Schedule 9 of the Drone Act Requires You to Give us Your ID 🫨🛸⚠️🚔❌️
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2024
- Part 1 - • We SUSPECT You Have Fl...
South Wales Police HQ Drone audit, officers attend and call in the chief drone officer. We have a chat about reasonable suspicion and after some time we go our ways.
Google Maps drone photo - maps.app.goo.gl/obfPhK2JP1qXL...
A copper saying they're not trying incriminate you.🤣🤣🤣I'd trust a rattlesnake before the police.
Spot on never trust a police officer !!
Yes
That statement usually follows with all manner of phishing questions. That funnily enough are asked to incriminate you. They think they are clever 😂
Exactly this. ❤
Try wearing the uniform and dealing with the crap they have to endure. You wouldn't last 10 seconds before you start crying your eyes out!!!
Never ever make the mistake that they are friendly. They are not.
Most honest comment today!
This guy is too compliant.
3 idiots, hassling a man for suspecting he flew a drone over their precious station. Someone gets burgled...'do you want a crime number'
100% poor guys feeling a bit butt hurt
I’m not entirely convinced that ‘drone officer’ was the expert he claimed to be. Well done for sicking to your guns in a polite manner 👏👏
He certainly doesn’t come across as the sharpest knife in the box does he. Looks like he used to be in the mines! 😂
Guy in the car was desperate to show some authority by spouting utter shite.
💩😂
8:10 don't try to educate him on the law now!
Police being stupid. No crime committed.
Just stop offering advice Plod we no longer respect the majority of you.
Absolutely, we own the council and pay their wages. He's definately spouting shite!
All these years I've been breaking the law - I never asked permission to walk around.
Lol
police van parked on foot path! On a bend!! Breaking the law whilst fannying about trying to find a crime that doesn't exists, acts friendly to you to make you feel tearful for not id'ing then uses police speak to his colleague hoping they can nail u
@@MickeyFKNMouseif it's close to a junction then yes it is
Parking on the pavement by a professional driver within 30' of a hazard is a serious offence mate.
Facing the wrong direction on the right side of the road.
@@muckychimneyactually no they are not. Even if they park on double yellows whilst on duty they can get a ticket.
@@muckychimney ah but is what they did here actually part of their duty? To investigate someone enjoying a lawful activity is I think not within the scope of their duty... so they must abide by the Highway Code
The police would be very happy if all criminals stood outside their station waiting to be arrested.
They would still get the wrong person 😊
Most police these days don't arrest criminals, much easier and safer to hassle and/or arrest honest people.
With a written sign saying what they done .
They still wouldn't get arrested. The coppers would be running off to arrest a man with a camera outside a shop/embassy, or they would be too busy facilitating pro hamas marches around the country. To have the time to bother with the real criminals 😂
@@gazzertrn the confessions that were made were the result of repeated knocks against the innocent suspects head with countless copies of the London telephone directories.
It doesn’t matter how helpful and polite you are with police, they always want more. They have to get those private details. It’s their fix.
Exactly, but they won't tell you where they live.
I was told :- Never talk to the police and it was a serving officer relative that told me that .
Always trying to gain Intelligence hence why its better to say nothing
What did you say to him when he said that to you?@@A2Z1Two3
The police here seemed to want to get your details, then make a pointless complaint about it later. They must think the public are thick. They need to address their ego.
They see the public as criminals, its us and them.
He’s talking absolute rubbish if you’re standing in a public place, you can have the drone in your hand, and once it’s in your hand, it belongs in the air, the civil aviation,
Ridiculous policing as normal. No idea but confident in their bullshit.
verbose
Why ask for an operator ID if no crime has been committed.
because they are addicted to 'show me your papers'.
To prove they are flying legally.
Or have flown -- allegedly.
They now have that power if they suspect you might be doing something wrong.
@@walkingwithstephen good.
If the police didn’t regularly abuse or threaten the public with dubious laws, then they’d get nowhere as their communication skills are not on the same page as normal people.
Not sure how much getting somewhere they get outside with that, aside some compliance for search or leaving, not arresting Criminals.
If people did break the law, we would not need the police.
No wonder these lot don’t investigate burglary or shoplifting they (all 3 of them in this case) spend too much time on annoying a drone pilot or investigating people who hurt one another’s feelings.
If you haven't broken the law, police cannot get your details unless they do something illegal.
Several circumstances that is not true. Driving a car for example.
Stop spreading misinformation. Police can ask for details if they see you with a drone in your hand .
@@jaysea142857 but you can still remain silent
@@jaysea142857I think he is referencing drones not cars 😊
Sadly the elephant in the room wasn't addressed, legally flying the drone over a police building in the first place.
Agree - It’s unbelievable that it got that far with all this talking absolute nonsense, going round in circles.
They don’t agree with the law.
Made a good video, silly Billies
Out of their depth, out of their minds...
But the numpty couldn't admit that or he'd have had to have shown his id.
We're not here to incriminate you 😂. They love to get the ID, it's like crack cocaine to them!😂
So..if a cop breaks the law or infringes on someones rights your able to file a complaint....problem is the damage has been done and 97% of the time the complaint goes nowhere...great system.
They chuck their 'advice' around but don't want to hear 'no laws being broken, respect my rights, leave me alone.'
This addiction for ID is mad.
He's right... its intel gathering...
GIVING YOUR LEGAL TITLE NAME IS JOINDER A CONTRACT, THEY NOW HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE LEGAL FICTION. @@peterfitzpatrick7032
It’s like crack to them…or like cookies to the Cookie Monster 😂
This addiction for ID is the same the world over
World wide gestapo.
The whole policing system can be an oxymoron sometimes because the police take an oath to uphold your fundamental human rights yet they abuse those same rights every single day.
Keep quiet, say, nothing get a lawyer, you haven’t broken the law. The law says you can fly that drone.
3 silly cops what a waste of time and money
Hey. ‘Intelligent’s reports’ don’t write themselves. We need intelligent people to do it.
The lesson from this is:
Deny everything.
18:05 Possibly the biggest load of bollocks I have ever heard coming from a coppers mouth, and I have heard plenty watching these videos. That now means that we must all ask the councils permission once we have left our houses for permission to walk on their pavements!! I can see the council phone lines being clogged up very quickly.
They don't answer the phones anyway 😊
When they say they don't have enough man power to police properly remember they wasted their time doing this.
@@cronocide Only 3 of them,lol, for a non crime, clearly as any where they have to many staff...
That's the American model they're following, lie, talk shite and the end goal is to get ID, with the added bonus of pi££ing off the accused in the process.
Plod just can't help themselves. If it's not their ID addiction it's a lecture dressed up as 'sound advice'.
That "sound advice and strongly recommend" and any other wittering can be curtailed by the judicious use of headphones or ear defenders, blatantly slip them on to prove a point you WON'T indulge their pontificating.
@@ianhill4585 I like this. 👍
Looks like the police are finally finding out what legislation is required to require drone pilot details !!
Section 9 is open to abuse, ultimately he could of remained quiet, and informed the officers that he has no legal rights to answer their questions, Rice vs Connolly 1966, the problem it lots of new legislation clashes with the precedence in court of law, you have to ask does the arrest inconvenience you so is it worth complying with draconian legislation, or risk arrest
it is sad,but just like getting pulled over...
@@shutterupphotography295oh totally section 163 & 164 are massively abused, but police officers hide behind the legislation when it comes to this
@@Scouser89Liverpool22this one grinds my gears. They openly abuse it to get ID and don’t see a problem with that.
And test it on the worst auditor on YT.
The council doesn't own the land they manage it from the public purse, the land is public.
It is managed on behalf of those who pay "Council Tax" That would be us, the general public. And I don't think they have the time to be going round asking the whole area if they are OK with it! The penny dropped a minute or so before he came out with that gash, too. It is like they can't stop the thought's coming out of their mouths 😂
Exactly right. Public land but held in trust
Haha that civsis crap doesn’t work in the UK, try that in a court and see how far you get.
The council don't see it as public owned, they claim everything as there's.
People need to go away and actually check. 😂
Councils are effectively 'bodies corporate', are incorporated and act in the manner of a company. Councils hold and legally own the land as an asset and manage it on behalf of the local residents. They usually own the freehold on local roads and verges. On adoption of roads they take ownership. They can buy land, and have the power to dispose of any land identified as council owned private or 'public' land and any buildings or other assets on it, but they must do so under scrutiny, follow regulations, process and rules to do it on behalf of the residents. They can apply byelaws and regulations on parts of the lands.
That said, whether one needs permission to fly a drone from them is another matter and one would think is a stretch, but it probably requires urther looking into.
What I take from that conversation is that work is afoot to find ways to restrict use and such as that ar part of conversations.
The so-called "Drone Expert" resorted to talking through his backside......permission required every time I take off from landowner???......absolute TOSH.
Why look a fool when you can open your mouth and prove it😂
Arse
@@robba1234Because he has a badge and a certificate to back it all up with 😂😂
😂😂”we’re not here to try incriminate you in any type of way” we’re here to just violate your rights💀💀
Getting ids is like a drug to them
Almost as irresistible as doughnuts and coffee 😊
@@shivaunt71 and abducting women.
and doing bugger all about real crime, far too hard for these cowards
Well done for holding your ground DJE...they never seem bothered by saying we can complain after they have breached our rights when too late..I wonder why?
That gets me that in court when they tell the jury to disregard something they’ve already heard.
Not too well done. He talks too much
you can make a complaint.... and they will find themselves clear of any miss doings.
DJE respectfully went way beyond what he had to do here.
When it comes down to his rights he didn't have to open his mouth.
Once he did they kept prying for more.
now he's claiming you could be aggravated trespass?> Joker.......
IF you believe that you are in the right, give them nothing, take the arrest if it's threatened, and defend your position in court.
...or STOP doing it.
If you are going to use legislation in your arguments, when confronted by the police, please make sure that you know that legislation inside out and back to front. It would help you to defend against police misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of the legislation, however, schedule 9 paragraph 2 would apply in the circumstances shown in this video and you are indeed obliged to identify yourself if required to by a constable. They only have to reasonably suspect that you were the operator of the drone and most reasonable people would suspect that you were.
I don't like it at all, but there it is.
I do have to agree, an arrest and then suing the police will put them on back front, for them to think they would rather be arrested, no further action and then we get sued for financial compensation
To which act?
The subsection also states that a crime must be suspected to request details
Here here 👍👍
@@Jessicacaca00 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
Reasonable grounds is massively open to abuse, as long as people refuse to answer any questions then it won’t assist their reasonable argument
Well done dje. Educating the police and drone cop . They hated that.
I would say IF IM DETAINED TELL ME, if NOT then I am free to leave, if NOT FREE TO LEAVE THEN STATE THE GROUNDS!
It will never happen. DJE has the characteristics of a woman. Loves the sound of his own voice. Does not know when to keep quiet. It will get him into trouble
Council don't own yhe land yhey are trustees of the people's land , the cop doesn't know his shit
DJE “Can I make one thing clear ?” (Policeman) “NO.”.
Before they even start they get it wrong. Surprised you haven’t been tased and arrested under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act, and put on a one way ticket, justified as “extraordinary rendition” to the sunny weather at Guantanamo Bay (camp delta/x-ray). I wonder if Downing Street has a flight restriction that includes sub-250g? Even if it hasn’t the armed cops couldn’t hit it at 5m with a brick or bullet - their marksmanship only works when the muzzle is against a head (ref Jean Charles de Menezes).
Indeed, on the orders of Cressida Dick later promoted to commissioner of the Met. She was crap at that job also.
And finally DJE... Learn to talk less..... You were lucky today because the guy in the car was an Idiot, even though he was the supposed expert.... You would have had no complaint if they pushed because you gave them everything they needed to "Reasonably" suspect you.........
Say nothing. Only answer questions if it’s a legal requirement. The only fish that got caught is the that opened its mouth.
Learn a bit of Spanish-Urdu-Gujarati. Demand an interpreter.
A good answer to an intrusive question is, “Why?” As to TV licensing. “Are you the householder?”
Why bother making a complaint? Would they complain to your mother if they had a complaint about you?
Im going for a walk down to the shops tomorrow, I'd better phone the council first for permission to walk on their footpath
The NOC police have to have the last word. It’s embarrassing.
NPC that is
Cringeworthy Police
Firstly as I mentioned several times remain silent uphold your rights its not clever content its opening yourself up. Take legal advice first HNK solicitors article 8 and 10 protects lawful activity and expression. Either give up auditing or stand up for yourself ours rights are not for sale.
Or do what he does and dont take the P, cos if you listened to what the policemen says it will spoil it for the real drone community when they change the laws or even ban them, like most of Europe has don and even Tunisia if that happens you wont have any content to give advice to 😂
@@braddbradd5671He just bends over and takes whatever they say politely with a smile.😮 Although he didn't give up ID but the police was well out of line. Being polite but still trying to violate and get something on you giving words of advice they just can't help it.
But the point is, DJE was most likely to have being flying legally, the sore point for the police was it was over police premises, ---- that's all. They can whinge and bitch,and try to get them banned, but like legal driving , there's nothing they can legally do to stop it.
Copper in the van was an oaf, the stuff he trotted out --- danger to public, trespass, absolute tripe! Just scaremongering.
@@ianhill4585 correct he was completely lawful and yes personally the police was feeling anxious although they have to stay impartial apparently.🤔 The point I was making from the first post was if we keep bending to opening up trying to justify a lawful activity then we eventually lose rights. Don't get me wrong DJE seems like a decent bloke and has to make content but sometimes I just think less is more. He does some decent work no doubt 60 plus thousand subscribers. Why the police keep putting themselves in the firing line for verbal recourse for lawful activity is beyond me. However, giving them information gives them perceived power for lawful activity they don't need to know why or who or when or where.
@@kevinsancto1574 I was actually more responding to what Braddbradd was saying, I interpreted it as "stop doing so much lawful business with the drone over the police station" because drone flying may become banned maybe FOR flying over the police station. I was trying to say , perhaps the cops need to be shown that their "dislike" ( in this case the drone wasn't even in the air when they turned up whinging) is probably not going to lead to a banning, I was thinking along the lines of classical conditioning, the more you're (they )are subjected to it, the more normal it will become. They may have powers to check a flying drone, and the more common it becomes the less inclined they'll be to probably bother, as familiarity breeds contempt. but in this case trying to check it whilst it was in someone's hand,was truly laughable, and they clearly made themselves look like chumps in this footage.
Just making it up as he is going along.
What they don’t get and always say when they breach your rights - ‘you’re welcome to complain at a later date’ but they spout that out all the time because it does not affect them personally. It infuriates me!
He was being very awkward that bloke in the car. When you said can i make one thing clear and his response was no, that pretty much said it all in regards to trying to contradict him on something. He certainly came across a mr know it all and did not like to be questioned on anything , in regards to what he was saying.
That would be an interesting FOIA the agreement for the police to fly from any council property.
Brilliant 2 videos and you clearly held your own with the 3 officers. Well done for sticking up for your rights. Very proud of you DJE 👍👍👍👏👏👏❤️
They all want to talk until they don't get their own way.... let's see
When they are bested , they trot out the" going round in circles. I'm not going to argue" excuses ,or they just fold up their tents and wander off. That's their "wrong - but not wrong defence".😮
Much I we love you DJE. Try just saying “ I don’t answer questions “
Be a crap video, then. No one would watch.
They love giving final directives.
They want to control your breathing as well.
Good work on standing up for your rights.
By telling them you had a drone gives them reasonable suspicion 🤦♂️
Police must get a pay bonus for name collecting as there always so desperate for you to submit and give them your name.
Basically you incriminated yourself and that give them ground's they can reasonably think it was you that was flying the drone.
19:00 On that same logic, would you need council permission to sit on a park bench? Wow, that really opens up into a dystopian Orwellian scenario of asking for every single "Freedom" -i.e., what freedom.
You wouldn’t be able to leave your house.
Check out Focus Pocus ‘Q&A’ video of 21 Jan 2024 about the powers the police now have to take drone operators’ IDs.
Intelligent that's a joke since when were the police intelligent
Not part of the requirements
It would have been easier to argue his car was red
Hahahaha piggies were getting upset 😂.
I have to laugh when the copper said you can make a complain if they violate your rights. You make a complaint and the answer is we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing. It is just a waste of time. Better to take an arrest and sue them.
Yeah, I think you're really skilful with these interactions. Right on the edge of being too difficult but then really fair when they are. Interesting stuff!
Perfect example of why so many people dislike the police. It’s like a Laurel and Hardy sketch
It is not a grey area in any way. As the chief drone officer he needs some serious retraining.
You gave them far too much leash.
Exceptionally well handled. 10/10
Fair play for not letting them play you on this one DJE.
They clearly tried numerous times, even while trying to come across as friendly, but you stuck to yours and our rights. 👍
I'd give my left testy to see you walk around with just the DJI controller watching an older video of you flying it.
😂😂😂😂😂
I did and the reaction was outrageous.
100% you won't believe how people freak out when you're just watching old videos on your dji remote 😂😂😂
Now that would be great 😂
Reggie used to wind them up with an Xbox controller.
Is it against the law is the question and nothing else.we can without the flannel ,the twisting of other legislation to use it against a person.
Good morning DJEMEDIA and to everyone presently Waiting🎮🛸❤️
He says you can complain because he knows the police will investigate themselves and find they did nothing wrong…and this is the problem with the police…they know they’re untouchable
The officer in the car was talking bubbles 💭...
Don't you have to have committed an offence before they can make demands? Just flying is not an offence is it? They are desperate to save their foolish faces!
Pinaci news covered this the other day in a comment. Section 9 gives them the right to your id if they suspect you of flying the drone.
So the rules have just changed?@@reddevil3874
Only if they KNOW or suspect that the sub 250g drone has a camera, if they have no idea what drone has been "flown" then they can't really suspect you of breaking the regulations, best thing is to not say anything.
@@Bootie-wt3ob
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.
well done for remaining polite but firm with the increasing pressure from these guys - top work 🙂
You flew over a police station. That’s not illegal. Why all this interrogation? No crime has been committed.
Asking the council for permission to fly from public land? Do they make this stuff up on the spot?
Oh my word 🙄 you’ve broken no laws but give me your details and then complain later. You couldn’t make this stuff up
Serious question.. If he got the flyer ID would he need a warrant to get your details from the CAA database?....... if not, this makes a mockery of, you don't have to say anything".Just having a drone will mean they can legally demand your details any time they like.........
Wouldn't have thought so. They don't need a warrant to get details from DVLA
"Reasonable suspision" and I think that, in this case, they have "reasonable suspision" considering you are holding a drone. Schedule 9 is very clear.
Can imagine Yardley Ski with those two old women!
"Foxtrot Oscar!" 😁
Well handled dj you know your stuff 😂
We received a call that a car suspiciously drove past the police headquarters, your car seems to be next to it now so we need to check your drivers license. How ridiculous 🤣😂😂
Fishing
He is right about one thing. The more that is abused the more likley the CAA will tighten rules
You just know yhe law will be changed re drones
As long as drone fliers stay within the law, how can they be abusing it? What will happen , is that the police wont like where some of the drones fly , apply to the CAA, and get the law changed , without discussing it with any drone organisation. |And ' that ' is abuse.
He also seems the type that'll bend the CAA's ear to put full restriction zones on police stations.
@@richard6440 How do you get around the Flying using first-person view (FPV) when operating on your own?
@@nextbaseIQ I use line of sight. I never use the camera on my drone to see where it is.
Again DJE, you don't need to disclose drone details unless and ONLY unless you have been accused of breaking the law. Give the coppers drone details and they will get your name and address.
Do they sniff evo stick bet he used to sell time shares
The Drone police officer sitting in the car was spot on.. when he said when pilots misuse drones the laws get tougher for all drone pilots.. and the laws are relaxed now 😮
Its quite scary how they want ID so badly. How many people have unlawfully given details under duress
They make it up as they go along 😂
Banger..I hope you got to Swansea.. the new land-rover garage awaits you and the dvla..😊😊. Swansea audi St Claires..you'd be out on your ear haha. Hit me up, I'll show you around..💪👍
Maybe something like this..
"officer, do you have reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed"
"no"
"then why are we here? I have told you what I'm doing and unless you're arresting me, I'm off to continue my lawful duties"
You handled them nicely DJE. You are now one of my favourite auditors. In a short space of time, you have really demonstrated how to handle these goons!
Public land is any land owned by the government or the state & as councils are local government etc. etc. etc. The main things to check for are any local by-laws issued by councils.
I think you'll find that "maintained at public expense" has somat to do with it.
Well done for standing your ground
Oh my, I don't know how you stay so calm while they churn out their litany of directives.
That’s officers face showed exactly what he was thinking.
You gave your ID. Failed.
Asking the Council for permission to fly from publicly funded land 😂😂 and the Drone chief asks the council if he can? Yeah I bet he does ffs!!