He cannot forcefully remove you from the premises unless you refuse to leave when asked' - which is true. In order to use reasonable force, you should - Persuade the individual to leave, Ask the individual to leave and then Warn the individual you will use reasonable force to escort them from site if they do not leave. If they still refuse to leave THEN you can use reasonable force to escort them from the property. And it's 'their rules', sorry for my pedantry.
The owner or his rep( the staff) verbally telling some one the rule should be enough just like how at my house I can verbally tell guests the rules of my house however to display the rules is more better and easier.
He ONLY has the authority to remove you under common law IF he FIRST asks you to leave and you refuse. If he uses physical force to remove you before you are asked to leave then he would be committing assault and battery.
I see the reality that it’s not really a problem I’m a security guard at a shopping centre but our code of conduct is visible that you have to seek permission to film Within the centre I would of just had a chat and give you direction to where our code of conduct is and the details of the people you need to speak to and let you get on with your day because I’d be far to busy to argue with customers
5:30 He thinks he can stop you filming. If you hopped on one leg would he think that he can stop you hopping. He has no authority to do either. Policies are just something to ensure that everyone can enjoy the place. Not for the company to trample on people's personal hobbies based on a whim or false ideas that cameras are a tool for terrorists.
It's that companies property no one else's they can have whatever rule they want and enforce it. Don't like it and don't want to follow it don't enter the premises simple as that.
@@happyguy201 They can do that on land that is not accessible to the public. If the public can access then the only thing protecting the company is social conventions. It is social conventions, not rules or laws, that stop people wandering over any land. They see stuff like fences and gates (even open ones) and don't cross. But have stuff like pavements on private roads and the public will use it. And when enforcing their petty rules (and they are petty) then the public need to be informed and told before they enter the land what the rules are. To tell them afterward, and then to suddenly announce from some random person that such and such is banned on the land makes them liable for anything that happens as not all people will just fold and leave. Owners of land that could be used by the public need to make sure that the stupid public are aware and can't depend on thinking that the public will just know. That's why signs are put up to say "fragile roof" or "razor wire" - to warn even criminals, not just kids exploring and to remove any liability. It's also worth bearing in mind that not all land is the same legally. Pavements are privately owned, but you can't be charged with aggravated trespass on them. Publicly accessible land designed to allow the public to gain access to other places, such as shopping malls & pedestrian areas have very limited rules that can be enforced. Private land used by the public such as shops and businesses and theme parks can have a few rules limited to the use of the land; so stuff like not annoying others (a more restrictive form of what can public order offences) can be imposed, but not stuff that people would do normally anywhere else. Private land not designed for the public such as business offices generally don't have any restrictions since the restrictions in place are more about behaviour of employees or members. This last kind of land could include carparks for the employees but if there are no barriers then the only thing stopping people wandering on them is social convention. Social convention is the only thing that stops people entering the final type of private land, that of residential homes. But that is the land that no restrictions (which home owner is going to put up signs saying what is allowed or not) but is also the one where if someone says leave you leave immediately. Finally, in the UK, trespass is about depriving the owner the ability to "enjoy" their land. Case law has defined that you can't be charged with aggravated trespass if no else is on the land and you're aren't staying/camping on the land. If the owner or their tenants are there, and the trespass interferes with their ability to continue to do what they're doing, then that's aggravated trespass. But to step one foot one foot over a line does not give the owner carte blanche to physically push the person away. There is no way that act can deprive the owner from using their land. Step further and they start being able to ask you to remove yourself. Context is key. But the moment they give a reason other than "you're not allowed here" such as saying you can't film or you bird watch or paint a picture then they open themselves up to a potential civil suit. Property owners have very limited ability to ask people to leave if loads of other people are on the land, and are basically limited to common law reasons.
I don’t like the idea that these control zones want to deny we the public our rights and so I avoid going in to these mall sites. Close them all down for me.
I may well be wrong but I thought, even though it is publicly accessible, ot is private property and you commit the civil contravention of trespass if you are asked to leave and refuse. I believe that, at this point, the owner, or one of his/her representatives working on their behalf, can use reasonable force to remove you. Can anyone confirm or set me straight? I'm learning all the time.
5:40 He also thinks he has the authority to eject you based on his personal wishes. He only has the authority to eject you which means using reasonable force if and only if you are showing signs of hurting someone or damaging property. Until then under common law he has no authority to use any force. He is liable to get sued, along with his employer, for trespass against the person and assault and battery. So he better be careful before he goes down that route and be really really sure he can use common law.
10:45 And proof at how petty the policies are is him stating that you can take pictures once over some imaginary line. Stand one side of it and you can do what you like. Stand the other side and suddenly you are under the control of a guard who makes up policies and rules on a whim. And it is a whim since he has no proof that the policy actually exists. This also shows the stupidity of people enforcing trespass in the UK. They think it's like the US where you can be arrested for putting a foot over the line. In the UK, the owner has to be suffering a loss if you put a foot over the line for them to be able to do something about it.
9:30 And if anyone says that auditors and photographers shouldn't pick on poorly paid security guards, then tell the security guard to stay out of the way and not prove to the world that they have no knowledge about their job. They are there to ensure that everyone in the building can enjoy it, including photographer. They are not there to enforce petty policies and misinterpret and abuse them for their own desires to boost their ego and feel important - they should realise that they are the equivalent of a school crossing operative.
Another one straight off the dingy.
He can just about talk English and think he A lawyer he’s only on 3 pound a hour the mug
THE SECURITY IS A DRONGO
Another fist class performance from one of the many Lagos lads.
Dean just walk into a shop the box ticker cannot follow.
I remember years ago some kind of Joy in people walking around in that places.
You can now here the silence apart from the inductive music to manipulate your current feelings.
People are doing more shopping on line like myself, as it,s faster,more convenient and no ignorant, arrogant, deluded, threatening security guards to have the misfortune of dealing with. Deano should have replied to the joker of a s g when he said go and get some education, ' YOU SHOULD TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE THEN YOU WILL MOST PROBABLY FIND YOURSELF DOING A FINANCIALLY, MORE REWARDING CAREER'. 🙄🤯🤡🤪
He has got the Authority,,and a uniform,,,so that's all right then,,,yep,, welcome to the UK,,Dingy Dross Everywhere,,
I’ll never understand the obsession with security guards trying to stop people taking photos or videos in public places.
All shopping centres and shops big or small and restaurants cafes are privately owned private property. They are publicly accessible but on these private property premises there are rules for shoppers to follow. And if not followed you will be asked to leave. If not than you can be removed off the premises with reasonable force.
@@happyguy201 True but the security guard didn’t even ask him to leave, which is the first step. Instead he immediately started talking about forcibly removing him.
@@nocommentuk yeah you right he should ask him to leave first
What a CLOWN of a so called security guard brain dead NOT A CLUE on the law just saying anything that comes into its head should be brushing up in there I'm afraid to say bad attitude! Stay Safe ------ PINAC!
Most company don’t want people to film inside the malls unless you got a contract to film for publicity the security is in the right
Nice one Deano ❤️ keep on keeping on 🇬🇧
6:45 The shopping centre better have a policy under GDPR to take pictures of people who haven't caused any problem to others. If not, then that's a serious breach. And the guard just put the company into serious trouble because of the crap training he was given.
Security was very firm and professional stand his ground well
Keep up the good work
There's always one !
He cannot forcefully remove you from the premises unless you refuse to leave when asked.
If you leave when asked he cannot touch you.
He needs to have the authority to ask you to leave, as well.
He cannot demand you stop filming.
If it is rule of shopping centre not to film than he can enforce it as that is there rules. If he doesn't leave after being asked to leave they can pysically with reasonable force remove you from premises.
@@happyguy201 If it's a 'rule of the shopping centre not to film' it needs to be clearly sign posted at all entries as a condition of entry. It also has to be a lawful condition, you can't, for example, have a rule that says 'No Scottish people allowed'.
And I did say 'He cannot forcefully remove you from the premises unless you refuse to leave when asked' - which is true.
In order to use reasonable force, you should - Persuade the individual to leave, Ask the individual to leave and then Warn the individual you will use reasonable force to escort them from site if they do not leave. If they still refuse to leave THEN you can use reasonable force to escort them from the property.
And it's 'their rules', sorry for my pedantry.
The owner or his rep( the staff) verbally telling some one the rule should be enough just like how at my house I can verbally tell guests the rules of my house however to display the rules is more better and easier.
@@marksinclair946 you truly have no idea matey!
He can, he did, then if the person won't leave immediately he can use reasonable force to eject him.
He was a total bellend!
1:28 It's a sad state of affairs that you have to check signs to see if you are allowed to do something that you can do just about everywhere else.
The guy wouldn't have the balls to physically remove you!
And to think he’s only just stepped out of the dinghy and he’s working already.
'this is privates '? UK today
Just completely ignore him. If he lays hands on you then thump him to defend yourself.
The security guard needs some training on dealing with the public
The statues are called the two fat ladies. I always used it as a meeting point.
Guarantee you’re single. 😂🤣😂
There’s nothing wrong with that it’s overrated
He ONLY has the authority to remove you under common law IF he FIRST asks you to leave and you refuse. If he uses physical force to remove you before you are asked to leave then he would be committing assault and battery.
I think that statue represents virtue signalling or some other nonsense .
The statue is called the two fat ladies and I don’t think it has any real meaning, just art.
This Secruity guard could not put the cat out what a disgrace to the security firm or the shopping centre
Dingy diver's everywhere 😂
I see the reality that it’s not really a problem I’m a security guard at a shopping centre but our code of conduct is visible that you have to seek permission to film Within the centre I would of just had a chat and give you direction to where our code of conduct is and the details of the people you need to speak to and let you get on with your day because I’d be far to busy to argue with customers
New Sub Here From The Jimmy O Show 👍
5:30 He thinks he can stop you filming. If you hopped on one leg would he think that he can stop you hopping. He has no authority to do either. Policies are just something to ensure that everyone can enjoy the place. Not for the company to trample on people's personal hobbies based on a whim or false ideas that cameras are a tool for terrorists.
It's that companies property no one else's they can have whatever rule they want and enforce it. Don't like it and don't want to follow it don't enter the premises simple as that.
@@happyguy201 They can do that on land that is not accessible to the public. If the public can access then the only thing protecting the company is social conventions. It is social conventions, not rules or laws, that stop people wandering over any land. They see stuff like fences and gates (even open ones) and don't cross. But have stuff like pavements on private roads and the public will use it.
And when enforcing their petty rules (and they are petty) then the public need to be informed and told before they enter the land what the rules are. To tell them afterward, and then to suddenly announce from some random person that such and such is banned on the land makes them liable for anything that happens as not all people will just fold and leave. Owners of land that could be used by the public need to make sure that the stupid public are aware and can't depend on thinking that the public will just know. That's why signs are put up to say "fragile roof" or "razor wire" - to warn even criminals, not just kids exploring and to remove any liability.
It's also worth bearing in mind that not all land is the same legally. Pavements are privately owned, but you can't be charged with aggravated trespass on them. Publicly accessible land designed to allow the public to gain access to other places, such as shopping malls & pedestrian areas have very limited rules that can be enforced. Private land used by the public such as shops and businesses and theme parks can have a few rules limited to the use of the land; so stuff like not annoying others (a more restrictive form of what can public order offences) can be imposed, but not stuff that people would do normally anywhere else. Private land not designed for the public such as business offices generally don't have any restrictions since the restrictions in place are more about behaviour of employees or members. This last kind of land could include carparks for the employees but if there are no barriers then the only thing stopping people wandering on them is social convention. Social convention is the only thing that stops people entering the final type of private land, that of residential homes. But that is the land that no restrictions (which home owner is going to put up signs saying what is allowed or not) but is also the one where if someone says leave you leave immediately.
Finally, in the UK, trespass is about depriving the owner the ability to "enjoy" their land. Case law has defined that you can't be charged with aggravated trespass if no else is on the land and you're aren't staying/camping on the land. If the owner or their tenants are there, and the trespass interferes with their ability to continue to do what they're doing, then that's aggravated trespass. But to step one foot one foot over a line does not give the owner carte blanche to physically push the person away. There is no way that act can deprive the owner from using their land. Step further and they start being able to ask you to remove yourself. Context is key. But the moment they give a reason other than "you're not allowed here" such as saying you can't film or you bird watch or paint a picture then they open themselves up to a potential civil suit. Property owners have very limited ability to ask people to leave if loads of other people are on the land, and are basically limited to common law reasons.
Gud vid Deano dude ;-)
I don’t like the idea that these control zones want to deny we the public our rights and so I avoid going in to these mall sites. Close them all down for me.
I may well be wrong but I thought, even though it is publicly accessible, ot is private property and you commit the civil contravention of trespass if you are asked to leave and refuse. I believe that, at this point, the owner, or one of his/her representatives working on their behalf, can use reasonable force to remove you. Can anyone confirm or set me straight? I'm learning all the time.
Another recruit for a West African MENSA group?
5:40 He also thinks he has the authority to eject you based on his personal wishes. He only has the authority to eject you which means using reasonable force if and only if you are showing signs of hurting someone or damaging property. Until then under common law he has no authority to use any force. He is liable to get sued, along with his employer, for trespass against the person and assault and battery. So he better be careful before he goes down that route and be really really sure he can use common law.
10:45 And proof at how petty the policies are is him stating that you can take pictures once over some imaginary line. Stand one side of it and you can do what you like. Stand the other side and suddenly you are under the control of a guard who makes up policies and rules on a whim. And it is a whim since he has no proof that the policy actually exists. This also shows the stupidity of people enforcing trespass in the UK. They think it's like the US where you can be arrested for putting a foot over the line. In the UK, the owner has to be suffering a loss if you put a foot over the line for them to be able to do something about it.
This is how Ken Livingstone ( ex London Mayor ) dealt with a shopping centre " no filming " allowed.
ua-cam.com/video/9TuxOUGV6hE/v-deo.html
9:30 And if anyone says that auditors and photographers shouldn't pick on poorly paid security guards, then tell the security guard to stay out of the way and not prove to the world that they have no knowledge about their job. They are there to ensure that everyone in the building can enjoy it, including photographer. They are not there to enforce petty policies and misinterpret and abuse them for their own desires to boost their ego and feel important - they should realise that they are the equivalent of a school crossing operative.
??????? ?