Nip over to DJE Media 'Give me ID or I'm SEIZING the drone' and at 26:17 the drone operator will agree with DJE that he doesn't need to give details yet the law apparently says otherwise!!
He lets them talk first, not folding ...he did not get his details and even had the drone guy shaking his head in disbelief..so no, not folding different approach. Northern Audits much the same but with comedy gold added. @MrInbetweenSkynet
I really should watch the whole video before commenting, since you just hit up the section I replied about S9.1.2.1.b (have deleted it now) So i read on and S9.1.4.A is P is guilty of an offence if "P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P's compliance, as respects an unmanned aircraft and a flight, with a relevant competency requirement," So if you let on it has a camera demonstrate
Auditing Yorkshire was made to give ID by drone plod on Notts. They said the suspected him of not have whichever ID is needed on his drone. They put it in their laptop and brought up his details. This was outside the prison. I've trying to clarify this law for months.. so thanks Focus.
The police turn up on blue lights for somebody doing nothing illegal, yet fail to turn up (twice) when a social worker is concerned for a welfare of a 2 year old boy. The poor lad starved to death, the police did NOTHING.
@@lylecoglianese1645 So a camera is a threat to the police, as that's why they turned up? So the when a child missing there is no point in police turning up, because the child isn't and I quote you "a serous threat". You're delusional.
The problem is : The Law will threaten arrest, twist legislation... wording and perception, unlawful as it may be, they will get your details and you will spend hours in a cell only to spend the next year trying to sue them, which is not an easy process. - Keep standing up for your rights!!
The comments come because you are the master of the Legal and Menta lju-jitsu. We comment because we love ya man :) You're standing up for our Rights, you're showing how by learning the rules of the game that's being played against us. We can not only prevail, but realise that it's just a game ;)
Your absolutely the elite of independent journalism and i look forward to each & every video you do,thankyou for all the hard work you put in to some fantastic content.
Yes, schedule 9 section 2 applies if you tell them what drone you're flying or whether it has a camera or not. I've been telling people this for years !
Except you made a video contrary to this statement initially, however, once it was pointed out to you....that video was taken down. I think you made the video in response to a video by DJ Audits...? 😂
You sir are the best on TH-cam. You are an actual photographer that’s fed up with being bullied by those that are self entitled. The videos you put out are quality not a constant bombardment of the same thing over and over
You , in our opinion are the best and funniest auditor going. Thank you mate. Keep on keeping on. We're just waiting to hear back from police after hnk put our claim in. You taught us all we know grasshopper.youre too young to know that quote though I'd guess jill and Andrew xxx
Did you try looking up the bollocks that copper waffled out with sections and sub-sections and b sections. Even the look on that woman cops face, she was thinking "where the fuck is he getting this info from?" Sounds great!! Her face most of the time was total disbelief - Funny, good vid
you should check out Power to the Proleteriat,he regularly flies over police stations and refuses point blank to land unless they can give him reasonable grounds to make him,he tells them to wait till he decides to land and not before,unless it is a lawful order,he is very up on the drone laws and makes mincemeat out of the cops.
I think the whole point about identifying is that in the audit in question the police had merely accepted the false information provided by security. They are allowing them to be de facto community police without authorisation or accountability. They had done no investigation whatsoever being totally unaware the site was not functioning. It was therefore totally inappropriate and without reasonable grounds to be demanding explanations and details in those circumstances. Lazy rude and authoritarian
If you ever claim against police first step must ALWAYS be to send in SAR subject access request. Request all the footage from police officers present and for inside the car. Be quick as they delete after 30 days. That is your evidence for court.
Don't forget to request all telephone and radio communications, as well as all written texts whether electronic or otherwise. If you don't specify - you will not get !
Easiest way is to put the id under the battery or inside the battery compartment.. The caa at one time recommended this to prevent unwanted viewing of the id numbers The rules still state it must be on the drone and of a certain size but they do not state it has to be readily visible....
Great to see you back focus. You are one of the best at calling out clowns without them even understanding you are doing it. Keep it up lots of support for you. Good luck
Agreed, drones are another thing police can use to beat auditors over the head with,( metaphorically), like auditors don't use their cars because of the ID aspect, drone ID could trip up the auditors. Its clearly a "be careful "moment, a balancing act between the risk of the drone being used, against the reward of the drone being used.
Schedule 8 is also as important as Schedule 9, it covers police instructing you to ground the drone. I only recently became aware of this myself, via a Geeksvana video (link below). A lot of police don't know drone laws, so I think it would be completely acceptable to ask them under what section of legislation are they acting on. their answer would determine how I proceed. if they use the wrong legislation, I am under no obligation to do as requested. Not disclosing the model of drone is ok too as you mentioned. The legislation does mean though that if they know the correct legislation and figure out what drone you have, it would be an offence to not comply with the op-id request and personal details. It's not like regular law where you need to be suspected of a crime for details to be given unfortunately. Also nothing to stop the op-id going in the battery compartment as long as it follows the correct format, and a load of numbers and letters on the outside. th-cam.com/video/QHuMwoamCts/w-d-xo.html
agreed 👍🏻 plus there are 3 conditions A//B & C PC must pass before he intervenes and PC quoted section 241 , it covers GA 😆 not UA A dishonest statement acting in office , all the best AA
Obviously don't know your day job, but if you could squeeze it in would love more of your content , bizarrely it makes me feel relaxed, and also happy 😊
Focus I have one question for you not related to this vid - Are you still being detained by PCSO Cindy Walton at GCHQ 😅😂😊 My favourite vid that you did absolute class .
Nah, Reggie has already done them in on that with his Xbox controller. Dopey coppers fell for it a couple of times. The filth aren't interested in the "law", their mandate is to get everyone's details into the PNC by any means, fair of foul.
Or just stand there holding an xbox controller, looking up at the sky. Watch them all looking up for a non existed drone, while quoting non existent drone laws.
2:40 Write a number that is very obvious on the drone in the expected position. Make sure it's not someone else's so make sure its format is invalid - they won't know. But have the proper one in some other location in hard to read tiny text or in the battery compartment. Never tell them which one is the right one - just hand your drone over and let them read the first number they see. If the police then claim you gave the wrong one, the response is the constable at the time made the mistake, you didn't know which number they were writing down.
One improvement to the music, if I can be so bold. As the two plod were walking away, the Laurel and Hardy theme music would be appropriate. Love the way you talk to stupid people who have no real arguments, only the usual bully boy tactics which is fantastic to see they do not work on you.
FP, if the operators ID was in someone else’s name and the flyer ID not required for a 249g with camera then flyer still remains unknown. I saw the word operator in the legislation but not the word flyer. What do you think?
Hi DJ, I'm the person he was talking about - you may also remember that you asked me to send you an email with links to the relevant legislation. As I mentioned before, under Section 2, if you are flying somebody else's drone then they remain the Operator and you are required to give the details of the Operator or other person who let you fly their drone but not your own details. However, there is also another part of Schedule 9 and this is Section 4. What this section says is that once they know who the operator is they can then go to the operator and get the name of the pilot. Whether the police would bother to do that is another matter:- Provision by UAS operators of information about remote pilots 4(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 UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot 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 the person or persons who are or were the remote pilot or remote pilots of the unmanned aircraft for the flight. (3)In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1. (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 information as to the identity of a person, (b)P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, (c)the relevant competency requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot 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.
Focus Pocus you need to start making 2hour long movies about the whole rotten system,and easy go for golden globe awards. The way you do it's just art., Please don't stop.
2k comments should be the norm for you. You are so entertaining, quick witted and just cool as a cucumber. You are probably my favourite youtube channel. And my only negative comment is you should do more content. Love love your stuff
How do you feel about your responses during that encounter? You didn’t seem to be on top of your game compared to previous videos. I realise they were making it up as they went along, but you seemed to bite.
They never care aboute "reasonable grounds". They simply are not interested in it. As long as they want to do something they will do it. We have been watching auditing videos for years now and in almost every case where ID is demanded, filming or flying a drone is deemed to be enough for "reasonable grounds".
If the drone is below 250 grams, there is no relevant competency requirement because obtaining an operator ID only involves filling in an online form and no test is involved. As such, there is no competence requirement for flying a sub 250g drone and the authorities can not have grounds to require the operator ID
You are mistaken. Under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulations (EU) 2019/947 an Operator ID is required for any drone 250g+ or any drone less than that with a camera. There is reference to a "competency requirement" in Section 2, it simply refers to a "relevant registration requirement" and the owner of a drone less than 250g with a camera must register with the CAA and obtain an Operator ID
This reminds me a bit of the question concerning the use of an automobile here in The States. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1979 case of "Delaware v. Prouse" that, "An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. “Accordingly, we hold that, except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Unfortunately, they carved out an exemption for universal checks, e.g. DWI stops, but one would hope that the rights of drone operators also heads in this direction - on either side of the pond.
I still say this to any police that stop and try asking me questions or start fishing “ You don’t know what I’m doing, so if you don’t know what I’m doing do you have any reasonable suspicion that I’m doing anything in particular?” They usually just give up and walk away 😂👍🏾
FP. Could you go round with two drones in your bag? One with and one without a camera. Police often don’t see the activity themselves, so can’t usually claim they saw the camera on the drone themselves. They rely on 2nd hand information from the public. I’ve got two drones. Which drone did they see? Did the reporting party see a camera on the drone?
I would hope and wonder that if police ask from the CAA for the name etc. from an operators ID, the CAA would ask for the 'VALID' reason before possibly breaching GDPR. I would have thought there was a need for a warrant or court order which should only be given if a law has been broken. Companies would/should only be able to govto their insurance company to make a claim and then they go to the CAA for contact details. Its clear and precise same as authorities accessing a private phone record. I understand that normally with a car accident one gives up their details normally but what if the accident is commited by an unscrupulous person. For safety you are better off giving number plate or insurance ref. much safer.😎
I can understand them checking the CAA database to validate that an Operator ID is current but the only reason I can think of that they have changed the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 / Commencement Information 1 / Section 2 in order to obtain a registered operators PERSONAL details is so that they ca run them through the PNC with NO SUSPICION of ANY CRIME just to check for outstanding warrants / BOLO's and pry into previous history. That wouldn't be such a problem if it weren't for the fact that there's a HUGE list of scumbag organisations that have various Read & Write access to the PNC ... Organisations which have access to the PNC ''''''''''''''''''''''''' FULL Access ''''''''''''''''''''''''' All territorial police forces of Great Britain Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) British Transport Police (BTP) Civil Nuclear Constabulary Isle of Man Constabulary States of Jersey Police States of Guernsey Police Service National Identification Service (NIS) National Crime Agency (NCA) Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) HM Revenue & Customs The Security Service (MI5) Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) Defence Intelligence Staff Department for Work and Pensions National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC)[6] '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Non-police organisations which have restricted access to the PNC (these have varying degrees of read and write access) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Access Northern Ireland Association of Chief Police Officers Belfast Harbour Police Belfast International Airport Constabulary Cambridge University Constabulary Canterbury Cathedral Close Constables Charity Commission for England and Wales Chester Cathedral Constables Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service Civil Nuclear Constabulary College of Policing Competition and Markets Authority Criminal Cases Review Commission Defence Vetting Agency Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Department for Work and Pensions Disclosure and Barring Service Disclosure Scotland Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency Environment Agency Epping Forest Keepers Falmouth Docks Police Financial Conduct Authority Financial Services Authority Foreign and Commonwealth Office Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority G4S Hampstead Heath Constabulary Health and Safety Executive Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services Her Majesty's Prison Service Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs National Highways Hillingdon Parks Patrol Service Home Office House of Commons House of Lords Independent Office for Police Conduct Kew Constabulary Larne Harbour Police Liverpool Cathedral Constables Marine Management Organisation Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Mersey Tunnels Police Ministry of Justice (Jury Vetting) Ministry of Justice (Warrant Enforcement) National Air Traffic Services National Assembly for Wales NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service Division Natural Resources Wales Office for Civil Nuclear Security Office of Fair Trading Parks Police Service Port of Bristol Police Port of Dover Police Port of Felixstowe Police Port of Liverpool Police Port of Portland Police Port of Tilbury Police Post Office Royal Mail Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Serious Fraud Office States of Jersey Customs and Immigration Service Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Harbour Police The Insolvency Service Thurrock Council Trading Standards UK Security Vetting UK Visas and Immigration Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Wandsworth Parks and Events Police York Minster Police
@focuspocus3690, another "tactic" is to have the Operator ID in the name of a neutral 3rd party, who permits you to fly it. Carry a " TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN permission" from said party (in a sealed envelope marked private & confidential) confirming they give you permission to fly, but without giving your own personal details in the process. A bit long winded perhaps, but for those who wish to protect identity as far as possible from random intrusion & interference at the time, it may at least give another layer of separation and require the nosey-parkers to do considerably more time-consuming legwork to track you back.
You can register a drone under a company name instead of an individual's name. However, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requires a person to be accountable for the registration. To obtain this person's name, police would likely need a court order, which requires evidence of a specific crime. Sharing personal details without such legal backing would violate GDPR regulations. Therefore, while the company name is registered, the individual's details are protected. If the police request UAS operator details, you can provide the company name and the Operator ID. This fulfills the legal requirement without disclosing personal information.
I knew that when that person said you were wrong, they had missed out the whole legislation. People who like to make a point, only give the info to make that point and not the whole information.
You are mistaken. In all the cases you see on these youtube channels they openly admit that they are filming or it is obvious that the drone has a camera. That is all that is required.
If you look up Ace Audits reply to this post it gives a link to the Geekvarna set of videos about Schedule 8 and 9. Basically grim watching if the drone has a camera, details should be provided. The only 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' is the fact most plod can't retain the Schedule 8 and 9 requirements in the field and an articulation of 'no offence has been committed officer' might save the day. Plod attend courses, but their knowledge retention and application is abissmal. Trying to get them to colour-in between the lines or attend 999 calls is bad enough.
Hi Focus Pocus, thanks for mentioning my name. I totally take your point and your strategy of bringing the drone down and not talking to them is the best way of doing things. However, as you say, the people on these youtube channels never do this but, instead, engage with the police which then gives them reasonable grounds. I've never seen a video where they didn't admit to filming or let the police see the drone.
You need to tell dje media the law as he still thinks it's only if police have reasonable grounds an offence is being committed, he doesn't understand the fact that the police may require ID if they reasonably believe the drone needs a OP ID. I tried telling him but he has none of it 🤷♂️. Just because you show police some numbers that doesn't mean that is actually a true Operator ID it could be some made up numbers, so yeah i agree they should be able to check the Operator ID
I bet if this power was challenged in the High Court it would get revoked because we all have a reasonable right to privacy under the human rights act. Schedule 9 basically attempts to revokes our right to privacy without any suspicion of an offence. I would argue that the lack of an offence would render 2(2)(a) request for ID unreasonable, and by showing that you have an operator ID or flyer ID should be sufficient to allay any suspicion as to the lawfulness of the flight. Without reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence there would be no grounds for arrest. The same principle applies to car drivers, unless you are suspected of an offence, officers cannot use powers to force you to forfeit your right to privacy. They can stop you and talk to you and check tax and mot but identity is protected for law abiding citizens. EDIT. Schedule 9 doesnt explicitly say what ID is required, but it is intended to ascertain the lawfulness of the flight, therefore your name and operator ID would be sufficient to querry the CAA on their online checker. They dont have any need for your address or date of birth within the scope of this power. EDIT2 The police have pledged to uphold our human rights, so schedule 9 conflicts with this pledge.
Nip over to DJE Media 'Give me ID or I'm SEIZING the drone' and at 26:17 the drone operator will agree with DJE that he doesn't need to give details yet the law apparently says otherwise!!
FP ...DJE media is his own worst enemy. Folds like a deck chair at the slightest pressure.
@@StrangeStatesParanormal *YEP!!!!*
He lets them talk first, not folding ...he did not get his details and even had the drone guy shaking his head in disbelief..so no, not folding different approach. Northern Audits much the same but with comedy gold added. @MrInbetweenSkynet
I really should watch the whole video before commenting, since you just hit up the section I replied about S9.1.2.1.b (have deleted it now)
So i read on and S9.1.4.A is P is guilty of an offence if "P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P's compliance, as respects an unmanned aircraft and a flight, with a relevant competency requirement,"
So if you let on it has a camera demonstrate
Auditing Yorkshire was made to give ID by drone plod on Notts. They said the suspected him of not have whichever ID is needed on his drone. They put it in their laptop and brought up his details. This was outside the prison.
I've trying to clarify this law for months.. so thanks Focus.
The police turn up on blue lights for somebody doing nothing illegal, yet fail to turn up (twice) when a social worker is concerned for a welfare of a 2 year old boy. The poor lad starved to death, the police did NOTHING.
The social worker should have just said there’s a man with a drone
@@lylecoglianese1645 So a camera is a threat to the police, as that's why they turned up? So the when a child missing there is no point in police turning up, because the child isn't and I quote you "a serous threat". You're delusional.
Funny how they turn up to a legal activity but ignore 999 calls to a family getting murdered!
or a 2 year old who starved to death.
Absolutely agree
Holy shit you're so right, how depressing, what is happening
Or indeed the 'industrial scale' rape and grooming of children in rotherham
Norwich?
You are one of the best. I love your art, your knowledge and upholding the rights of the public. Thank you
The problem is : The Law will threaten arrest, twist legislation... wording and perception, unlawful as it may be, they will get your details and you will spend hours in a cell only to spend the next year trying to sue them, which is not an easy process. - Keep standing up for your rights!!
Please do more videos. there is really nothing that comes close to your ability to deal with the police. Thank you.
Well said
The goat of auditing
Facts on earth not just in the UK...
The comments come because you are the master of the Legal and Menta lju-jitsu. We comment because we love ya man :) You're standing up for our Rights, you're showing how by learning the rules of the game that's being played against us. We can not only prevail, but realise that it's just a game ;)
I do the operator ID in the battery bay and a decoy on the top lol too
mee too
The CAA suggest that as a place to store the Op ID.
Sneaky but clever. I can only assume a random number on top will suffice?
@@DMC888suggesting isn't the same as required
Thanks FP for the update. The 😅intimidation tactics used against you were beyond belief…genuinely appreciate you standing up for our rights🙏🙏
Your absolutely the elite of independent journalism and i look forward to each & every video you do,thankyou for all the hard work you put in to some fantastic content.
Biggest crime here was the woman cop with the pudding bowl haircut 🤤
Rug muncher, so at least she isn't going to breed
Google her, the hair used to be even worse 😆
😮. . . 😅😅😅 @@rayt8606
Not my proudest fap.
Love your content Focus. Wish they would be slightly more regular mind mate.
Yes, schedule 9 section 2 applies if you tell them what drone you're flying or whether it has a camera or not. I've been telling people this for years !
Except you made a video contrary to this statement initially, however, once it was pointed out to you....that video was taken down.
I think you made the video in response to a video by DJ Audits...? 😂
You sir are the best on TH-cam. You are an actual photographer that’s fed up with being bullied by those that are self entitled.
The videos you put out are quality not a constant bombardment of the same thing over and over
I know you're work takes priority FP but please🙏🏻... We need more of your brilliant auditing content...
Never give up! All love from abroad! All the world needs for evil to prosper is for good men not to do anything about it!
I have just virtually binge watched them all again, we need some more Pleease lol
Knowledge is power! 👍🏻
Thank you FP for taking the time to update us all. Looking forward to further debriefs.
FP on top of the game, as always.
F P, Thank you for your knowledge, and sharing it with us. Clap Clap to you , and happy days ...
The master … ❤️🏴
just to say keep up with the channel, love your videos I've never laughed so much to your one liners,👍
It was me who asked who sang the stupid song 😂
Thankyou so much for letting me know.ive sent it to my mates on WhatsApp.🤭
Keep up the good work, can't wait for your next video with good music.
dont you be disappearing for months now
I'll second that.
Unfortunately 4 months later it seams he has
You , in our opinion are the best and funniest auditor going. Thank you mate. Keep on keeping on. We're just waiting to hear back from police after hnk put our claim in. You taught us all we know grasshopper.youre too young to know that quote though I'd guess jill and Andrew xxx
Here because I saw you on Mr in-between channel. Brilliant stuff.
From the police constables hand book:
1: No good deed goes unpunished.
2: Intelligence without a moral compass is not an asset, it’s a weapon.
Great briefing/feedback.
Were you go. Come on focus pocus, your videos are brilliant, we need more content :)
Did you try looking up the bollocks that copper waffled out with sections and sub-sections and b sections. Even the look on that woman cops face, she was thinking "where the fuck is he getting this info from?" Sounds great!! Her face most of the time was total disbelief - Funny, good vid
Another law the Police will abuse 😑
Thanx for the update FP. Love the hand written ID on the drone. 😁👍
I've only just subbed - I hope you do some more videos - the humour and calmness really sets you apart from other auditors!! 🤩
Focus,your a star your demeanor is fantastic you do my depression wonders,more than any medication❤
you should check out Power to the Proleteriat,he regularly flies over police stations and refuses point blank to land unless they can give him reasonable grounds to make him,he tells them to wait till he decides to land and not before,unless it is a lawful order,he is very up on the drone laws and makes mincemeat out of the cops.
He's gone quiet and some commenter on his videos keeps saying he's in prison. Not sure I believe it.
He's good but his voice annoys me tbh
I think the whole point about identifying is that in the audit in question the police had merely accepted the false information provided by security. They are allowing them to be de facto community police without authorisation or accountability. They had done no investigation whatsoever being totally unaware the site was not functioning. It was therefore totally inappropriate and without reasonable grounds to be demanding explanations and details in those circumstances. Lazy rude and authoritarian
Very interesting! Thx for the investigation.
If you ever claim against police first step must ALWAYS be to send in SAR subject access request. Request all the footage from police officers present and for inside the car. Be quick as they delete after 30 days. That is your evidence for court.
Don't forget to request all telephone and radio communications, as well as all written texts whether electronic or otherwise. If you don't specify - you will not get !
How do you do this?
Doing a post video analysis and answering Qs is a great idea and really helpful.
Very impressed with your videos you have a very unique style. Very articulate & witty. I've subscribed.
I miss your regular videos.
You're the best auditor by a country mile
If you're allowed other numbers on the drone can you put a grid of numbers like a word search so they'd have to know the number to find it?
Easiest way is to put the id under the battery or inside the battery compartment..
The caa at one time recommended this to prevent unwanted viewing of the id numbers
The rules still state it must be on the drone and of a certain size but they do not state it has to be readily visible....
Roman numbers, that will confuse them.
@@chrisfs150Ah but readily able to read without using tools etc. Yes in battery compartment is fine, as it's removed by hand.
The were like public funded corporate security.
Great to see you back focus. You are one of the best at calling out clowns without them even understanding you are doing it. Keep it up lots of support for you. Good luck
I think drones are like vehicles now, in terms of auditing, they are just a liability to giving the state access to your private details.
Agreed, drones are another thing police can use to beat auditors over the head with,( metaphorically), like auditors don't use their cars because of the ID aspect, drone ID could trip up the auditors.
Its clearly a "be careful "moment, a balancing act between the risk of the drone being used, against the reward of the drone being used.
@@ianhill4585maybe ABs selfie stick for looking over high fences et will prove to be king! Absolutely no ID required
Schedule 8 is also as important as Schedule 9, it covers police instructing you to ground the drone. I only recently became aware of this myself, via a Geeksvana video (link below). A lot of police don't know drone laws, so I think it would be completely acceptable to ask them under what section of legislation are they acting on. their answer would determine how I proceed. if they use the wrong legislation, I am under no obligation to do as requested. Not disclosing the model of drone is ok too as you mentioned. The legislation does mean though that if they know the correct legislation and figure out what drone you have, it would be an offence to not comply with the op-id request and personal details. It's not like regular law where you need to be suspected of a crime for details to be given unfortunately. Also nothing to stop the op-id going in the battery compartment as long as it follows the correct format, and a load of numbers and letters on the outside. th-cam.com/video/QHuMwoamCts/w-d-xo.html
agreed 👍🏻 plus there are 3 conditions A//B & C PC must pass before he intervenes and PC quoted section 241 , it covers GA 😆 not UA
A dishonest statement acting in office , all the best AA
I suppose the bizzies would know the drone via the Contoller.
Judging by the males BS he is an expert. (NOT)
Obviously don't know your day job, but if you could squeeze it in would love more of your content , bizarrely it makes me feel relaxed, and also happy 😊
Focus I have one question for you not related to this vid -
Are you still being detained by PCSO Cindy Walton at GCHQ 😅😂😊
My favourite vid that you did absolute class .
Oh yes she never released him.
Brill
We miss you!!!!!!!
Thanks for the tips again
This video is genuinely informative 🍻
I only have one question...............
"The Men Who Walk Their Dogs At Midnight" is it you ????? 😂
No
You could also consider using a drone without a camera to see how far they’ll push it.
This is a great idea and should be carried out!
Nah, Reggie has already done them in on that with his Xbox controller. Dopey coppers fell for it a couple of times.
The filth aren't interested in the "law", their mandate is to get everyone's details into the PNC by any means, fair of foul.
Or just stand there holding an xbox controller, looking up at the sky. Watch them all looking up for a non existed drone, while quoting non existent drone laws.
@@offshore171Reggie Photo has an excellent video doing that.
@offsho. Reggie photo done that , funny vid.
Great footage FP also like the skids , not heard that for a while.
2:40 Write a number that is very obvious on the drone in the expected position. Make sure it's not someone else's so make sure its format is invalid - they won't know. But have the proper one in some other location in hard to read tiny text or in the battery compartment. Never tell them which one is the right one - just hand your drone over and let them read the first number they see. If the police then claim you gave the wrong one, the response is the constable at the time made the mistake, you didn't know which number they were writing down.
One improvement to the music, if I can be so bold. As the two plod were walking away, the Laurel and Hardy theme music would be appropriate.
Love the way you talk to stupid people who have no real arguments, only the usual bully boy tactics which is fantastic to see they do not work on you.
Thanks FP.
FP, if the operators ID was in someone else’s name and the flyer ID not required for a 249g with camera then flyer still remains unknown. I saw the word operator in the legislation but not the word flyer. What do you think?
Hi DJ, I'm the person he was talking about - you may also remember that you asked me to send you an email with links to the relevant legislation.
As I mentioned before, under Section 2, if you are flying somebody else's drone then they remain the Operator and you are required to give the details of the Operator or other person who let you fly their drone but not your own details.
However, there is also another part of Schedule 9 and this is Section 4. What this section says is that once they know who the operator is they can then go to the operator and get the name of the pilot. Whether the police would bother to do that is another matter:-
Provision by UAS operators of information about remote pilots
4(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 UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot 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 the person or persons who are or were the remote pilot or remote pilots of the unmanned aircraft for the flight.
(3)In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1.
(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 information as to the identity of a person,
(b)P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,
(c)the relevant competency requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot 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.
Focus Pocus you need to start making 2hour long movies about the whole rotten system,and easy go for golden globe awards.
The way you do it's just art.,
Please don't stop.
2k comments should be the norm for you. You are so entertaining, quick witted and just cool as a cucumber. You are probably my favourite youtube channel. And my only negative comment is you should do more content. Love love your stuff
How do you feel about your responses during that encounter? You didn’t seem to be on top of your game compared to previous videos. I realise they were making it up as they went along, but you seemed to bite.
Please make a new vid missing them sooooooooi much 💚
Great explaining in clear English for all to understand FP for Prime minister lol keep up the great work.
Rice vs Connolly. There is no legal duty to provide the police with information or otherwise to assist them with their inquiries.
Agreed but for some reason the Police think because you are flying a drone the law is different.
They never care aboute "reasonable grounds". They simply are not interested in it. As long as they want to do something they will do it. We have been watching auditing videos for years now and in almost every case where ID is demanded, filming or flying a drone is deemed to be enough for "reasonable grounds".
More videos. MORE videos
You didn't once say please!
Very interesting and thank you. Never trust the police and always film them
Will you be doing anymore videos focus , we’re missing you
If the drone is below 250 grams, there is no relevant competency requirement because obtaining an operator ID only involves filling in an online form and no test is involved. As such, there is no competence requirement for flying a sub 250g drone and the authorities can not have grounds to require the operator ID
100%, just tell them model name, they can look up the specs and jog on.
You are mistaken. Under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulations (EU) 2019/947 an Operator ID is required for any drone 250g+ or any drone less than that with a camera. There is reference to a "competency requirement" in Section 2, it simply refers to a "relevant registration requirement" and the owner of a drone less than 250g with a camera must register with the CAA and obtain an Operator ID
This is wrong, sub 250 with a camera needs OP ID
Thank you for doing this. 🤩🤩😇🥰
This reminds me a bit of the question concerning the use of an automobile here in The States. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1979 case of "Delaware v. Prouse" that, "An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation.
“Accordingly, we hold that, except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Unfortunately, they carved out an exemption for universal checks, e.g. DWI stops, but one would hope that the rights of drone operators also heads in this direction - on either side of the pond.
Great advice, put the drone away as they approach and don't answer any questions 👍
I still say this to any police that stop and try asking me questions or start fishing “ You don’t know what I’m doing, so if you don’t know what I’m doing do you have any reasonable suspicion that I’m doing anything in particular?” They usually just give up and walk away 😂👍🏾
Honestly , with the plods carry on you'd swear he had a huge drone like the one that nearly landed on that skier bloke , it was as big as a fridge 😊
Loving the extra info
FP. Could you go round with two drones in your bag? One with and one without a camera.
Police often don’t see the activity themselves, so can’t usually claim they saw the camera on the drone themselves. They rely on 2nd hand information from the public.
I’ve got two drones. Which drone did they see? Did the reporting party see a camera on the drone?
I would hope and wonder that if police ask from the CAA for the name etc. from an operators ID, the CAA would ask for the 'VALID' reason before possibly breaching GDPR. I would have thought there was a need for a warrant or court order which should only be given if a law has been broken. Companies would/should only be able to govto their insurance company to make a claim and then they go to the CAA for contact details. Its clear and precise same as authorities accessing a private phone record. I understand that normally with a car accident one gives up their details normally but what if the accident is commited by an unscrupulous person. For safety you are better off giving number plate or insurance ref. much safer.😎
You’d hope so, but the DVLA database is abused daily.
I can understand them checking the CAA database to validate that an Operator ID is current but the only reason I can think of that they have changed the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 / Commencement Information 1 / Section 2 in order to obtain a registered operators PERSONAL details is so that they ca run them through the PNC with NO SUSPICION of ANY CRIME just to check for outstanding warrants / BOLO's and pry into previous history. That wouldn't be such a problem if it weren't for the fact that there's a HUGE list of scumbag organisations that have various Read & Write access to the PNC ...
Organisations which have access to the PNC
'''''''''''''''''''''''''
FULL Access
'''''''''''''''''''''''''
All territorial police forces of Great Britain
Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)
British Transport Police (BTP)
Civil Nuclear Constabulary
Isle of Man Constabulary
States of Jersey Police
States of Guernsey Police Service
National Identification Service (NIS)
National Crime Agency (NCA)
Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
Ministry of Defence Police (MDP)
HM Revenue & Customs
The Security Service (MI5)
Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
Defence Intelligence Staff
Department for Work and Pensions
National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC)[6]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Non-police organisations which have restricted access to the PNC
(these have varying degrees of read and write access)
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Access Northern Ireland
Association of Chief Police Officers
Belfast Harbour Police
Belfast International Airport Constabulary
Cambridge University Constabulary
Canterbury Cathedral Close Constables
Charity Commission for England and Wales
Chester Cathedral Constables
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
Civil Nuclear Constabulary
College of Policing
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Defence Vetting Agency
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
Disclosure and Barring Service
Disclosure Scotland
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
Environment Agency
Epping Forest Keepers
Falmouth Docks Police
Financial Conduct Authority
Financial Services Authority
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
G4S
Hampstead Heath Constabulary
Health and Safety Executive
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
Her Majesty's Prison Service
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
National Highways
Hillingdon Parks Patrol Service
Home Office
House of Commons
House of Lords
Independent Office for Police Conduct
Kew Constabulary
Larne Harbour Police
Liverpool Cathedral Constables
Marine Management Organisation
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Mersey Tunnels Police
Ministry of Justice (Jury Vetting)
Ministry of Justice (Warrant Enforcement)
National Air Traffic Services
National Assembly for Wales
NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service Division
Natural Resources Wales
Office for Civil Nuclear Security
Office of Fair Trading
Parks Police Service
Port of Bristol Police
Port of Dover Police
Port of Felixstowe Police
Port of Liverpool Police
Port of Portland Police
Port of Tilbury Police
Post Office
Royal Mail
Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Serious Fraud Office
States of Jersey Customs and Immigration Service
Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Harbour Police
The Insolvency Service
Thurrock Council
Trading Standards
UK Security Vetting
UK Visas and Immigration
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
Wandsworth Parks and Events Police
York Minster Police
@focuspocus3690, another "tactic" is to have the Operator ID in the name of a neutral 3rd party, who permits you to fly it. Carry a " TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN permission" from said party (in a sealed envelope marked private & confidential) confirming they give you permission to fly, but without giving your own personal details in the process. A bit long winded perhaps, but for those who wish to protect identity as far as possible from random intrusion & interference at the time, it may at least give another layer of separation and require the nosey-parkers to do considerably more time-consuming legwork to track you back.
You are the best out of them all just wish you would do more videos you need to focus on more 😅
Love the ID on the drone - hahahahah
The gold standard of auditing
If you ever are unfortunate to need the police for an emergency just say a man with a camera is here and they should turn up
Focus when are you coming back we miss you
You can register a drone under a company name instead of an individual's name. However, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requires a person to be accountable for the registration. To obtain this person's name, police would likely need a court order, which requires evidence of a specific crime. Sharing personal details without such legal backing would violate GDPR regulations. Therefore, while the company name is registered, the individual's details are protected. If the police request UAS operator details, you can provide the company name and the Operator ID. This fulfills the legal requirement without disclosing personal information.
I hope I can speak for everyone. We need the master back, it’s been too long
I knew that when that person said you were wrong, they had missed out the whole legislation. People who like to make a point, only give the info to make that point and not the whole information.
A cop?
You are mistaken. In all the cases you see on these youtube channels they openly admit that they are filming or it is obvious that the drone has a camera. That is all that is required.
Corporate security our police are.
Awe it’s been ages since your last audit … has something happened ?
How do you get the license to use music?
You put the content in the vid and when it uploads YT recognises the music, and then diverts any money to the copyright owners.
😎👍👍
Another question where they in the right to ground it & if not what can you do after the fact
If you look up Ace Audits reply to this post it gives a link to the Geekvarna set of videos about Schedule 8 and 9. Basically grim watching if the drone has a camera, details should be provided. The only 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' is the fact most plod can't retain the Schedule 8 and 9 requirements in the field and an articulation of 'no offence has been committed officer' might save the day. Plod attend courses, but their knowledge retention and application is abissmal. Trying to get them to colour-in between the lines or attend 999 calls is bad enough.
its time for more content mate :)
Hi Focus Pocus, thanks for mentioning my name. I totally take your point and your strategy of bringing the drone down and not talking to them is the best way of doing things. However, as you say, the people on these youtube channels never do this but, instead, engage with the police which then gives them reasonable grounds. I've never seen a video where they didn't admit to filming or let the police see the drone.
If I was flying a drone and I am asked by an officer to land it. I would only land it if it was a lawful order not a request.
You need to tell dje media the law as he still thinks it's only if police have reasonable grounds an offence is being committed, he doesn't understand the fact that the police may require ID if they reasonably believe the drone needs a OP ID. I tried telling him but he has none of it 🤷♂️.
Just because you show police some numbers that doesn't mean that is actually a true Operator ID it could be some made up numbers, so yeah i agree they should be able to check the Operator ID
Police forces the cuntry wide should really be refered to as
Egos- R - us.
Its rare to see a copper who's ego is not on show at first contact.
😊😊😊😊😊😊
What would happen if we hold the drone and fly the controller 🕹😵💫
I bet if this power was challenged in the High Court it would get revoked because we all have a reasonable right to privacy under the human rights act. Schedule 9 basically attempts to revokes our right to privacy without any suspicion of an offence.
I would argue that the lack of an offence would render 2(2)(a) request for ID unreasonable, and by showing that you have an operator ID or flyer ID should be sufficient to allay any suspicion as to the lawfulness of the flight. Without reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence there would be no grounds for arrest.
The same principle applies to car drivers, unless you are suspected of an offence, officers cannot use powers to force you to forfeit your right to privacy. They can stop you and talk to you and check tax and mot but identity is protected for law abiding citizens.
EDIT. Schedule 9 doesnt explicitly say what ID is required, but it is intended to ascertain the lawfulness of the flight, therefore your name and operator ID would be sufficient to querry the CAA on their online checker. They dont have any need for your address or date of birth within the scope of this power.
EDIT2 The police have pledged to uphold our human rights, so schedule 9 conflicts with this pledge.
they can still require id after the flight is finished