Police and Security "Auditers"
Discussion
Looking for a reaction and got one.
https://youtu.be/4-IOC_lHEQ8
For me this is not the type of sergeant we need. Seems slightly unhinged.
https://youtu.be/4-IOC_lHEQ8
For me this is not the type of sergeant we need. Seems slightly unhinged.
Tony_T said:
Looking for a reaction and got one.
https://youtu.be/4-IOC_lHEQ8
For me this is not the type of sergeant we need. Seems slightly unhinged.
meh. Just another pain in the neck twit with a camera.https://youtu.be/4-IOC_lHEQ8
For me this is not the type of sergeant we need. Seems slightly unhinged.
Raccaccoonie said:
I like Reggie can be funny. But he wears a wig and hat, so can understand why the sarge can't be arsed. You only see one side of the story, the auditors who wear Balaclavas etc which is weird in its own right, can't be seen.
Exactly, being filmed in public by someone not asking for consent and hiding their identity with a balaclava could be interpreted as threatening/intimidation. Easy to get a section 5 to stick if you wanted toVery long thread that I unfortunately haven't seen until now, and only just heard of these "auditors".
I understand fiiming from a public space is pretty much always legal, but how is flying a drone over and filming inside private land legal? Seems crazy that you can legally fly a drone in somewhere you'd otherwise need to be granted access to.
Presumably there'd be something in law to stop it being done over sellafield or to go and check the colour of the boathouse at Hereford?
I understand fiiming from a public space is pretty much always legal, but how is flying a drone over and filming inside private land legal? Seems crazy that you can legally fly a drone in somewhere you'd otherwise need to be granted access to.
Presumably there'd be something in law to stop it being done over sellafield or to go and check the colour of the boathouse at Hereford?
blank said:
Very long thread that I unfortunately haven't seen until now, and only just heard of these "auditors".
I understand fiiming from a public space is pretty much always legal, but how is flying a drone over and filming inside private land legal? Seems crazy that you can legally fly a drone in somewhere you'd otherwise need to be granted access to.
Presumably there'd be something in law to stop it being done over sellafield or to go and check the colour of the boathouse at Hereford?
It depends on the height and frequency of flights. If I fly a drone over my neighbours garden once a week while filming birds then that’s ok. I understand fiiming from a public space is pretty much always legal, but how is flying a drone over and filming inside private land legal? Seems crazy that you can legally fly a drone in somewhere you'd otherwise need to be granted access to.
Presumably there'd be something in law to stop it being done over sellafield or to go and check the colour of the boathouse at Hereford?
If I fly it every time the neighbours wife is out there sunbathing in her bikini and film it then that’s not legal
Commercial filming in public needs a number of ‘hoops’ jumped through its not legal without doing those and complying with the relevant GDPR legislation.
Elysium said:
Mr Miata said:
Because if you don’t go upto them, you don’t end up on their video.
They are fishing for a reaction. And if you don’t give them one, then they have no content for their YouTube video.
It really is that simple.
They are fishing for a reaction. And if you don’t give them one, then they have no content for their YouTube video.
It really is that simple.
This was what I said months ago in this thread. The best thing you can do with Auditors is ignore them completely. Don't approach them, and don't speak to them.
Approaching them in any kind of confrontational way will only result in one thing: You looking silly on YouTube.
Will they stop filming or give you their details just because you approach them and start ranting about GDPR legislation? No, of course they won't. You'll end up looking daft on YouTube like anyone else who tries to confront them.
blank said:
Very long thread that I unfortunately haven't seen until now, and only just heard of these "auditors".
I understand fiiming from a public space is pretty much always legal, but how is flying a drone over and filming inside private land legal? Seems crazy that you can legally fly a drone in somewhere you'd otherwise need to be granted access to.
Presumably there'd be something in law to stop it being done over sellafield or to go and check the colour of the boathouse at Hereford?
No one owns the airspace above their property. It isn't illegal to fly a plane or a helicopter over your land, house, or business. Filming from a drone or helicopter into private land, is the same as filming into private land from the pavement. I understand fiiming from a public space is pretty much always legal, but how is flying a drone over and filming inside private land legal? Seems crazy that you can legally fly a drone in somewhere you'd otherwise need to be granted access to.
Presumably there'd be something in law to stop it being done over sellafield or to go and check the colour of the boathouse at Hereford?
There are some minor restrictions for drone depending on their size and weight, but my understanding is that most of the Auditors use sub-250g drones which means the rules are very relaxed. They must maintain line of sight with the drone and not fly over 120m in height. They must also not fly above a crowd of people. But flying relatively close to buildings, businesses, people, vehicles etc is allowed provided you are behaving in a safe fashion. There are other rules with regards to operator ID and so on, but those are the basics on where you can fly.
The CAA dictate the areas of 'no fly' such as airport, prisons, nuclear power stations etc. You can view them on a map such as the below. Some will be strict no fly zones, such as over sellafield as per your example, which can be seen on the map. Other areas may have a maximum height limit such as on the approach paths to airports.
With regards to the boathouse at Hereford, there is indeed a no fly zone at Credenhill (the SAS HQ) but that is due to to the helipad and aircraft movement, rather than secrecy. But sadly this means you won't be able to fly your DJI drone over to see the boathouse
Some military locations such as British Army bases aren't usually marked with a red 'no fly' zone but can be marked 'possibly illegal to fly your drone here' and 'likely restricted' but no doubt there will be signs posted at the base advising that you are not allowed to fly a drone. This is at the discretion of the base and not the CAA.
https://www.dji.com/uk/flysafe/geo-map
https://dronesafetymap.com/#loc=55.0130801,-1.8406...
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 28th April 09:49
Lord Marylebone said:
Filming from a drone or helicopter into private land, is the same as filming into private land from the pavement.
It can’t always be legal to film private land from a drone, surely? It’s 100% not the same as filming from the pavement, in that I would have an expectation of privacy in my back garden that I wouldn’t have in my front garden… Edited by DanL on Friday 28th April 10:07
DanL said:
It can’t always be legal to film private land from a drone, surely? It’s 100% not the same as filming from the pavement, in that I would have an expectation of privacy in my back garden that I wouldn’t have in my front garden…
See my example above..... if you fly over someone's garden to film every time they are outside in it for example then there are laws that can be applied to prevent this.Edited by DanL on Friday 28th April 10:07
DanL said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Filming from a drone or helicopter into private land, is the same as filming into private land from the pavement.
It can’t always be legal to film private land from a drone, surely? It’s 100% not the same as filming from the pavement, in that I would have an expectation of privacy in my back garden that I wouldn’t have in my front garden… If you flew low over someones back garden and deliberately video recorded them you may be guilty of causing them harassment, and you may be breaking data protection laws, but, wether you are breaking the rules or not would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
This sort of thing is subjective, and depends on the opinion of the authorities on a case by case basis, as I mention.
There is no rules of 'you must not fly over someone garden and video record or photograph them' as that would just be too wide ranging to possibly enforce. Google maps wouldn't exist if that was the case.
If you flew over someones garden quite low, hovered around for quite a while, and were clearly recording them, and you did it numerous times, then yes, you might get into trouble if caught.
If you flew fairly high over a few gardens to get a sweeping aerial video of your neighbourhood and weren't specifically targeting someones garden or a person in particular, then it is highly unlikely anyone would have a case against you.
Lord Marylebone said:
No one owns the airspace above their property. It isn't illegal to fly a plane or a helicopter over your land, house, or business. Filming from a drone or helicopter into private land, is the same as filming into private land from the pavement.
There are some minor restrictions for drone depending on their size and weight, but my understanding is that most of the Auditors use sub-250g drones which means the rules are very relaxed. They must maintain line of sight with the drone and not fly over 120m in height. They must also not fly above a crowd of people. But flying relatively close to buildings, businesses, people, vehicles etc is allowed provided you are behaving in a safe fashion. There are other rules with regards to operator ID and so on, but those are the basics on where you can fly.
The CAA dictate the areas of 'no fly' such as airport, prisons, nuclear power stations etc. You can view them on a map such as the below. Some will be strict no fly zones, such as over sellafield as per your example, which can be seen on the map. Other areas may have a maximum height limit such as on the approach paths to airports.
With regards to the boathouse at Hereford, there is indeed a no fly zone at Credenhill (the SAS HQ) but that is due to to the helipad and aircraft movement, rather than secrecy. But sadly this means you won't be able to fly your DJI drone over to see the boathouse
Some military locations such as British Army bases aren't usually marked with a red 'no fly' zone but can be marked 'possibly illegal to fly your drone here' and 'likely restricted' but no doubt there will be signs posted at the base advising that you are not allowed to fly a drone. This is at the discretion of the base and not the CAA.
https://www.dji.com/uk/flysafe/geo-map
https://dronesafetymap.com/#loc=55.0130801,-1.8406...
Thanks, very interesting!There are some minor restrictions for drone depending on their size and weight, but my understanding is that most of the Auditors use sub-250g drones which means the rules are very relaxed. They must maintain line of sight with the drone and not fly over 120m in height. They must also not fly above a crowd of people. But flying relatively close to buildings, businesses, people, vehicles etc is allowed provided you are behaving in a safe fashion. There are other rules with regards to operator ID and so on, but those are the basics on where you can fly.
The CAA dictate the areas of 'no fly' such as airport, prisons, nuclear power stations etc. You can view them on a map such as the below. Some will be strict no fly zones, such as over sellafield as per your example, which can be seen on the map. Other areas may have a maximum height limit such as on the approach paths to airports.
With regards to the boathouse at Hereford, there is indeed a no fly zone at Credenhill (the SAS HQ) but that is due to to the helipad and aircraft movement, rather than secrecy. But sadly this means you won't be able to fly your DJI drone over to see the boathouse
Some military locations such as British Army bases aren't usually marked with a red 'no fly' zone but can be marked 'possibly illegal to fly your drone here' and 'likely restricted' but no doubt there will be signs posted at the base advising that you are not allowed to fly a drone. This is at the discretion of the base and not the CAA.
https://www.dji.com/uk/flysafe/geo-map
https://dronesafetymap.com/#loc=55.0130801,-1.8406...
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Friday 28th April 09:49
Lord Marylebone said:
This is where terms like 'may be' and 'likely' come into it.
If you flew low over someones back garden and deliberately video recorded them you may be guilty of causing them harassment, and you may be breaking data protection laws, but, wether you are breaking the rules or not would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
This sort of thing is subjective, and depends on the opinion of the authorities on a case by case basis, as I mention.
There is no rules of 'you must not fly over someone garden and video record or photograph them' as that would just be too wide ranging to possibly enforce. Google maps wouldn't exist if that was the case.
If you flew over someones garden quite low, hovered around for quite a while, and were clearly recording them, and you did it numerous times, then yes, you might get into trouble if caught.
If you flew fairly high over a few gardens to get a sweeping aerial video of your neighbourhood and weren't specifically targeting someones garden or a person in particular, then it is highly unlikely anyone would have a case against you.
But GDPR! To save WTF the trouble. He’s going through keyboards wearing out those letters don’t you know?If you flew low over someones back garden and deliberately video recorded them you may be guilty of causing them harassment, and you may be breaking data protection laws, but, wether you are breaking the rules or not would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
This sort of thing is subjective, and depends on the opinion of the authorities on a case by case basis, as I mention.
There is no rules of 'you must not fly over someone garden and video record or photograph them' as that would just be too wide ranging to possibly enforce. Google maps wouldn't exist if that was the case.
If you flew over someones garden quite low, hovered around for quite a while, and were clearly recording them, and you did it numerous times, then yes, you might get into trouble if caught.
If you flew fairly high over a few gardens to get a sweeping aerial video of your neighbourhood and weren't specifically targeting someones garden or a person in particular, then it is highly unlikely anyone would have a case against you.
trickywoo said:
Lord Marylebone said:
This is where terms like 'may be' and 'likely' come into it.
If you flew low over someones back garden and deliberately video recorded them you may be guilty of causing them harassment, and you may be breaking data protection laws, but, wether you are breaking the rules or not would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
This sort of thing is subjective, and depends on the opinion of the authorities on a case by case basis, as I mention.
There is no rules of 'you must not fly over someone garden and video record or photograph them' as that would just be too wide ranging to possibly enforce. Google maps wouldn't exist if that was the case.
If you flew over someones garden quite low, hovered around for quite a while, and were clearly recording them, and you did it numerous times, then yes, you might get into trouble if caught.
If you flew fairly high over a few gardens to get a sweeping aerial video of your neighbourhood and weren't specifically targeting someones garden or a person in particular, then it is highly unlikely anyone would have a case against you.
But GDPR! To save WTF the trouble. He’s going through keyboards wearing out those letters don’t you know?If you flew low over someones back garden and deliberately video recorded them you may be guilty of causing them harassment, and you may be breaking data protection laws, but, wether you are breaking the rules or not would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
This sort of thing is subjective, and depends on the opinion of the authorities on a case by case basis, as I mention.
There is no rules of 'you must not fly over someone garden and video record or photograph them' as that would just be too wide ranging to possibly enforce. Google maps wouldn't exist if that was the case.
If you flew over someones garden quite low, hovered around for quite a while, and were clearly recording them, and you did it numerous times, then yes, you might get into trouble if caught.
If you flew fairly high over a few gardens to get a sweeping aerial video of your neighbourhood and weren't specifically targeting someones garden or a person in particular, then it is highly unlikely anyone would have a case against you.
What we are seeing here is the evolution from standing outside sensitive sites setting up cameras and awaiting a reaction to now actively probing for confrontation.
Someone has already mentioned "Ignore them and they'll go away", which was fine in the beginning of promoting Photography In Public Is Not A Crime.
Now the majority have accepted this, it is no longer a way for "auditors" to generate a revenue stream.
How would you react if someone came up to your vehicle or living room window and pressed a camera against the glass inches from your face whilst waving or pulling faces?
We see and hear astonishment from most auditors when spoken to in plain English, who have already thrown out expletives or picked on a character flaw of the person being filmed.
And prior to any footage being published, who is carrying out the edits to ensure a favourable slant in their favour?
At what point can we admit auditors are straying from promoting photography in public is not a crime to borderline harassment?
Someone has already mentioned "Ignore them and they'll go away", which was fine in the beginning of promoting Photography In Public Is Not A Crime.
Now the majority have accepted this, it is no longer a way for "auditors" to generate a revenue stream.
How would you react if someone came up to your vehicle or living room window and pressed a camera against the glass inches from your face whilst waving or pulling faces?
We see and hear astonishment from most auditors when spoken to in plain English, who have already thrown out expletives or picked on a character flaw of the person being filmed.
And prior to any footage being published, who is carrying out the edits to ensure a favourable slant in their favour?
At what point can we admit auditors are straying from promoting photography in public is not a crime to borderline harassment?
fidzer said:
What we are seeing here is the evolution from standing outside sensitive sites setting up cameras and awaiting a reaction to now actively probing for confrontation.
Someone has already mentioned "Ignore them and they'll go away", which was fine in the beginning of promoting Photography In Public Is Not A Crime.
Now the majority have accepted this, it is no longer a way for "auditors" to generate a revenue stream.
How would you react if someone came up to your vehicle or living room window and pressed a camera against the glass inches from your face whilst waving or pulling faces?
We see and hear astonishment from most auditors when spoken to in plain English, who have already thrown out expletives or picked on a character flaw of the person being filmed.
And prior to any footage being published, who is carrying out the edits to ensure a favourable slant in their favour?
At what point can we admit auditors are straying from promoting photography in public is not a crime to borderline harassment?
Also the fact legally commercial photography is different to private photography Someone has already mentioned "Ignore them and they'll go away", which was fine in the beginning of promoting Photography In Public Is Not A Crime.
Now the majority have accepted this, it is no longer a way for "auditors" to generate a revenue stream.
How would you react if someone came up to your vehicle or living room window and pressed a camera against the glass inches from your face whilst waving or pulling faces?
We see and hear astonishment from most auditors when spoken to in plain English, who have already thrown out expletives or picked on a character flaw of the person being filmed.
And prior to any footage being published, who is carrying out the edits to ensure a favourable slant in their favour?
At what point can we admit auditors are straying from promoting photography in public is not a crime to borderline harassment?
Allegedly (can't find a source) PJ Audits has been arrested for harassment of his GF and currently locked up.
the same peter Alsop who was arrested and is facing serious charges for taking money from lorry drivers and fraudulently giving them passes back in 2020.
Really does seem to attract the worst in society.
the same peter Alsop who was arrested and is facing serious charges for taking money from lorry drivers and fraudulently giving them passes back in 2020.
Really does seem to attract the worst in society.
Cockaigne said:
Allegedly (can't find a source) PJ Audits has been arrested for harassment of his GF and currently locked up.
the same peter Alsop who was arrested and is facing serious charges for taking money from lorry drivers and fraudulently giving them passes back in 2020.
Really does seem to attract the worst in society.
I find this guy and the auditing just really unnecessary, hope he gets done the same peter Alsop who was arrested and is facing serious charges for taking money from lorry drivers and fraudulently giving them passes back in 2020.
Really does seem to attract the worst in society.
Cockaigne said:
Was going to start another thread. But a couple of low down auditors, alcoholics on state benefits, admitted,when they are short of cash going down town to get the police to arrest them, so they can put a claim in.
Is this legal?
Unlawful arrest isn't legal, no. That's why someone will get a pay out, not because they have been arrested for a good reason.Is this legal?
Cockaigne said:
Was going to start another thread. But a couple of low down auditors, alcoholics on state benefits, admitted,when they are short of cash going down town to get the police to arrest them, so they can put a claim in.
Is this legal?
I’m guessing the simple solution is to ignore them and not incorrectly arrest themIs this legal?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TzGVogTAGLM
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff