Security and Police DON'T like you Filming - Why?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- More in-depth discussion: • Tesco ASSAULT? Barrist...
£50 Free for switching Energy suppliers:share.octopus.energy/happy-hu... Sponsored!)
Join for exclusive content at blackbeltbarrister.com/
Become a Channel member: / @blackbeltbarrister
Support the channel: buy.stripe.com/14kdUS6gb4f26e...
or one-off: buy.stripe.com/bIYdUSfQLcLy7i...
TO CONTACT ME: Follow & Message on Instagram:
/ blackbeltbarrister
For FORMAL ADVICE Requests ONLY:
clerks@ShenSmith.com (non formal requests will be deleted)
💌 Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @blackbeltbarrister
MY CAMERA GEAR
🎥 Big Camera amzn.to/3tW8nPU (amazon link)
🎥 Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9 (amazon link)
🎙 RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/2QCJURi (amazon link)
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/2R3eEuA (amazon link)
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/3aOkLtT (amazon link)
Switch Pod amzn.to/3sZb8yA (amazon link)
JOBY Tripod amzn.to/3dXJYDT (amazon link)
External Media Drive amzn.to/3uxNDOQ (amazon link)
BE PART OF OUR LAW COMMUNITY HERE:
/ blackbeltbarrister
/ blackbeltbarrister
/ blackbeltbarrister
/ blackbeltbarrister
🎓 Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1 (Amazon link)
🎓 Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV (Amazon link)
🎓 Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawvlogs
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated.
Because they don't want anyone contradicting their version of events.
"contradicting their version of events"...with facts...
@@manoo422 Sure.
Absolutely
@@manoo422 Not always
You’d think they would want as much footage for evidential reasons- but of course corruption supersedes that every time
Because it catches them lying and making sh*t up
Do you mean making shit up, if so, just say it, shit isn't a bad word, and you shouldn't feel guilty about saying shit.
@@wolvoman1 Talking shit is a different thing. And if you use shit too much on here, they threaten to ban you. Their algorithm isn't too clever.
not to mention assaulting the public!
If they can film you without your permission, then you can film them without their permission!
One wonders if those who object to public photography have something to hide?
Just say you're an, 'influencer' people will have no problem them when they set up cameras in the street/shopping mall/etc..
@@secondchance6603 LOL! Like any1 takes THOSE delusional people 'seriously'!
@@jeffsuter344you don't think that someone, whose job is 'plain clothes store detective' doesn't have a legitimate reason for not wanting their face filmed and published on Social Media?
@@NickHolt_2201 No one ever knew I was a store detective, so it didn’t really matter to me. One of the reasons for not photographing in a shop is to do with other retailers and competition. We also had a case of some one talking photographs of children. Some shopping centres have notices on the doors. Some shopping centres, though get it wrong, if there is a public footpath going through a shopping centre there’s nothing security of shopping centre management can do about it
I've always found it strange how people are so uncomfortable seeing an individual with a camera when there is CCTV or some sort of surveillance virtually everywhere in the UK.
However, the idea of the UK being a "free society" is nonsense as you only have freedom if you do what you're told. Unfortunately many security guards have no idea about the laws covering their job and the police are just as bad most of the time.
You always have a choice if you dont like the rules - change them or leave.
@@tttt4029 And how does a regular citizen with no real power whatsoever in the system go about changing the law?
CCTV is glanced at by a bored operator and if nothing happens is wiped ,
@@georgef822 Become an MP or petition your MP, how do you think people in power get in power.
@@snowflakemelter1172 not always deleted . Doncaster security have been found with images taken from cameras zooming down girls tops . And the police haven't done anything about it
Why they hate us filming them is our video don't go missing or the audio is turn off , unlike the cops 🤣😂
No, it’s just edited.
@@InterruptedByFireWso don’t allow edited evidence easy. What excuse do the police have for no audio, missing camera footage, etc.
over 2000 pieces of police body worn footage has mysteriously gone missing, been corrupted, didn't actually get recorded. HMMMM! i wonder why?
ruclips.net/video/OOy_oP3ESQY/видео.htmlsi=TfqvIuksQ-LPNvd3
I'm glad you've touched on this subject; I managed a photographic shop in Salisbury and would often send the staff out to test new lenses or customers cameras with perceived problems so we could fix them. One member of staff was a keen transport fan and would often take pictures of buses and the like; he had just come from lunch armed with his camera to be followed into the shop by a PCSO who was demanding to know why he had photographed her parked police vehicle in the market square! I have to confess my opinion of PCSO's has yet to recover.
Oh, you form your opinion of many via one person? Sounds like stereotyping…
In much the same way your post sounds like trolling...@@InterruptedByFireW
Pcso’s by definition are a waste of space. Watched many of them attend the riots in Ealing watching vandals looting shops etc and doing nothing to keep the public safe.
@@InterruptedByFireW And you've just formed your opinion from one post, sounds like hypocrisy...
PCSO’s are generally very poor, but so is the training they receive. Many are frustrated wannabe cops or those who were unable to meet the already low recruitment standards. There has never been an independent evaluation of the role since their introduction by Blunkett.
Authorities in general do not like being recorded as their word is then not taken as an accurate recollection of events. They are free to do what they want without the fear of any consequences. Police often demand the camera guy stops recording or show the footage to them and seizes cameras as evidence in order to inconvenience the truth. Check out the number of auditors who have been detained,arrested and falsely charged just to get ID. Without camera footage nobody would believe what really happened.
Section 50 is a doozy for getting ID, throw a bogus charge, get issued 50, and you HAVE to ID under threat of arrest. A good loophole for them to circumvent the only needing to ID AFTER ( driving is different ) arrest.
Who knew the sneaky barstewards would be so underhand!?
( Answer :almost everyone)...... 😏
Most people don't like being filmed by some random not just people in authority.
Try filming one of these 'auditors' I bet they don't like it either.
@@concernedcitizen8231the difference is they aren’t serving the public. Therefore they aren’t supposed to be behaving to a high standard, as the public servants are. People like you would do anything you were told, even when something bad happens to you because of it.
@@AI-Records24Try to understand that even people in authority are human too, they may have just dealt with a traumatic incident and then have to deal with some idiot with a camera.
You're a little judgemental aren't you of someone based on a single comment?
@@concernedcitizen8231 i understand that, but they should be taking some time out if that’s the case. I know a mechanic who is a retired detective, he said to me “You should deal with all members of the public the way you would deal with someone in a high position in the police force, or a minister in front of a news camera, if you don’t do that then everyone loses, and you erode trust”. To be fair I agree with him. Seeing as we are so over legislated that you can’t breathe in or out without it being a crime you have to hold onto what rights you do have, and push boundaries. In my opinion, anyway.
Yes, sorry, I shouldn’t have been so quick to judge that was wrong and idiotic.
You have the freedom to do as you're told in the UK.
Or as Mam used to say: "You can either do it, or you can do it with a smacked bottom. Up to you son."
😔 and it hurt.@@TukikoTroy
Correct, you are free to do as we tell you.
How many police constables have colluded and lied in court?
I won’t even go into the psychology and how the faculties of those in uniforms become spellbound and consumed with the power and control they posses while performing their sworn duties/oaths etc.
(From an experienced ex prison officer who’s seen this happen in a number of prisons/custodial environment = which is why I’m an EX officer, held in high regard by inmates, whistleblower (to a degree as I’m bound by the official secrets act, and one who despises the lawless lawmakers/enforcers - no man is above the law? I could give a catalogue of examples!).
Sadly there are those who should never be allowed to be in any sort of position with even a hint of authority. No matter the job, their tiny egos just get bigger and they then think they have more power then they actually do.
I have come across this so many times in various occupations and have had interactions with cops who just use the uniform to justify their bullying behaviour.
There are good officers and bad officers, just as there are good managers and some really bad ones.
The worse part is that some of them actually make it to the very top of the pile and do more damage to a whole state or nation
@@MickAngelhere well said brother. I agree with you 100% my friend 🙏🏻⚖️
Another question is, " why do the judiciary allow the Police to lie, and not take any action when the lies are revealed".
Having worked in forensics ‘not a constable’ for 35yrs, they lie , even in court more than they tell the truth.
If someone is found not guilty then someone was lying or not enough evidence, shouldn’t perjury be applied more often; it’ very rare?
You forgot to add clown you your little cv there 😂 that's the only thing you are. I don't get people who make up crap on the internet just to promote conspiracies and random bs.
The funny thing is if you film with Camera everyone takes notice. If you hold up your phone and talk to yourself because actually your filming nobody notices.
I wonder what will happen when a discrete google glasses type product is produced.
You actually summed up the stupidity of irrational people who hate cameras. The answer would be to get an iPhone, screw the Jobsworths, and carry on regardless.
@@johnclements6614 Apple headband pro thingy records everything..haa haaa
I have had exactly this. Taking photos with an SLR, you get challenged, even though there are dozens of people stood around you taking photos using camera phones.
@@eljay5009 Yes it's odd a old Camera with big Zoom lenses will definitely get you attention. I'm older from pre computers and phones. I find it odd how people will tell everyone about their lives on social media including Photos but are hardly willing to talk to a fellow passenger on a train or be in front of a Camera😊. I'd be interested for someone to Audit security with a phone casually then later with a Camera and see the difference. It's a mad world and getting madder all the time.
Why is it right that almost every shop ,government building etc can film the public ,but object when public produce a camera to record their transactions for their records?
Because they can delete/edit footage they possess. They don't want raw, complete footage in existence.
He explained it, you have to adhere to their rules or shop elsewhere.
A shop, gov building or any other organisation is governed by GDPR and they can`t do whatever they wish with the footage ( in theory ), whilst an individual isn`t governed by GDPR therefore can be used in any ways that person wishes, either good or bad.
Same reason if someone comes into your home, they have to follow your rules. Do you allow your friends to do whatever the fuck they want in your own home?
@@THECHAOSEMPERORdo you let the general public in your house? Wander around the bedrooms while the kids are getting dressed? Not really the same is it?
No expectation of privacy in public, your home is not a public place. Hence offensive weapons are not legal in a public place, totally different in your house.
Just like a hotel or B and B are responsible for data when guests use the WiFi, but you are not, if a mate uses your home WiFi.
Sometimes it's ignorance (absolutely no excuse for that if you're taking your job seriously), but most often, and particularly with the police it seems, their ego takes over and drags their body and mouth along for the ride.
They don't like it simply because it can be used as evidence against them if they screw up
No, we don't like it, because, if certain prerequisites are met, it can be considered a breach of security.
I'm not sure what year you think it is, but it really isn't difficult to manipulate videos these days. Some people have had their careers shut down because of imbeciles posting these videos online, (if a video is posted online, the statement of the intent to use the video strictly as a form of protection is no longer valid) the video gets edited either by the poster or somebody else.
Educate yourself on the topic fully, please, and open your mind.
There have also been many scenarios where a recording has brought justice.
The police can record us and in instances have pressed a mute button/turned it off when force is used. Shit on a stick both ends.
I have no issue with it personally, maybe your education and open mindedness on the subject can help persue a happy medium between the two.
If a cop does something so bad that publishing it ends their career, then it is on the public interest to publish it. Publishing it protects the public from the disgraced officer.
I have a story from my time living in Southampton, Hampshire finest got upset with me because I took some photos of a car crash outside my home. I was told not to take photo of officers again. Fast forward a few weeks and the same officers were being hit by some lads in town centre. They asked if I had pictures of what happened, they were not happy when I told them that as per their instructions I had not taken any photos of them.
BRAVO !!! WELL DONE !!
It doesn’t matter what the police or security don’t like being filmed but sometimes needed unfortunately
They don't like being filmed committing offences.
They don't like it when others do to them, when they do it to others. Hypocrisy.
On the back entrances to police stations. The reasons for not liking it are different.
In lots of cases its evidence of no MOT and of no insurance
It's also evidence of corruption. Police force the official vehicles outside to park illegally, so they can put their personal vehicles in the compound. That way they don't have to pay the exhorbitant fines, walk long distances pay the huge charges in a car park.
In other words abuse of public office for personal gain which is the definition of corruption.
Very true.
Police cars don't need to be taxed and mot, they are exempt, also I believe police cars are registered as crown property, so indemnity is covered by the crown, no separate insurance required, I'm 99% sure on the last point, cba Googling to be 100%
In many cases of auditors near police stations, it manages to bring out the power mad, ignorant, rude side of many officers' personalities. They actually can't abide someone being legally allowed to do something they don't like. If they stopped reacting, the auditors would vanish because there would be little of interest to audit.
@@PJ-wm9nq I've noticed a few UK "auditors" have moved away from filming just to get a reaction, and more about details about what they are filming.
One that I follow "audits" factory units, takes pictures and uses a drone, quite a few times he's been given a tour and lots of information, with security/managers/owners being really helpful, he gets his footage, they get free exposure, don't know if it leads to increased sales or anything.
One a few weeks ago asked if while he was taking the drone over the company building, could he check the drains/gutters for them so they didn't have to pay someone 🤣😂
@@legion162 MOT - they have to be signed off. But personal vehicles of officers have to be insured and MOT
If you read to the end, they are parking personal vehicles in the compound. They are worried about personal vehicles being filmed.
So MOT, insurance and corruption are the issues.
The right to film and photograph in public is hugely important. Amateur Photographer has been fighting a rear guard action on this for years now, especially after the Chief Constable of Leicestershire stated that taking photographs of people was harrassment in 2015, she back peddled on this. But the worrying thing is how the police default to making up laws.
99% of folk filming in public so so without issue. its the frauditors that's causing the problems as they aren't in for the filming but to create a confrontation for commercial gain.
The trouble is the interpretation of the word "public".
You mention "right to film". That ONLY exists on your own property, and public rights of way, - streets roads footpaths etc. Despite what many auditors think, there is NO right to film on any private premises, even if they have "public access".
@Challis1989 'auditors' miss a very important point of Common Law... which is whilst you have the rights to do what you do, those rights end when they come up against another's rights. So my right to photograph ends when it unreasonably infringes the rights of another to privacy. When is that point? Well Common Law encourages those living in its jurisdictions to behave reasonably. Is it reasonable to photograph wrong doing? Yes, of course. Is it reasonable to provoke another person in order to provoke wrong doing to photograph? No, it's not.
A fundamental principle has been Sir Henry Collins's 1903 ruling of what a 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would find reasonable and fair.
My problem with legislation, from either angle, is that it fundamentally removes Common Law rights. However, for Common Law to work, everyone must be reasonable and respectful to the rights of others.
Most auditors aren't.
Auditors go to great lengths to point out to policemen that they are Constables, Uniformed Civilians whose powers are restricted by Common Law, whilst forgetting that they also have their own Common Law rights as individuals.
I think an awful lot of problems would be solved if they taught basic Common Law and how it works and why jt is important to out kids to reiterate that they have rights but must respect others rights
There is no expectation of privacy in public.@@HarryFlashmanVC
@@Challis1989I don’t like auditor videos at all, but you say they create confrontations when I’ve seen lots of videos where they haven’t created anything at all. They are harassed for exercising what are their legal rights. I’ve seen multiple where acts are misused by police to get their ID, leading to their arrests too. Also I’ve seen the compensation they receive afterwards posted. The thing is, if we didn’t have people willing to do these things (albeit for financial gain) then your rights would slowly be eroded away and you’d wake up one day in a communist like regime unable to express yourself at all.
The main reason most have come to is that the Police get filmed doing nasty/illegal stuff...There is no right of privacy in public except to go about your business unmolested.
The auditors have shown what the police think of us...they actually believe 1: we are ignorant of the law and 2: we are all criminals.
The way the police act is cause for concern...so record all interactions
all data including video and audio files are protected by GDPR, well our p1ss poor version
@mm3nrx...I believe they are trained to believe everyone is a criminal. All that matters (IMO) is the number of brownie points (credits) that they accumulate.
I think many people don't realise that regardless of how they go about their content, auditors are exposing the rot within public services and private security services.
GDPR does not apply for domestic purposes. Wearing a bodycam that records from the moment you step out your front door to the point where you step back in, with certain exceptions (publicly accessible buildings with clear "no photography" signs AND NO CCTV because they can't legitimately apply the rule to you the transient and not to themselves*, telecomms facilities, power plants, court buildings, government buildings including police stations, and active military facilities among a very select few others) is completely LEGAL and YOU DO NOT NEED ANYONE'S PERMISSION.
*There is one special exception to this one I think and I stand to be corrected: schools and preschool facilities. Generally visiting parents are not allowed to use cameras without specific permission. These facilities will have CCTV but the data gathered by them would be (hopefully) very secure and only used in the interests of safety.
They dont like you filming their wrong doing, which is pretty much guaranteed if you are filming them!
I was given a super 8 camera as a kid in the 70's I filmed anything I wanted, people smiled and waved, this carried on until the early 2000's when something changed. What? Maybe paranoia instigated by the main stream media that everybody with a camera unless it's MSM is up to no good. I remember videoing in the local town centre at university in the 90's with a big shoulder held camera, nobody even looked twice.
Probably the fact that you were now an adult going round filming everything. That, to a lot of people, looks suspicious. If a child does it, it just looks like a kid out having a bit of fun.
@@waltersobchak1719 A person who was a kid in the 70s walking around with a super 8 was most likely in their teens. Therefore in the 90s they would be in their 30s.
@@johnclements6614 Thanks for the maths lesson👍
@@waltersobchak1719 So the question is why was a person with a camera in their 30's in the 1990s not viewed with suspicion.
@@johnclements6614 Because people weren’t aware of terrorists, pedos and burglars to the same extent they are now. Back then people with a camera were seen as tourists or people with a hobby. Now people think they are criminals or people looking for trouble. Times were very different 30 years ago to how they are now.
I will film for MY protection. End of. I have no trust in any of these uniformed people.
The illegality isn't in the act of capturing the data, it's what you do with it after that can get you in trouble.
Because you act like an entitled twat so often I guess
@@Jimb0b1111 It's not illegal!
@@BadDriversOz If you mishandle data you have captured and are now responsible for there can be consequences.
Privacy rights are potected by the uk human rights act 1998.
Data protection act 2018 protects you from someone publishing your personnel details without permission.
There is also a thing called defamation law.
Once uploaded you are now the copyright holder of that footage and responsible for it's use/misuse.
@@Jimb0b1111 Luckily, I am not IN the UK!
(As you can plainly see! )
Don't forget even when the police start asking questions you don't need to answer any of them even when arrested .. the right to remain silent ...
That’s already been covered in another video, and what you just said is a little bit wrong.
Remember the caution: "it may harm your defence if....."
@@Rapscallion2009 the court can come to its own inference, I have three different copies of PACE 1984 it says it in all of them
And you dont even have to give your name and address even if charged and sent to court, but then the magistrate can order you to give your details
@@danidelaney3555 Who told you that, have you ever been charged with an offence and gone to court?
I wear a body cam when I go walking, some of my walks are along canals and down wooded walks and at one time I was subject to an attempted assault, so from that point I bought and now wear a body cam. The end of the walk will normally end in a town centre shopping mall where I can get coffee and cake. The security in the Mall wear body cams on their uniform so I see no issue with wearing mine, although if I remember I will turn it off as it saves the battery. I treat it as a dash cam for my own safety and if anyone said I should not wear one I would take offence. It is a sad affair that I feel I should need one, but if it is getting common place for cars why not people. Is there anything wrong in wearing a body cam?
Sounds like a good idea to me👍. Where did you get yours from, if you don’t mind me asking?
@@waltersobchak1719 It was just off Ebay for around £27/£28, 2K with LCD screen and a separate 32Gig memory card, it does for now.
Is there anything wrong with wearing a body cam? .... nothing at all ... and it seems like you are being responsible with the data you collect. 👍🏻
@@NickHolt_2201 Thanks for the reply, up to now on the data it collects just gets over written on the next walk so nothing is permanently stored, I guess it would be different if another incident occurs, then it would be stored and passed on. Cheers.
For me wearing a bodycam like yourself would be a problem....but everyone is different.
I say this because if I felt compelled to wear one in "normal daily life" , it would mean I am essentially "on edge" Or would mean I am focusing on externals out of my control (ie other people) which is a complete waste of life. That will never be the way I choose to spend(waste) my mental energy.
There are an infinite amount of reasons to be positive, to live in the present and to make the most of YOUR life and to better yourself for the future.
I am not sure you are concentrating on the right things is what I am trying to say. Don't get little world syndrome, my friend.
police and security try and tell people not to film because some will stop , some will not but overall it will give them the idea that they can make up laws and who dosn't want to do that
I have found that police generally OK with filming nowadays. On that other hand, security are a different story.
Everyone has the right to ask you to stop filming. But not the right to stop you filming.
Police CAN enforce trespass law, if a trespasser is on police property. They frequently remove auditors from police premises, prompting auditors to falsely claim that the police are "making up laws".
There are, however many vids of police and PCSOs on public streets, who DO wrongly claim someone can't film them.
Any representative for the land owner can enforce trespass law.
Because it highlights their total incompetence.
Don’t understand why the SIA course doesn’t highlight filming in the uk. But then again most on the course wouldn’t understand anyway.
As for the police they just don’t like it, because they think they are special and have power over you, and you must do as your told by them.
SIA course highlights; your badge must be on display at all times when dealing with anyone as security, except when working undercover. It's a criminal offence not to. They just ignore that anyway.
@@GaryNeale-ff5pz the law clearly states that if your working in security in the uk you must have your badge on your person. An you must produce it when the police, council or sia inspector asks.
Clubs and bars it has become the norm to have it on display in some way. Again this has become the norm on the arm.
In shops and other businesses it is totally down to the employer if the badge is on show or not.
Plus some businesses that have security like supermarkets for example you do not even need an sia badge to work as security.
There is no part in law that the badge must be on display. The sia course highlights the badge being on display for your safety only. So members of the public know who you are. Plus it stops people turning up for work and committing a criminal offence by working without it on their person.
Plus it’s easier to say you must wear it when working when 70% of those that do the sia course don’t have a good understanding of English or cannot even speak English.
Clear, concise and straight to the point information and advice, that is why we like this Channel Daniel. No waffling!
My main concern is the use of Section 43 of the anti terror legislation just to search somebody with a camera.
Yep, they do that all the time. Abuse of power
They won't search you if you give them your name and a genuine reason about why you are filming. If you start going i'll film if i want to and i'm not telling you why or who you are then its perfectly reasonable to search the person especially if they are wearing a balaclava. To be honest filming to provoke a security response is terrorism, its causing terror for political reasons the very definition of terrorism
The MISUSE of Section 43!
It's abuse of power
They always trot that s43 out together with the old mantra "harassment, alarm and distress".
If an officer or pcso starts with that nonsense you just know you are dealing with an idiot.
Thanks for the excellent advice, particularly since we have the same issues in the U.S. Here is a tip for the public. What the police don't notice, won't upset them. Before you approach a situation where trouble might arise, start recording on your phone and slip it into a coat or shirt pocket with the lens exposed. Take care not to look like you're recording. Simply be a bystander.
I love the auditing channels here on youtube. There are sometimes hilarious.
💚💚💚
there are some great drone audit channels on RUclips. many of us recreational drone users have learned a lot about or rights to fly and film from DJ and others.
Mainly hilarious because the auditors are mostly deluded fools. Occasionally there's a really good auditor interaction, but they're not that common.
@aireboat7988 Aww, did one of them come to your work? Did you come out like a tyrant pretending your rules apply outside your gate? That's usually why the auditors get their footage. If people stopped acting like they owned the place and got on with their day, the auditors wouldn't have much content. Unfortunately, there are always karens/kens around every corner. Giving the auditors what they want. It's not the auditors fault these people act like that!
@@WeAreThePeople1690 What are you on about you tosspot..?
Its when dumb auditors think they can film on private property when the ones telling them, DO 'own the place'.
If the Police (mainly them because the don't like being caught in the act) or Security do not want to filmed why don't they lobby their MP to follow the formality's to get it voted on in parliament?
They tried, it failed... so now they are trying again... only they may have the camera's and the guns... the plebs just get the bill...
I can’t see MP’s voting for that, although I recall reading some countries were looking at it. I’m afraid policing has to accept the fact that they can be filmed without permission. I struggle to understand their objections when they use cameras, ANPR, facial recognition, drones and body worn video for their interactions with the public.
Absolutely not
😂😂😂😂😂
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, WE are filmed everywhere we go and NOT once was i asked for permission. If you dont wish to be filmed... stay at home otherwise Suck it up. IF your doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about. The Camera Never lies... Unlike Police and Security.
Don't the Police always spout nothing to hide, nothing to worry about? Yet, do not like the same logic applied to themselves.
Oh yes, the camera _can_ lie - but even when it isn't doing so, it can be telling not the whole truth: it doesn't show what's just out of frame. And certainly a lot of bodycam footage I've seen is very hard to follow!
The amount of "audits" that have been carried out, and the overall p1ss poor reaction from the police and security, surely every SIA course, and police area should know about how it prefectly legal and react accordingly 🤷🏼
Agree, although making money on youtube by annoying people is also P1ss poor
I think these so called audits are in large part just click bait merchants who want a reaction. Unfortunately some in policing fall for it hook line and sinker and over react.
@@tttt4029Annoying people is NOT a criminal offence and is purely subjective. It is perfectly LEGAL to film in public and there is no expectation of privacy in public.
Your "feelings" are irrelevent. If you get annoyed by public photography then you need an anger management course or mental health treatment
If you don't like it why is it the first thing snowflakes do is march straight up to the camera and cause a scene and escalate the situaation?. Just ignore it and walk AWAY.
@@jeffsuter344 Surely even you can realise these idiots are annoying people for a reaction to make money on youtube ? You think that's ok just because it may be legal - pathetic.
@@jeffsuter344actually it can become a public order offence now because they changed the definition of what constitutes it. Basically if there’s person being ‘audited’ feels harassed it then becomes an offence.
Thank you,a very clear explanation and production
So... the police can't ask you to hand over your phone. Great. However, they have the power to seize your phone if they SAY they have reasonable grounds to believe that it may contain evidence of an offence. So obviously this is what they're going to say if they want to take your phone.
Come on Daniel it's because most of them are both egotistical and skirting the borders of illegality.
Police: "Don't film us!"
Police: "We are appealing to members of the public to provide any footage of (insert crime) that will help us..."
Life is full of contradictions 😀
Thanks Daniel, very informative
The diamond on the left is about an inch too low.
*Its great Daniel and Ive asked before would you cover security guards carrying handcuffs now. Several vids showing them explaining how they have 'often' cuffed people and awaited the police. Removing them when the police arrived so the police can put theirs on. No crime comitted but poorly informed security who have been told they are allowed to use them*
In case you need to know the ACPO Guidelines to use of handcuffs.
Any intentional application of force to the person of another is an assault. The use of handcuffs amounts to such an assault and is unlawful unless it can be justified. Justification is achieved through establishing not only a legal right to use handcuffs, but also good objective grounds for doing so in order to show that what the officer or member of police staff did was a reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force.
www.npcc.police.uk/documents/FoI%20publication/Disclosure%20Logs/Uniformed%20Operations%20FOI/2013/003%2013%20Att%2015%20of%2015%20Guidance%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Handcuffs.pdf
Any Tom, Dick or Harry can apply handcuffs to someone that under citizens arrest. You just have to make sure it's reasonable and proportionate
There's nothing stopping Security from using handcuffs during a s24a arrest as long as it's resonable in the circumatances which it usually will be.
@@chrisburns2172it’s great to know that minimum wage security guards are legal experts and can establish with 100% accuracy that the suspected offence is indictable rather than summary.
If they get this wrong then the Security can be arrested and prosecuted for assault, false imprisonment etc.
Look up Jake De-Geus and Edwin Hirst, 2 security guards in Chichester currently on trial for exactly this.
Hardly worth £10 per hour is it!
Love all your videos. Thanks for taking the time to create them.
Reinforced in my opinion the law as and people representing the law are nor here for the good of the ordinary working person.
Black Belt - can I ask you in relation to filming within a hospital, do the same rules apply? I am wondering as I commonly ask people to cease taking pictures or videos in a clinical area to protect the privacy of other patients. Some of whom cannot consent to have their picture taken but I see how this may not be necessity in any case.
People in a hospital do have an expectiation of privacy, as a member of the public you have no reason to just wander around, you will be stopped and asked to leave - so they can also ask you to stop filming, and since you are already acting suspiciously - you could be detained
At the hospital I worked at, filming was only allowed with the consent of both the staff being filmed and the patients. If a member of staff didn’t want to be filmed the hospital would try to find a colleague who didn’t mind. Though admittedly they do encourage the staff to allow it. But this was a few years back-things might be different now.
If its an NHS hospital this is covered by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 section 119.
- (1)A person commits an offence if-
(a)the person causes, without reasonable excuse and while on NHS premises, a nuisance or disturbance to an NHS staff member who is working there or is otherwise there in connection with work,
(b)the person refuses, without reasonable excuse, to leave the NHS premises when asked to do so by a constable or an NHS staff member, and
(c)the person is not on the NHS premises for the purpose of obtaining medical advice, treatment or care for himself or herself.
So if you are NHS staff, and tell. someone to stop filming, it's a criminal offence if they refuse, and/or refuse to leave the premises.
You've probably had the oinks stating something like -"its got public access...So I can film."... that's nonsense..!
The Wayne Couzens school of policing aka The Met Police are especially not keen on filming, you have to wonder why
I love the way you break these subjects down. I actually learn something. It's interesting how England's law is similar but yet different from USA law.
Good advice!
Police stations are public property and as such if you can see their cars in the back from public they have no exceptions of privacy. The public can only get the road tax mot and insurance from the plate and this is public information as even private plates DVLA own them and have the right to take them back. If they are worried about being identified then possibly they should not be such dick's that someone would want to identify them or change their jobs.
Police cars maintained in a police workshop don't need (and so don't get) an MOT, which is how so many of them end up clocked as they enter the used market
I notice some shop staff are usiing body worn cameras wich does not trouble me but I imagine if a customer is told that they cant film would feel that it is double staandards
Shop workers have to wear body cams, double standards are the least of our worries.
LIKE CRIMINALS, THEY DON'T LIKE FILMING THEM COMMITTING THE CRIME!
One of the main issues is the quality (or lack there of) of the individual’s that they employ. Being a cop can be quite boring apparently, so you need to employ someone with a lower than average intelligence.(or not too high an intelligence level), because high IQ individuals just leave. The police recruitment teams specifically target people with not too high an IQ. The other issue, is that they only promote from within and that is very bad practice. That’s why successful businesses promote a percentage from within and a percentage from without. The police don’t do this, so they only have a pool of poor quality individuals to pick from.
But when you are at the self serve they film you and do not tell you!
The cameras are also aimed at the card reader. You can see your pin number on the screen above.
Oh dear ... the 'personal' reg plates argument again !
If someone where to wish a particular vehicle driver ill would they film it overtly ?
If I record a vehicles reg what can I do with that information ? Tax and MOT data is freely available. That is all ... unless I have special powers.
I would not know where it had come from or where it is going or who was driving it !
The same private reg plates(owned by the DVLA, not the person), used to identify the vehicles, that are filmed by a multitude of dashcams when on the road anyway.
A great vid and I agree with everything except the example you gave "back of a police station". Back, side or front, if its a public street your allowed there and thus allowed to film. End of discussion. The other topic number plates, just because its been proven countless times that the police abuse the use of the PNC and DVLA data doesnt mean anyone else will. As you say just because someone doesnt like something isnt a legal reason that forces you to stop.
I hate 20mph speed limits in low risk areas. Has this stopped the police or so called safety camera partnerships enforcing them and applying another tax on otherwise law abiding motorists. No it has not.
Freedom to do ANYTHING 🤣😂😅 Are you referring to the UK !
I don't think Security and Police get this 'wrong' - I think the law is irrelevant to them, so they're not even trying to apply it correctly. All that matters to those immature bullies is their ego and FEELINGS. They're on a power-trip, and just expect others to cave in to their deluded sense of authority.
We're not all like that. As a security officer myself I have had to educate other officers and even their managers on what they can and cannot do!
Bottom line is we have no more powers than any other member of the public, but some seem to forget this.
To be honest, I think the time is rapidly approaching where stacking shelves at Tesco would be more fulfilling, and safer! 😉
A good video Dan. As much as I find people like Veitch and DJAudits insufferable and 95% of the time just looking for trouble to make content, I don't really have an issue with people filming in public as long as, like you say, it's within the law.
Don't watch their videos then.
@@user-fo9bv2mm1g nae bother wee man 👌
A few things to add, as someone who was a professional camera op for over 20 years. Sometimes it isn't always clear what is privately owned property, and what isn't. Now, generally in the UK there's no distinction in law between someone who is filming for themselves, or someone who is doing the job as a professional. There are separate rules when it comes to, say, filming someone in public and then using the footage for editorial purposes, or instead using a highly identifiable face in a commercial advert as if that person is endorsing a product etc. However, if land is public, with some exceptions, you are free to film. The problem is when it comes to places like London, which has lots of unique bylaws and very complex property ownership.
For example, I might be able to use my professional video camera on a London street somewhere that is owned and maintained by the council, but if I then use that camera on the pavement of Tower Bridge, or much of the land surrounding it, I could be asked to leave since it is in fact privately owned property. London also has rules about copyright. A prime example of this is Trafalgar Square. You are perfectly free to take photos or video of it for your own private use, but if you were to sell any of those shots, you will likely find yourself with a cease and desist letter, or being sued. This is also the case with the National Trust owned land such as views of Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) mountain. The NT has taken photographers to court over the selling of photos of the mountain, because it claims to own the copyright of the 'view'.
As I say, traditionally the UK law makes no distinction between professional and amateur filming in public spaces, however in the last decade or so things have become more complicated with private entities becoming more assertive, particularly in the case of entities like the National Trust, which owns great swathes of 'wild' open land, including a huge amount in the coastal regions. Professional or commercial does not necessarily mean you are being paid lots of money, either, or that you're selling your photograph online etc. It is for any renumeration, which could include something as innocuous as a mate buying you a cup of tea in return for taking the photo! Not that you'd likely be found out for such a thing, but worth bearing in mind how wide the definitions can go. Back before the drone regulations were changed, there was a sharp distinction between commercial and private use of drones with cameras, and the CAA was explicit that renumeration included being bought something as small as a drink in return for a shot.
Back in film camera days i was stopping d from taking still photos of the architecture of a new shopping center, with the explanation from security that 'you could be casing the joint in order to plan a theft' (18 year old female art student?) Similar reasons used to be given for banning filming in National Trust property.
As a member of a Police Service, I don't have an issue with people filming in a public space and neither do my colleagues. Some people seriously push the boundaries though - I've had people attempting to film into one of our forensic tents while coroner's officers were collecting a body!
And what happened to those people?
So? If you don't want something to be recorded, make sure you create some privacy.
@@MW54-jb9tb Or just have some common decency?
I wonder if it was the same "auditor" who filmed Nicola Bulley's body being recovered ? I f so, he really DOES push the boundaries way too far!
I can answer the question before watching. They don't like it because they don't want to be accountable for breaking the law and abusing our rights.
As usual, clear as mud, more questions than answers..
Yes, I wonder....
Regarding recording in Tesco etc. the equality of law must apply, i.e. if they can record you for any purpose, then that can be reciprocated.
Natural justice vs actual law, sadly the law has the bigger stick :(
That would mean the death of Auditing,no youtube uploads. Everyone entering with a camera would have to abide by cctv regulations & handling.
@@SnakePliskin762 Explain your reasoning
@@nonenone-vt8cg exactly what i put. CCTV handlers are governed by data protection laws. RUclipsrs aren't.
Nobody would film themselves commiting a crime, they do not like being filmed committing crimes
Long time viewer but really only now beginning to like your stance.
So as long as your not breaking any law and on public land you can film or take photos of anything you can see, including police cars in their car park!!!
I took a photo of the London Eye framed between two buildings. I'm not from London, so I didn't know what the buildings were. A policeman came up and told me to delete the photo, as it was the Ministry of Defence, and he thought I was taking pictures of the staff going in and out.
I hope you told him to jog on.
@@roy9816no he said sorry and deleted it
@@trixiek942 I took a *photo*, not a video.
@@User1849a No, I didn't
@@trixiek942 Except that I used a camera, not a phone ...
They don't want you catching anything embarrassing that may potentially contradict their version of what really didn't happen.
The only people who don't like recording, are those with something to hide.
I'm a journalist (like an actual journalist) and was taught media law at university. I basically ignore any police officer who claims photography/videography is illegal in public. I also carry guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers, though I have never had to show it. Polite but firm is my approach: I know I'm not doing anything wrong and I have a job to do. That's it.
These auditors do a worthwhile job exposing how freely some Police lie. There's no end of videos on RUclips where officers make statements that the video shows to be untrue. When this happens the CPS should review every single conviction secured where that officer has given evidence.
Auditing also exposes how lots of Police officers hate to be challenged and frequently react aggressively. That's not good, not good at all.
Lost me at " these auditors do a worthwhile job"!!
Power trip.
Plain and simple.
It’s about personal secruity.
Police officers especially, can be targeted and put at risk, some are followed home or shouted at as they leave work.
Auditors themselves hate being followed or filmed. I saw auditing Britain have a full on melt down when someone filmed him getting into his car, used his real name and captured his vehicle reg.
you don't need a camera to do that though, anyone, can follow anyone covertly if they wanted to.
Got a link to the video, I would love to see it!
As far as the police taking your phone in case it has evidence, wouldnt that come under the same laws that prevent you from incriminating yourself, as in a verbal statement under caution ?
Whatever the law is I don't think its unreasonable for a security guard to ask why someone is filming and to expect a feasible answer. Most "Audit" videos I've seen the auditors just say I'm allowed to film in public.
Security are usually employed to protect something of value. If someone is filming, security don't know why, what if they were filming a building or a site with an intent to rob the place?
How about the incident where a 'security officer' searched Bendon Kavanagh's bag at a public piano in a railway (ruclips.net/video/cW27j1tGERQ/видео.html). Fortunately he was filming his performance and caught it all on camera
Just seen that, fricking disgraceful that.. I'd report that, despite wrongly searching his bag, what the hell did he expect to find?
The security guy said he asked him if it was his bag and he said no. What else could the security guard do to ascertain who's bag it was? That part of the conversation was not recorded for yt.
Imagine this kind of thing back in the 18th century,well officer I was just minding my own business when this stranger started f##king painting me
And I've been stood here for three hours so far......
😁😂😅
3:00 How can there be acceptance of T&Cs if no contract has been entered into? Thanks.
I was on holiday and entered what looked like a public square and I was vlogging. A security officer told me the square was private and I had to stop filming... Very strange 😊
The 'Why' some of them do not like filming question was not answered ... how odd !
Maybe they don’t want to end up on Thicktok?
I think he meant in the context of what's allowed in law.
In my personal experiences and those of many of my friends, police tend to be narcissistic bullies that LOVE a power trip. Before everyone had a camera in their pocket the stance seemed to be that a policeman's word trumped anyone else's and so they could indulge their kinks without consequence. The narcissism hasn't gone away, but now they have to control themselves. Such a shame! Besides, they all wear cameras (and recordings seem to 'go away' when it suits them) and there's CCTV poking it's nose in to all our lives constantly, so no issue in having some evidence of your own that you can freely access in full, unlike bodycam footage or CCTV. Don't like being recorded outside of your home? Go and live in the Amazon rainforest or on the moon! 😂
The law should say cop must copy data on phone and return said phone within 1 hour.
I have heard before that the difference between British Law and Continental Law is that on the Continent you can do nothing unless the law allows it; in the UK you can do anything you like unless there is a law to prevent it
Surely if you are being surrvailed publicly then you have the right to counter record an activity
Not in 1984 style U.K. i am afraid.
Does anyone like a camera pointing at them from a hostile or possibly hostile person who can go away and edit it to suit their intentions?
Thank you for exposing yourself as S T U P I D
Like the police editing their version of events?
I am pretty sure the laws says that if it is a commercial transaction your allowed to film unless told not to.
As for going into shops and expected to know rthe rules, should these not be on desply someplace? Used to own a transport business and used to send out T&Cs with qoutes and printed on the back of invoices as I was told that I had to make customers aware rgat these exist. Guess might be different for retail, just wondering?
As someone doing grass roots sports photography, often on public recreation grounds, the number of times I've had people try to stop me is frustrating. People just make it up as they go along, even the so called welfare officers of clubs, who are supposed to know the rules/law, apply what they think it should be rather than what it actually is.
I have done the same in the past. It's funny how people will challenge somebody with an SLR - whilst there are dozens of people stood around filming and taking photos with camera phones.
According to their own legal department.
Jobseeker buildings are simultaneously private (if you are filming) and public (because they are)
It is also their legal opinion that a job centers policies override the right to film in public.
How does policy override law? Do tell me.
@@wellerjam
A question I have now asked the dwp legal department 3 different times.
Every email was ignored.
However I do have a signed letter from the manager of the enniskillen job center branch. Stating that "our policies override the ripa act"
@@AspenDarkfireRipa is to do with covert recording, I believe, not DPA.
I've an interesting police complaint. I expect them to say a political statement trumps the law and trumps their regulations. @@wellerjam
RIPA is an interesting law when it comes to Kahn and the Ulez cameras. They wont' say where they are, so its covert recording. They don't have those powers. @@stuartb4525
Security get angry that they are going to lose their jobs. Just like with Mcdonalds
Been having argument with a shop which puts up photos from cctv in there shop and online if alledged shoplifters, thief's, I understand shops frustrated as police don't want to investigate the crime.
Using cctv images like this is illegal, he says no its not and even local police approve of what he's doing
He says as well as cctv signs up the monitors are in a place where every members of staff and public can see, again this is illegal
But the shopping centre and police again seem ok with this, my guess is he's not even registered with the ICO, which I again believe is against the law in setting up commercial cctv
Would appreciate bbb saying about legality of cctv in commercial premises and 8f he has already point me to that video
If your not inside the properties perimeter fence you can film what you like and the perimeter fence is the line where Security Officers have control on their duties end of story so please get your facts right
People are recorded the moment you walk out your house so what's the difference.
Your now even recorded paying for your shopping at a self checkout
because you agree to their rules by using the shop.
@@tttt4029 Or you might agree - if they made the rules available. Which they don't.
@@Renegade1127 You're making the decision to use their services, if you're worried, ask before you go in or go elsewhere.
@@tttt4029 I make the decision to buy from them - not to be filmed doing it.
Cameras at the entrance? Yeah, but not at the checkout.
@@Renegade1127 Why not, that's the obvious place to have them to stop theft. It's a private business, if you don't like the rules shop elsewhere.
Some cantankerous gits with cameras make money through views of their “audit” videos, going out of their way to annoy members of the public who have better things to do with their time. We live in a strange world.
simple, don't walk up to a person with a camera demanding not to be filmed, build a BIG wall if you don't want your building filmed, just ignore them, no interaction, no content. Those same people complaining possibly have video door bells, dash cams, cctv outside their houses, do not complain about shop cctv, council cctv, police SAFETY cameras etc? you can't have your cake and eat it.
Police ceased my dashcam footage for evidence in a road traffic collision. The case/investigation concluded and when I asked for the footage back the Police deleted the footage from the SD card before returning. They have told me that they still have a copy of the footage but will not return it to me. Is this legal can I still get it back?
I tried several different data recovery software and I have been unable to recover.@@andrewpiaf630
The whole of our police forces need a training session on filming and photography law.
BBB it’s about the loss of control and the fact that professionalism and competence can be scrutinised. Unfortunately police training is generally very poor. I also think that premises need to have clearer rules on entry or restriction.
I was going to sau the same thing, they don't like to think their not in control of the situation.
@@andrewfairley6140 I think a large part is the fact that they lack the confidence and professional knowledge to deal with people filming, this feeds into the loss of control and over reaction. Police training is generally very poor and inconsistent. The operational police work force is also very young and inexperienced following years of cuts and massive recruitment campaigns, with all the wise heads getting out.
If security guards and police officers are doing their job correctly and to the law. Why wouldn’t they want you to film? Something to hide?
I suffered damage to my motorcycle from an accident due to poor road conditions. The council responsible claim, via a legal organisation, that because the road is regularly inspected they cannot be held responsible for any deterioration between inspections. Do I have any case for compensation?
so have the police/government/authorities got a similar automatic right to film the public, especially face recognition? Would they have to prominently display that such was in progress (so people could avoid the area) ? [similar as to whether speed/safety cameras should be bright yellow with roadside warnings]
Yes, but they are also subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else. If police come onto your property with active BWV, you can insist they stop filming. Unless there is a crime in progress or fears for safety, your rights outweigh their policy. If they refuse to stop filming and refuse to leave, you can forcibly remove them from your property.
Alot of idiots being 'auditors' is main problem
If they don't want to be filmed...they are 100% either doing, or intend on doing, something very illegal.
I love that you give us normal people who don’t understand the intricacies of the law a basic rundown
Did you expect lawyers to watch his videos?
In other news, if there are no clouds tomorrow it will be sunny.
I have seen the full video on the Tesco Trolley Search