I thought I had found an auditor that stood up for his rights. Then you. gave them your op id. I hope you do not do this again - you just need to show a bit of it to prove you have one. Hopefully you will learn from this and I can become a subscriber. Overall I do like your style!
Like your relaxed style PA shame you gave your op id expect you can get another one easy enough though. Keep up the good work. But please stay anonymous they have no more right to ID you than I do
They sent the best team they had to deal with a person who was reportedly asking difficult questions about make-up, fluffy bunnies and other girlie things.
Why did you show the OP ID straight away should of waited for her to produce the correct legislation to ask for it. Never tell them you have been flying it and that it has a camera therefore they then have no reasonable suspicion under schedule 9 to have the OP ID
To be fair, she didn't make a fuss about being recorded. And she didn't say how she felt about recording the public. She may not be a fan of that either. She didn't record the auditor.
@@BG-ef8sk schedule 9 tells you all you need to know, but basically, if they reasonably suspect that a drone is or has been flown and reasonably suspect it needs a OP ID then using schedule 8 they can ground the drone and under schedule 9 they can require the OP ID.. If you tell them your going to or have flown it and also tell them it has a camera then that's all the info they need to gain the OP ID. Best of saying nothing if they have not seen the drone in the air or even seen the drone itself.
You refused to give your name, yet made a big mistake by giving your operator ID. Now you are in the system permanently, and they have your name and address etc you registered your drone to. They have no valid reason to request your operator ID.
I think that used to be true, but legislation has only very recently been changed, if you drone has a camera you are required by law to provide your operator ID. Of course, they can't inspect your drone too see if it has a camera but if they have witnesses on site that say they know it has a camera Youd be done for.
When the guy in the suit came out, the police were totally wrong IMO. The guy specified about girls 18 to 19 being on site and about the boundary going upwards. The police should have stepped in at that point and explained that their boundary doesn't go up but more imortantly, gain control on the guy in the suit specifying about girls - someone's sex should be irrelevant and by him saying that and focussing on that only point, he's making a loose accusation IMO that you are there to film young girls. Legally, I would think being 18 and 19 that they are adults and thus women, not girls. That guy should have a serious talking to by his management team. Deleting a picture on a phone does not usually delete it fully as it places it in the 'bin' - I would have got the guy who took the photo to prove that the image had been deleted from the bin. The police were polite, but totally wrong in not explaining the law to the guy in the suit.
The guy at 11.00 is concerned about girls 18 and 19 years old who can have sex and alcohol and vote get married but a photo might somehow effect them, what a plonker
maybe he is a pervet who likes to see young girls walking around his factory.. why on earth would anyone even think like that unless they too are a pervert and possible up skirter, (i would find it a bit hard to do any up-skirting while flying a drone up high). or maybe he was trying to say they dont wear knickers and are doing spread legged handstands and cartwheels on the roof. ? also plenty old enough to be tax paying prostitutes' .
Breach of the peace:- Regina versus Howell 1982 states a breach of the peace occurs when someone has the fear of being harmed. To give someone the fear of being harmed you have to use threatening and or abusive language or hold a threatening and or abusive sign. (The wording is VERY IMPORTANT when it comes to an offence) so not everything can be classed a breach of the peace. You HAVE to use threatening and or abusive language. So for instance a dislike of something or hurt feelings is NOT a breach of the peace. Also the tyrant pigs are not the arbitrators of what a breach of the peace is. The law is. Regina versus Howell also goes on to say once a breach of the peace has passed there is NO breach of the peace. IT'S PASSED. The police have no powers to demand a name and address and NO powers to detain. I solicitor could easily argue that as soon as the tyrant pigs turned up any possible beach of the peace has passed. You had no legal or lawful obligation to give up your drone I.d number. Learn the law and you will outsmart them every time.
@Legislationloverauditors love to think they are correct though when wrong, but yeah schedule 9 is pretty clear, but alot of people read section 1 not section 2, they then quote section 1 which does not apply to under 250g drones that are not toys.
@@Mrchipsv2 you need to go back and read your laws again and study it in more depth. also when talking about drones make sure your talking correct sections and under what circumstances.. this fella had no reason at all to let her see the operator id , and it is infact illegal for her to of taken the picture and pass it on.....gets your facts right and stop with the myths... you have obviously got well mixed up with new legislation and under what circumstances these schedules come under. Unless you are suspected of commiting a crime you do not have to show the operator id, that is the main thing in this video.. there was never any mention of suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed. so please stop with the bullshit and making it up as you go along.. as soon as she said "show me your operator id card" i would of said NO, as straight away would know she has no clue what she is talking about, she even put her hand up to show the show the size of a card like a driving license or credit card.. No crime or suspicion of crime means no operator id needed to be show and 100% wrong to be taking photo of it..
You don't have to break the law for them to get the OP ID 🤷🏻♂️ they have to have reasonable suspicion that it is being flown or has been flown and it requires the operator ID ie has a camera..
@@philldownes8685 how about you copy and paste the part in schedule 9 section 2 that says about a crime being committed 👍🏻 notice how I said schedule 9 not section 9 🤦🏻♂️
I agree with others. Should not give up operator ID unless legally required. The idea is to exercise your rights. That includes NOT giving up ANY details unless legally required to do so. PC reports "Refusing" to give details. When in fact you have "Declined". Saying "Refused" is Passive Aggressive behaviour. When they ask for your details they should say" You are not required to give me your details but are you prepared to tell me who you are?"
@@PureAudits I believe it is important that you adopt your own style in order to appeal to a wider audience. I think most auditors would do well to watch how @focuspocus3690 deals with the police. Keep up the great work PA 👍
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Do not let them take pictures or write down the ID … you only have to show them.. those officers were terrible absolutely disgraceful behaviour… surreptitiously obtaining your ID … You are carrying out a legal activity. You can’t breach the peace by definition… The only offence was committed by the persons calling the police. and them illegally obtaining you id … The security guard was an idiot and vulgar to bring up the nonsense about girls… Next time you are in this situation… remind the police to stand on their oaths .. section five criminal law act 1967. It’s an offence to waste the police employment.. which is what they did.
No but I did say I had been recording from it, which in turn gives police the powers under schedule 9 to take down the operator ID. Early days and Big Lesson learnt and thanks for your advice. 👍 PA
@@PureAudits No it does not.. 1/ there was no suspicion of any crime, so no need t =o have seen it at all ,,, 2/ they are not allowed to photograph it, 3/ not allowed to send this photo to whoever they did .. you have no way of knowing where that EVIDENCE as ended up and its given them your name and address and from that they can get your date of birth driving license number, national insurance number, car registration number etc etc etc.... your now in the book and they got this from you without you knowing you should not of given the details out, and definitely not to be photographed..
@@philldownes8685 Have a look at the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 - Schedule 9 - Not only do you have to provide your operators ID, you now need to supply your name and address. Have a look at it (section 2 I think) and let me know what you think. PA
Why did you let them take the ID on the Drone?? You can show them but they can't take it down.. that is effectively giving them your ID when you haven't broken the law
That copper is as thick as mince, you can not arrest for breach of the peace retrospectively, if she does arrest for it it must be at the time it is happening and once over she has to de arrest. This is basic common law, why are we forced to pay the wages and pensions of kids who do not understand it?
Aye, and not only that after the case of “Foulkes v Merseyside police” the breach must,i repeat must be both “real and Imminent” . I would have thought that any possible breach would be by others.
If you're going to 'educate' people then learn the law and your rights about what you are doing first. You didn't have to provide them with your drone OP ID unless they had reasonable ground to suspect an offence ( schedule 8 ) or that you had or were flying it and it required a registration ( schedule 9 )
@@PureAudits I've seen some of Geeksvana's videos before and don't think he's always 100% correct in how he interprets the legislation. He also likes to interview actual drone police who would love for everyone to just comply with anything they said rather than follow the actual letter of the law. Personally I'll go by what the legislation says rather than what the police say it is because we all know how they like to twist the law to suit themselves and leave important bits out.
To be fair he did admit to flying and recording but that was after she asked for the OP ID. Also as I read schedule 9 section 2 i actually can't see anything that says to show the OP ID, it only mentions the ID of the person
@@Mrchipsv2 Read on to section 8....(1)A constable may require a person in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether a power conferred by any of paragraphs 1 to 7 is exercisable.
@@PINACI thankyou 👍🏻 you should watch auditing Lancashire video, he had tape holding his camera on, a broken propella, and NO operators ID on his drone, and was still going to fly it, but cop used schedule 8 to check it over. *EDIT * just looked and you did alreasy see it
Suggesting that a person with a camera peaceful exercising their rights in a public might be a breach of the peace if someone objects to their presence is nonsense, especially as they allow hate marches through London every week and don't suggest that those persons might be arrested if someone objects to their presence.
@@PureAudits do not take any notice of what geeksvana puts on his UA-cam show, he only gets his incorrect info from a few other misfits who keep feeding him total crap.. just look at him, he is a mummy's boy who hardly ever goes out . proper duffle coat brigade. so much on his shows is wrong and even when he has had guests on their sprouting the caa laws they are also wrong.. its incredible he has not been shut down for the crap he puts out.. he makes out he is a drone specialist, no he is a bullshit specialist.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
What's the point of showing your id number which they get your name in seconds and then refusing to give your name which you basically just handed them ?????????? i really dont get this auditor or channel it just seems pointless , i get the point of dj , pj ,the great ab and the rest and the point they are proving ,but i just don't get or understand what the point is here , maybe im missing something ?
@@PureAudits fair play to you for getting out and giving it a go and good luck mate , I just thought I was missing something but now realise you’re new and just dropped a bollock oh well shit happens 👍 I’ll subscribe 👍👍👍👍 good luck with it pal
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Absolutely pointless video if you’re going to handover your operator ID and we just spend it entire video waiting for the cops to ID you you may as well just giving them your ID and walked away. If this is how you gonna continue doing videos and everyone will stop watching and up.
Your face and name is now on the Police system so you will be identified very easily by facial recognition now also across all forces. Armed Blue light response is such an overreaction yet a shop worker can get punched and the police show up next day disgusting.
Unless the cops have a direct line to the CAA, the Operator ID on its own is useless unless it is accompanied by the Name of the registered Operator ... and they can (if they have reasonable suspicion based on some kind of facts / evidence) require the identity the Operator and the Pilot (if different) ... BUT ... like someone else said, it's not your job to admit to anything and especially not wise to volunteer any information that they can use (and you never know what that might be) to convict you. If they don't know the legislation, let them consult with someone who does, OR drop themselves in the poop for a potentially nice little payout if they're the type who deserves it. Other than that, keep up the good work edumacating the UK Ignoramuses on what FREEDOM (albeit in a small but nonetheless significant way) looks like 😉👍 ********** *Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021* *SCHEDULE 9* *Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016* *Commencement Information* 1 _Sch. 9 in force at 29.4.2021 for specified purposes and 29.6.2021 for all other purposes, see s. 21(1)(a)(2)_ *Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators* 2 (1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable - (a) has reasonable grounds for believing that - (i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and (ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and (b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight. (2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of - (a) the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or (b) the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P. (3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016 - (a) article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator); (b) article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (c) article 265A(6)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator); (d) article 265A(6)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (e) article 265A(7)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator); (f) article 265A(7)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (g) article 265A(9)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator); (h) article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number); (i) article 265E(1)(a) (registration of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more); (j) article 265E(1)(b) (display of registration number of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more). (4) P is guilty of an offence if - (a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, information as to the identity of a person, (b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, (c) the relevant registration requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and (d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide. (5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. (6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.
My god the world has changed...... I remember the day when someone in the street with a camera was constantly photo bombed with people jumping in front of the lens shouting "hello mum" nowadays everyone seems paranoid , precious and scared little rabbits..... crazy!!!!!
18-19…..so adults then which was followed with because their parents drop them off 😂😂 Really? Can’t see many 18-19 year olds asking mummy or daddy to drop them off at work. Maybe the odd one but the slimy bloke was trying to push an agenda into the officers heads and it worked. We’re transparent but don’t like being recorded oh the irony😂😂
Don't video the 18-19 year olds?!? From 200ft up?! Does he think young adults are afraid of a camera when they're on social media recording themselves all the time. Ridiculous.
It's funny how that bloke wants to ask you not to film young girls on a bloke to bloke basis. but yet calls the police on you for a lawful activity. Why did he not come and talk on a bloke to bloke basis before. Instead he waits until the police arrive then comes over acting all friendly trying to clutch at straws because he knows the police can't stop you. It just shows the kind of mind he has when he starts going down the route of filming young girls🤔
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
So does deleting the picture still mean the company have still broken GDPR rules? How do we know that the company doesn’t immediately recover the file. Photo probably still in the security guys recently deleted file. Did the WPC check?
Ah the 18 and 19 year old girls excuse, do you ever watch the news, people interviewed on camera in the town centre and kids walking past, accidental inclusion?
They sent the best team they had to deal with a person who was reportedly asking difficult questions about make-up, fluffy bunnies and other girlie things.
Don’t give him your operator idea. You don’t have to unless you’ve committed an offence then they’ll get all your details defeats the purpose. View not just giving him your name. Don’t do that again dude.
Never mind hopefully not definitely not coming to arrest me.why do they not ask people who fly a kite or go fishing..The unnecessary use of blue lights should be addressed.is she ashamed of her job then ,she takes a job to see ,deal with the public but does not want to be filmed.an admittance then it’s not illegal so why are you here?very busy the next job is hoping someone drops some litter.we will leave he burglars alone and the dealers and car thieves.
See the little firestarter security come out hoping the cops would back him up in his rant about filming kids, what a twonk. No law is being broken, shut up get back in your shed 😂.
Why did you give them your operator id? Ok not first to ask haha. There seems to be new legislation. Good the id is not paired to you personally! Well done!
Wow patronisation someone isn't a crime.... I wouldn't have allowed the police the operator I'd since no crime was committed..... But your such a nice guy..... The police were fishing for everything tho even tho no laws are broken and then she says "if any breach of peace is reported they come back" but does that mean if its towards you or from you Why the hell did he bring up filming your girls for... What a pleb. that's him trying to get the police to engage for something else
Sorry PA, I'm a huge fan, but giving them your ID when that pair of thickos hadn't stated why they reasonably suspected you of a crime (which of course was impossible!) wasn't right, but as you say it's all part of learning your work! And that daft old fart with his young girls obsession was so so weird. Still a big fan though of course!
Lloyds Bank. Now I understand. When I try to call because I have to. All the banks have closed down it takes ages to get an answer then the person answering has poor communication skills. Now I know why they are employing locals who don’t speak a logical English 🏴
To all you commenters criticising Pure Audits for giving up his operator ID: since when have you become so bloody perfect that you haven’t made a mistake? To me he is the rising star of this UA-cam genre. He stands out with his calm non combative approach compared the some of the better known auditors. Once he becomes Au Fait with the law around his activities he will be one to beat.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
I bet in case of lawfull flying the police may NOT use the operators ID to get your name and details, maybe if they do someone at the police or CAA is breaking GDPR laws. ( DOXXING )
@@Mrchipsv2 nevermind they can ask the operators ID the problem is the are going one step further, using that ID to get your Name adres birth street number etc.. it is a bit like they stop you on false suspicion of carrying a knife and using that false suspicion to get your name etc.. and after they figured out you are innocent they still gained your information.
Hi PA. You seem to be getting misinformation on here. The facts are that if the police KNOW that you have a drone that requires an Operator ID, thats when they can request your operator ID and Name. If they dont know what drone you have they cannot. So as your drone was in your bag, there was no obligation to provide details. If however they recognised that its a drone that needs operator Id, thats when you have to provide it - see Schedule 9 - also search for Focus Pocus youtube whom did a recent video on it titled Q&A
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A. SCHEDULE 9 Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it) AND (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record). In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes. This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID. My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
11:10 "We've got girls here. 18-19" So not kids but adults. So can't use the "think of the children" angle. But he still tries it on. Trying to impose morals on someone else is totally immoral.
Showing whole operator ID was a mistake, only show part of it to verify that you have one, You might have been as well showing them your driving licence and birth certificate....I wish when the police are talking with anyone they would get their hands out of their pockets. ☹
Thanks for letting me know - it was my first encounter with the police where they have asked for my op id and I believed that they were entitled to view my ID without any offence taking place (see YT Geeksvana Police Powers and your Drone). PA
I don’t know much about laws but I do know from watching auditors you shouldn’t have given up your operator ID as they’re not entitled to it. You may be learning how to audit but next time don’t give up anything you don’t lawfully have to matey
FFS what a fail, you let her write it down that was a fKN stupid move! That's their attempt to ID you to later pester you! If the drone isn't in the air the response is "get f$cked!".
Rookie mistake letting them take a picture of your operator ID. you're in the system now.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits Get another id!
I thought I had found an auditor that stood up for his rights. Then you. gave them your op id. I hope you do not do this again - you just need to show a bit of it to prove you have one. Hopefully you will learn from this and I can become a subscriber. Overall I do like your style!
Like your relaxed style PA shame you gave your op id expect you can get another one easy enough though. Keep up the good work. But please stay anonymous they have no more right to ID you than I do
Can't believe you gave them I'd. 🤔
How strange, Police can respond double crewed when a corporate entity complains. Yet you try report an actual crime and nobody is available
They prefer to go after 'awkward people'. Complete and utter cowards
They sent the best team they had to deal with a person who was reportedly asking difficult questions about make-up, fluffy bunnies and other girlie things.
I see the tyrant pigs were NOT interested in your GDPR complaint....
Probably as GDPR breaches are dealt with by the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) not the police
Blue lights....for a photographer!
Why would police be interested in criminals, far easier to deal with non-crimes (and still get paid).
Ya he was pointing the camera at them 😮😮😮😮😮😮
Preventing and detecting crime is expensive. Chaper and easier to support the requests of private companies and mediating civil disputes.
Adrenaline junkies
Why did you show the OP ID straight away should of waited for her to produce the correct legislation to ask for it.
Never tell them you have been flying it and that it has a camera therefore they then have no reasonable suspicion under schedule 9 to have the OP ID
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits Learn the basics, boomer
@@PureAudits came to ask the same question. I'd have told the patronising wee madam eff all.
@@AuldScot1888 Yup. I saw straight through her attitude.
She belongs in the kitchen.
Yes, tell them nothing!!
Police lady says she is not a fan of being recorded 😂 , but happy for herself to record an innocent member of the public.
To be fair, she didn't make a fuss about being recorded. And she didn't say how she felt about recording the public. She may not be a fan of that either. She didn't record the auditor.
No crime= no operator ID
That's not how it works
@@Mrchipsv2 you have to be suspected of committing an offence and as he wasn’t flying when they turned up so they aren’t entitled to anything
@@BG-ef8sk wrong it's absolutley nothing to do with criminal offence
@@Mrchipsv2 enlighten me then
@@BG-ef8sk schedule 9 tells you all you need to know, but basically, if they reasonably suspect that a drone is or has been flown and reasonably suspect it needs a OP ID then using schedule 8 they can ground the drone and under schedule 9 they can require the OP ID..
If you tell them your going to or have flown it and also tell them it has a camera then that's all the info they need to gain the OP ID. Best of saying nothing if they have not seen the drone in the air or even seen the drone itself.
You refused to give your name, yet made a big mistake by giving your operator ID. Now you are in the system permanently, and they have your name and address etc you registered your drone to. They have no valid reason to request your operator ID.
Thanks for letting me know. Although operator ID does not relate to me but Lesson learnt. PA
We all know that. Sometimes it’s best to be on the system for your own good 😊
I think that used to be true, but legislation has only very recently been changed, if you drone has a camera you are required by law to provide your operator ID. Of course, they can't inspect your drone too see if it has a camera but if they have witnesses on site that say they know it has a camera Youd be done for.
@@petertaylor9384 I would love to know what that law is, do you know?
@@petertaylor9384 what law's that officer 9384 ?.
When the guy in the suit came out, the police were totally wrong IMO. The guy specified about girls 18 to 19 being on site and about the boundary going upwards. The police should have stepped in at that point and explained that their boundary doesn't go up but more imortantly, gain control on the guy in the suit specifying about girls - someone's sex should be irrelevant and by him saying that and focussing on that only point, he's making a loose accusation IMO that you are there to film young girls. Legally, I would think being 18 and 19 that they are adults and thus women, not girls. That guy should have a serious talking to by his management team. Deleting a picture on a phone does not usually delete it fully as it places it in the 'bin' - I would have got the guy who took the photo to prove that the image had been deleted from the bin. The police were polite, but totally wrong in not explaining the law to the guy in the suit.
How many of those 18/19 year old "girls" put themselves all over tictoc and the other silly look-at-me sites.
The guy at 11.00 is concerned about girls 18 and 19 years old who can have sex and alcohol and vote get married but a photo might somehow effect them, what a plonker
Who knows what some sick deviant like you might do with it?😒
maybe he is a pervet who likes to see young girls walking around his factory.. why on earth would anyone even think like that unless they too are a pervert and possible up skirter, (i would find it a bit hard to do any up-skirting while flying a drone up high). or maybe he was trying to say they dont wear knickers and are doing spread legged handstands and cartwheels on the roof. ? also plenty old enough to be tax paying prostitutes' .
Breach of the peace:- Regina versus Howell 1982 states a breach of the peace occurs when someone has the fear of being harmed. To give someone the fear of being harmed you have to use threatening and or abusive language or hold a threatening and or abusive sign. (The wording is VERY IMPORTANT when it comes to an offence) so not everything can be classed a breach of the peace. You HAVE to use threatening and or abusive language. So for instance a dislike of something or hurt feelings is NOT a breach of the peace. Also the tyrant pigs are not the arbitrators of what a breach of the peace is. The law is. Regina versus Howell also goes on to say once a breach of the peace has passed there is NO breach of the peace. IT'S PASSED. The police have no powers to demand a name and address and NO powers to detain. I solicitor could easily argue that as soon as the tyrant pigs turned up any possible beach of the peace has passed. You had no legal or lawful obligation to give up your drone I.d number. Learn the law and you will outsmart them every time.
Well said
No legal requirement to show it and from that they will now add you to police national computer
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@Legislationloverauditors love to think they are correct though when wrong, but yeah schedule 9 is pretty clear, but alot of people read section 1 not section 2, they then quote section 1 which does not apply to under 250g drones that are not toys.
@@Mrchipsv2 you need to go back and read your laws again and study it in more depth. also when talking about drones make sure your talking correct sections and under what circumstances.. this fella had no reason at all to let her see the operator id , and it is infact illegal for her to of taken the picture and pass it on.....gets your facts right and stop with the myths... you have obviously got well mixed up with new legislation and under what circumstances these schedules come under. Unless you are suspected of commiting a crime you do not have to show the operator id, that is the main thing in this video.. there was never any mention of suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed. so please stop with the bullshit and making it up as you go along.. as soon as she said "show me your operator id card" i would of said NO, as straight away would know she has no clue what she is talking about, she even put her hand up to show the show the size of a card like a driving license or credit card.. No crime or suspicion of crime means no operator id needed to be show and 100% wrong to be taking photo of it..
@@philldownes8685 😂😂😂 I got to 'suspected of committing a crime' then switched off as that is wrong
Lol gave operator ID for no reason
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
Never give them you’re ID no law was broken never give them anything
You don't have to break the law for them to get the OP ID 🤷🏻♂️ they have to have reasonable suspicion that it is being flown or has been flown and it requires the operator ID ie has a camera..
@MrChipsv2 you have to show them there is an operator id on the drone, you don't have to give them the number unless they suspect you of a crime
@@scottjohnston999 wrong
You gave them your operator ID when you weren't obliged to = FAIL❌
Thanks for letting me know. I had been flying so thought that I had to show it if requested. I’ll check. PA
Not correct!
@@scottmarwild7711so schedule 9 means nothing then
@@Mrchipsv2 when no suspicion of a crime , no it means absolutely nothing.. go read up your section 9 and stop spreading the myths...
@@philldownes8685 how about you copy and paste the part in schedule 9 section 2 that says about a crime being committed 👍🏻 notice how I said schedule 9 not section 9 🤦🏻♂️
I agree with others. Should not give up operator ID unless legally required. The idea is to exercise your rights. That includes NOT giving up ANY details unless legally required to do so. PC reports "Refusing" to give details. When in fact you have "Declined". Saying "Refused" is Passive Aggressive behaviour. When they ask for your details they should say" You are not required to give me your details but are you prepared to tell me who you are?"
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits I believe it is important that you adopt your own style in order to appeal to a wider audience. I think most auditors would do well to watch how @focuspocus3690 deals with the police. Keep up the great work PA 👍
Police priorities seem to be misplaced.The man in the suit said he knows what you are doing but still tries to enforce non laws and rules.
Wow! She took a picture of your operator ID. I couldn't bear to watch it anymore.
Soon as you showed then ID I switched off
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Not quite sure why you immediately id'd yourself.....
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
Only down the road from me. Shameful behaviour from the police 😔🤦♂️
So she was running on blue lights for some one on the suspicion off being awkward 😂😂
Do not let them take pictures or write down the ID … you only have to show them..
those officers were terrible absolutely disgraceful behaviour… surreptitiously obtaining your ID …
You are carrying out a legal activity. You can’t breach the peace by definition…
The only offence was committed by the persons calling the police. and them illegally obtaining you id …
The security guard was an idiot and vulgar to bring up the nonsense about girls…
Next time you are in this situation… remind the police to stand on their oaths .. section five criminal law act 1967. It’s an offence to waste the police employment.. which is what they did.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
She acts nervous and doesnt like being filmed.....the hippocrit
hippocrit pmsl
They had no right to see your Operator ID.
No but I did say I had been recording from it, which in turn gives police the powers under schedule 9 to take down the operator ID. Early days and Big Lesson learnt and thanks for your advice. 👍 PA
@@PureAudits No it does not.. 1/ there was no suspicion of any crime, so no need t =o have seen it at all ,,, 2/ they are not allowed to photograph it, 3/ not allowed to send this photo to whoever they did .. you have no way of knowing where that EVIDENCE as ended up and its given them your name and address and from that they can get your date of birth driving license number, national insurance number, car registration number etc etc etc.... your now in the book and they got this from you without you knowing you should not of given the details out, and definitely not to be photographed..
@@philldownes8685 Have a look at the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 - Schedule 9 - Not only do you have to provide your operators ID, you now need to supply your name and address. Have a look at it (section 2 I think) and let me know what you think. PA
18 19 year old girls are adults... what's the issue ?
18/19 year old girls don't want to be filmed what makes them😊. Special?
What a patronising police officer, well done for remaining patient and polite.
Thanks for your support 👍 PA
Bad move showing id
Why did you let them take the ID on the Drone?? You can show them but they can't take it down.. that is effectively giving them your ID when you haven't broken the law
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
That copper is as thick as mince, you can not arrest for breach of the peace retrospectively, if she does arrest for it it must be at the time it is happening and once over she has to de arrest.
This is basic common law, why are we forced to pay the wages and pensions of kids who do not understand it?
Aye, and not only that after the case of “Foulkes v Merseyside police” the breach must,i repeat must be both “real and Imminent” . I would have thought that any possible breach would be by others.
@@TheGrimReaper1 Quite, but the plod maybe trying to lift Marti just in case they hit him??
Complete and utter bollocks!!. If your going to quote statute law, get some training on it first !🤦
@@501sqn3 BOTP is not Statute is it Big Boy?
I hope they got the security guards details. He was the only one breaking any laws.
If you're going to 'educate' people then learn the law and your rights about what you are doing first. You didn't have to provide them with your drone OP ID unless they had reasonable ground to suspect an offence ( schedule 8 ) or that you had or were flying it and it required a registration ( schedule 9 )
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
@@PureAudits I've seen some of Geeksvana's videos before and don't think he's always 100% correct in how he interprets the legislation. He also likes to interview actual drone police who would love for everyone to just comply with anything they said rather than follow the actual letter of the law. Personally I'll go by what the legislation says rather than what the police say it is because we all know how they like to twist the law to suit themselves and leave important bits out.
To be fair he did admit to flying and recording but that was after she asked for the OP ID.
Also as I read schedule 9 section 2 i actually can't see anything that says to show the OP ID, it only mentions the ID of the person
@@Mrchipsv2 Read on to section 8....(1)A constable may require a person in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether a power conferred by any of paragraphs 1 to 7 is exercisable.
@@PINACI thankyou 👍🏻 you should watch auditing Lancashire video, he had tape holding his camera on, a broken propella, and NO operators ID on his drone, and was still going to fly it, but cop used schedule 8 to check it over. *EDIT * just looked and you did alreasy see it
No disturbance of the peace! And absolutely nothing for anyone to have been alarmed about, as we can see!!😊
Yes no question! And thankyou!!
Suggesting that a person with a camera peaceful exercising their rights in a public might be a breach of the peace if someone objects to their presence is nonsense, especially as they allow hate marches through London every week and don't suggest that those persons might be arrested if someone objects to their presence.
I wouldn't have given them your full operator ID mate, why do that ?
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
@@PureAudits do not take any notice of what geeksvana puts on his UA-cam show, he only gets his incorrect info from a few other misfits who keep feeding him total crap.. just look at him, he is a mummy's boy who hardly ever goes out . proper duffle coat brigade. so much on his shows is wrong and even when he has had guests on their sprouting the caa laws they are also wrong.. its incredible he has not been shut down for the crap he puts out.. he makes out he is a drone specialist, no he is a bullshit specialist.
Not the best audit was it sadly. Best to know the Law before you actually start.
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
They should bring back fitness tests for the Plods, Sick and tired of seeing overweight cops .. shows a lack of self respect
Did that PC just threaten you? I believe she did for a legal activity, they now have all of your details, beware fella.
DONT GIVE EM INFO FELLA YOU DO NOT HAVE TO
Typical Police instead of telling the complainants its legal they harass you
Thumb down for showing and letting Her take your operators ID.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
Busy day , whats a slow day look like ?
What's the point of showing your id number which they get your name in seconds and then refusing to give your name which you basically just handed them ??????????
i really dont get this auditor or channel it just seems pointless , i get the point of dj , pj ,the great ab and the rest and the point they are proving ,but i just don't get or understand what the point is here , maybe im missing something ?
He's a beginner.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits fair play to you for getting out and giving it a go and good luck mate , I just thought I was missing something but now realise you’re new and just dropped a bollock oh well shit happens 👍 I’ll subscribe 👍👍👍👍 good luck with it pal
The point you’re missing is he’s not perfect like you. Give him time he’s just learning.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Absolutely pointless video if you’re going to handover your operator ID and we just spend it entire video waiting for the cops to ID you you may as well just giving them your ID and walked away. If this is how you gonna continue doing videos and everyone will stop watching and up.
Your face and name is now on the Police system so you will be identified very easily by facial recognition now also across all forces. Armed Blue light response is such an overreaction yet a shop worker can get punched and the police show up next day disgusting.
Big mistake showing them the operator ID. Please don't do that again. But we are still Your fans
Thanks for your advice and support as well. 👍 PA
Unless the cops have a direct line to the CAA, the Operator ID on its own is useless unless it is accompanied by the Name of the registered Operator ... and they can (if they have reasonable suspicion based on some kind of facts / evidence) require the identity the Operator and the Pilot (if different) ... BUT ... like someone else said, it's not your job to admit to anything and especially not wise to volunteer any information that they can use (and you never know what that might be) to convict you. If they don't know the legislation, let them consult with someone who does, OR drop themselves in the poop for a potentially nice little payout if they're the type who deserves it. Other than that, keep up the good work edumacating the UK Ignoramuses on what FREEDOM (albeit in a small but nonetheless significant way) looks like 😉👍
**********
*Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021*
*SCHEDULE 9*
*Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016*
*Commencement Information*
1 _Sch. 9 in force at 29.4.2021 for specified purposes and 29.6.2021 for all other purposes, see s. 21(1)(a)(2)_
*Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators*
2 (1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable -
(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that -
(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and
(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and
(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.
(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of -
(a) the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or
(b) the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P.
(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016 -
(a) article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator);
(b) article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(c) article 265A(6)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);
(d) article 265A(6)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(e) article 265A(7)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);
(f) article 265A(7)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(g) article 265A(9)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);
(h) article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number);
(i) article 265E(1)(a) (registration of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more);
(j) article 265E(1)(b) (display of registration number of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more).
(4) P is guilty of an offence if -
(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, information as to the identity of a person,
(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,
(c) the relevant registration requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and
(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.
(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.
Thanks for your advice and support PA
They didn't even inform you if they were recording you....
Notice the Police talk to the business owners like they are victims
My god the world has changed...... I remember the day when someone in the street with a camera was constantly photo bombed with people jumping in front of the lens shouting "hello mum" nowadays everyone seems paranoid , precious and scared little rabbits..... crazy!!!!!
18-19…..so adults then which was followed with because their parents drop them off 😂😂 Really? Can’t see many 18-19 year olds asking mummy or daddy to drop them off at work. Maybe the odd one but the slimy bloke was trying to push an agenda into the officers heads and it worked. We’re transparent but don’t like being recorded oh the irony😂😂
They called cops on him and then asked him for a favour! Such hypocrisy
Brother. You are to passive. They had no legal reason to obtain your OP. The silly PC was patronising and thick.
Don't video the 18-19 year olds?!? From 200ft up?! Does he think young adults are afraid of a camera when they're on social media recording themselves all the time. Ridiculous.
It's funny how that bloke wants to ask you not to film young girls on a bloke to bloke basis. but yet calls the police on you for a lawful activity. Why did he not come and talk on a bloke to bloke basis before. Instead he waits until the police arrive then comes over acting all friendly trying to clutch at straws because he knows the police can't stop you. It just shows the kind of mind he has when he starts going down the route of filming young girls🤔
Blimey how much do thay eat must like Thier pies
Dont need to get your details they have them all on drone id now.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
I see all the armchair experts are commenting. You do your videos the way you want. It gives a different point of view on things. Take care.
I appreciate that!. Thank you! PA
It's called constructive criticism.
Comment of the day.
Doesnt like being recorded yet records you ffs.
7:23 _"Not a big fan of being recorded."_ Said the constable with a camera and asking for details which will be recorded on their system.
My thoughts were why you allowed her to document the Operator ID, when you didn't need too . Let them work for it at the very least
So does deleting the picture still mean the company have still broken GDPR rules? How do we know that the company doesn’t immediately recover the file. Photo probably still in the security guys recently deleted file. Did the WPC check?
11:14 If they're 18/19 they're not young girls pal, rather adult women.
Why did you gi d your flyer id
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
Ah the 18 and 19 year old girls excuse, do you ever watch the news, people interviewed on camera in the town centre and kids walking past, accidental inclusion?
They sent the best team they had to deal with a person who was reportedly asking difficult questions about make-up, fluffy bunnies and other girlie things.
The way she desperately photographed your operating Id. Police are so desperate to get our private information. Sickening addiction.
Don’t give him your operator idea. You don’t have to unless you’ve committed an offence then they’ll get all your details defeats the purpose. View not just giving him your name. Don’t do that again dude.
Never mind hopefully not definitely not coming to arrest me.why do they not ask people who fly a kite or go fishing..The unnecessary use of blue lights should be addressed.is she ashamed of her job then ,she takes a job to see ,deal with the public but does not want to be filmed.an admittance then it’s not illegal so why are you here?very busy the next job is hoping someone drops some litter.we will leave he burglars alone and the dealers and car thieves.
See the little firestarter security come out hoping the cops would back him up in his rant about filming kids, what a twonk. No law is being broken, shut up get back in your shed 😂.
Another bloody waste of time.what is the wpc saying here any problems give us a ring!?the police should know to start with before turning up
Should of asked if you was being detained.
Why did you give them your operator id? Ok not first to ask haha. There seems to be new legislation. Good the id is not paired to you personally! Well done!
Wow patronisation someone isn't a crime.... I wouldn't have allowed the police the operator I'd since no crime was committed..... But your such a nice guy..... The police were fishing for everything tho even tho no laws are broken and then she says "if any breach of peace is reported they come back" but does that mean if its towards you or from you
Why the hell did he bring up filming your girls for... What a pleb. that's him trying to get the police to engage for something else
Contact. Higgs Newton Kenyon Solicitors. Liverpool.
No win. No fee. Mita breach of GDPR
Blue lights! What has this country come to, a man with a camera FFS . It is a shame you gave the ID but these things happen.
My job is to educate people 😂😂😂 but I’ll give my operator id when not required to
18/19 are adults. They phone cops on you and then asked you for favours ? What a hypocrite ,
using the excuse dont film young girls is to look good infront of the police he simply does not like you filming (prat)
Asked not to film 'young girls'? What a weird request
Weren’t young girls, they were adults.
It’s not them than 😢😢😢😢😢
That says it all doesn't it.... He thinks he votes for different people than anyone who does things that annoy him.
Ffs get barbies out of the force its all emotion and talking down to people like children
Blue lights man with a camera get robbed you get crime number what are the police really about
Plod cant demand to see an operator id unless they have reasonable suspicion you have commited an offense. Tell them to jog on
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
He's a novice he'll learn in time.
Sorry PA, I'm a huge fan, but giving them your ID when that pair of thickos hadn't stated why they reasonably suspected you of a crime (which of course was impossible!) wasn't right, but as you say it's all part of learning your work!
And that daft old fart with his young girls obsession was so so weird.
Still a big fan though of course!
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
Learn the drone laws instead of moaning at PA, you have no idea what you are talking about.
@@Mrchipsv2 😂😂😂I know 'em better than you you c***🤣🤣
Lloyds Bank. Now I understand. When I try to call because I have to. All the banks have closed down it takes ages to get an answer then the person answering has poor communication skills. Now I know why they are employing locals who don’t speak a logical English 🏴
To all you commenters criticising Pure Audits for giving up his operator ID: since when have you become so bloody perfect that you haven’t made a mistake?
To me he is the rising star of this UA-cam genre. He stands out with his calm non combative approach compared the some of the better known auditors. Once he becomes Au Fait with the law around his activities he will be one to beat.
The police are not entitled to the operators ID on your drone if you haven't broken the law
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
@@PureAudits you should know the law.
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
Why give the operator ID??
They knew I had been flying but Lesson learnt. PA
Operator ID is person responsible for the drone. Nothing to do with the pilot of the drone. Clueless.
Don’t film young women 🙄 Where did that come from? 🤔
yet again the police choosing who to side with and not being impartial.
I bet in case of lawfull flying the police may NOT use the operators ID
to get your name and details, maybe if they do someone at the police or CAA
is breaking GDPR laws. ( DOXXING )
If they see you flying or believe it's been flying the drone and know it's recording then yes they can have the OP ID by law
@@Mrchipsv2 nevermind they can ask the operators ID the problem is the are going one step further, using that ID to get your Name adres birth street number etc.. it is a bit like they stop you on false suspicion of carrying a knife and using that false suspicion to get your name etc.. and after they figured out you are innocent they still gained your information.
@@gitmoholliday5764 but schedule 9 section 2 gives them powers to take your info
Hi PA. You seem to be getting misinformation on here. The facts are that if the police KNOW that you have a drone that requires an Operator ID, thats when they can request your operator ID and Name. If they dont know what drone you have they cannot. So as your drone was in your bag, there was no obligation to provide details. If however they recognised that its a drone that needs operator Id, thats when you have to provide it - see Schedule 9 - also search for Focus Pocus youtube whom did a recent video on it titled Q&A
Brilliant info. I’ll have a look. Thanks for your help. 👍 PA
They have no right to photograph the operator I’d if you’re e not committing a crime
Nothing to do with committing a crime, they can take down the ID under schedule 9
Just an update - Three tests must be reached in order for a Police Officer to inspect (and record) a Drone Operator ID under Schedule 9 of the ANO 2016A.
SCHEDULE 9
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, (the officers were aware before they arrived that I had been flying my drone and recording with it)
AND
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, AND
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable (this relates to 250g Drones and above OR Under 250g Drones if they can record).
In my case, the officers asked me if I had been recording and I said Yes.
This then required me if asked to allow the officers to inspect (and record) my Operator ID.
My lesson learnt was not to be so forthright with the Business owners! Thanks very much for your support and advice. 👍 PA
11:10 "We've got girls here. 18-19" So not kids but adults. So can't use the "think of the children" angle. But he still tries it on. Trying to impose morals on someone else is totally immoral.
Besides they all on fb or tiktok half naked on their beach pics anyway lol
Showing whole operator ID was a mistake, only show part of it to verify that you have one, You might have been as well showing them your driving licence and birth certificate....I wish when the police are talking with anyone they would get their hands out of their pockets. ☹
Thanks for letting me know - it was my first encounter with the police where they have asked for my op id and I believed that they were entitled to view my ID without any offence taking place (see YT Geeksvana Police Powers and your Drone). PA
When are they going to prosecute these companies wasting police time? Of course they won’t they are the company private police service.
I don’t know much about laws but I do know from watching auditors you shouldn’t have given up your operator ID as they’re not entitled to it. You may be learning how to audit but next time don’t give up anything you don’t lawfully have to matey
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
FFS what a fail, you let her write it down that was a fKN stupid move! That's their attempt to ID you to later pester you! If the drone isn't in the air the response is "get f$cked!".
Thanks for your advice and support. Have learnt a lot from all the comments 👍 PA