ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2023
- Thank you everybody for tuning in to the afternoons live today that took place in the shopping centre, and here is the 1st encounter with much better audio and from the high resolution hard copy, not internet stream quality for those who missed it...
What I also found out in this 1st random live, was that time can be a negotiable instrument if reasonably applied...
BANAMAN's Social Media Platforms
WEBSITE: www.mediark.co.uk
TWITTER: / banamannews
BITCHUTE: www.bitchute.com/BANAMAN
FACEBOOK: / banamans
NOTICE to SUBSCRIBERS and COMMENTERS
Comments are not actively censored or removed from this channel. If you see a comment that goes against TH-cam terms and conditions, please report it yourself, there is an option on every comment for those offended to report directly to TH-cam. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is very rapidly being censored by the powers that be.
Please bear in mind when commenting or replying to comments, there is no need to make personal remarks at people, by doing so, you may end up becoming hidden from the channel.
You the commenter who makes comments from your TH-cam account placed against any comment or video uploaded to this channel, are solely accountable and responsible for what you have chosen to type. BANAMAN is not liable or responsible for any words posted by you or any third party with your TH-cam account. Most importantly, peoples views are not necessarily the views of BANAMAN or anyone else engaging on this channel.
There are many good people commenting on these video's with the exception to a minority, please try not to call each other names, as we all believe what we believe until we believe otherwise!
If you believe you have been hidden from accessing this TH-cam account, please make contact through www.mediark.co.uk stating the name of your TH-cam channel that you believe may have accidentally been denied access.
Thank you for your views and participation with the messages and debates on this channel.
You should remind them that if their body camera is on you will just use their footage instead. So either way you will get your video recording done... either via Subject Access request or through your own camera.
I have pinned your post because you identify with the BIGGER Picture...! There are so many different elements in the videos I produce, and if people look close enough, they will see many more BIGGER Picture elements... Example; Security first concentrated on turning off the camera... The BIGGER Picture presented itself here that the request/directive was futile and throughout the whole interaction, there was no lawful reason to stop it! Keeping with this one element, they eventually retreated and made the element of leaving as a condition of entry is to abide by the rules of their corporate policy that I can no longer stay on the property. This is the only course of action they can reasonably do to stop the filming inside the shopping area. Thanks for pointing out the fact, that your keen eye also spotted the element of using their own body worn cameras to use for the same interaction. 👍
❤ l think a subject access request would require them to provide cctv footage from entry to exit as well as security personnel body cam. Got to be worth a go 🎉
@@soylentgreen326 I 100% agree with you, but because they can loose cctv footage, I prefer to record my own video because then it saves the hassle of applying for a copy under GDPR. My aim is to highlight that society needs to comprehend that video recording in public spaces even on private property is lawful Policy just makes problems for the staff and owners of the property unnecessarily. any complaints by other customers should they arrive, then they can educate the customer that it's a public space like it is outside and no expectation of privacy can exist in public spaces. I have identified that being nice in a challenging way can throw security off balance... I would like to see better training for staff and security who are the forefront of customer image for any business likewise... They quite often seem to forget that point!
@fmotl when I asked them about their bodycams, first replied with its not on and the second one when I asked him to put it on, said no. Now back to the first one, he thought I was asking his collegue to turn it off 😎👍
@@Stop-Auditors-in-There-Track I would not trust your judgement, you don't listen...! I never once told any of them to turn their cameras off, 10:49 was a request for first security to turn his camera on and his own reply was it’s not on! You got that wrong...!
11:19 it’s wise I don’t turn my camera off so I asked the second security to turn his on as well! You got that wrong as well!
Even second security replied with "No I am not" in other words, he was answering my question to turn his camera on while the other security operative carried on ... LISTEN next time 🤣
Clean your ears out, I never told any of them to turn their cameras off, I asked them both to turn them on. The first security operative also needs his ears cleaning out, because he also thought I told them to turn the camera off.
BIGGER Picture…! Not only you don’t appear to see it, you quite clearly failed to hear it!
Thanks for your comment, many people don’t look and listen, your not the first and won’t be the last, I even do the same myself sometimes so feel free to misjudge me and my endurance all you want, it’s your prerogative!
I would say have another listen, and you will then stand corrected as you appear to have been mislead by the security misinterpreting my recorded statement!
Why don't you have a look at my website?
Wow a morgue with a shopping mall. Brilliant.
A proper horror show
Low intelligence zone
Security takes his glasses off with 50 seconds left in preparation for forcefull removal 😅
This place needs a mass audit.
That would be fun 😁
Why are security so rude and aggressive nowadays ?
Always have been, just filmed more these days
Because their ego is dented when people don't do what they say 😊
Mark: “Do you have the authority to allow me to film?”
Goon: “No, it has to come from Management”
Also goon: “It will be a NO for today”
Those goons IQ wouldn’t be above 100 even if you added both together…
I think you added an extra 0 in there somewhere.
Tweedle Dee and tweedle dumber 😂😂
The three minute warning. Haha.
Security reminded me of Hale & Pace with The Two Rons every time they said "Da management".
LOL
Jobsworth security
Security have a slight problem. There is nothing on the website for the centre about any code of conduct. So they are creating policy on the hoof. They are basically running the centre instead of the management.
" NOT ALLOWED " !!!😏🙂
I can remember saying that at Infant School
As long as I’ve lived in the U.K. (Manchester) I’ve always thought the U.K. laws on filming and taking photos being “not allowed” is totally bizarre “on private land” especially where we are all subjected to CCTV and their cameras, yet we are not allowed to film them - I suspect they will try to change the U.K. laws to ban all filming by private citizens in all public spaces in the U.K. - and I’ve seen the same kind of bizarre and paranoid behaviour going on back home in the Republic Ireland, including with the Gardai (police)
First time ive ever seen a hand held body worn camera 😂
I wonder if the meeting was about why there is no staff at work 🤔
Most likely about why attendance at the centre is down, maybe they could have saved a lot of money by just watching this video, with security like kodjak it is very evident why attendance would be down
2 hard men working in the shoping centar job gone to far
Ghost town soon to be closed we have similar place the Lowry that's the same almost empty
Shoppers turn up without prior permission
Everyone is there by open invitation so that's incorrect
@@tomalex4806 OK then by going by that logic so was he
@@frankgardiner5002 open invitation to be on site and shop. Not open invitation to start recording
@@tomalex4806 There is no policy on their web site that I can find that prohibits public photography or recording of the centre also it's classed as a public place even though it's private property
@@frankgardiner5002yes it's private property but with open public access via open invite which can be revoked at anytime even without reason.
And they are not obliged to put it on any signs, they can verbally tell you "no filming without prior approval"
But it would be easier for them to put it on signage around the centre, maybe they will update it I don't know
We can safely say security didn't do a good job making the place look good.
Nice one Mark baldy security man thinks he’s a bouncer
Snappy security guards 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
A Couple of King Canute's, trying to hold the smartphone tide back.
If you need permission to use your own camera, then you will need to ask permission to hold a mobile phone, or maybe even ask permission to go to the toilet. If they want to get so petty about cameras, then their stupidity needs to be highlighted and exposed. Cameras aren't dangerous. They don't destroy anything. Except egos.
Have you been there? It’s a dump!.
You can’t film me! I’m copyrighted!
Not very busy shopping hall you could almost wish for a tumble weed like in the old western films
Straight in on the aggression. Atta boy. No need for polite discourse. Straight in with the thuggery.
Primary school must have been fun for him.
If anyone ever wondered where Traffic wardens went after deciding they wanted a job in dry conditions......
🤣🤣🤣
Security guy doesnt know his job role ... its reasonable force ...and would it be reasonable to get hands on with someone whos filming which is allowed in public weather its private property or not ... thats the grey area that could leave security with a claim against them
It's more the fact that they'll go hands on if he refuses to leave when told to that's when they go down the reasonable force bit under common law. As if they wanna stay on site you have to abide by their rules.
No permission to record on site then either stop recording or get out kind of thing which is their right as a business to have as a policy which they're allowed to enforce.
Well it's failing fast no idea 💡💡💡💡😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
They want your money.. only your money,
couldn't care less about anything else.
Anyone not being familiar with Crystal Peaks would think this is some Harrods lookalike. It’s not it’s a complete dump!! In the middle of a housing area. If this centre had any sense they’d have used the opportunity to showcase it as a great place to visit. Let us show you round we don’t usual allow photography but let me show you some of the great shopping opportunities. But sadly they showed dumb security who are mini Hitlers drunk on their power to “remove you using minimum force” 🙄. Check how busy it is. Deserted. Wonder why?
Been told by friends that the centre is OK for shopping, not sure now, il give it a miss.
Tell two friends, and they will tell two more friend, and those will then tell two people each . . . .
I'm an occasional visitor as I only live 5 miles away. It's fully publicly accessible with an implied right of access. I will be sure to film next time I'm in there, probably at Bere's for the best pork sandwiches in the world. 👍
I rarely go to shopping centres , but I would say I always see people filming , very often young people using high quality 4K cameras on smart phones.
Apart perhaps from sound quality , the footage the video would be the same as the Auditor was using .
I assume there was no signage banning photography , as the security did not contradict him when that point was made ( they ignored it)
from what i understand even though its a private place it has public access which makes it a public place from opening to closing so there fore you can film.
You'd still need their permission to actually stay on their property and film though because soon as they tell you to leave you have to or get dragged out kicking and screaming basically 😂😂
What I did the last time I took a short cut through a shopping centre and was accosted by "hired thugs" who insisted on trying to intimidate me for having a camera on me waa left the centre then promptly set up just off their property on the public road in my van with my video camera on a tripod and used my DSLR to photography through the doors till I got bored just to prove they were incorrect in telling me " It is illegal to film their premises and amything inside their premises" 😂😂😂
This is why its pointless asking, you know you can anyway.
2:28 - “ooh, I’m famous!” 🤔
It’s private property when they want it to be yet it has public access to shop and spend your money there. They want your money but don’t want you filming it to promote the centre, that just shows how they only want your money in the centre but couldn’t give two monkeys about the persons themselves, just the money they spend there.
He went there to report on customer service. There was no representative of Crystal Peak’s customer service available, so the shopping centre failed big time on that one. The security were really dealing with a situation that could have been avoided had there been a decent level of customer service. It wasn’t really security’s remit and they handled it pretty well, though their demeanour towards the customer wasn’t particularly user friendly, but they probably have had no training in that.
That would be a fair analysis for the BIGGER Picture...! As much as I may be a difficult customer, customers come with different levels of expectation, I only present a situation that they then have an opportunity to hopefully learn from. Thank you for your comment.
Boldly hiding his sia licence
The thing I find most surprising is that one or both of those clowns are likely ex Military and should be well versed in handling the public in a perfectly acceptable fashion.
Nice one mark , always delivers xxx
Are they SIA if so unless you offer violence they can't go hands on
Wronggg
This thread is riddled with people that like to speak incorrect facts on what security can and can't do when it comes to trespass and so on.
It's embarrassing 😂.
"SeCuriTy cANt gO hAndS oN"
Yes they can. Deal with it ffs
@@tomalex4806 Im not wrong I do know what they can or canot do I have nany freinds in security SIA will revoke or suspend your SIA licence if you go hands on unless threatened with violence oh n security have no more powers than members of public this is from a security firm so go away ffs
@@anuvabastidanakist2437 I work in security you tool so iknow from experience and knowledge of the law that when someone does not leave when told to they are then trespassing therefore security can use reasonable force under common law to remove that said trespasser.
The SIA will not take any license off anybody for using reasonable force to remove a trespasser so you are wrong. As whoever tells you security cannot go hands on unless someone is violent is spreading false information 👍. You do not have to wait for anyone to turn violent to go hands on to get someone out
What is it with this whole thread it's absolutely ridiculous what people come out with.
So much misinformation
@@tomalex4806 yes from useless renta wanna be cops oh and its minimal force are you SUA registered or front of house? I have searched SIA websites thats where I get my info from
@@anuvabastidanakist2437 im sia doorman and its not minimum its reasonable force .... and yes if someone goes hands on to eject a person refusing to leave but if tbat person is being calm and they are refusing to leave it can become a grey area and if that person decides to make a claim against you its down to a judge to decide if what force was used is reasonble .... as a door man we have got the good old " they were in drink so may be unpridictible " i always give them 2 warning then my stare which usually works and if they still refuse they are leaving backwards and once out the venue they can scream shout all the abuse they want lol ... as for the sia courses they aint worth a bolt mate ... its all bollox .. having a badge doesnt make you a good security worker infact the most the people that get passed on through the sia are not fit for purpose and i would refuse to work with them ... some are cowards and some become powertrip ego maniacs and others just get that pack bully mentality .... i always ask myself .. could i leave this person to work this venue or at least deal with situations alone ... weather or not they could physically manage it is one thing but would they be mentality tough enough to be prepared to deal with it on their own
If yes then thats the person i want working with me ...soneone i know that will have my back because they are prepared to stand there alone so will 100% stand there with me
It would be nice if all security staff could have proper customer care training rather than what we normally see. Some hope! There is enough material in that shopping centre for an entire PhD dissertation!
Crystal peaks, not been there for a while. Imagine most people go to meadowhall.
10:35 So he asks Banaman what's he's doing and Banaman tells him. And he acknowledges that he's heard when he demands that Banaman turn off the camera and then he can ask for permission. Then at 10:59 he asks Banaman for the reason that he's visiting. Is this guy that dumb and forgetful that within 30 seconds he's forgotten what he's been told.
They never listen when the people are talking. Just wait till they can talk again
Very funny ❤ nice one Mark.
I went to Sainsbury's next door, I think they have started calling some females Karen, now I know why some are called Karen and all will be revealed next... 😂
@@BANAMAN 👍
If management can grant you permission and the goons cant , then the goons cant deny you. Thats me being logical.
goonsquad can force u to do as they want with intimidation and bullying tho.. like a government agency does
How large is the vocabulary of those goons? All I heard them say was ‘NO’. About 5,000,000 times…
Not seen Max & Paddy for ages... Baldy Bouncer!
I was going to visit that shopping centre to spend my money but I’ll not bother now, I’ll go somewhere where the staff are more friendly.
13:05. He had a point there 😆👍
I love it when I hear people say "at the end of the day" like that's the definitive word on the subject and there is no more that can be argued. In my experience what it does usually mean is "I know very little on this subject and am merely expressing my opinion based on no evidence whatsoever and probably won't understand anyway if you know more than I do; which I am desperately hoping you wont"
Sometimes, people say it out of habit and don't realise what it is they are saying. Life's a learning curve for all and it's good that we have a healthy form of opinions, it helps get to the bottom of society and the way we all interact and interpret.
If anyone says "at the end of the day" I quickly reply "it goes dark"
minimal force but no physical force hmmm
Lool exactly
Filming is usually fine for personal, non commercial use.
Reminds me of Hale & Pace, on behalf of "The Management".
19:10 So they'll remove Banaman if he doesn't leave in the next 40 seconds. Except they haven't ordered out of the centre. He's already told them he'll be leaving so they haven't told him to leave. They can't suddenly say that because Banaman has changed his mind that they will use force to remove him.
While you can always see the many BIGGER Picture elements, I will continue to be the fly in their ointments.
Batman & robin ,laughing stock
Hi Colin here
As Crystal Peaks is private property, I would say it is the management's perogative to decide whether canara can be used. However, the security should be made aware of the fact.
Security just do what centre management tell them to do which is, no permission then don't allow recording etc..
@@tomalex4806 They do, but management don't recognise yet that their policy can be detrimental to their public image. All they need to do is educate any complainant that the public spaces on private property do not cater for any expectation of privacy in public. This is key for management and security to put in to practice, then you won't see potential problems with corporate image like these!
@@BANAMANi get where you are coming from but coming from someone who's worked in the industry and the way managers work etc I don't see them caring or changing their view on allowing filming without permission on their site.
It's gone on for years and years.
Unless something changes in law which it won't then it is what it is. That's life 👍
You can't just turn up and film, 😅 well I can coz thats what I'm doing right now I have done and plenty of other people will too. Why don't they just stop every one who walks threw the door with a camera oooo that's right you can't inforce that can you. And at what point do you ask for permission then eh? 🤔 I would love to know if a thousand of their visitors rang the centre to ask for permission who would be their to answer them? Coz let's face it when is management ever available 😅😅😅
I will always be mesmerised why they removed two males with cameras recording and left a lady still filming the same scenario inside Meadowhall... Memories are made of these 🤣 And for your information Cat, one of the security operatives who worked at Meadowhall at the time is now a police officer working out of Sheffield Snig Hill and he told me personally that he never understood why they left you there either...
@@BANAMAN There we go Madness eh . I will still till the end of time never understand with why Just WHY they have such a major issue with people recording anyway, not hurting anyone and it makes no sense at all 🙄
@@TheCatwoman2005 Till the end of time, I share your thoughts 👍
Ken Livingstone did a video on this at Canary Warf after the abuse a lit got from security and police.
He absolutely ran rings around them and made security, and the police look like the utter idiots they were. Shopping centres have an implied right of access, now they can signpost no photography but if not then they cant say its wrong, as others have said gdpr means you can request video pertaining to yourself in the centre, so if they wont allow you to film then request the footage and let them provide your footage at their expence.
I wonder how long before they dont make up silly policy.
They don't have to have signs to say anything. They can verbally tell you no filming.
They are not obliged to put it on signs
You can't film, yet you could request a copy of every piece of camera footage under GDPR. Not the brightest are they!
they can't afford above room temp IQ ppl
You can't request all security cam footage only the parts pertaining to you ie that you are or are very likely to be in, but hey that's even better as they then have to look through the footage to make sure they only send the relevant footage.
@@thorgrimb2416 gud point
You can only request footage that contains you. That what the subject access request is, to get data that's held on you and you only, nobody else.
You are clearly not the brightest you don't understand what it actually means ffs😂
I was subscribed, i think TH-cam are unsubscribing folk. Thought u might like to know 😢
Nothing surprises me with TH-cam!
What's an email number? 😮😅
You should try one with your camera switched off but while recording covertly via a button or body cam, that way you get a reaction just to holding a phone /camera without it switched on
“We can remove yer….”
Looking forward to that, aren’t you, bucko? The alternative is critical thinking, and that’s asking too much.
Any force used has to be necessary and proportionate. Not sure what minimal even means - if someone started kicking and screaming then the force that's necessary may need to change to a lot more than minimal, which is what anyway, gently holding an arm?
These places need closing, they are a law onto themselves, they are frightened to death of you seeing and reporting on any negativity. Jumped up jobsworths are too full of ego to act properly. Total joke. What is the world coming to. The very law which lets them film you are denied to members of the public , have we lost all sense and just accept it, very sad, robot controlled.
Only one problem here with that. They claim it is private property in one breath and in the next they want the public on the property to spend to keep the shopping centre thriving. Yes they can film you under the same law of no expectancy of privacy in public but as I said when you want to film in there they claim it is private. Pot kettle black comes to mind. If it was a mainstream media wanting to film a news report that would give the centre a free plug then that’s fine but not a single person with a camera wanting to do the same. Threats of using force is nothing new with security, it is there go to if you do not do as they want you to do. Thugs with badges that think they are god that you must do as they say, with little or no social skills towards the public, all either wanna be cops or ex cops that still think they are cops.
Get yourself some spy glasses and then you can turn the camera off and still film.
Oh they will always want to have a word.
16:12 It's not just minimal reasonable force. It's when it appropriate and necessary to protect property and the safety of others. So standing doing nothing but holding a camera that is turned on does not meet the requirements for appropriate and necessary to protect anything or anyone. The usual stupid security who are badly trained. And because they are stupid they open themselves up to potential civil claims everytime they think they are following their training - but not the law.
It's more the fact they'll use reasonable force (under common law) to remove a trespasser if you don't leave when told to, not in your own time so that will meet the threshold for ejection.
They do not need to state any reason as that is the rights what businesses and organisations have when it comes to private property.
Then again you can come up with all the spew you want until you're blue in the face it, doesn't change nothing
We used to have this in my last supermarket a few years ago - other staff, management and security used to go mental at the sight of a camera and thier paranoia was comical to witness - maybe it was because they had something to hide, like all lawbreakers and bullies do
@@tomalex4806 It is a shame that they choose these lines of actions based on corporate policy, but since when has corporate policy been in the best interest of consumerism is what I think about as this helps to form a part of the BIGGER Picture...! I offered them my elbows because under common law I accept they can control who comes on the land or not, but it does not make any sense to confront a camera operator who is acting reasonably and offering to promote the shipping centre because it appears to be failing it's consumers! If corporate satanists changed their policy's on filming, it could then help to bring in more choppers! BIGGER Picture...! Despite the fact it's a private property with invites for shoppers, it's still deemed a public space and therefore should be treated as such that there is no expectation of privacy in public! This is so easy to comprehend, and although the police now accept that filming in public is a lawful act, don't you think it's about time that corporate satanists should change their policies on places like shopping centres regarding filming? I think educating any member of the public whether in public or in a shopping centre on private property for example, should be educated that there is no law excluding people from video recording in public spaces, even on private property because the space is deemed publicly accessible by invite to all without prejudice!
Incorrect. You know frauditors say “trespassing is civil!”? It refers to Common Law not Statutory Law. Trespassing is a civil tort. That means it is a conflict between two or more parties, one of whom has been wronged. That wrong allows civil remedy under Common Law. The remedy is to remove the person. If the person won’t leave, they can use reasonable force. There is no sliding scale. Trespassing? Off you go 😊
@@jophillips8230 There is a sliding scale. There is context. Common law does not allow reasonable force to be used all the time. It must also be appropriate and necessary. That usually means to protect people or property. Trespassing by putting one foot one foot or a little bit further onto some business' private property is a nothingness. Even under civil tort it's a nothingness. Because the owner hasn't been wronged. They have to actually suffer to be able to do anything. Such as being denied the quiet enjoyment of the property.
Not following their policies and guidelines is not denying other people using the place the enjoyment of the place. Unless the policy is for something that obviously upsets people such as skateboarding. But for something like using a camera or a man being barechested or someone walking barefoot that does not meet the requirement of appropriate and necessary. Just because a business has a policy doesn't make it right or lawful. Many businesses will set rules and get away with it because no one complains because they aren't affected by it, or they are sheeple and bow down to the authority of the business.
Businesses don't have any authority over people. Businesses don't have any rights. There are contracts and they can be verbal or implied, but they still need to be fair and reasonable when it involves individuals. And making up stupid rules and not announcing them but hiding them on a website few know about in a place no one bothers to look doesn't make the rule reasonable. It makes it unfair. Doubly so when the rule is not enforced 100%.
It must also be borne in mind that private property comes in many forms. From a private residential home to a patch of waste land. Someone can trespass on all of them. But what can happen as a result can vary. A home owner can use reasonable force such as pushing and blocking immediately. A patch of waste land, not fenced off, that has been used by kids loads of times, means nothing can be done about a trespasser.
Not even a thank you to the guy who gave you directions to the information desk?
Click this time point 3:07 and you will see the man and hear my thanks because at time point 1:45 earlier, he told me to follow him so no need to say thank you at that point as we was still engaged by me following his invite. I just lagged behind him slightly as I had my eyes on radio guy as he might have been security. Then when I got to top of escalator, you can see the man again as I thanked him. I think you may have missed those bits!
@@BANAMAN Sorry, yeah didn't catch that bit. My bad.
@@dave4728 Your not bad, your good.
Meadowhall actually changed their signs to include no filming after an auditing encounter. I can't remember who's video I watched, but it took them a few months. I'd check each time I went in, but they did do it eventually. Maybe Peaks might do the same now.
Next it'll say
"No staring at anything" 😂😂😂
@@highrider9168 Fk sake, don't give em ideas 😂
You're correct, I personally asked the police on video when being escorted out of Meadowhall by police along with others to advise Meadowhall to put signs up to include this. The fact that they have put a sign up is now a focus point to help the security when they state no recording is allowed. But even though the sign has now been put up, the situation will never change as it is only policy. The best thing Meadowhall can do is make it a non issue unless they get reports of unlawful filming, but Meadowhall is just as a public space as on any public street in the UK, and there is no expectation of privacy in public whether it is private property with public invites such as Meadowhall, or non private property! This is the BIGGER Picture... The picture that Meadowhall fail to comprehend and they are a representation of nazism and the demise of their own corporate embodied culture!
@@BANAMAN Thanks for the reply Mark. That's good information. I worked there for a brief time in the Oasis. They are not my cup of tea at all. Shut up and keep your innovative ideas away because we're in charge😂
@@steoneste One of the security is now a serving police officer in South Yorkshire police. I won't say any names, but when we just happen to bump into each other recently, we had a great conversation and he turned out to be very nice in person.
when he said his name was robin.. u should've asked him 'whats ur 1st name?' ... is it chris? '
Christopher Robin, now you bring back some memories when I used to read books when I was little, times when tv's were mainly available with three channels in black and white.
@@BANAMAN i remember having only 3 and then 4 coloured channels and static for channel 5
I said maybe........
I wear a police style bodycam and NEVER get asked if I am filming ever! No one ever notices my insta360 go3 either
Ya sound lark yunks. Ave a nice dair.😊😊😊
They've played too much hitman
You should have asked if they know about section 33 cja
Implied rights of access can be revoked at anytime even without reason. So it's pointless stating it
Both of these thugs faces are now in the public domain. People watching this will recognise them and name them accordingly.
banaman, i have a gud idea for a audit... a fart spray audit
The centres empty film for historical purposes it will be closed soon. The management are not in a meeting they have well gone to Amazon.
NWO 😞
That's a good one from security, I will give you the email number ?
Are you allowed to film in shopping centres or not?
Lawfully yes, there is no law against it. But because it's private property, although they can't stop you filming, they can ask you to leave and generally say it is a condition of entry, stop recording or you will have to leave. This is the basic bottom line on filming in public spaces on private property.
@@BANAMAN thanks for the reply :)
It's not illegal, but there's no "right to film" on private property like there is on public streets. Technically you're supposed to have permission. They CAN tell you not to film but can't take your camera off you. They CAN tell you to leave, at which point you're obliged to. If you refuse, they CAN use force to remove you, thereby preventing you filming. Forget all that nonsense about section 33 and public access....its all hogwash.
All those ill informed auditors in the past who audited shopping centres were fighting for a "right" that they didn't actually have.
@@budgetnuclearweapons7858except when the centre is owned by the council
@@BANAMANunder Common Law since Time Immemorial (1187 in England) the owner, or his agent may use reasonable force, where necessary, to remove you, even if you’ve committed no crime.
Your parents must be so proud
Security where spot on and very professional have no issues with how they handled the situation
Were, not where.
@@Locutus he's probably a security guard 😂
Hmm see there’s certain rules that private shopping centres have to abide by. If they’re open for business to the public, it becomes a public place which garners all the rights of being in a public place. It’s completely irrelevant getting you to turn your camera off. 1. Under gdpr you can request every one of their body cams, as this is legally a public place and they are filming the public, it’s now public property. So you can see and hear every minute of the working day of every security officer. 2. Trespass is a civil matter. They cannot physically remove you unless you are being aggressive. If they put their hands on you in any way, that’s assault. Which is illegal.
Erm…..no 😂
Lmao.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
It's private property which is publicly accessible by way of open invitation which can revoked without reason at anytime, it is not public property like a street is.
Trespass is infact a civil matter and they can use reasonable force under common law to remove a trespasser.
"They cannot physically remove you unless you're being aggressive" is incorrect and it wouldn't be assault
@@tomalex4806 you are incorrect. When it’s open to the public as a retail space the law differs.
They also can use reasonable force on trespassers that are being abusive. Even if a police officer turns up they can’t forcibly remove them. It would require a court order to determine it to be aggravated trespass before anyone can physically remove you. How in the world do you think squatters get away with it for so long? Read some civil law books and practice it like I have for the last 26 years.
@@Bob10009 oh are you also a civil law barrister? Even the police couldn’t remove him
@@Ian-ev5tghen its open to the public it doesn't stop it from being private property..so you're still incorrect in afraid.
Like I said its publicly accessible by way of open invitation and I stand by my statement as I know I'm correct in what I say.
Working in security for 6+years so I definitely know what I'm talking about.
And if you've been studying civil law for 26 years then that's obviously a waste as you've learned nothing 🥱🥱
Wot jo
I don't know for a fact but I suspect this guy has no right to their CCTV.
Any footage containing himself he is entitled to under gdpr .... Same with anyone who goes there can request their footage ....
The centre is the data handler and you would be the data subject and under gdpr are entitled to a copy
No recording who makes uo theses rules
He was saying he wanted to make a video "promoting" the mall. Like he was doing something that would be speaking for them on their behalf. He wasn't talking about making a personal video. There are reasons why they couldn't give him that permission that make perfect sense. He was behaving oddly by trying to contact management. He was asking for permission to basically represent the mall in his video. It was odd and the security were right to be bothered by him. But they still acted pretty reasonably with him.
We live in a world where people pretend to be what they're not so they can gain access to places and do terrible things. We live in a world where people think it's funny to play the knockout game and attack people randomly for the simple fun of it. EVERY SINGLE TIME someone acts out of place and the police or security IGNORE IT hyenas jump on them and act like they were negligent. MAYBE IF GUYS LIKE BANAMAN WEREN'T GOING AROUND ACTING SHADY FOR CLICKS, IT'D BE EASIER TO TELL THEM ALL APART. lol
Most of the people complaining about the security are just people that hate authority because they feel weak. The rest are just fanboys that want to defend their celebrity crush. lol
If he hadn't drawn attention to himself in such an odd way, nobody would probably have cared if he walked around making a personal video. One security already saw him there and didn't bother him at all until he asked for them to be called to come give him permission because he couldn't get someone that was working to drop everything in the world they were doing to come pay attention to him. SPOILED MUCH? Lol
@@WatchingTrainsGoBy-PassingTime You waste your time commenting on how you hate auditors but no one seems to care, so it's a waste of time really.
@@TheAgedGamer lol You actually wasted YOUR time responding to a comment that you thought was a waste of time... Talk about oblivious... lol
I WOULD DEFINITELY GIVE THIS PLACE A MISS.............
Good lol... let's keep all the goofs like you at some other mall and the people that just wanted to have a good day out shopping can go to this one.
I thought the guys were both very professional
They weren't, they contacted him and harassed the odditurd.
Definitely not, they were passive aggressive with their demeanor
@@talktothesand88 Hello lucy.
Any. Publicity Shure it must be better than tweldum dum and twedle Dee
Great video
Security are so thick!! they are not the law, every time you are told you will be man handled , minimum force any thing like that is not lawful. Why are these allowed to say and do this? Surely it is assault, breach of human rights. Laughable police IMHO encourage it.
There are circumstances where they can remove him, I’m pretty certain.
And they should. Security are there to hopefully stop shoplifters, looters, violence that might occur. Going around bothering them with crap like this is a waste of their time and resources. It's kind of gross for us to constantly go out and make ourselves a burden and extra work for one another. It's already a stressful job without adding to it for them.
They never know which person acting like this could become a problem or not and no wonder they get on edge and bothered when dealing with people like banaman/auditors. They have to try and be polite but be ready for someone acting this odd to become a problem.
It's a foolish game that somehow alot of people that simply hate authority thinks is funny. UNTIL they need the help of police or security. It'd be a shame if someone banaman cared about was getting mugged on the other side of the mall, and he was keeping security there with this foolishness while it happened.@@lilhazey1128
It is entirely lawful. If he trespasses on private property and refuses to abide by the conditions of entry they can use reasonable force to evict him
You are so thick. You don't even know the law yourself.
Property owners and its staff or agents, are allowed to use reasonable force to remove trespassers.
If he refuses to leave, they are allowed to drag or carry him out.
20 minutes of totally pointless garbage
Security is a woke joke dont shop in this centre
Udate from my previous comments the Ken Livingstone video on youtube is not re canary warf ( maybe another I have seen a good few years ago) it is Westfield shopping centre, they do call the police Ken pretty much tells the cops they do not work for a private company their is no crime so do some real police work and if Westfield security try and take him out of the centre ie man handle him that is when the police get invovled AGAINST Westfield security.
Also very telling from a guy with first hand knowledge when he granted planning permisssion for the centre as mayor of London it was also as a through fair, a public right of way ie publicaly accessible.
If Westfield have an issue let them take him to court it is a civil matter not criminal so if anyone from Joe Public goes in how will they take you to court? They need a name and address fo that which they can not obtain without you willingly giving it to them, police can not demand it under pain of arrest or even if they do have your details because of gdpr hand that information over to a private firm.
I saw that video, if security didn't want him filming and asked him to leave and he didn't then that's when they'd be able to use reasonable force under common law to get him out regardless of who he was, being as his implied right of access can be revoked.
He stated he would of wanted the police to stepp in to prevent violence, they wouldn't unless security acted unlawfully which they wouldn't of.
Just goes to show he doesn't know sh*t
@@tomalex4806 and that s when the police would have to arrest security for assault because reasonable force means proportionate so if all. He is doing is walking and videoing there is no min force that is reasonable they have to take civil action in court which with them knowing him unlike Joe public would make civil action easier
@@thorgrimb2416 if you read it properly it's more the fact if he refuses to stop filming and doesn't leave when told to (refuses to leave) then he would therefore become a trespasser.. that is what it says in regards to civil trespass so then that gives security the legal right Under Common Law to use reasonable force to remove him if he doesn't when told to.
That is what they are allowed to do and that would be the correct and legal procedure so there's no grounds for arrest and no grounds for civil action