First Police Abuse of The National Security Act 2023
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2024
- buymeacoffee.com/pinaci_news
First Police Abuse of The National Security Act 2023 AND the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.
Police constable was clearly clueless and making things up on the spot.
National security act 2023 clip courtesy of Ryan Rampage... • POSSIBLE ARREST FOR DJ...
Journalistic freedoms: National Security Bill factsheet... www.gov.uk/government/publica...
.
How would a Drone pilot know that an area is prohibited for drone flyovers, unless it is made clear on the maps etc. Or did I miss something?
No, you didn't miss anything. Its not an MOD prohibited place and the police abused the legislation which has protections in place for legitimate journalists, whistle blowers and unsuspecting innocent members of the public..... www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-bill-factsheets/journalistic-freedoms-national-security-bill-factsheet
@@PINACI Thanks for clearing that up. It seems that the UK's police training is woefully inadequate for the general day to day stuff, which is daft. How can they be law enforcers when they misrepresent the laws they try to enforce.
@@thepagan5432 they’re trained to twist the law. This new one is a gift for them.
@@DMC888 Combine the National Security Act 2023 with the new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act that came into force in Scotland today (1st April 2024) and Scotland has the makings of being the perfect Police State, where you can't film anything, post anything, talk about anything or do anything (even in your own home) that someone might be offended by ... which effectively means EVERYTHING you could possibly do. Our Dear Leader Humza Useless and his gang of * and * have effectively killed free speech in Scotland and assured Police that they can have a bonanza time arresting and charging people for no more than having an opinion. Next year - Thought Crime and why it's necessary to brainwash children from an early age.
Well who’d of thunk it, the filth LIED. U can always tell when they lie cos their lips move. I’ve not found a decent copper since I was 6, and that was 50 odd years ago 😡 FTP👍
They do this every time with older drone laws, public order etc, just pick out the bit they want and ignore the finer details.
Cops have always done that, doesn’t matter to them because if they f up then they care. They read part of it but not all of it. It is a common trick by cops in the hope that you don’t know what it says. Basically cops abuse the laws that they are paid to uphold because they do not know them fully. Those cops should be pulled up and told to re read them fully. I bet they won’t be told that though, they will get away with it.
The look said it all, "Shit! He knows the law better than I do!"
Shouldn't they (police FARCE) be educated on the very laws they are trying (poorly) to enforce?
It's their mates that educate them. They tell them which laws can be twisted to suit their agenda.
@@DMC888 True, but sadly their mates are completely in the dark about law too. We the People need to educate ourselves - its the ONLY way to beat the corruption that's rife in every facet of business and society.
Our parliament should be the first to be charged under this legislation
As usual, the grunters are making it up as they go along 🐷
The first cop just plain lies. The act is mainly concerned with foreign powers acting, with agents within the UK. Buildings such as GCHQ are “ protected sites” on such sites it is a criminal act ( not civil ) to trespass and if one does one is liable to arrest.
I think a lot of times it is not a case of countables not knowing the law but not wanting to know because if they did it would limit their actions. Somehow they get away with saying they did not know but acted in good faith on what they believed to be the case at that time. If we tried that we would be told ignorance of the law is no defence .
Unless they're clairvoyant how do they know they're only UA-camrs, you know they're auditors making content, you're already aware of who and what they do. The coppers don't know that. They could easily be there with hostile intent for all they know, collecting intelligence to pass on, under the guise of being UA-camrs. Ok we know that's no so, but the coppers don't. Until they can establish and are confident they are just UA-camrs, then given the new law, they bound to investigate. Once they were confident they were only UA-camrs it should have been wrapped up.
There's going to be a lot of unlawful arrest coming soon 😮
@ANIMALSEMEN-lm4jkI love that reply.
I’m sure myself and everyone else is shocked that police have abused any power
The Police: "We can't be expected to know all the laws."
Also The Police: "Ignorance of the law is no defence!"
NO HATS officers
Full uniforms CONSTABLES
It's their GOLDEN TICKET. Must get your identity ☠️
Section 43 all over again.
44. That was stopped because of this abuse
More problematic than that. Section 43 is only a stop and search power. This act creates arrestable offences.
If misused/abused it creates far more problems than a misuse/abuse of section 43.
Every time they abuse these laws and acts the auditing community needs to do a mass audit and record and publish all video.
They really don’t like being filmed do they. , and so will abuse this legislation to stop them being filmed
Unbelieveable 😡😡😡
Never ever talk to cops, remain silent always
They need to implement their National Security Act on the south coast
Isn’t it wonderful to know the police have so little to do?
Like walking past a broken shop window and been told, no proof you broke window but we need yr details anyway
Police...so sad....so pathetic...who could have faith in those idiots😢😢😢
If only we had a police force!!
Why would you go in for a voluntary interview, I thought these guys were savvy😱
You can get arrested if you don't .
And you can get arrested if you do go.
They want to be arses. Make em work for it, by finding you.
It gets worse; the Home Office Guidance on the National Security Act and journalists seems to suggest the offence is EITHER having a purpose prejudicial to… OR being unauthorised OR there being signage.
{Clauses 4 and 5 criminalise harmful activity in and around prohibited places. It is right that we are able to prosecute specified activity around the UK’s most sensitive sites where it is clear that such activity could be detrimental to the UK.
Activity must either be undertaken with a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, or is unauthorised where the individual knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know that that is the case.
This means that journalists conducting activity on or near these sites - for example a journalist taking photos from outside a prohibited place - where they do not have a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK and there is nothing to suggest taking photographs is not permitted, such as signage or other distinguishing marker, would not commit an offence.
Furthermore, the government has committed to working with the police to ensure that there is clear guidance in place to ensure that the powers in relation to prohibited places are policed appropriately.}
So, if I’m reading this right journalists are NOT exempt IF someone puts a sign up OR has not been “authorised”!
Nightmare!
They can't just put up an "unauthorised" sign and expect it to be enforceable, as they likely have no control over the airspace anyway.
Nonetheless, what you quoted says "and", so even if there is signage saying it's prohibited, there must also be a purpose which is prejudicial.
@@CJ0175 but it seems that they do now!
It’s now a crime to fly over or approach a Prohibited Place IF….
It’s the IF bit that is confusing me.
If you have a PURPOSE prejudicial … OR it is unauthorised or there is signage.
Thank you
The first thing the police learn when new laws are introduced is not how to apply them correctly but how to best twist the law to suit their purpose!
When did you prove your intent ? That would need to be proved by further investigation
He don't no the law what a muppet
Two words needed....FOXTROT OSCAR (fall out) 😂😂😂😂
Ever asked one , what is a sty? just for fun.
all these acts are in response of all the exposure of the pigs knot knowing the law,one day we will all be charged for breathing air
2:10 Note how the cop is very selective about he reads from the legislation. Only says the bit that sounds scary and not the whole of it which includes the bit about intent. Typical cop not being open and honest and transparent.
*Surprise surprise* - they don't know the law & miss certain paragraphs out of sections to suit themselves.....
Well josh and ryan are not the brightest tools in the box on a good day are they 🤷🏻♂️
Ye Gods, they don't know an Act IS a Law.
Might, might, these two cops MIGHT be drug dealers. @2.45 according to the cop if an aircraft (drone or 747) flies over these areas they have committed an offence. Does that include satellites and the ISS? Those that abuse their powers must be bought to justice for the sake of society as a whole.
It's Based Welshman here I would very much appreciate you doing a video on the new BWV from the company Reveal.
UK po po throughout the UK seem to be using them, I believe they have facial recognition capabilities. Sometimes the TV screen on these BWVs doesn't seem to be on yet they are involved in a incident, do the BWVs have a black screen mode anther wards hiding the fact its recording. I haven't found out yet if its definitely recording yet ! etc.
I'm only asking you bc I find your research, knowledge and personal experience invaluable on these matters. Plus your video on the above subject would benefit the public in general
Much respect
BasedWelshman
Before you rock up with a drone, do your homework ffs. There is no excuse for them getting caught out like that.
And that's why auditors need to brush up on all laws that involve photography.
A lot of them know photography law, drone legislation is different, and more complex, even cops misquote drone law because they don't understand it.
@@ianhill4585 I included drones under photography, because it's the drones filming that's the issue. The cops getting it wrong is the very reason why the auditors need to brush up on drone photography laws, so they don't hand out their details so freely.
Thin end of the wedge.
As for voluntary interviews ... The interview itself isn't voluntary, only the means of getting TO the mandatory interview has the option to be voluntary. You can travel to the interview under your own steam OR they can issue a warrant to have you swept up whilst you're out and about OR (as with EA Audits) they may (if they know your name & address) bypass the interview, file charges and issue you a summons to go straight to court.
I'd be tempted to rock up to the " voluntary interview " and after they've finished with all their Blah, Blah, Blah ... say something along the lines of - " I do not have to say anything but it may harm my defense if I speak to you lazy, incompetent, corrupt coppers and say anything which can be twisted, misconstrued, reinterpreted or contradicted by true OR FALSE facts or information that you may already have or may FABRICATE as part of a vexatious or vexatious prosecution. So ... on the advice of Law Professor James Duane, I'm now going to adhere to the first 7 words of the police caution. I thank you for inviting me along today and, to save you a little time, right next to EVERY one of your questions, you can put down my answer as " *I DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING SO I RESPECTFULLY CHOOSE THAT OPTION, THANK YOU* " ! " 😉
Say they do that, but are charged with something anyway, they when get to court could the fact they haven't answered be used against them and any defence they rely on in court damaged, less reliable being the first time they've spoken and in addition an adverse inference taken? The caution states doesn't it, it may harm their defence if they fail to mention anything they later rely on in court.
Quite apart from the issue of any abuse of The National Security Act 2023 they are empowered by the Police Reform Act 2002 to require the name and details of a person that they have grounds to hold a reasonable suspicion of having comitted or to be comittng an offense.
This is bad news because merely an unsubstanciated complaint/allegation could plausibly be construed as costituting such grounds for holding a reasonable suspicion.
In such a situation it may therefore be safest to give your name & details. But feel free to argue the toss over the issue of reasoable sspicion and offer any refuting evidence that you may have before you do so.
Excellent coverage of legal issues around PINAC on this site, well done.
One further issue is that these two are looking at 14 years for approaching a site.
HOWEVER, if there is no signage indicating it is a Prohibited Place, they should be alright.
The definition of a Prohibited Place is very wide and such places do not need to be logged but they do need to be signed as such (at least according to the accompanying MOD Industry Security Notice).
Thousands of people will be "approaching" military bases every day and will be in the vicinity of them all the time but they are not there for "the purpose of" being prejudicial to the UK.
@@PINACI see the attached MOD Industry Security Notice issued on the same day as the Statutory Instrument was laid before Parliament giving effect to those provisions.
If the actual Act is interpreted in the way of the ISN virtually any photography could be said to be prejudicial; “we don’t want our address made public”.
If the courts interpret “purpose” in the way you and I have, the Act is virtually meaningless. You have to have the purpose of being prejudicial not just the outcome of being prejudicial.
The 14 years is for the section 4 offence which involves the 'and is prejudicial to the safety...' bit.
Section 5 which simply covers 'unauthorised conduct/entry' only has a 6 month sentence.
@@Stuart_George I think that’s worse!!
It seems like an absolute offence in that there’s six months for taking pictures of a prohibited place with it being prejudicial to … or without having to determine purpose.
The list of prohibited places could be massive and involve anyone, anywhere who supplies MOD.
The only saving grace is that there has to be signage.
@MrAndrewFarrow The list of prohibited places is huge and even includes vehicles.
Also, the Secretary of State can extend that list (if certain criteria are met).
See sections 7 & 8.
Hopefully, the courts will apply the law with the intention it was created for and not bother with genuine photographers who take snaps of static displays, or other benign photos.
However, this does not help you when you have some overzealous officer (MDP or other) on a scene, who thinks he has foiled the lastest plot to attack a base, and nicks you.
a cop CAN pick&Mix bits of an Act.,But That Is NOT Law,We CAN Do All Those Things So Long As We Are Not KNOWINGLY 'Prejudising The "Safty Or Interests" Of UK
You hang about places that a sensitive flying drones taking pictures thats socaily unusual behavour to film everthing that you stumble across especially in front of police stations.they are not photographers they are nuisences and they dont even know ot
They are supposed to have if not training then a 'police order ' sent out hopefully with advice from solicitors department or perhaps the CPS, they cant expect street coppers to be presented with a new law to wade through with no guidance 😉
Voluntary interview! No
That's section 4.
Section 5 makes no reference to the 'purpose predujical....' bit.
It is simply about unauthorised entry (which includes drones/photos) of a prohibited place.
It does contain wording such as 'ought reasonably to know that their conduct is unauthorised'.
Without adequate signage that the place is a 'prohibited place' under the Act, how would one know that the conduct would need to be authorised.
As per the guidance on the Act, this would suggest signage would be needed, and I suspect such signage may well start appearing in the future.
And don't forget that the legislation was really created to update some of the official secrets act and is designed to legislate against espionage, sabotage etc. Here's an interesting document..... www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-bill-factsheets/journalistic-freedoms-national-security-bill-factsheet
These auditors need to be better prepared.
They do now because the definition of a Prohibited Place includes the development or storage of any equipment used by U.K. or foreign forces or indeed research purposes.
The only saving grace is that for a place to be a Prohibited Place there needs to be adequate signage.
@@MrAndrewFarrow The prohibited place signage is not a necessity and only recommended.
(3)A constable may not exercise a power under subsection (1) or (2) unless the constable reasonably believes that exercising the power is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
It wasn't even an MOD building but a sub contractor to the MOD
I believe they just make nuts and bolts and a few connectors for aircraft.
Please could you do some more walk around videos around Portsmouth if you get time? I enjoyed your past ones.
Southampton would be good too, as I've enjoyed my time there in the past.
Thank you and keep up the good work! 📸 😊
Sheeple? Really….. can you not see the irony of this word?
1:20 The crime is to take off and fly within 150 meters of a building or 50m of people and their is no evidence that the drone is sub-250. Though the controller in use would give a huge clue - but only to the knowledgeable which the drone expert was not. There is no crime in the videoing part, even from a drone flying in breach of the regulations.So they get even the first part wrong.
Getting more like China every day
These idiots just agreed with everything the police said
👍🏿
thing is ..u r clever and wise ..these 2 lads r not ..they set them selfs up for a fall with bent pigs
It might be advisable to read that up, same to You Copper
Drone officer, what a load of crap. These police is completely m o r o n I c
Prohibited by who? The law? If so it has not changed at all so now the police are enforcing company policies great
all these virgins with cameras thinking they are something special 🤣🤣🤣
Easy mate i have a few videos i can share with you where the farb gel is used u git any way where i can send it to you as dont mind you making a video about it
Any correspondence can be sent to pinaci.news@gmail.com
Constables, forever living up to their titles, ie stable Con(t)s
Doesn’t help when the auditors have no clue
Ryan shouldn’t be allowed out without his career
And you shouldn't be allowed out without your school teacher.
@@toadhall1951 I’m 53
Lol he stopped reading at that point because section 1.b used a sentence that was to difficult for him to comprehend 😂 to be fair the second half of that sentence is a bit more complex than u can expect the average plod to have the intellect to understand these days
I can see ryan and josh taking further action against these corrupt police officers in this video police officers making up laws
They would have been better off refusing the voluntary interview and taking the unlawful arrest. They basically volunteered to get arrested and taken to the police station.
The sooner police are made personally accountable for there errors the better. A poor moral hazard conviction and making them pay personally
Please keep reporting on crown employees over stepping there authority.
You're watching the video with the prior knowledge of who the auditors are and what their purpose and intentions are i.e. making content for yt by testing the response to their presence.
Yes, the copper should read the whole section, but as you state, the act is designed for protection of national security from espionage, sabotage and persons acting for foreign powers, without your prior knowledge, they don't know their intentions, or who they are or whether their actions are prejudical to the UK. How do they know rampage isn't an agent for a 3rd party collecting data to sell on to?
People who are stopped who are actually there with mal-intent can just say, I'm a UA-camr making content. Should the copper say oh no worries carry on, or make enquiries.
It's a slippery slope and open to abuse if used vexatiously, sadly given the state of the world our freedoms are being eroded already.
But in this case, think I'd be happier if the copper thought there could be a legitimate concern, to challenge them and record their flyer id. I know you'd say those with ill intent could just fly without any id, fake or otherwise.
*I haven't seen the original video, so in all honesty don't have the full context of events.
** I have now scanned the video and change my stance somewhat in that once they're assured they're UA-camrs and they've heard their explanations, this shouldn't have gone any further seeing as there was no intention of breaching the new law and any breach was accidental. But until police can establish this they unfortunately will go this route.
Well you go by what you do know and not by what you don't. Ryan and Josh explained what they were doing and what they were doing it for and also showed them their video of what they were doing and all the police had to do to confirm they are who they say they are is to check their youtube channels. Its called investigating, but the police chose to just half read some legislation instead and come to the conclusion they had committed the offence. Piss poor policing. Original video is in the description.
@@PINACI your first part, you go on what you know, is meaningless, if they don't know, they investigate. But I agree with you on the rest of your message, having scanned their video and I'm agreed the point at which the coppers were assured they're only UA-camrs should have been the end of it. You've essentially reinforced my original point.
So that u tuber needs to learn all the rules and laws before he takes his drone out so that he is able to correct plod who obviously they dont know them and just make them up a they go along
👿👿👿👿👿
First comment deleted, big brother didn't like it? Anyway, "prejudicial" its going to be the problem i.e. prove filming isn't harmful to the UK national interest? Plod will always be clueless, but this gives them the leverage they need to harass the pilot. PACE 1 has been around since the mid-80s and they still can't get it right.
Yes, youtubes AI censorship is very fussy these days. I have many of my comments instantly deleted these days, even from just using the word "karma" and "police + chocolate tea pot" in the same sentence !
Read section 1b plod, or is that line too difficult to understand. Tossas
Didn't take long 🙄
they are dumb cops imo
You need to get out and do some audits. It's been too long.
Tell them to jog on. They don't own the airspace, therefore you've not accessed anywhere that's restricted.
No law requires you to produce ANY identifying information simply because "you took off from near to somewhere you're not allowed to be" or "because you've filmed something" (you can film literally everything, bar nothing, from public land or open airspace).
First.
Grow up lad
@@king77703 No.
🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪 Congrats wee lad.
This little piggy went to market. This little piggy went lie lie lie all the way back to the PIG sti
Pigs, don't you just love them....... NOT !!!!
The police station IS NOT a prohibited place, IS IT? What a dunce of a cop.
Why have a voluntary interview if you not spoken with a lawyer ffs!!.FTP... @auditmyass
It's an act not a law
Let's be honest here, the comprehension of UK law and all it's complexities are far beyond almost every copper on the street. They are the most basic of blunt tools and are armed with a just a very few phrases to repeat parrot fashion for a very few examples of law breaking. They are fire and forget missiles shot out of a very short boot camp police training course and ejected from it qualified in nothing whatsoever having applied for the job and been accepted with no relevant qualifications,experience or demonstrable skillset , hell even a passable command of English isn't even required as we see in many videos. The UK police service is more of a police farce these days, scruffy, barely literate bone heads tooled up to hurt us, armed with torture devices and driving around in gangs. Able to summon the attack dogs with the push of a button or the utterance of " officer requires assistance ". With an astounding monolith of self belief in their own opinions they dispense advice, demands , directives and instructions and absolute obediance is all that can pacify their egos. Only absolute accountability can curtail the decay. True independent oversight and personal liability when a uniformed monster over steps their remit and gets it wrong.
He had the legislation in his hand and was reading from it, then made the conscious decision to stop reading it out when he realised there was an "AND"
If all these dunderheids really join the polis because '' I just want to help people '' , they should do it on a voluntary basis and save us tax payers some money . Alas , I think that would actually lead to more less qualified drones being accepted and more corruption being exercised .
How ever did our police service get so bad. This is the reason i tell my Grandchilden never to speak or even go near a police officer. They, the police, are the danger to the child. I have an autistic one and he will run just seeing them. He has been warned of the danger these uniformed thugs cause
AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND,