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.
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.
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
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' .
@@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.
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.
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.
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 👍
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..
@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..
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.
@@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 🤦🏻♂️
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.
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
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.
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 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
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
@@PureAudits do not take any notice of what geeksvana puts on his TH-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.
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 TH-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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
Thanks @pureaudits for the content. Very calm, polite and considerate, please don't change. Your ongoing mission to educate people around the photography/drone law is admirable. Keep up the great work. 🎯
I really like his calm no drama approach. All the combatative drama comes from those who have a perception he is breaking the law and that includes the stupid police.
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.
Another polite interaction from yourself , we know you're new at auditing but you'll pick up on the technicality's as you go along . Take no notice of the negative and some impolite comments , there's always those who make judgements when not knowing the first thing about the law . Keep it up and enjoy your hobby
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.
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 🏴
Nice video and Lloyds does receive special consideration from local government. Originally constructed early 90s for Trustee Savings Bank which merged with Lloyds Bank in 1995. 1998 added a 2 storey rear extension in addition to other modifications and portakabin kitchen. 2005 included interior refurbishments, main entrance and on site restaurant changes and car park expansion. 2007 the Bank directed to remove the temporary portakabin kitchen/restaurant by 2009 and restore the grounds (rather long temporary, special privileges). Then in 2009 Lloyds granted permission to retain the portakabin structures an additional five years and included statement "The buildings are environmentally sustainable since they were built some 10 years ago and remain in good condition despite inclement weather & global warming." Location is white structure on the rear at 17:52 right side and did not see any further planning allowing the extension to remain beyond 2014 (may be in some other application perhaps).
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
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😂😂
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
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!
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 😂.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, SCHEDULE 9, Paragraph 1 "Provision by remote pilots of evidence of competency" does not apply to the sub 250g drone, as you only need to have read the instructions (as a PILOT (P)). No competency requirements. Paragraph 2 "Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators" would apply. Meaning you'd have to provide the constable a means of identifying the operator (e.g. Operator ID). There's no need for any suspicion of criminality, only "reasonable grounds for believing that... a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place" for a constable to request the Pilot to provide information regarding the operator's identity. To be clear, it's not you _per se_ that needs an Operator ID. It's the drone that needs it (kind of like a car needing a number plate, rather than the driver). It's incidental If you happen to be the pilot and the operator. For example; I could let you fly my 6oz drone and you don't need to do anything other than read the instructions and fly safely. I'm not sure if you'd be responsible if I hadn't put the OPID on the drone though? e.g. you just give them my name to comply with the act? Hmm 🤔
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
Operator ID is the registered drone owner not your ID. There is a difference. BTW unless you are suspected of committing a crime, you do not need to supply the OP ID especially when you have not even taken the thing out of the bag.
With the operator ID they only know the owner, not the person flying. If they were to place a report against the owner's ID and that were a different person that would be an interesting legal challenge.
She had no right to ask you to show your drone id no right whatsoever....need to be brought to heel...you refused your own id show and tell them nothing you committed no crime
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.
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
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' .
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.
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
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 ?.
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 👍
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
Wow! She took a picture of your operator ID. I couldn't bear to watch it anymore.
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.
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
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
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 🤦🏻♂️
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 😂😂
What a patronising police officer, well done for remaining patient and polite.
Thanks for your support 👍 PA
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.
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
Not quite sure why you immediately id'd yourself.....
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.
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
18 19 year old girls are adults... what's the issue ?
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
They should bring back fitness tests for the Plods, Sick and tired of seeing overweight cops .. shows a lack of self respect
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
Typical Police instead of telling the complainants its legal they harass you
18/19 year old girls don't want to be filmed what makes them😊. Special?
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 TH-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.
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 TH-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.
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.
Notice the Police talk to the business owners like they are victims
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.
DONT GIVE EM INFO FELLA YOU DO NOT HAVE TO
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.
Bad move showing id
Did that PC just threaten you? I believe she did for a legal activity, they now have all of your details, beware fella.
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
Busy day , whats a slow day look like ?
They didn't even inform you if they were recording you....
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
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
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
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🤔
Brilliant 👏
The way she desperately photographed your operating Id. Police are so desperate to get our private information. Sickening addiction.
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
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?
That says it all doesn't it.... He thinks he votes for different people than anyone who does things that annoy him.
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
Thanks @pureaudits for the content.
Very calm, polite and considerate, please don't change.
Your ongoing mission to educate people around the photography/drone law is admirable.
Keep up the great work.
🎯
I appreciate that. Thank you 👍 PA
I really like his calm no drama approach. All the combatative drama comes from those who have a perception he is breaking the law and that includes the stupid police.
Thumb down for showing and letting Her take your operators ID.
Thanks for letting me know. Lesson learnt. PA
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.
The cop that is all artificial smiles and friendliness, is a sick individual, and a danger to law-abiding citizens.
Another polite interaction from yourself , we know you're new at auditing but you'll pick up on the technicality's as you go along . Take no notice of the negative and some impolite comments , there's always those who make judgements when not knowing the first thing about the law . Keep it up and enjoy your hobby
Thanks for your support and encouragement 👍 PA
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.
When are they going to prosecute these companies wasting police time? Of course they won’t they are the company private police service.
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 🏴
Contact. Higgs Newton Kenyon Solicitors. Liverpool.
No win. No fee. Mita breach of GDPR
Nice video and Lloyds does receive special consideration from local government.
Originally constructed early 90s for Trustee Savings Bank which merged with Lloyds Bank in 1995. 1998 added a 2 storey rear extension in addition to other modifications and portakabin kitchen. 2005 included interior refurbishments, main entrance and on site restaurant changes and car park expansion. 2007 the Bank directed to remove the temporary portakabin kitchen/restaurant by 2009 and restore the grounds (rather long temporary, special privileges). Then in 2009 Lloyds granted permission to retain the portakabin structures an additional five years and included statement "The buildings are environmentally sustainable since they were built some 10 years ago and remain in good condition despite inclement weather & global warming."
Location is white structure on the rear at 17:52 right side and did not see any further planning allowing the extension to remain beyond 2014 (may be in some other application perhaps).
My job is to educate people 😂😂😂 but I’ll give my operator id when not required to
Banking/investing institutions are always the most protected entity.
Operator ID is person responsible for the drone. Nothing to do with the pilot of the drone. Clueless.
He's a novice he'll learn in time.
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
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
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
yet again the police choosing who to side with and not being impartial.
Uneducated cops can be pleasant even if they are clueless and feel they must try and flex themselves with directives.
Why give the operator ID??
They knew I had been flying but Lesson learnt. PA
Asked not to film 'young girls'? What a weird request
Weren’t young girls, they were adults.
It’s not them than 😢😢😢😢😢
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
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***🤣🤣
Top man love your vids getting better all the time
Much appreciated
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 😂.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, SCHEDULE 9, Paragraph 1 "Provision by remote pilots of evidence of competency" does not apply to the sub 250g drone, as you only need to have read the instructions (as a PILOT (P)). No competency requirements.
Paragraph 2 "Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators" would apply. Meaning you'd have to provide the constable a means of identifying the operator (e.g. Operator ID). There's no need for any suspicion of criminality, only "reasonable grounds for believing that... a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place" for a constable to request the Pilot to provide information regarding the operator's identity.
To be clear, it's not you _per se_ that needs an Operator ID. It's the drone that needs it (kind of like a car needing a number plate, rather than the driver). It's incidental If you happen to be the pilot and the operator.
For example; I could let you fly my 6oz drone and you don't need to do anything other than read the instructions and fly safely.
I'm not sure if you'd be responsible if I hadn't put the OPID on the drone though? e.g. you just give them my name to comply with the act? Hmm 🤔
She is not a fan of being recorded but is recording herself. Tyrants, both of them.
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
18/19 are adults. They phone cops on you and then asked you for favours ? What a hypocrite ,
Agree with other’s stop giving your drone ID . Straight away they have your details. Remember they are not your friends.
Thanks for your advice. This was the first time I had encountered Police asking for Op ID. Thanks for your support. PA
Should of asked if you was being detained.
Operator ID is the registered drone owner not your ID. There is a difference. BTW unless you are suspected of committing a crime, you do not need to supply the OP ID especially when you have not even taken the thing out of the bag.
With the operator ID they only know the owner, not the person flying. If they were to place a report against the owner's ID and that were a different person that would be an interesting legal challenge.
She had no right to ask you to show your drone id no right whatsoever....need to be brought to heel...you refused your own id show and tell them nothing you committed no crime
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
A nice informal conclusion to the proceedings, by the Female officer waving 2 you like that!!😊
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
“Any breach of the peace, and we will come back”. But who for? You’re doing what you’re legally entitled to do, so it must be for them. Yeah sure.
Brother. You are to passive. They had no legal reason to obtain your OP. The silly PC was patronising and thick.
The police may well have gone too far in obtaining your details from the Op ID as no crime was committed. Worth taking legal advice on that.
Thanks for your advice and support - Also please look at YT Geeksvana - Police Powers and your Drone. PA
Dumber and Dumber, how the hell did they get into the Police
You just told your self the answer 😂😂😂😂😂
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.
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.
Putting lives at risk racing to the scene, My deaf niece almost come a cropper avoiding these street racers.