I Will Put You On The Floor 👮‍♂️👮‍♂️🚔 

Good spotting

Plus section 50 requires HAD. And they are defined as follows: Harassment - Means to subject someone to constant and repeated physical and/or verbal persecution. Alarm - Means a frightened anticipation of danger. Distress - Means to cause trouble, pain, anguish, or hardship. I didn't see any of that from the security or police.

@@Only_Fools_and_Audits is filming an offence then? Because he could still have filmed from the public path but the officer contradicted himself. Didn't you're watch the clip. There were no signs and the threatening guard is not the land owner! The orificer quoted section 50 where he believed the auditor was causing anti social behavior and he clearly wasn't, it's also for protesters and he wasn't protesting. The guard was causing anti social behavior by threatening to throw him to the ground and should have been investigated.

@@Only_Fools_and_Audits he was in the car park with an implied entry method. Trespass is a civil matter and the police overstepped their remit. If he was there to agitate then he proved a point , if the police had done the right thing then you wouldn't say such a thing. But they didn't and you are.

@@Only_Fools_and_Audits technically police can only get involved with a civil trespass if asked to by the landowner

They always cover for each other. They are like a bunch of Freemasons and will always take the corporate side if you audit a Costa Cofffe for example.

Yes indeed and we can rest assured that our hard earned tax money is being spent (stolen) well.....LOL

Lol it takes a fool to jump about with a guy that has been convicted of trying to strangle his Lady so why are you kicking around with that sack of shot

@@Only_Fools_and_Audits and with a known criminal that has been put in jail for strangling hi lady waw

News now can go and say he’s in a video with a rat div free who’s a known criminal robber of gold shop slaps his ex about threatening to rape a man’s wife I can go on so do you see how two faced this turd is if stay away from a known criminal but no this turd walks about with that sort of trash

What crimes 😂😂😂

Jill Dando and Princess D love this silly uneducated comment

And if morons like this didnt act like idiots Then maybe the police could get on with proper work

And if idiots like this stopped acting like children The cops could get on with proper work Easy

THEY NEED SACKING - HOW MANY OF US COULD PERFOM SO BADLY AND EVEN THREATEN VIOLENCE IN OUR JOBS AND STILL HAVE THEM. SINCE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCE POLICE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GO HANDS ON IT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE IS NOT ONLY TO A CERTAIN STANDARD BUT ALSO LAWFUL! THE COURT SECURITY IS A COMPLETE TYRANT AND TRAITOR AND HIS THREATS OF VIOLENCE ARE AN OUTRAGE AND A CRIME. THE COURT IS NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THESE POLICE ALSO TRYING TO INCITE VIOLENCE NEED TO BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY. THICK ILL TRAINED VIOLENT MORONS! YOU HAVE TO GO OVER IT COP UNTIL YOU GET IT RIGHT. I WOULD ARREST YOU FOR YOUR ABUSE OF THIS INNOCENT MAN. BALDY IS A COMPLETE MORON, CLUELESS, LAWLESS AND NO RIGHT TO PUBLIC MONEY. IN FACT THAT STATION IS HOT BED OF CORRUPTION AND IMO IT NEEDS TO BE CLOSED. IF THOSE ARE AN EXAMPLE OF INSPECTORS AND SERGEANTS THEN I DO NOT WANT TO BE PAYING FOR SUCH TRASH OUT OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY.

Well they didn’t say that of course. But then if you have no argument you have to lie. It is private property. The public give their money to Tesco but nobody claims it is public property.

@Tracy Best not to argue with Trolls. It just encourages them.

@Tracy "Never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". - Mark Twain.

No he does not as he is not presenting an argument but standing on his rights. Why should he be polite to thick tyrants who are certainly not nice to him.

there was motion picture cameras then tbf

​@@MrGoldenV... yes , but you would need a piano player , and everyone should have big Moustaches ....

Yeah get there was motion picture back then. Love the idea of the big moustache’s and piano players, not forgetting the monkey and the organ grinder. Sure they weren’t making laws about doing it though….in 1923 ….nah.

1925. It refers to photographs, but that is interpreted to include filming.

No still don’t get it. In 1925 pretty sure they would have been far to fascinated about the ability to film, or take a picture rather than creating laws preventing you doing it.

Lol how ironic he’s kicking about with a known criminal 😂😂😂😂😂

Imagine trying to do your job in difficult circumstances solving crimes etc and ppl like these turn up clearly being deliberately provocative to get a reaction to put on RU-vid. No wonder ppl don't want to be cops anymore. The guy calling the police dogs would probably glass you in a pub for looking at him the wrong way.

Nothing done to the security guard who assaulted you then the copper assaults you twice and you walk off as if Nothing happened...

well i think the law is that you can't film PEOPLE in the court premises, the law i read doesn't say anything about not filming anything else, it's to protect folks coming and going from court. but the private property thing, and "who owns the land" is an interesting problem, i'm only at the 8:00 mark so, lets see how it pans out...

The police know the law, don't ask for miracles.

@Tracy well, the intelligent person knows, lacking means allowed.. any other means that you can invent laws as you want...like anarchy..

Hope they get regular boosters

Branch Covidians are a strange cult aren't they?

Sadly not exactly true.

In this instance you are 100% wrong. Reasonable force can be used here. In this instance the Auditor seems to be intentionally Making content. As for the latter part involving the other auditor, I think his behaviour is disgraceful. I don't see how you can reasonably treat others like that.

@@PaulSmith-tt7tf police can't get involved with civil trespass unless a breach of the peace or public order offence has been committed.

Does sec 33 not apply?

@@Only_Fools_and_Audits well I hear UK auditors say section 33 of the criminal justice act 1972... implied right of access. Would it not apply in this instance?

that's the only ref I can find. ok bit of a sticky point you would of thought he should of known the act as aposed to not after all I would think it's part of his job to quote the correct legislation

@@frankgardiner5002 Yes and also section 41 of the criminal justice act 1925 really refers to taking pictures of a person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal and has nothing to do with taking pictures of police cars from the court car park. The court security was just be a pedantic moron.

@@PINACI Yes, that's probably what it meant. However, I think 2c (don't quote me on this) also states photographs "Made" in a court or its precincts. Yes, I agree in this instance he's not filming people attending the court, but technically it's right.

@@UCOOLJULES Please provide a link this this act

@@PINACI oops, that was an Irish act. My bad

Bollocks,,,that was a Promotion 👍😂🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

After this video was published Auditor Live Free aka Chris Gallone was imprisoned for domestic violence.

You would of arrested the police man for insulting your height? That's not a thing. What corruption did you see in the video exactly?

Great story but make it it a little shorter :) Only joking :) respect to your Dad.

Wee soldier

Tyranny must be answered or it will grow.

Respect mate

Not on court grounds. Section 41 criminal Justice Act 1925.

@@JunctionWatcher Act has nothing to do with the Law, don't conflate the two. (clarification point all acts are fraud so in that regard unlawful so of course that is their connection to the law but in terms of acts holding any force of law they do not they have the color of law, a fraudulent hue)

@@Only_Fools_and_Audits As an auditor

The guy is a prat, glad he's in jail where he should be

Unfortunately, Live Free and koleeberks couldn't keep their noses clean

Old video way his wife beating pal

Unless its his partner then he lets his fists do the talking

Guy is a moron and scum. He's where he should be

What happened to him?

​@@ISellSigals jailed for domestic abuse

In this case you would be breaking the law. If you aren't a lawyer it is best not to offer legal advice

@@DirectDemocrat Dji mini can fly anywhere apart from airports and prisons. Please watch more Auditing videos as they have done this legally hundreds of times. The police were proved incorrect and had to pay News Now Yorkshire in a previous video. Also l am not giving legal advice here this is just a Utube comment.

@@DirectDemocrat so very wrong Tony 😂

@@frances4007 I find it wrong news now is kicking about with a known criminal sadly you don’t seem to care about this fact

@@peterwentworth9181 I didn't see your further attempt at being wrong but I will happily correct you. You are correct that ordinarily a DJmini at 249g can fly anywhere except for the airspaces you highlight.....none of that is in dispute. What is in dispute, apart from your understanding of the law, is that were he to video the court and its curtilege and precincts, then he could be deemed to be in contempt of court, regardless of where he recorded the footage from, in this case the airspace over the court. The fact that he is allowed to fly there is immaterial Contempt of court is a procedural matter and its investigation and punishments do not follow the normal investigative norms. If those two guys reported the matter to a judge in the court and he got the hump on becasue he considered that News Now Yorkshire was interfering with the efficient running of the court, he could order the police to arrest him and bring him into court, which they would be compelled to do immediately. The judge could then lock him up, confiscate the drone and even order its destruction.....and there would be absolutely sweet FA that you as his legal counsel could do about it. I don't know whether @ysgol3 has anything to add but my suggestion to you is to either get yourself a qualifying law degree or stop giving your ill-informed advice, because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. P.S. And then of course there is still the provions of Criminal Justice Act 1925 S.41(2)(c) to worry about because that makes it a statutory offence to do what you told him to do and it doesn't matter where he does it from.....now run along.

I found free state law too

That's exactly why the cunts making these videos cover there faces

Here's one of them ⬆🔼🔺⏫⤴

Ya know with all the money they steal build a fence ya criminals, oh right shhhhhh don't tell...

@@mrspanky369 I was referring to the one directly above me mate. lol

@@Tom-ol6cu Spend your free time watching c*nts do you, mate?

Yeah big up a woman beater! You scum bag

He’s the dickhead pissing them off for no reason 🤣

He walked back on Police 1: NNY: 1 (If you're gonna score do it accurately)

We know all of them where they live who they sleep with the thread count on their mistress' carpet ;) they are always in danger rightly so. They are at war with humanity. Humanity wins, God wins, they serve Moloch, notice the sticker in the window, pride comes before the fall, they are't secretive about their criminal nature.

Oh sh… I spoke too soon😔

Whole world is a stage, that's why it is acts and not laws, the police can't enforce law because law isn't something that is forced it is inert.

Hello kettle pot calling.

@@drdave4430 That famous saying “Hello pot kettle calling” 😂 Clearly not a Dr of words.

@@gj5900 Oh the irony of what you have unknowingly written. Do try and think it through. For your own sake if nothing else.

@@Only_Fools_and_Audits good

Dereliction of duty

Criminal Justice Act 1925 section 41. Despite your surprise yes that’s what it says.

@@JunctionWatcher But it means no AUDIO recording and IN a court, not outise the building in a car park with a VIDEO rcorder.

@@PeterMaddison2483 Read the wording. “a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court-room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held”

@@JunctionWatcher It does NOT mention VIDEO.

@@JunctionWatcher Courts were dissolved in 2008 so no court would be held there

This numpty thinks he got a result...give the idiot a donut

5 and 50 . They do have a fetish about the number 5.

NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT TYRANNY - OVER 800,000 BRITIH SOLIERS LOST THEIR LIVE FIGHTING IT IN JUST ONE WAR IN THE 40'S!

Funny thing is he’s there with a guy that got jail for slapping his ex about shameless comes to mind 🎉

@Ronnie and I the man he’s with is a known criminal he robbed a jewellery shop batters his ex I find it ironic news now is at a police station with that scum

@Ronnie and I he just got 25 months in jail for strangling his ex

@Ronnie and I I did say the man with news now Yorkshire waw

“Put” 🤪

That's not what it says. With drawings, it does have to be a drawing of a person and there has to be an intention to publish the drawing, but the restriction on photographs is an absolute prohibition. "Precincts" includes areas outside the building but it's not clear to me whether it would include the car park in this case.

@@kevinallard5859 s41, (1) (a) could be read either way. {No person shall- (a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or} I read it as; no person shall take … in any court any photograph… of any person. I took the commas from the end of photograph to the end of sketch, to be parentheses. In your argument there wouldn’t be a comma after “sketch”.

@@kevinallard5859 I suspect “precinct” was left deliberately vague by the author. That said, it’s only a £50 fine

@@MrAndrewFarrow The key thing for me isn't the comma, but the fact that after it says "or" it then says "with a view to publication". The bit about publication applies to everything that comes after it but doesn't apply to what goes before it.

@@MrAndrewFarrow I agree precincts is vague and I think it might apply to a car park in some cases but not others depending on things like how big the car park is, how far away it is from the building, whether it's also used by other organisations and whether there is a physical boundary around it. I think it is relevant that when the Act was written most courts would not have had car parks.

Police are known terrorists their time is spent committing crime wasting that time would amount to preventing crime ergo wasting police time is a public good.

Happy to be corrected however I believe that the legislation refers to the precincts of the Court, not who you are filming in particular.

@@johnvienta7622 The reference to the "precincts" in S 41 (2C) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 just clarifies where the photograph cannot be taken (or where the portrait or sketch cannot be made) of the person identified in S41 (1A) (ie, "a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal"). The security guard got the name and year of the Act wrong and made up a section in an attempt to sound like he knew his stuff. In any event, he was was wrong to think that it prohibited any and all photography in the car park.

@@abarthman1965 , all the legal opinion I have read on the issue states that the precincts are not physically defined and that is what the authorities use to prosecute and threaten people. I have given casual advise to auditors to film for the other side of a roadway as the Court would struggle to claim that they owned the roadway.

God gave you custodianship of Earth in equal measure, you have every right to build/dig etc where you like. Don't get fooled into the those who came before us folly of its always been this way etc. You're living in a criminal system set up to protect itself.

@@adamwilson2117 - God? Ok. So you believe in fairy tales and magic. That's not a good start really.

@@bobthedemon1975Do a little research on the foundations of law bet you don't even know we have a constitution here or that it was the inspiration for the American one, your past is corrupted into his-story you're living in a world of illusions, in the age of information it becomes a choice.

In prison for attacking his ex mrs

@@jons1809 I’m sure there is much more to That than what you claim fella. We have all had a toxic woman in our lives at some point.

@@anglianaudit1151 he strangled her for about 40 seconds with a knife in hand asking her if she wanted to die, sure sounds like he's the toxic one in the situation how anyone can support him is beyond me.

@@_YTA no reason hey! How about if a woman was abusing a guy and got physical with him! If a woman wants to act like a man, she should be treat like a man. No one should hit anyone but that doesn’t give the right for toxic woman to take advantage of men who wouldn’t hit one back. Toxic woman push and poke men, provoking them. Then when they get a back hander they claim to be a victim. Ignoring the physical and mental abuse prior to the guy losing control. But let’s ignore that. I won’t Google that name! I’m not interested. You don’t like live free. I like his work and i live in the real world where women can be horrible c()nts

' I've got all day me '. Yeah because you can't get a job. Big hard man threatening coppers and calling them names. Your mother should have swallowed.

@@justinhardwick4047 Yup... the best part of him ran down his mother's leg when she shat him out! It's a joke 😇.

For the camera clearly an actor acting is just an act

Isn't he in prison for woman beating? I would imagine that would seriously restrict his ability to make stupid videos

He's vile and beat his partner, Id question your mental health missing someone like that

What utter bollocks. The actual law is quoted elsewhere in these comments.

@@drdave4430 Go do some proper reading of the actual law, research case law, and understand the legal process. Don't just assume someone's comments is right.

@@TheSadButMadLad Done it. That's why I was able to write what I did being absolutely sure of it's correctness. You run along now and follow your own advice.