You’re Being Awkward What Is Your Name….. 

It's BP Visits.

Cop Crack

Trouble is not enough people know their rights and just do what the police ask. It should be police policy to say in these situations where no crime has been committed..."Can I ask your name? You're not obliged to give it to me"

​@@pifapaulexactly, we are men and women not names

Definitely

Yep. He wasn’t even flying , didn’t have to and shouldn’t have

Yup, he's got authority to fly. But wasn't at the time. Like you don't need to produce your driving licence other than whilst driving,or being seen driving.

Yet he did give them his details

But the semantics is crucial regardless of outcome, "refusal "carries more implication than" declined" declining is you stating you've chosen not to ID. Refusal sounds more legally binding ,like refusing to ID whilst driving, that's an offence, declining for this-- is a choice.

Unfortunately that is incorrect. See Section 9.2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. A constable only requires reasonable grounds to believe that a drone is being or has been flown in order to check that it is registered per sub-section 9.2(3). The question of it being under/over 250g then determines the applicable distance it must be from buildings and people.

@@maunsell24 ONLY if they suspect an offense has been committed

@@stevedawg9588 So in other words,.... anytime they want 🤔😇

@@stevedawg9588 Incorrect, they can require you to provide details if they believe you are or have been flying... www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/12/schedule/9 Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators 2(1)A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable- (a)has reasonable grounds for believing that- (i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and (ii)P is or was the 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. (3)In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016- (h)article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator's registration number);

@@maunsell24 No need to explain, i fly a drone myself...and you are wrong, sub 250g, camera or not can be flown as low as you want within reason, you DO NOT need to show your operator ID UNLESS an offence is reasonably suspected. There was no offence, ergo, NO requirement to even show the ID AND definitely NO rights to copy the ID.

She is, and she's also entitled to his name and address.

@@sailingshipp @johnedwards2920 Two opposing views here. Would you both care to inform us why you each came to the conclusion you did and provide evidence or links to confirm?

@@sailingshippof course, I will send you my address and you can come now lock my boots if you get a few minutes

Spot on m8,there just a complete embarrassment fae top tae bottom

Hopefully, she's no longer a cop.

A BIG problem 😁😂😁😂😂😁🤡 Keeps bull sh🤬ting 🥱🥱🥱🤮🤮🤮

Definitely she took a photo of his opperater id she can find out all about you from the CAA bit stupid .I M O

Agreed

Defo

I suspect he fancied one or both of them so there was a simping factor.

ATM 2021 Schedule 9 1) (a) (i) (ii) merely requires reasonable grounds that a flight is or has taken place. The recommendation is to register the drone flyer ID in someone else's name.

They can require the operator ID for a camera-drone flight. The legislation is schedule 9 of the air traffic control and unmanned aircraft act 2021

@@JonCookeBridge Now check the sub 250g section for the CORRECT legislation.

@@stevedawg9588 That schedule doesn’t have a sub 250g section. It has section 1, applying to flights requiring a pilot competency and section 2, applying to flights with a registration requirement. Section 1 only applies to 250g+ and is used for requiring pilot information - it does not apply, here. Section 2, however applies both to 250g+ AND sub 250g drones that have a camera fitted, so does apply. That is used to require operator details. As I’m sure you know, registration in the form of an operator ID is required to fly a camera-drone, even a light one. So, they can’t require the pilots details but they can require the operator info. The audit King Focus Pocus explains all this beautifully in a recent video called Q and A (starts explaining about three minutes in). The police very rarely know any of this so rarely require the details they are entitled to under the correct legislation. In this case, she was on the phone to the drone team, so there’s a good chance this was all explained to her and is probably why she stopped pushing for his ID and settled for just the operator info she’d been given. Her parting shot was to bollock him under the “being awkward and not pandering to a cops ego act 2024” that she seemed to believe exists.

@@stevedawg9588 ?? Section 2 of schedule 9 applies.

@@JonCookeBridge Try reading the sub 250 legislation, the filth make the same mistake every time.

They can require the operator ID for a camera drone flight. Since she was on the phone to the drone unit, she could probably even have quoted the legislation empowering her.

I wouldn't even conversate with them and carry on about ma business, daftys the pair of them,no emergency, waste of time,total joke

There aw bullies,it's how there trained to treat the public,intimidate, frighten and do whatever it takes to get our details,fucking morons,what a complete waste of police resources, I thought police scotland were bad 😮

Pure monsters

Exactly...all in all a very poor audit

Stop telling folk what to do ! Just nwcause you sit there w4nking off to DJ ya hero 😂 . Not every Auditor is a total D1ck Head ! So he wants to ID. That's up to him !

The best on here is Charles Veitch. He always gives his name, he never hides his face, hes been on here longest and is the best. I dont have to give my name, I look like a bank robber to intimidate people, is what the numpties do.

Can't stand that prick​@@rogerbroadbelt3424

No. They can require the operator ID for a camera-drone flight.

@@JonCookeBridge Nope. Only IF they suspect foul play. It's then up to the operator to call their bluff and then take them to court.

@@NellyonthelandTry Focus Pocus Q and A video from about 3mins in. Or read schedule 9 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

@@JonCookeBridge I have. Only upon SUSPICION. FFS, everyone forgets the basics. They have NO RIGHTS unless they SUSPECT foul play.

@@Nellyontheland Why not check out the resources I pointed you to before replying? Schedule 9 of the Air Traffic management and unmanned aircraft act 2021, entitles a police officer to require the operator info for a flight with a registration requirement (a camera drone is captured by this, regardless of weight). Rather than just replying “wrong”, I encourage you to actually read that legislation or watch the video I pointed you to, first. They have to reasonably suspect a flight has occurred, not that a law has been broken.

It is it a section 5 of the criminal law act 1967 subsection 2 it States. )Where a person causes any wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report tending to show that an offence has been committed, or to give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or tending to show that he has information material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine of not more than [F3level 4 on the standard scale] or to both.

They should av been gone by now,they are harassing this man now

@@pinac-audit I KNOW the law, he didn't call the filth, they did, THEY committed the crime of making false reports and wasting police time. What I meant is, the filth are ALWAYS wasting time attending NO CRIMES. A man with a cam.... Wasting THEIR time..and more important..OURS..

Or , if you give me your address.

Spot on m8,there an embarrassment the lot of them,fae the east coast of fife,oor polis are just corrupt fae top tae bottom and are involved in a lot of bad murky shit,never speak to these people,ever

Because who ever called lied about what was happening.

The person who called should then be arrested for wasting police time but they won't,divvies,the man's done nowt wrong

Poor Zpolice idiots

I thought the law had changed recently and if requested you do have to give them the operator id??

​@@Donotwillnot show them, not give them. It's there in case the drone is lost or causes a accident. They have no right to ask for it especially for ID purposes. No crime has been committed.

@@alexanderevanska4274 understood i hadn't realised that. So they cannot ask for it just as a way to identify you? It must be because they believe a crime has happened? Im sure alot of coppers do use this to get id though? Thanks for that 👍

@@alexanderevanska4274 No, that’s auditing myth. They can require the pilot gives the operator information (which is potentially distinct from the pilot’s) under schedule 9 of the Air Traffic Control and unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

That would involve work!

Where did this myth come from? The police seldom know the legislation, but they are entitled to require the operator ID for a camera drone flight.

@@JonCookeBridge only if a crime has been committed, you can show there is an operator I.D but they can not legally record it unless a crime has been been committed.

@@george-ev1dq No that’s just popular auditing myth. If it has a camera it requires UAS registration (an operator ID) and under schedule 9 of the Air Traffic Control and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 the police can require it if they reasonably believe it’s been flown. Look it up.

@@JonCookeBridge they can require it to be shown but they can not legally record or document the ID, that would be an unlawful way to obtain the operators details and a crime that would be dealt with in a criminal court. look it up.

@@george-ev1dq I have read the legislation and discussed it with an officer from the met’s drone team. The relevant part is schedule 9 part 2 which says an officer can require the details of the drone operator from the pilot for a flight with a registration requirement. A sub-250g with a camera does have a UAS registration requirement (operator ID). What do you want me to look up? I’ve been pretty specific about what I’m pointing you in the direction of.

She was on the phone to the drone unit so presumably she’d have been told the legislation she could require the operator ID under.

That’s auditor-myth. The police have the power to demand the operator ID if they reasonably suspect a camera drone has been flown.

Be as awkward as you like.

@@TheBILLANDERSON All this changed in 2018 when GDPR came in. It is covered by that data protection legislation and, unsurprisingly, given all police officers use them pretty much all the time, body cam images do not require the permission of their subjects to be captured.

@@JonCookeBridge geeeeeeezz GDPR 2018 is for required for registered companies , The Data Protection Act of 1998 varies from the DPA Data Protection Act of 2018 due to the changes in the technology and the much-needed additions. The latter one includes many new principles and provisions of individuals and their security both online and offline. Such as the right to erasure, the right to access data, and added web safety for individuals. The Data Protection Act of 1998 did not take into account the use of web cookies and similar technologies for example, which it does not with this revision. Hence with BWV under PACE 1984 section 64A (1A) ,,, under DPA 1998 there are are 7 principles . section 2, Principle 1 officers must be 👉🏻able to explain how to get copy of BWV by SAR ,,, Section 1 , Principle 3 BWV must be "overt" ect. GDPR is regulated of how they can share your details eg your GP can share your details unless you signed a declaration to opt out of it , in January 2014 , ""Care.data opt out form"" before GDPR 2018 NOT many know of this ,, I signed early 2014 ..If you wish ,,,ask at your GP "line manager ""for the form , but GP staff , when I asked did not know of this ,,,did not know of it ,,,but its is there ,, , ask the "line manager " at your GP that is the advantage of GDPR .. DPA 1998 does not

@@JonCookeBridge PACE section 64A(1A) hence case :- Wood V Commissioner of police 2009 ,, "retention of of images" WOOD had not taken part in any unlawful activity's , covert recording , section 1 Principle 3 = BWV must be "overt"

@@TheBILLANDERSON GDPR (DPA 2018 since we left the EU) most certainly applies to public agencies. The police can capture BWV without permission, but it must be overt unless it falls under a particular exemption. It’s pointless quoting data protection legislation that predates GDPR. Section 64A PACE 1A applies to arrestees and people detained as suspects; it’s covering evidence gathering protocols for suspects. If it’s not followed properly, under DPA you may be able to get them to delete photographs so they can’t use them in a case against you. Also, you have an old version. The college of policing publish guidance on BWV use - the last version was 2022.

@@JonCookeBridge nooooooooooooooooo 🤣🤣 1B is when arrested ,, try again 😆😆🤣🤣 next 🤷‍♂ , love this 😁😁

That’s just auditor myth. The police can require the operator ID for a camera drone flight. There’s a nice explanation video on Focus Pocus channel called Q and A, 3 mins in.

Common myth. Since 2021 the police have had the power to require the operator ID for a camera-drone flight.