So The Liar and The Stump turn up and make demands based on their lack of legal knowledge and because their over-active imagination has thought up a crime? Just think how many lies these fools have told over the course of their careers? "We can't all be experts with every piece of legislation" said The Liar ... but you are REQUIRED to be knowledgeable of the specific laws that you are attempting to enforce, otherwise every citizen could just be arrested and the cop arresting them would just claim "I think you have committed a crime" and there would be no repercussions for their ignorance.
Their colleagues know, and sent these two out because they know they are clueless. They’re being laughed at inside. “We don’t know the law. That’s why they sent us out.”
The poison dwarf doesn't know what he's talking about. The taller pc was at least open to learning. As a nobody in this space I would suggest you don't look into windows, you're giving them an invitation to arrest you, but may be that's what you want.
It doesn't require not looking in windows. The stupid police will see the drone from their windows and assume it can see in. Even if the camera is pointing away from the window because they won't know which end of the drone is the front. They'll just assume they are the centre of the universe and all drones look into the windows.
I assume you mean the fat cop who was silent fkr a while ... At first I was thinking it was an beaver eater ( tomboy ) kinda looked like one until it spoke But the tall cooper he looks familiar he hasn't appeared in one kf the cop shows by any chance like interceptors
I have told him this but apparently it's content upholding his rights is less important than making money through content. He melts to their will every time even when he is correct I have unsubscribed more need to do the same.
@@gregkasza1925 I think he is a decent bloke it's just that we seem to be slowly losing our rights at this present time. If we keep empowering poor practice and feelings enforcement it will only get worse. Remember many great people sadly lost their lives for our freedoms let's not forget and trample what they fought for.
Here we go. Yet another Section 26 offence from Plod. Bullying, overbearing, gits. It's way past time that an example was made of some of them for breaking the law in this way. Because we, the law abiding public, especially those of us into hobbyist photography are sick and tired of their tyranny!
I have said this before about too much talking. Maybe he thinks he is getting content. But when I was auditing police in 1986/1993. I wouldn't give them the time of day. I would say none of your business. And go investigate if I have committed an offence, before accusing. And fuck off pig was a common word I used. I would have had the drone up when they were trying to stop me. I know it's legal now. But I didn't have a drone back then. Just a big JVC camera not camcorder and then a beta recorder. They were big and all this was in Northern Ireland.
He gives way to much unnecessary information, one minute he's telling them unless you suspect me of a crime, then he's pretty much giving them what they want under threat of arrest
@user-cg3dg5ne6u did you just decide to make that up or has someone duped you into believing bollocks? If you want to know the correct answer, go and read up on Bernstein v Skyviews 1978.
@@Mr-J... Bernstein v Skyviews says aircraft have to be at a reasonable height to avoid trespass. The Skyviews flight was deemed to be at a reasonable height.
@scotttchviski6706 the Civil Aviation Act 1982, s.76 says "reasonable" but that is subjective to the observer. Thankfully, the ruling was a little more prescriptive in that "It was held that above the height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of land, the land owner had no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public".
.Dear policemen.. you're the ones showing that confidential information to the world and it's the police's responsibility to protect it. Filming it is not illegal, what's done with it might be. Filming it can be used for evidential purposes to the IC's office. More police action where they didn't have the correct information to challenge you.
There is such a thing as 'Reasonable expectation of privacy' and being on the 3rd floor of a building a reasonable person would expect to have privacy.
@@pauls3075 I'd agree with you were it an apartment block. It isn't. It's a place of work handling data. I think GDPR still applies above ground level.
@kensukadventures628 CAA website says //20. Respect other people and their privacy If your drone or model aircraft is fitted with a camera or listening device, you must respect other people’s privacy whenever you use them. If you use these devices where people can expect privacy, such as inside their home or garden, you’re likely to be breaking data protection laws.// otherwise, i dunno ?
@kensukadventures628 Perhaps you could explain what the auditor did wrong, rather than just chuck an accusation at him. You fly, tell us what you see wrong.
“Yes, your honour. We arrived with absolutely no idea on the law we were trying to enforce. It wasn’t an everyday occurrence, your honour. It was a bit weird, your honour. No, your honour, we don’t actually know what the drone laws are at all. We did threaten him, your hour. Can we not just seize things, your honour?” I can’t wait to see this kind of thing on court TV.
You talked too much, why did you agree with the officers that it's unusual to fly drones over the police station which it isn't you agreed with everything they were saying...
This is a 1st class demonstration in what not to do !! never give the police any information unless under the threat of arrest. Walk away and let them illegally detain you and always sue.
@truthteller6161 I would argue to never give your details fullstop! If there is a crime, then it's a 'fair cop' as its said, but personally I'm not giving ANYTHING. I'll retaliate in my own time and in my own ways, later. Cheers 🇬🇧
I get that but its also for entertainment so you want a bit of banter and plenty of rope for the police to do their usual stupid thing for the video. Saying that some auditors do the silent thing which drives the official types crazy which is also fun.
DJE's tendancy to over-talk is going to get him in big trouble one day. You're not knowlegeable enough about the law to get away with what you do forever. It's just a matter of time until you catch a charge.
@@bigmitch2911I agree, and he keeps doing it. He talks way to much and he keeps talking to people while he's flying the drone. One of these days take take his drone and use his own footage to proof he's not keeping an eye on it.
16:28 “let me double check if my mates inside can find anything whatsoever under any law that we can try to get you on, no matter how ridiculous or irrelevant it is”
After watching several of your videos where Police are unclear on drone legislation etc, it becomes clear that the Police forces in the UK need training on drone usage and general civil aviation guidelines etc.
@@shutterupphotography295 a crime has to have been committed or suspicion of a crime committed for anyone to give ID in GB, motoring law is different and you MUST give ID when stopped.
@@shutterupphotography295 re : "article 8 and 9 is clear that you have to give ID just like when pulled over by police in a car." Quote the section of the Schedule (they are not articles) that says this, as I just read it and it doesnt say anything about having to supply ID. Did you just tell some porky pies.
Why are you even giving them the satisfaction by showing them even part of your operator ID when they hadn't even established if you've committed an offence... Never Give Nothing !
Hilarious!......the mini-plod didn't look happy at all.....and offered an understanding of the law that was so far removed from reality it showed his stupidity in technicolour.
The coppers are asking for details from you and then state they don't even know if you've broken any laws, this is after the hobbit says he can seize your memory card, all before completing their investigation. That's the trouble, you are guilty of something, "we're not sure yet but some lass has had a quick look at the wrong laws and although i STILL don't understand it, as i said earlier i know nothing about drones, i'm gonna bang on and try my best to find something." Looking back at the vid, you talk a bit too much, telling them you couldn't see through their windows which set Frodo's ears up, i even thought you were gonna give up owner ID number to them. Don't talk so much and let them work for it, like they say, the harder you have to work to be humiliated, the longer you remember it. Great videos, enjoy watching them all.
15:40 ".....and I suspect you of committing an offence" 16:06 ".....what offence do you suspect I have committed, just to be clear"......."I don't know" Quality! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Stop telling them what you've done or not done. You give them too much information. And don't tell them you were looking through windows for Christ's sake! Up to them to determine if you've broken the law.
What I find so ridiculous is that the police have had a memo issued countrywide about filming in public and the use of drones yet these two know absolutely nothing? Very bad communication within the force.
You're far too accommodating to these officers. They are unknowledgeable and asking you to wait around while they find something to do you for. And surprisingly you actually wait around! Daft
Why are you telling them their job? Too much info. Just frigging walk away if you're not detained. On and on about the windows because you made the mistake of mentioning it.
I wanted to tell them to see what they said. Drone ID is actually required if they request. But I wanted to bluff them and see if they knew. They didn't. So ID was kept.
I’m tired of the confusion around this. Half the drone community say we are required to give the scum operator ID and name and address simply just for the act of flying. Geeksvana work with the scum and they say on that channel we are compelled to give all of that info. So what is it?
Schedule 9 Para 1 Power to require evidence of Pilot competency Para 2 Power to require information from Pilot about UAS Operator Para 3 Power to require evidence of registration from UAS Operator Para 4 Power to require information about Pilots from UAS Operator Para 5 Power to require other information from Pilots or UAS Operators Para 6 Power to require evidence of relevant ANO Consent Para 7 Power to require evidence of relevant ANO Exemption Para 8 Power to inspect Unmanned Aircraft...... the powers are there just like stopping a car, they can ground you and take it off you to investigate, you also have to give ID, reasonable grounds is open to interpretation and is easily abused....but article 8 and 9 does say clearly that ID must be given and proof of competency when ask for by a police person.
@@shutterupphotography295 I've left a comment elsewhere on this video, it reads like that at first, but the important part of s14 (the evidence of competency part) is 14(1)(b) "has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight." Whether a flight is one that has a relevant competency requirement or not is found in s94 of ANO 2016 (which Sch 9 the 2021 Act is literally about providing powers to the police in respect of the 2016 Act) and the flight of a sub 250g drone does not have a relevant competency requirement under the act so in DJE's case he would not be required to provide evidence of competency. The grey-ish area is obviously if the drone is still in the air for example, or quickly put away, could a copper reasonably suspect it's over 250g, I think in some circumstances they'd be able to make that argument
The police have to suspect (or not have the information) that the drone is sub 250g. That gives them the grounds to ask for the details. But if shown the drone, then they have no grounds as they would be able to see the operator ID on the drone. They don't need to note the operator ID once they've seen it.
@@TheSadButMadLad I think DJE's current setup is the best, he's complying with the requirement to have the operator ID on the drone (If I remember correctly you can have it inside under the battery but it's just easier to be able to show you have it on the drone if it's on the outside) but has it partially covered so it can't be visually noted, but as I say para 8 allows them to inspect the drone but as soon as they see it's sub 250 that's it, no power to get any further info from the flyer.
They send out 2 of the most ignorant officers that are totally clueless of the actual law and the small gut was dying to get you for something. You are clearly being detained while they find out the law .omg . "its not fair" BUT its not breaking the law so why the harassment by these nasty officers. Learn the law before you detain and harass people with these bully boy tactics.
being ignorant of the law has never been a valid excuse for the public but the police think they can stop a lawful activity while they try and learn the regulations
So on this PLODs basis, he can stop anyone at anytime and anywhere and say that he doesn't know what offence you have committed but could you hang around while he finds one. The level of competence of the police is laughable.
Not sure if they get there in this video as I'm only half way through but my own research on this, in simple terms. Sch 9 s14 of Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 gives a constable the power to require a person they have reasonable grounds to believe is or was flying a drone to evidence that they hold the relevant competency, if the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant competency requirement applies to that flight. Now let's not get ahead of ourselves too quickly though. If we stopped there the implication would be that, as DJE suggests in the video, a cop could identify someone without suspecting a crime has been committed in these circumstances...and unfortunately that is in fact true... except, what the above is referring to is in fact powers that relate to ANO 2016, and section 94F of ANO 2016 is what we're interested in, which makes it clear the acknowledgement of competency element applies only to drones over 250g.Given how the drone has been on full display at various points here it wouldn't be reasonable fro them to suspect it's anything other than a sub 250g drone and they ought to jog on. So to summarise police can require proof of competency, but only when the drone is over 250g
To add though from replying to someone else, noticed the power to inspect the drone remains regardless of the size, but the purpose of that power is effectively to determine the size and establish whether or not they have any powers under the previous paras (which relate to drones over 250g) so copper was entitled to inspect DJE's drone but as soon as he established it was sub 250g the game was over for him.
The constable was correct. The fact that you have flown the drone and it has a camera is all he needs to require your details under this schedule.... Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, Schedule 9 (2) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and (ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight. (2)The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of- (a)the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or (b)the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P.
@@PINACIDoes the printed weight of the DJI Mini Pro 4 include the camera? 94F ANO 2016 is relevant for determining if it's a flight that requires acknowledgement of competency and advises 94F.-(1) This article applies to a flight by a small unmanned aircraft only if it has a mass of 250 grams or more without its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight. so given his drone is 249g, if that's including the camera (which i'm confident it is) the constable is correct in respect of inspecting the drone, but not in respect of having to show competency. If the 249g refers to the weight of the drone without the camera then it would be reasonable to assume the camera would take it over which for the purposes of 94F of the 2016 act, and by extension s14 of the 2021 act, would make it a flight requiring competency, and therefore the constable would have the power to request evidence of that competency. Bear in mind Sch 9 of the 2021 act is literally for the purpose of giving police constable powers in respect of the requirements that exist under ANO 2016.
@@BasicCoverManHes using a DJI mini 3 pro which weighs 249g including the camera. There is no competency requirement for that drone. Schedule 9 (2) of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 is what applies to any drone apart from a toy drone under 250g that doesn't have a camera and therefore no requirement for an operator ID. His drone requires registration and an operator ID per article 265A(5)(a) ANO and the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that he needed an operator ID due to the fact that he acknowledged it had a camera and that he was just flying it.
Seriously. Stop giving into them. Take a stance, you're within the law, you have the upper hand. Those two fools are making it up as they go along, put them straight ffs.
You knew you had not committed an offence yet you still gave your Operator ID. All you have done is make it more difficult for the next person because these coppers now believe they can intimidate someone into giving up their details when they do not have to. Surprised at you.
Cop in yellow jacket can't construct a sentence to ascertain if a crime has taken place. Sounds like he's under the influence of something. He's told the windows are tinted but keeps saying looking through the window, pushing for a charge.
Officer sounds absolutely pissed as a newt, imagine someone that wan't willing to argue their rights back to these cops they would likely be arrested and locked up for trumped up charge using a law that doesn't exist.
"What offence do you suspect me of committing?" - "I don't know" - END OF CONTACT.
In a just world, that exchange would lead to the officer being taken off the job and given proper training, which he has obviously never received.
Yep, ok bye !
Absolute pair of Sausages😅
@@user-is5sn7ed5j that’s always been the problem. They are trained to be exactly as you see them.
That bit got me too. wth is this guy doing!
The police seem to adopt a threaten with arrest / seizure first, check the law second policy. Embarrassing.
That's just everyday policing in a nutshell.
too much phone a friend
So The Liar and The Stump turn up and make demands based on their lack of legal knowledge and because their over-active imagination has thought up a crime? Just think how many lies these fools have told over the course of their careers? "We can't all be experts with every piece of legislation" said The Liar ... but you are REQUIRED to be knowledgeable of the specific laws that you are attempting to enforce, otherwise every citizen could just be arrested and the cop arresting them would just claim "I think you have committed a crime" and there would be no repercussions for their ignorance.
Those 2 Pratt’s were just ignorant bullies .
They had no clue...watch what you say in front of coppers.
They ain't your friend pal.
"Just give me a minute whilst I try and find something to criminalise you for. Don't worry, we do this with everyone, it's just my job."
Exactly. Can't scratch your @ss these days without fear of prosecution!
That’s their ONLY goal is to hurt you . They do nothing to help our society grow.
But wait a minute.....these police officers seem to have mastered the art of being completely clueless!
I expect that they be fastracked for promotion as we need more clowns in fancy dress at the top😂
Their colleagues know, and sent these two out because they know they are clueless. They’re being laughed at inside. “We don’t know the law. That’s why they sent us out.”
cluelessness is a rquirement for the force these days 🤣
Where would the police be without google? 😂😂😂
@@dazzieboi5430The senior officers don’t want to employ anyone who is more intelligent than them, and they are pretty dim to start with!
Don't they teach these plods anything during their 4 weeks of training ... They just put them in a costume these days and send the out
Everything is dress up and make believe nowadays it like a bad dream😅
4 weeks of training? When did it increase from 2 weeks? 😂😂
One week of training is learning the line; what you need to understand is, and the second week is repeat after me; that's absolutely fine!
Are you joking 4 weeks? It used to be much longer than that two or three months. Can you clarify.
Yep
The poison dwarf doesn't know what he's talking about. The taller pc was at least open to learning. As a nobody in this space I would suggest you don't look into windows, you're giving them an invitation to arrest you, but may be that's what you want.
It doesn't require not looking in windows. The stupid police will see the drone from their windows and assume it can see in. Even if the camera is pointing away from the window because they won't know which end of the drone is the front. They'll just assume they are the centre of the universe and all drones look into the windows.
I assume you mean the fat cop who was silent fkr a while ... At first I was thinking it was an beaver eater ( tomboy ) kinda looked like one until it spoke
But the tall cooper he looks familiar he hasn't appeared in one kf the cop shows by any chance like interceptors
Windows by their very design, are to LOOK THRU. I wish them well in court trying to criminalize that.
You walk straight into that one by mentioning windows. Surely you know by now they are all looking for an excuse to arrest you.
Said the actress to the bishop.
the onus is on them to protect the information from view, not ours not to look
@@mbezikDon’t be stupid. Does that mean the onus is on shop keepers to padlock every item in the shop to stop thieves pinching them?
@@philfyphilthat is one of the worst analogies ive ever seen, physical items in a shop and information protected by GDPR, 2 VERY different things...
@@philfyphil No, GDPR means they have to protect their info
I would just walk away from these two idiots because they’re just trying to find any excuse to arrest you
I have told him this but apparently it's content upholding his rights is less important than making money through content. He melts to their will every time even when he is correct I have unsubscribed more need to do the same.
Yeah iv unsubscribed too. I feel there's something no right about him. Each too their own though.
@@kevinsancto1574 are you forgetting that he is keeping THEM talking?
@@gregkasza1925 I think he is a decent bloke it's just that we seem to be slowly losing our rights at this present time. If we keep empowering poor practice and feelings enforcement it will only get worse. Remember many great people sadly lost their lives for our freedoms let's not forget and trample what they fought for.
All that because you told them about looking into the windows. You’re giving away too much information. Your helping them with there investigation
Yup.
But you can look through a window, that's its purpose. It's a window....
No...he said he was looking AT the windows...and saw that they were tinted
Here we go. Yet another Section 26 offence from Plod.
Bullying, overbearing, gits. It's way past time that an example was made of some of them for breaking the law in this way. Because we, the law abiding public, especially those of us into hobbyist photography are sick and tired of their tyranny!
Always a mistake to make jokes about windows and volunteering any information in the first place
This guy talks waaaaaay too much
Yup, he loves to flap his gums like an old fish wife! 🙄🤦♂
@@blurtam188 its painful
It makes it interesting and he knows exactly what he's doing
I have said this before about too much talking. Maybe he thinks he is getting content. But when I was auditing police in 1986/1993. I wouldn't give them the time of day. I would say none of your business. And go investigate if I have committed an offence, before accusing. And fuck off pig was a common word I used. I would have had the drone up when they were trying to stop me. I know it's legal now. But I didn't have a drone back then. Just a big JVC camera not camcorder and then a beta recorder. They were big and all this was in Northern Ireland.
"If you can just bear with me while I try to find a way to hem you up" 🎣🎣🎣😂😂😂
Said the actress to the bishop.
@@sirbarnabyst.johntoffingto9017 🤣
DJE all you needed to do was tell them than the CAA has no restrictions for flying where you are.
He gives way to much unnecessary information, one minute he's telling them unless you suspect me of a crime, then he's pretty much giving them what they want under threat of arrest
@user-cg3dg5ne6u did you just decide to make that up or has someone duped you into believing bollocks?
If you want to know the correct answer, go and read up on Bernstein v Skyviews 1978.
@@Mr-J... Bernstein v Skyviews says aircraft have to be at a reasonable height to avoid trespass. The Skyviews flight was deemed to be at a reasonable height.
Their not used to idiots with drones.
@scotttchviski6706 the Civil Aviation Act 1982, s.76 says "reasonable" but that is subjective to the observer.
Thankfully, the ruling was a little more prescriptive in that "It was held that above the height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of land, the land owner had no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public".
The Umpalumpa in the hi-viz jacket has got a real problem!
. . . as the actress said to the bishop.
So he joined the police and he fitted in perfectly
.Dear policemen.. you're the ones showing that confidential information to the world and it's the police's responsibility to protect it. Filming it is not illegal, what's done with it might be. Filming it can be used for evidential purposes to the IC's office. More police action where they didn't have the correct information to challenge you.
There is such a thing as 'Reasonable expectation of privacy' and being on the 3rd floor of a building a reasonable person would expect to have privacy.
@@pauls3075 I'd agree with you were it an apartment block. It isn't. It's a place of work handling data. I think GDPR still applies above ground level.
@@PJ-wm9nq and with drones being more commonplace, and being legal to fly them there.
@kensukadventures628 CAA website says //20. Respect other people and their privacy
If your drone or model aircraft is fitted with a camera or listening device, you must respect other people’s privacy whenever you use them.
If you use these devices where people can expect privacy, such as inside their home or garden, you’re likely to be breaking data protection laws.//
otherwise, i dunno ?
@kensukadventures628 Perhaps you could explain what the auditor did wrong, rather than just chuck an accusation at him. You fly, tell us what you see wrong.
Tell the police Nothing they haven’t got a clue about the law the police are an embarrassment
Said the actress to the bishop.
They are work shy cowards. I have a video of two PCs, who today sat for 2 hours in a cafe drinking coffee and playing with their phones.
“Yes, your honour. We arrived with absolutely no idea on the law we were trying to enforce. It wasn’t an everyday occurrence, your honour. It was a bit weird, your honour. No, your honour, we don’t actually know what the drone laws are at all. We did threaten him, your hour. Can we not just seize things, your honour?”
I can’t wait to see this kind of thing on court TV.
Far better to admit a lack of knowledge (young guy) than pretending to know and talking nonsense (old guy)
That other copper was just been an awkward pratt
I don’t know what the offence is yet, I’m trying to discover one.
Ask a police officer, they will conjure up an answer to your question.
That's the normal way police opperate points are prizes
@ At_the_races . . . as the actress said to the bishop.
You talked too much, why did you agree with the officers that it's unusual to fly drones over the police station which it isn't you agreed with everything they were saying...
He loves the sound of his own voice! He's a prat!
@@guckfoogle1096 we'll wait for your auditing channel!
@@jasonarmstrong6610 YAWN.
WTF! Why are you helping them? Madness 😠
This is a 1st class demonstration in what not to do !! never give the police any information unless under the threat of arrest. Walk away and let them illegally detain you and always sue.
@truthteller6161 I would argue to never give your details fullstop!
If there is a crime, then it's a 'fair cop' as its said, but personally I'm not giving ANYTHING. I'll retaliate in my own time and in my own ways, later.
Cheers 🇬🇧
You still talk too much give them too much info.
I agree. Needs to stop talking so much.
I noticed that ,
I get that but its also for entertainment so you want a bit of banter and plenty of rope for the police to do their usual stupid thing for the video. Saying that some auditors do the silent thing which drives the official types crazy which is also fun.
Yardley Ski is brilliant at the silent treatment 👏
@@paulwatling5400Yardley Ski is also great at going full nuclear with the abuse 😂
DJE's tendancy to over-talk is going to get him in big trouble one day. You're not knowlegeable enough about the law to get away with what you do forever. It's just a matter of time until you catch a charge.
Yep , I noticed that too , he must learn fast etc
Stand here while we dream up the offence 🙄😂
How do they allow police out on the streets when they are so inadequately trained in the law they are supposed to uphold?
The one in the hi-vis vest was itching to arrest you. You could see the disappointment on his face!😂
BUT, Why offer to help him with his investigation?? You still a very long way from being a auditor like Yardley Ski or AB.
He pretty much bottles it whenever they threat with arrest. But also give way to much information
@@bigmitch2911I agree, and he keeps doing it. He talks way to much and he keeps talking to people while he's flying the drone. One of these days take take his drone and use his own footage to proof he's not keeping an eye on it.
Totally embarrassing performance by a couple of clowns. Just imagine being a relative or friend of these keystone cops…seeing them in action 😂😂😂
Bad cops don't know the law
A lesson there DJE do not give them anything, whenever you said windows you could almost see his brain registering AHA got something.
Not very good policemen. It's about time that they knew about drones lol. Great video DJE thank you 👍👏👏👏
Who trains our Police force and quality of people taken on appears poor.
Recruitment seems to be for people who are perpetually in a bad mood, undereducated, and willing to follow orders blindly.
They recruit people now that can't speak fluent English and cannot write. They're desperate to recruit. At least these two can speak English.
Training? Turn up for the interview and you're in. Fitness test: move slightly faster than walking, you've passed. Passing is not always required.
Why did you give the police information. You say only when a crime has been committed they can see. Dont voluntary give them information
Why the fcuk did you cave in to them 😮 thought you were a auditor who stood there ground 🤔 with photography laws...... Disappointed mate 🙏
He the worst he tells them too much he doesn't school them .
16:28 “let me double check if my mates inside can find anything whatsoever under any law that we can try to get you on, no matter how ridiculous or irrelevant it is”
. . . as the actress said to the bishop.
After watching several of your videos where Police are unclear on drone legislation etc, it becomes clear that the Police forces in the UK need training on drone usage and general civil aviation guidelines etc.
Why would you volunteer the info that you came down to window level?
Not a crime
article 8 and 9 is clear that you have to give ID just like when pulled over by police in a car.
@@shutterupphotography295 a crime has to have been committed or suspicion of a crime committed for anyone to give ID in GB, motoring law is different and you MUST give ID when stopped.
@@shutterupphotography295 re : "article 8 and 9 is clear that you have to give ID just like when pulled over by police in a car."
Quote the section of the Schedule (they are not articles) that says this, as I just read it and it doesnt say anything about having to supply ID. Did you just tell some porky pies.
DJ needs to be careful what information he gives to the police, they will use everything he says against him.
What was the point of not telling them and then complying? Re id?
Why are you even giving them the satisfaction by showing them even part of your operator ID when they hadn't even established if you've committed an offence... Never Give Nothing !
imagine FP doing this !
They are so desperate to incriminate native englishmen but do nothing with hostile foreign islamists on the streets.
Whataboutisim
Because you’ve indicated! Anything you say will be used in evidence against you. Don’t tell em anything.
You allowed them to detain you without reason then, gave them information that they will use to identify you, failed.
Hilarious!......the mini-plod didn't look happy at all.....and offered an understanding of the law that was so far removed from reality it showed his stupidity in technicolour.
The coppers are asking for details from you and then state they don't even know if you've broken any laws, this is after the hobbit says he can seize your memory card, all before completing their investigation. That's the trouble, you are guilty of something, "we're not sure yet but some lass has had a quick look at the wrong laws and although i STILL don't understand it, as i said earlier i know nothing about drones, i'm gonna bang on and try my best to find something." Looking back at the vid, you talk a bit too much, telling them you couldn't see through their windows which set Frodo's ears up, i even thought you were gonna give up owner ID number to them. Don't talk so much and let them work for it, like they say, the harder you have to work to be humiliated, the longer you remember it. Great videos, enjoy watching them all.
I nearly switcched off when you volunteered the op i.d.
I literally hit the unfollow button !
Why on earth did you give him any information and let him write it down very poor. Just flash it to let him know that you have one.
All that faffing about and you still have them your operators ID 🙄
Is it true that if you attend the job centre next door more than 8 times you are given a police uniform?
You dug your own hole , why mention your looking into windows🤔FAIL , YOU CAVED IN.
15:40 ".....and I suspect you of committing an offence"
16:06 ".....what offence do you suspect I have committed, just to be clear"......."I don't know"
Quality! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Stop telling them what you've done or not done. You give them too much information. And don't tell them you were looking through windows for Christ's sake! Up to them to determine if you've broken the law.
I wanted them to know that it's OK for a drone to see windows.
Yeah but it's not why people watch your videos.. are you an auditor or a police training officer ?
What I find so ridiculous is that the police have had a memo issued countrywide about filming in public and the use of drones yet these two know absolutely nothing? Very bad communication within the force.
You're far too accommodating to these officers. They are unknowledgeable and asking you to wait around while they find something to do you for. And surprisingly you actually wait around! Daft
You volunteered information, which leads them on a phishing exhibition. Say very little.
You don't half talk! Far too much. Don't need to investigate you, you tell em everything anyway!
Why are you telling them their job? Too much info. Just frigging walk away if you're not detained. On and on about the windows because you made the mistake of mentioning it.
You might as well have stuck on a uniform and joined them on this one. Very weak.
Explain
@@DJEMEDIA HiVis man had one aim and that was to nick you. You volunteered far too much info. Give them zero. Engage to the bare minimum.
Is it just me, or is this officer administering his duty by numbers? I feel embarrassed for them.
He laughs and talks to much which gets himself in trouble every time.
Why did you even help them with their investigation. You could have let them violate your rights and sue the shitt out them
Yep , news now Yorkshire is good at this videos
Shouldn’t of shown him anything. Disappointing
Even the sea gulls are laughing... 😊😊😊
. . . said the actress to the bishop.
You gave them all they need......OMG
You did your best to get your equipment seized.
DJE stop feeding them with information you will talk yourself into trouble
Seriously.. if you don't sort out your nose on your next videos I will unsubscribe
The incompetence of this pair is staggering 😂
. . . said the actress to the bishop.
Admit to looking in windows , then give them information you dont need to provide. they reemed you out boy.
. . . said the actress to the bishop.
So for cop,ignorance of the law is quite acceptable but not for a member of the public.
With all your mouthing off all the time. You are very quick to offer the drone op number. Don't tell them you looked at windows
I wanted to tell them to see what they said.
Drone ID is actually required if they request. But I wanted to bluff them and see if they knew. They didn't. So ID was kept.
To much information given. AGAIN!
Tell the police nothing and let THEM make all therunning.
They will condemn themselves.
I’m tired of the confusion around this. Half the drone community say we are required to give the scum operator ID and name and address simply just for the act of flying. Geeksvana work with the scum and they say on that channel we are compelled to give all of that info. So what is it?
Yeah I noticed DJ Audits has started providing it and when I queried it with him he said he'd recently learned you have to provide it regardless.
Schedule 9
Para 1 Power to require evidence of Pilot competency
Para 2 Power to require information from Pilot about UAS Operator
Para 3 Power to require evidence of registration from UAS Operator
Para 4 Power to require information about Pilots from UAS Operator
Para 5 Power to require other information from Pilots or UAS Operators
Para 6 Power to require evidence of relevant ANO Consent
Para 7 Power to require evidence of relevant ANO Exemption
Para 8 Power to inspect Unmanned Aircraft...... the powers are there just like stopping a car, they can ground you and take it off you to investigate, you also have to give ID, reasonable grounds is open to interpretation and is easily abused....but article 8 and 9 does say clearly that ID must be given and proof of competency when ask for by a police person.
@@shutterupphotography295 I've left a comment elsewhere on this video, it reads like that at first, but the important part of s14 (the evidence of competency part) is 14(1)(b) "has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight."
Whether a flight is one that has a relevant competency requirement or not is found in s94 of ANO 2016 (which Sch 9 the 2021 Act is literally about providing powers to the police in respect of the 2016 Act) and the flight of a sub 250g drone does not have a relevant competency requirement under the act so in DJE's case he would not be required to provide evidence of competency.
The grey-ish area is obviously if the drone is still in the air for example, or quickly put away, could a copper reasonably suspect it's over 250g, I think in some circumstances they'd be able to make that argument
The police have to suspect (or not have the information) that the drone is sub 250g. That gives them the grounds to ask for the details. But if shown the drone, then they have no grounds as they would be able to see the operator ID on the drone. They don't need to note the operator ID once they've seen it.
@@TheSadButMadLad I think DJE's current setup is the best, he's complying with the requirement to have the operator ID on the drone (If I remember correctly you can have it inside under the battery but it's just easier to be able to show you have it on the drone if it's on the outside) but has it partially covered so it can't be visually noted, but as I say para 8 allows them to inspect the drone but as soon as they see it's sub 250 that's it, no power to get any further info from the flyer.
They send out 2 of the most ignorant officers that are totally clueless of the actual law and the small gut was dying to get you for something. You are clearly being detained while they find out the law .omg . "its not fair" BUT its not breaking the law so why the harassment by these nasty officers. Learn the law before you detain and harass people with these bully boy tactics.
Police needs major reform from the top down. Clueless yet again .retired lifeboatman
They are on a fishing expedition
being ignorant of the law has never been a valid excuse for the public but the police think they can stop a lawful activity while they try and learn the regulations
Police not knowing the law, refreshing to see
So on this PLODs basis, he can stop anyone at anytime and anywhere and say that he doesn't know what offence you have committed but could you hang around while he finds one. The level of competence of the police is laughable.
Why are you giving him your ID? so bad.
I don't understand why you're making their job easier
Not sure if they get there in this video as I'm only half way through but my own research on this, in simple terms.
Sch 9 s14 of Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 gives a constable the power to require a person they have reasonable grounds to believe is or was flying a drone to evidence that they hold the relevant competency, if the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant competency requirement applies to that flight.
Now let's not get ahead of ourselves too quickly though. If we stopped there the implication would be that, as DJE suggests in the video, a cop could identify someone without suspecting a crime has been committed in these circumstances...and unfortunately that is in fact true... except, what the above is referring to is in fact powers that relate to ANO 2016, and section 94F of ANO 2016 is what we're interested in, which makes it clear the acknowledgement of competency element applies only to drones over 250g.Given how the drone has been on full display at various points here it wouldn't be reasonable fro them to suspect it's anything other than a sub 250g drone and they ought to jog on.
So to summarise police can require proof of competency, but only when the drone is over 250g
To add though from replying to someone else, noticed the power to inspect the drone remains regardless of the size, but the purpose of that power is effectively to determine the size and establish whether or not they have any powers under the previous paras (which relate to drones over 250g) so copper was entitled to inspect DJE's drone but as soon as he established it was sub 250g the game was over for him.
and by "as DJE suggests" I obviously mean when he's pointing out how ridiculous it would be as opposed to him saying that's the case
The constable was correct. The fact that you have flown the drone and it has a camera is all he needs to require your details under this schedule.... Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, Schedule 9 (2) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable-
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that-
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and
(b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.
(2)The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of-
(a)the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or
(b)the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P.
@@PINACIDoes the printed weight of the DJI Mini Pro 4 include the camera? 94F ANO 2016 is relevant for determining if it's a flight that requires acknowledgement of competency and advises
94F.-(1) This article applies to a flight by a small unmanned aircraft only if it has a mass of 250 grams or more without its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight.
so given his drone is 249g, if that's including the camera (which i'm confident it is) the constable is correct in respect of inspecting the drone, but not in respect of having to show competency.
If the 249g refers to the weight of the drone without the camera then it would be reasonable to assume the camera would take it over which for the purposes of 94F of the 2016 act, and by extension s14 of the 2021 act, would make it a flight requiring competency, and therefore the constable would have the power to request evidence of that competency. Bear in mind Sch 9 of the 2021 act is literally for the purpose of giving police constable powers in respect of the requirements that exist under ANO 2016.
@@BasicCoverManHes using a DJI mini 3 pro which weighs 249g including the camera. There is no competency requirement for that drone. Schedule 9 (2) of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 is what applies to any drone apart from a toy drone under 250g that doesn't have a camera and therefore no requirement for an operator ID. His drone requires registration and an operator ID per article 265A(5)(a) ANO and the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that he needed an operator ID due to the fact that he acknowledged it had a camera and that he was just flying it.
Seriously. Stop giving into them.
Take a stance, you're within the law, you have the upper hand.
Those two fools are making it up as they go along, put them straight ffs.
police plonkers
That little policeman sounded drunk and his reasoning confirmed this.
Great audit....next watch Yardley ski latest masterclass on dealing with the police 😂
You talk to much
You knew you had not committed an offence yet you still gave your Operator ID. All you have done is make it more difficult for the next person because these coppers now believe they can intimidate someone into giving up their details when they do not have to. Surprised at you.
exactly
To all those saying he's talking too much, he's not doing it by accident. He's baiting them to see if they are stupid.
You’re far too passive with these mugs, take a leaf out of Yardley’s playbook and don’t give an inch.
Cop in yellow jacket can't construct a sentence to ascertain if a crime has taken place. Sounds like he's under the influence of something. He's told the windows are tinted but keeps saying looking through the window, pushing for a charge.
Officer sounds absolutely pissed as a newt, imagine someone that wan't willing to argue their rights back to these cops they would likely be arrested and locked up for trumped up charge using a law that doesn't exist.
The little hobbit was itching to go hands on, didn’t even say goodbye, he was pee’d
DJE - Just say everything you do is legal and the only way they can stop you is for them to do something illegal. You tell them far too much.
Wow the guy that was all smiles, once he thought he had you he was nasty, serious and ready to feel your collar…
Not once did you say the air space is not private.
That short cop looked like he wanted to beat you up but wasn't allowed. Also he looked like he just fell out of bed.
Am I detained? Don't tell them anything, if your going to do audits on the mind set of getting your gear confiscated, don't do it.
Nice enough chaps but sackless wonders springs to mind…… bumbling along hoping they can get you on something rather than catching criminals. 🙄
Got to use the words am I being detained at the earliest opportunity,
THIS