"As I said I'll do it under the terrorism act if I have to" So basicly a threat, if you don't comply I will abuse my powers to get my way. And they wonder why people don't like them.
Absolutely no requirement to provide details when searched under section 43 of the terrorism act.. He'll eventually figure out his own job I suspect... Pity that us UA-cam trolls appear to know more than our highly trained monkeys in uniform....
The only law being broken, upto the corrupt moronic police buffoons acted as they did, was the security guard not displaying his SIA badge, which is a criminal offence, with up to six months imprisonment and a fine when prosecuted. Officers Keystone Kops are complete idiots and an utter embarrassment to themselves and taxpayers, who funded their fiasco fest. They are glorified thugs, abusing police powers with ignorance and loathsome intent. A lawsuit must be compelling, a deserving outcome to the corrupt cops deplorable antics in abusing our civil rights. They need to be educated.
" I'll arrest you if you try to leave" *10 seconds later* "Nobody is stopping you from leaving" these fuckers can't even decidewhat laws the want to make up
They failed to detect a murderer and a rapist within their ranks but they caught someone who they suspected of filming into a canteen & were ready to charge him (under the wrong section) with being a terrorist. Excellent policing!
Just how many u-turns can they do on one encounter?!! The woman with a loaf on her head was a great find, and the section 60 from Mr Magoo....haharrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
That female pitch cop was a real “piece of work”. She really thought she knew it all but ended up KNOWING NOTHING. She’s a complete embarrassment to the police force and NEEDS TO BE FIRED 👿👿👿👿
I liked it when he asked her to say yes or no to whether or not he was being detained and she replied with 'are you going to let me finish?' They always say that when they're beaten.
@M3sterX very embarrassing many will have the brains for the poilce none will have the strength how on earth can a small women restrain a grown man it’s not going to happen there just get hurt
There's so many criminal and corrupt officers. They can't be bothered to respond to muggings, burglaries or assaults Perhaps if someone who was burgled flew their drone in a "threatening" manner, they'd be out like a shot in large numbers
Technically, no it isn't. But if it is could you link a statistic? I'm all for being FAIR so if it's not true, then we shouldn't lie to get our way with the interpretation of the cops. Cheers
@@Nellyontheland , based on the number of Police as opposed to those who are not Police that claim may have merit. It is a bit of a tricky area as many Police are never convicted of crimes as the matter is either covered up, they are charged under Police disciplinary measures, or they are allowed to resign and matter is withdrawn.
Once again the police made themselves look like complete morons. It would be interesting to find out how many genuine calls for help and assistance happened in the time they wasted harassing members of public. The two strangers knew more about the law than the police. Shame on them.
@@northernaudits they are the terrorists when u think about it, anyone that doesn't know their rights could be 'terrified' into having to give their details
Recording a police station is reason to 'do' someone under the terrorism act. THey have no way of knowing what the footage is for, or even what the drone can do. Its perfectally reasonable to ask why someone is recording a building that people are infact not allowed into, in a way that people are not normally allowed to do.
@@cheriegoodwin6819 Yes, a person becomes a serving officer after just 18 weeks training. In terms of hairdressing, that's why I used the phrase "at least".
Section 1 of PACE is absolutely not related to what they wanted to use it for. Ask them what prohibited items they reasonably suspect are in your possession.
@@arthour051 anything that you can see from public or from the air can be photographed or filmed unless specifically forbidden by law. Police stations are fine to photograph and film. It's up to the police to make sure they hide anything they don't want people to see. Thanks 🙏 for watching 🙂
@@northernaudits Mm, except if you use a drone to get in somewhere you're not allowed to take pictures of it. Overflying the building is one thing, flying about the buildings to get pictures from multiple angles is another, and your comment asking if one of the buildings is a canteen, gives pretty reasonable suspicion that you might have flown about to look in through the windows. And I'm pretty sure the law prohibits taking pictures of restricted areas. Which would apply to taking them from the air. That's why sat images get blurred out in certain areas
The threat of an unlawful arrest or unlawful detention is considered an Assault without Battery or Trespass of the Person under English law but only on the basis the threats causes alarm, harassment or distress
This is a perfect example of why it's stupid to talk to the police. She thought she could grasp on to the "zoomed in" part that he uttered. If he hadn't uttered anything, then she wouldn't have had that.
Absolute arseholes 😂 Section 60 of the terrorism act, what a numpty. Well done NA for standing your ground with the rozzers and demanding a Yes or No answer to the detainment. When she replied with, “I’m just waiting to hear” I screamed at the screen, “It doesn’t work like that”! then you said it 🤣 My response, “Good lad”. Great aerial footage as per usual.👍
If they knew the law and they knew their job then they wouldn't have to radio someone else to find out what to do! Neither would they have to radio for assistance for nothing! They are power tripping on their inflated ego's.
Northern Audits... simply brilliant!! Shame about our embarrassing failing police force. I've just binged watched all your videos, looking forward to the next one😉
Love your style, mate. Always dignified and classy with no ugly gloating or whining or provoking people who don't deserve it. Properly rude of them not to give an explanation before slinking off. The casual way he threatened to abuse those vital terrorism powers is one of the most disturbing things I've seen in these vids.
@Memphis Daniels cheers mate, I do but not these type. I'm not a UA-camr as such I justvlike to record and edit our motorbike trips and post them for the lads to watch.
And once they had to slink off with their tails between their legs, and their egos rushed, she then had the nerve to REVERSE on to a busy road. If we did it I bet they would have been straight on us with more BS. Love your videos mate - keep 'em coming. 👍
@@arthour051 you do realise that an inspector isn't going to authorise a section 60 based solely on the grounds that someone is doing public photography?
@@jamesclough7656 Of a restricted area that they have no public right to access, and are being extremely evasive about the purpose of said photography. Like let's make this point clear, flying a drone for ver a restricted area you aren't allowed into on foot, to take photos without permission to take photos of an area you wouldn't be allowed to take photos of on foot is not public photography. Common sense dictates if you can't do it on foot, you can't do it in the air either
That was embarrassing, prime examples of two human beings that are given powers and think they can abuse them. They also proven the saying "Never talk to the Police" you said zoomed in, and they escalated that into something it was not. They were threatening and intimidating, and tried to frighten you. Both need retraining, but probably so do the training school also.
thugs training more thugs and this is what you get. They don't give a toss about the law all they want to do is intimidate and threaten innocent people. When was the last time they caught and prosecuted a REAL criminal? Probably never
The guys working there had more common sense then the old bill, embarrassing to be honestly. thumbs up to the security guard at the beginning👍. Didn't come out barking orders.
We are forced to pay for these clowns yet they tell us we are not 'allowed' to know what they are doing, it's none of our business! Time we stopped funding them they clearly are not working to provide a service for the taxpayer.
If they really thought you had, or were, committing an illegal act, they would not have given you the opportunity to leave. It was pure face-saving and ego driven. This is clearly a matter of complaint to the IOPC.
I think your Auditing style is perfect, not cocky but standing your ground at the same time not giving away your knowledge until they put their foot in it.
There has got to be formal complaints on these two wombles.. 1. Inappropriate use of Terrorism Legislation. 2. Inappropriate threat of Section 1. 3. Failure to inform you they were recording. 4. Unprofessional approach to the Public. 5. Lack of knowledge of appropriate laws.
if they had to payout of own personal pocket for any compo they woukd all be better cops over night. at the moment snything claimed and won comes from the tax payers pocket. serves no purpose to detere behavioure like this.
Section 60 powers have to be authorised by a Senior Police Officer and are for specific designated locations and durations as is necessary to prevent serious violence. They can't just randomly put one in place and there needs to justification that is defensible in order to evidence that the need to prevent violence trumps people's rights not to be stop and searched unless you are suspected of having committed a crime, suspected of possessing a weapon, suspected to be a danger to yourself or others, suspected of terrorist activity or they have a search warrant........they also require reasonable grounds for those suspicions. The officers here were a pair of idiots without a clue.
@@arthour051 they require reasonable suspicion that you are going to do so to search you.........just simply taking the footage isn't reasonable grounds to leap to the assumption that will be the end use for it. They need to couple the taking of the footage with some other objective evidence to pair the two to reach such a conclusion. Section 60 also isn't the power they would be entitled to use.......that would be Section 43.......and Section 43 does not compel the person being searched to identify themselves. Suspicion isn't a crime nor is it objective......it is subjective as different people will find different things suspicious........despite them not being unlawful.
@@DBiggaFigga666 Its not just the taking of footage, but *where* the footage is of, that gives reasonable justification. You have no reason to fly a drone over a police station to take pictures of their canteen. Also, Section 60 is solicitation to commit terrorism, solicitation includes providing materials that can be used to commit a terrorist act, ie; advice on where or what to target. To your last point, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how that works. Suspicion *of a crime* is sufficient reason to stop someone. If the police have reasonable suspicion a crime has, is being, or will soon be commited, they can detain you until they assertain whats going on. And being detained, gives them the right to ID you, for the purposes of their investigation.
Not even a third of the way through the video yet, but from the start female tyrant has had a worried and scared look on her face, whereas male tyrant has had an angry look on his face, plus neither of them know what the law is.
i am losing my job soon being made redundant :( but after watching these two officers it looks like they employ anyone these days i will try to join the police force and praise every auditor that arrives
The police in this country do not know the law everybody should get together and protest. These guys be held accountable for their own actions instead of just getting paid out by our public money. Make these guys pay the price. The corrupt police force but not all of them are the same, we hate the bad ones and the tyrants great video mate, well done💯
I love the policewoman’s interpretation, technically you are going inside as you are looking through a window. I guess if you had a curfew tag, technically you are going outside if you look out of a window.
@Don't Shoot Nope. The first thing you are told when arrested is ~ you don't have to say anything ~ That includes when being 'booked in'. That's why cops cannot LAWFULLY arrest you to obtain details.
@Don't Shoot acts and statutes are not law, they are only given the power of law by consent or contract, they require a contract that is why they wanted his name to create joinder, the government *does not and cannot* create any laws. [cruden v neale 1796] "...every MAN is independent of all laws, EXCEPT those prescribed in nature, he is not bound by ANY INSTITUTIONS formed by his fellowman WITHOUT his CONSENT."
exactly what i said with the added never id until at the custody desk and then only say two things after, request phhone call and repeat i want a duty solicitor and only that
That was so painful on both sides of that fence. You MUST know ALL relevant police powers and legislation, inside and out, off by heart even. If not they will walk all over you.
Let's face it people, POLICE are GANG'S of unethical criminally minded ego driven thugs, bullies, child abusers, woman bashers, disabled persons abusers, elder abusers, Molesters, liers, thieves and cowardly tyrants, they blatantly violate there own policies and procedures and they flagrantly break the law, the vast majority are pathetic individuals totally lacking common decency, integrity and honour. Always Always Film The POLICE!!!👍✌️
They should search themselves under the Terrorism Act, for the terror they try to instil on the law abiding public. Imagine threatening it then driving off without even a courtesy to say anything. Both of them are a disgrace. Edit: I meant to add, there isn’t a thought about what their words could do to a person. If I was going about my legal business and all of a sudden my rights and privacy (name etc) were at risk, and I was thought of as a terrorist that’d really stick with me. It’s a serious allegation but they throw it out as a threat in order to get your details. It’s a complete abuse of position.
An audit done in a calm and collective way with no name calling or unnecessary arguments. The security guard was a well presented guy with an excellent command of the English language.
Thanks 🙏 all my videos are done to try and avoid confrontation, and if you watch them you might notice I do things slightly different in that I never approach people. People only ever approach me knowing I'm filming and they set the tone for the interaction. We can have a friendly chat but if they try and boss me about or get angry then they lead the conversation in that direction. Thanks 🙏 for watching
I really liked that security guard. Balanced, calm and rational. I think he also appreciated the compliment when he was compared to the police officers. SIA badge was an issue but I can forgive that for his approach.
Under section 1 of PACE, a police constable may stop, detain, and search any person or vehicle in a public place, as long as the officer has 'reasonable grounds' for suspecting that they will find stolen or prohibited articles - such as drugs, a weapon, stolen property, prohibited fireworks
Section 60 of the Terrorism act pertains to a person who encourages another person to commit violence. I think it is something that has been used in Northern Ireland. He may be referring to Section 60 of the Public Order Act, which does allow an officer to stop and search without reasonable grounds, but only if it has been authorised by an inspector for a 24 hour period in a particular area. It is used to counter knife crime in London. It does not require ID. I think the male officer just plucked a number out of the air. Section 1 of pace gives power to an officer to stop and search but only with reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed. Those grounds must be based on objective fact, not just on some kind of hunch. Flying a drone in unrestricted air space is not a crime.
60Northern Ireland. (1)A person commits an offence if- (a)he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and (b)the act would, if committed in Northern Ireland, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2). (2)Those offences are- (a)murder, (b)an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent), (c)an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison), (d)an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and (e)an offence under Article 3(2) of the M2Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (endangering life by damaging property). (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites. (4)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement. (5)Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
if you are a person that would make you a corpse, PERSON is legalese so you need to look at blacks law dictionary for the correct definition, a "person" is always an artificial legal person of one kind or another legally generated. artificial person: "A NONHUMAN ENTITY that is created by law and is legally different owning its own rights and duties." [Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd ed.] as opposed to... Natural Person: " *A HUMAN BEING* naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person." [Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd ed.]
They specifically say it's not the flying of the drone that's the issue, it's the taking of pictures of a restricted area that's an issue. So there's your reasonable grounds, he took pictures potentially of the inside of a police station, using a drone to access areas he would not otherwise be able to acces as they are closed to the general public.
Unbelievable! First grandad cop tries to look up some law on his mobile phone and just comes up with a totally irrelevant section of the Terrorism Act, then they both collude to contact someone who might know 'something' about the law for them to use to fit someone up due to their crass ignorance. Even Section 1 of 'PACE', is completely wrong because they have no suspicion of N.A. having anything he shouldn't have on him.
Police couldn't lower themselves enough to say goodbye after not being able to get you for anything lol 😂😂😂 Shame that they aren't so enthusiastic when there's a gang of youths. Your drone footage is no.1 dude. We get a good audit and a great edit with the build up of the music and drone footage in sync. Awesome 🙂
Omg the male and female cops were such an absolute embarrassment, and it’s no wonder that the police are under such close scrutiny. Even though just a grade C GCSE is sufficient to join the police, I’m amazed these two could have even achieved a grade E in a GCSE😀.
It never fails to amaze me,The police ask you why you are filming You tell them the reason why you are filming (which you did not have to)and because your honest answer was not the answer they wanted to hear they continue to ask you the same question
It's fascinating and hilarious the way people get their knickers in a twist over someone with a camera especially in a country where CCTV camera's are watching us everywhere.
It's as if senior police are instructing their officers to deliberately ignore the law and their own policies and to misuse anti-terror law to discourage auditors from exercising their right to film in public.
I just don't know why but the Knight Drone wobble shot always brings a smile to my face. Wonder what the constables have to hide in the cop shop. More auditors need to visit.😎
"As I said I'll do it under the terrorism act if I have to" So basicly a threat, if you don't comply I will abuse my powers to get my way. And they wonder why people don't like them.
I'll get you for something 😉
Absolutely no requirement to provide details when searched under section 43 of the terrorism act.. He'll eventually figure out his own job I suspect... Pity that us UA-cam trolls appear to know more than our highly trained monkeys in uniform....
The "If I have too." Statement stops him from being able to use any part of the terrorism act.
The only law being broken, upto the corrupt moronic police buffoons acted as they did, was the security guard not displaying his SIA badge, which is a criminal offence, with up to six months imprisonment and a fine when prosecuted.
Officers Keystone Kops are complete idiots and an utter embarrassment to themselves and taxpayers, who funded their fiasco fest.
They are glorified thugs, abusing police powers with ignorance and loathsome intent.
A lawsuit must be compelling, a deserving outcome to the corrupt cops deplorable antics in abusing our civil rights.
They need to be educated.
@FiendPhoto We know that, but they don't, or maybe they do and hope we don't 😐
" I'll arrest you if you try to leave"
*10 seconds later*
"Nobody is stopping you from leaving" these fuckers can't even decidewhat laws the want to make up
Yeah I couldn't believe it
Yeah but she was touching cloth by that point so changed her ickle story
They failed to detect a murderer and a rapist within their ranks but they caught someone who they suspected of filming into a canteen & were ready to charge him (under the wrong section) with being a terrorist. Excellent policing!
Well said 👍
yeh 73 offences too how come they missed that
Half of the police force want sacking they are useless
@@stgeorgescross They didn’t miss it , they ignored it .
Excellent as in par for the course....... Excellent tyranny and making mountains out of mole hills.
It should really be an offence for police officers to cite laws that don't exist.
Ha Ha, they basically arrest people and de-arrest with zero accountability,
There is, Section 26 but funnily enough it rarely gets used against their own
Just how many u-turns can they do on one encounter?!! The woman with a loaf on her head was a great find, and the section 60 from Mr Magoo....haharrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
😂 thanks for watching 🙏
Did you see redponte1 at the end mention you 🙂
Why on earth would she wear her hair like that?? It looks incredibly unprofessional.
@@northernaudits I did mate, I'll have to get off my backside soon and do some more. C ya layterrrrrrrrrr. Keep up the good work.
@@interestedparty00 One of a certain kind.
That female pitch cop was a real “piece of work”. She really thought she knew it all but ended up KNOWING NOTHING. She’s a complete embarrassment to the police force and NEEDS TO BE FIRED 👿👿👿👿
It's always the, "butch" ones which embarass themselves. It's like they've got something to prove....... But fail miserably...
It's always the female cops that embarris them selves they talk complete crap they just don't know the law.
I liked it when he asked her to say yes or no to whether or not he was being detained and she replied with 'are you going to let me finish?' They always say that when they're beaten.
Both of them.
@M3sterX very embarrassing many will have the brains for the poilce none will have the strength how on earth can a small women restrain a grown man it’s not going to happen there just get hurt
My God, those two officers were incompetent. So sad to see.
Statically there is a higher chance of a police officer committing a crime than someone that is not.
There's so many criminal and corrupt officers. They can't be bothered to respond to muggings, burglaries or assaults
Perhaps if someone who was burgled flew their drone in a "threatening" manner, they'd be out like a shot in large numbers
By a huge margin.
Technically, no it isn't. But if it is could you link a statistic?
I'm all for being FAIR so if it's not true, then we shouldn't lie to get our way with the interpretation of the cops.
Cheers
I read not long ago the good police have been asked to rat out the bad ones. Well shit we'll have no cops left. Ha
@@Nellyontheland , based on the number of Police as opposed to those who are not Police that claim may have merit. It is a bit of a tricky area as many Police are never convicted of crimes as the matter is either covered up, they are charged under Police disciplinary measures, or they are allowed to resign and matter is withdrawn.
Everyone of these audits should be sent to head of police and members of Parliament to get these people educated and jailed for breaking the law
The chap from the company needs a well done.
Well done mate, an absolutely outstanding interaction. You are a credit Sir.
Once again the police made themselves look like complete morons. It would be interesting to find out how many genuine calls for help and assistance happened in the time they wasted harassing members of public. The two strangers knew more about the law than the police. Shame on them.
Threatening to "do" someone under the terrorism act, without reason is clearly a criminal assault.
Make something fit if you don't do as they want.
@@northernaudits Trying to force someone to do something under threat is a criminal offence.
@@northernaudits they are the terrorists when u think about it, anyone that doesn't know their rights could be 'terrified' into having to give their details
Indeed, they usually require prior intelligence that the person in question is in some way tied to terry wrist orgs.
Recording a police station is reason to 'do' someone under the terrorism act. THey have no way of knowing what the footage is for, or even what the drone can do. Its perfectally reasonable to ask why someone is recording a building that people are infact not allowed into, in a way that people are not normally allowed to do.
It takes 18 weeks to be trained to become a Copper. It takes at least 2 years to be trained to become a hairdresser. And this is what we get.
Really....I thought it took 3 years training.... incidently I trained for 3 years at college to become a hair dresser...
@@cheriegoodwin6819 Yes, a person becomes a serving officer after just 18 weeks training. In terms of hairdressing, that's why I used the phrase "at least".
@@richardjones8699 Wow I'm so shocked no wonder they're crap at their jobs...just saying about hairdressers that's all...
Yes my 2 daughters are hairdressers
@@richardjones8699 the bad habits, wrongful arrest, bullying, intimidation, and corruption come later
Promote this security guard. What a professional, calm demeanour.
Thanks
Wow, many thanks for your kindness 🙏😌 I'm saving these superchats towards going further and travelling to places I haven't yet been
@northernaudits I wanted you to know that you're appreciated.
Its a shame they dont worry about the publics saftey as much as they do their own
Exactly 💯
Obviously they only care about officer safety, while abusing the people.
100%
Absolute bullshit, the police have saved my life TWICE in the last 6 months
How incompetent is a complete embarrassment, abusing their power.
Section 1 of PACE is absolutely not related to what they wanted to use it for. Ask them what prohibited items they reasonably suspect are in your possession.
Looking for a dangerous zooming drone 😂
Exactly....ask them for the list of items...then when they find a pencil sharpener they can't use that for arrest.
Photography of a restricted area
@@arthour051 anything that you can see from public or from the air can be photographed or filmed unless specifically forbidden by law. Police stations are fine to photograph and film. It's up to the police to make sure they hide anything they don't want people to see. Thanks 🙏 for watching 🙂
@@northernaudits Mm, except if you use a drone to get in somewhere you're not allowed to take pictures of it. Overflying the building is one thing, flying about the buildings to get pictures from multiple angles is another, and your comment asking if one of the buildings is a canteen, gives pretty reasonable suspicion that you might have flown about to look in through the windows. And I'm pretty sure the law prohibits taking pictures of restricted areas. Which would apply to taking them from the air. That's why sat images get blurred out in certain areas
I love the way she talks about you zooming in on a building as if you've just admitted to a bank robbery
The terrorism act needs to be removed from the police like stop and search as it is constantly being abused by these tyrants
I bet it's more misused than used
That's why they scraped sec44
The cops really have no idea, do they.
If there was a single senior officer with any intelligence, they would instruct these idiots to ignore auditors. Problem solved.
Nope😂😂👍thick as shite
The threat of an unlawful arrest or unlawful detention is considered an Assault without Battery or Trespass of the Person under English law but only on the basis the threats causes alarm, harassment or distress
The female cop with a birds nest on her head hasn't got a clue 🤣🤣🇬🇧🇬🇧
I find it staggering that the public these days know more about law than the police themselves
Clearly misconduct in a public office. Speak to a lawyer and get this muppet sacked
This is a perfect example of why it's stupid to talk to the police. She thought she could grasp on to the "zoomed in" part that he uttered. If he hadn't uttered anything, then she wouldn't have had that.
@@interestedparty00 unfortunately we no longer have the right to silence
@@jesuschrist2284, actually, we do - other than providing identifying information under certain circumstances.
@@interestedparty00 no, your silence can be used against you in court. Tories changed law a few years ago.
They just love to rape our rights
Absolute arseholes 😂 Section 60 of the terrorism act, what a numpty.
Well done NA for standing your ground with the rozzers and demanding a Yes or No answer to the detainment. When she replied with, “I’m just waiting to hear” I screamed at the screen, “It doesn’t work like that”! then you said it 🤣 My response, “Good lad”.
Great aerial footage as per usual.👍
Yeah collared mid audit for a previous flight over their station and it just escalated from there. They left empty handed 😂Thanks 🙏 for watching
I too was shouting at the screen, this no good for my blood pressure.
If they knew the law and they knew their job then they wouldn't have to radio someone else to find out what to do! Neither would they have to radio for assistance for nothing! They are power tripping on their inflated ego's.
It’s utterly embarrassing when the employees of a company know way more about the drone laws than the police.
You handled that very well mate.
Thanks 🙏
Everyone knows more about the laws than the cops do, the amount of vids u see with cops trying to make up laws haha
Northern Audits... simply brilliant!!
Shame about our embarrassing failing police force.
I've just binged watched all your videos, looking forward to the next one😉
Thanks 🙏☺️ will try get one out asap
Love your style, mate. Always dignified and classy with no ugly gloating or whining or provoking people who don't deserve it. Properly rude of them not to give an explanation before slinking off. The casual way he threatened to abuse those vital terrorism powers is one of the most disturbing things I've seen in these vids.
Many thanks 🙏
Not a brain cell between them! 😂 The security guard was a gent though 👍
Haha thank you
Do they seriously have nothing better to do. This is why the public do not trust them anymore
The guy that came out in the final part knew more about the law than the police officers. Well done mate.
Thnx, I watch a lot of them. Only came out to ask about the drone as I also use one
@@redponte1 you are a breath of fresh air on these videos seriously.
@@redponte1 top marks fella 👌 get posting your own vids
@Memphis Daniels cheers mate, I do but not these type. I'm not a UA-camr as such I justvlike to record and edit our motorbike trips and post them for the lads to watch.
@@redponte1 as long as you enjoy what you're doing that's all that matters mate 👍
And once they had to slink off with their tails between their legs, and their egos rushed, she then had the nerve to REVERSE on to a busy road. If we did it I bet they would have been straight on us with more BS. Love your videos mate - keep 'em coming. 👍
* Crushed 😂
Section 60 is a search act only can be used if authorised by an inspector or above
Exactly ☺️💯
Different Section 60 to Section 60 Terrorism Act.
You do understand the inspector doesnt have to be there in person though, right?
@@arthour051 you do realise that an inspector isn't going to authorise a section 60 based solely on the grounds that someone is doing public photography?
@@jamesclough7656 Of a restricted area that they have no public right to access, and are being extremely evasive about the purpose of said photography. Like let's make this point clear, flying a drone for ver a restricted area you aren't allowed into on foot, to take photos without permission to take photos of an area you wouldn't be allowed to take photos of on foot is not public photography. Common sense dictates if you can't do it on foot, you can't do it in the air either
Detained until they can ascertain whether you've committed an offense???
What an absolute pair of clowns
That was embarrassing, prime examples of two human beings that are given powers and think they can abuse them. They also proven the saying "Never talk to the Police" you said zoomed in, and they escalated that into something it was not. They were threatening and intimidating, and tried to frighten you. Both need retraining, but probably so do the training school also.
Thats a loose term Human!
thugs training more thugs and this is what you get. They don't give a toss about the law all they want to do is intimidate and threaten innocent people. When was the last time they caught and prosecuted a REAL criminal? Probably never
@@margaretreid8692 How could they when there are too many in their own ranks?
Exercising your civil rights..well done.
Absolute disgrace. Watching from Austria, by the way. They need to know they're being watched from all over the place.
Wow Austria, I would love to go there one day. Do they audit there?
The guys working there had more common sense then the old bill, embarrassing to be honestly. thumbs up to the security guard at the beginning👍. Didn't come out barking orders.
Yeah the Forza guys were decent
This is why we don't talk to the police. Giving them too much ammo against you dude. Fair play, keep up the good work mate
I knew everything I said and did was not illegal 😂 thanks for watching 🙏😊
@@northernaudits A barrister would tell you never to talk to the police, see all hear all, say nowt.
WOW What an unprofessional coiuple of cops.
Well done sir. Very poor policing. Ged
The public has every right to know what goes on inside any police station.
Check out Yardley ski he went into Wimbledon and they told him asking where designated smoking areas were was none of his business.
bull shit.
We are forced to pay for these clowns yet they tell us we are not 'allowed' to know what they are doing, it's none of our business! Time we stopped funding them they clearly are not working to provide a service for the taxpayer.
It wont be long before they stop you on the way home from shopping and demand to see your till receipt and a form of I.D. 🔨👮...😡
Papers please...
If they really thought you had, or were, committing an illegal act, they would not have given you the opportunity to leave. It was pure face-saving and ego driven. This is clearly a matter of complaint to the IOPC.
These two police would make excellent Coronation Street actors.
It's the right area too
I think your Auditing style is perfect, not cocky but standing your ground at the same time not giving away your knowledge until they put their foot in it.
There has got to be formal complaints on these two wombles.. 1. Inappropriate use of Terrorism Legislation. 2. Inappropriate threat of Section 1. 3. Failure to inform you they were recording. 4. Unprofessional approach to the Public. 5. Lack of knowledge of appropriate laws.
6 - Stalking him in their vehicle
The female first words was that she was recording. That's the only thing she got right.
if they had to payout of own personal pocket for any compo they woukd all be better cops over night. at the moment snything claimed and won comes from the tax payers pocket. serves no purpose to detere behavioure like this.
Totally agree 👍
Section 60 is a stop & search for when plod suspects you are about to commit an extreme act of violence.
Like blowing up a police station, or using footage to plan to blow up a police station
Well you can make any think up in your mind but you have to be able to prove the suspicion
Section 60 powers have to be authorised by a Senior Police Officer and are for specific designated locations and durations as is necessary to prevent serious violence.
They can't just randomly put one in place and there needs to justification that is defensible in order to evidence that the need to prevent violence trumps people's rights not to be stop and searched unless you are suspected of having committed a crime, suspected of possessing a weapon, suspected to be a danger to yourself or others, suspected of terrorist activity or they have a search warrant........they also require reasonable grounds for those suspicions.
The officers here were a pair of idiots without a clue.
@@arthour051 they require reasonable suspicion that you are going to do so to search you.........just simply taking the footage isn't reasonable grounds to leap to the assumption that will be the end use for it. They need to couple the taking of the footage with some other objective evidence to pair the two to reach such a conclusion.
Section 60 also isn't the power they would be entitled to use.......that would be Section 43.......and Section 43 does not compel the person being searched to identify themselves.
Suspicion isn't a crime nor is it objective......it is subjective as different people will find different things suspicious........despite them not being unlawful.
@@DBiggaFigga666 Its not just the taking of footage, but *where* the footage is of, that gives reasonable justification. You have no reason to fly a drone over a police station to take pictures of their canteen. Also, Section 60 is solicitation to commit terrorism, solicitation includes providing materials that can be used to commit a terrorist act, ie; advice on where or what to target.
To your last point, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how that works. Suspicion *of a crime* is sufficient reason to stop someone. If the police have reasonable suspicion a crime has, is being, or will soon be commited, they can detain you until they assertain whats going on. And being detained, gives them the right to ID you, for the purposes of their investigation.
Not even a third of the way through the video yet, but from the start female tyrant has had a worried and scared look on her face, whereas male tyrant has had an angry look on his face, plus neither of them know what the law is.
They wanted to take some action so badly😂
🎯💯💯👏🙋♀️🇬🇧🤯🤡🐷🥓😡
i am losing my job soon being made redundant :( but after watching these two officers it looks like they employ anyone these days i will try to join the police force and praise every auditor that arrives
Go for it !
The police in this country do not know the law everybody should get together and protest. These guys be held accountable for their own actions instead of just getting paid out by our public money. Make these guys pay the price. The corrupt police force but not all of them are the same, we hate the bad ones and the tyrants great video mate, well done💯
I love the policewoman’s interpretation, technically you are going inside as you are looking through a window. I guess if you had a curfew tag, technically you are going outside if you look out of a window.
No ID. under any act. You must be arrested first. Even then no ID until you are at the station.
@Don't Shoot Nope.
The first thing you are told when arrested is ~ you don't have to say anything ~
That includes when being 'booked in'.
That's why cops cannot LAWFULLY arrest you to obtain details.
@Don't Shoot acts and statutes are not law, they are only given the power of law by consent or contract, they require a contract that is why they wanted his name to create joinder, the government *does not and cannot* create any laws.
[cruden v neale 1796] "...every MAN is independent of all laws, EXCEPT those prescribed in nature, he is not bound by ANY INSTITUTIONS formed by his fellowman WITHOUT his CONSENT."
exactly what i said with the added never id until at the custody desk and then only say two things after, request phhone call and repeat i want a duty solicitor and only that
That was so painful on both sides of that fence. You MUST know ALL relevant police powers and legislation, inside and out, off by heart even. If not they will walk all over you.
Thanks
Wow. Absolutely amazing support. This really does help make future productions. Many many thanks 🙏🥰
Let's face it people, POLICE are GANG'S of unethical criminally minded ego driven thugs, bullies, child abusers, woman bashers, disabled persons abusers, elder abusers, Molesters, liers, thieves and cowardly tyrants, they blatantly violate there own policies and procedures and they flagrantly break the law, the vast majority are pathetic individuals totally lacking common decency, integrity and honour.
Always Always Film The POLICE!!!👍✌️
It’s a dangerous time when the security guard has more sense that the officer 😢😅
Sounds like the Terrorism Act is the "go to" solution to all the cops problems.
They should search themselves under the Terrorism Act, for the terror they try to instil on the law abiding public.
Imagine threatening it then driving off without even a courtesy to say anything. Both of them are a disgrace.
Edit: I meant to add, there isn’t a thought about what their words could do to a person. If I was going about my legal business and all of a sudden my rights and privacy (name etc) were at risk, and I was thought of as a terrorist that’d really stick with me. It’s a serious allegation but they throw it out as a threat in order to get your details. It’s a complete abuse of position.
It is when you supposedly "challenge" their puny little brains.
An audit done in a calm and collective way with no name calling or unnecessary arguments. The security guard was a well presented guy with an excellent command of the English language.
Thanks 🙏 all my videos are done to try and avoid confrontation, and if you watch them you might notice I do things slightly different in that I never approach people. People only ever approach me knowing I'm filming and they set the tone for the interaction. We can have a friendly chat but if they try and boss me about or get angry then they lead the conversation in that direction. Thanks 🙏 for watching
Hands in pockets, standing in the road, scruffy shoes. Modern policing!
And ignorant of the law!
I really liked that security guard. Balanced, calm and rational. I think he also appreciated the compliment when he was compared to the police officers. SIA badge was an issue but I can forgive that for his approach.
Under section 1 of PACE, a police constable may stop, detain, and search any person or vehicle in a public place, as long as the officer has 'reasonable grounds' for suspecting that they will find stolen or prohibited articles - such as drugs, a weapon, stolen property, prohibited fireworks
So it begs the question ❓ if you fly over a police building and zoom in, would it be reasonable to suspect the flyer is armed 😂
WRONG . THAY NEED AN INSPECTOR TO ORDER THAT .
Even her eyebrows have had enough of her and leaving
Section 60 of the Terrorism act pertains to a person who encourages another person to commit violence. I think it is something that has been used in Northern Ireland. He may be referring to Section 60 of the Public Order Act, which does allow an officer to stop and search without reasonable grounds, but only if it has been authorised by an inspector for a 24 hour period in a particular area. It is used to counter knife crime in London. It does not require ID. I think the male officer just plucked a number out of the air. Section 1 of pace gives power to an officer to stop and search but only with reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed. Those grounds must be based on objective fact, not just on some kind of hunch. Flying a drone in unrestricted air space is not a crime.
Exactly. Thanks for the info ☺️
60Northern Ireland.
(1)A person commits an offence if-
(a)he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)the act would, if committed in Northern Ireland, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).
(2)Those offences are-
(a)murder,
(b)an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),
(c)an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),
(d)an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and
(e)an offence under Article 3(2) of the M2Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (endangering life by damaging property).
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.
(5)Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
Excellent comment.
if you are a person that would make you a corpse, PERSON is legalese so you need to look at blacks law dictionary for the correct definition, a "person" is always an artificial legal person of one kind or another legally generated.
artificial person: "A NONHUMAN ENTITY that is created by law and is legally different owning its own rights and duties."
[Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd ed.]
as opposed to...
Natural Person: " *A HUMAN BEING* naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person."
[Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd ed.]
They specifically say it's not the flying of the drone that's the issue, it's the taking of pictures of a restricted area that's an issue. So there's your reasonable grounds, he took pictures potentially of the inside of a police station, using a drone to access areas he would not otherwise be able to acces as they are closed to the general public.
I really hope that these officers were reported for their conduct
I do wish the Police showed as much enthusiasm around Rotherham & Telford etc with those Kebab shop owners and the likes.
Strange that.
I did not think even a, so called, policeman could utter such stupidity, says it all really.
Nice to see people waking up
Unbelievable! First grandad cop tries to look up some law on his mobile phone and just comes up with a totally irrelevant section of the Terrorism Act, then they both collude to contact someone who might know 'something' about the law for them to use to fit someone up due to their crass ignorance. Even Section 1 of 'PACE', is completely wrong because they have no suspicion of N.A. having anything he shouldn't have on him.
Police couldn't lower themselves enough to say goodbye after not being able to get you for anything lol 😂😂😂
Shame that they aren't so enthusiastic when there's a gang of youths.
Your drone footage is no.1 dude. We get a good audit and a great edit with the build up of the music and drone footage in sync.
Awesome 🙂
Thanks 🙏 yeah I'm always working on improving the drone show🙂
The crafty bint tried to do the 'not detained but not free to go', ploy, auditor was right. "Am i detained? Yes or no? "
It's that simple.
The bloke at 27:30 was more informed than our police, not only the young lady, but the middle aged PC. Unbelievable! Edit: Believable!
Sec 26 criminal justice and courts act, constable acting outside his authority, with threats etc.
Don"t engage with them.
What a horrible pair of coppers- no wonder they are despised these days. No sense-no empathy-no idea !!!!
What a pair of cowards, no apology, no acknowledgment they were in the wrong they just drove off, how unprofessional. Typical.
Absolute joke those officers, waiting around to find out if they have a reason to search you while real police work needs to be done
They wouldn't know what real police work is.
Glorified security guards, totally incompetent.
Hope he had his inspector on speed dial if he wanted to use section 60, they or above have to authorise the use of that one
Yeah, I knew that too when he said it that's why I wasn't worried at all.
David Carrick has done terrible damage to the police reputation , and this lot are compounding that bad reputation. 😮
Hunting down a guy with a drone to try pin something on him, that's what it felt like
Not just Carrick, there's Couzens and that inspector who killed himself to avoid being charged - he also had 'friends' who were ex-cops.
They need a drone flight over their police station.
They've had countless as the head office, yet they still don't know the law.
The moment she said you were free to go she admitted she knew no offence had been committed.
Keep up the good work you’re educating those who don’t know or understand their rights. police force need to understand they are public servants
Incompetence describes both these officers. She wanted you to go just so she can say they dealt with you.
I love the night time drone views👍
Omg the male and female cops were such an absolute embarrassment, and it’s no wonder that the police are under such close scrutiny. Even though just a grade C GCSE is sufficient to join the police, I’m amazed these two could have even achieved a grade E in a GCSE😀.
certainly would not pass a GCSE in COMMON SENSE but maybe a grade A in BULLSHIT.
You need a degree to join the police nowadays.
They are scraping the barrel with these two halfwits.
So happy to see some normal people at the end.
'Terrorism Act....against a food production company.....DO ME A FAVOUR!!!!!! 😡😡😡😡
Top secret food 🤣
This lady clearly has problems listening to what was said.EGO got her.Look.at her,couldn't wait to be an officer.
That's not fair, it was three against one.......they never stood a chance.
😉 love it
Lol xxxxxxx
It never fails to amaze me,The police ask you why you are filming You tell them the reason why you are filming (which you did not have to)and because your honest answer was not the answer they wanted to hear they continue to ask you the same question
And on this one try use it to incriminate me👍
They always break their own laws.
Great video bud, a couple of bullies who don’t know the law, there inspector should be embarrassed for them. 🏴
One of them will probably be inspector in 5 years. It is a race to the bottom
When you say you are going to do something, DO IT!
The two bumbling Keystone cops spent so much time on "Canteengate" It was a freaking joke.
Silence is golden...say nothing and carry on with your day.
It's fascinating and hilarious the way people get their knickers in a twist over someone with a camera especially in a country where CCTV camera's are watching us everywhere.
It's as if senior police are instructing their officers to deliberately ignore the law and their own policies and to misuse anti-terror law to discourage auditors from exercising their right to film in public.
15:50 she's delighted that she thinks she's made a gotcha moment..zooming in is no more illegal than filming.....
It's also not illegal to film any location publicly visible. Hence secret locations being fenced and buildings hidden out of sight.
Like he can get your details through section 43 😂🤦 totally misuse of that section... Bravo 👏🏼
Exactly 💯 but I wasn't going to help him. If he wanted to kick me for not providing details under the terrorism act then so be it 😂
I just don't know why but the Knight Drone wobble shot always brings a smile to my face.
Wonder what the constables have to hide in the cop shop. More auditors need to visit.😎
If you are free to go then you're free to stay. The police cannot move you on from a public area
Section 60 cannot be used under these circumstances