Trespass for Dummies, Part 3 - With Banaman

My review of Ace Audits’ visit to a freight terminal brought an abusive backlash from auditors. However, a KZbin auditor called Banaman gave a more considered, but still wrong, response in the comments section beneath the video. His contribution is important because he gives us the auditing community’s views on the law, and here is my reply.
My video about Ace Audits (“Trespass for Dummies, Part 1 - With Ace Audits”):
• Trespass for Dummies, ...
Section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Part II of the Public Order Act 1986:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Section 14A of the Public Order Act 1986:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Section 9(1) of the Public Order Act 1936:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Section 1 of the Public Order Act 1936:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Recitals of the UK GDPR:
www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/20...
Article 4 of the UK GDPR:
gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/
Article 13 of the UK GDPR:
gdpr-info.eu/art-13-gdpr/
Section 3 of the Health and Safety etc Act 1974:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Paragraph 3.3, Part II, Schedule 1 of The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...
Judgment of Associate Chief Justice J. D. Rooke in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (a case from Alberta, Canada):
www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...
Theme: “Upbeat” by Ivan Fidrovskiy Channel: / @ivanfidrovskiy2374
Compilation: • Ivan Fidrovsky | Compo...
Loowi’s Outro:
• Podcast Intro/Outro Mu...
Channel: / @loowi

[@dWFnZWVr]

Concerning aggravated trespass, it appears you might not be fully familiar with the subject. Aggravated trespass is indeed a criminal offence and can result in arrest. To be charged with aggravated trespass, one must be engaged in two specific activities: trespassing and intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out their lawful activities. The term "aggravated trespass" is subject to a very precise legal definition. It is not merely trespass accompanied by loud or disruptive behaviour. This law was originally enacted to prevent travellers from occupying land and thereby hindering lawful activities on that land. Aggravated trespass occurs when one's presence on the property actively prevents the conduct of legitimate activities. Examples of this include travellers setting up camp on a football field, during a gala or fete, or within a business yard. Aware of the specifics of the law, travellers may choose to occupy a less intrusive corner of the land to avoid committing aggravated trespass. It is a common misconception that the word "aggravated" implies shouting or unruly behaviour, but in legal terms, it specifically refers to the disruption of lawful activities. The police are required to demonstrate that an individual was purposefully obstructing or disrupting. Merely taking photographs or recording does not constitute aggravated trespass, nor does shouting or verbal dispute have any bearing on this starting point. This brings us to relevant case law pertaining to English common law; other auditors like News Now Yorkshire, Live Free Marti, and many others who have been arrested for this offence have had their cases dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The reason for this is that the law targets actions like those of Extinction Rebellion, where participants have handcuffed and glued themselves to roads, buildings, and aircraft. It was not designed to apply to someone simply with a camera. The law is not vague; it is written specifically to address particular types of disruptive actions, and the CPS has not pursued any cases involving auditors. While the police might misapply the law, this often results in no further action (NFA) and compensation following successful civil claims. For instance, the Wood Green Small Claims Court saw one individual successfully sue the police four times for false arrests under this legislation, winning settlements of £1,250, £1,500, £1,020, and £1,475, respectively.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Your comment misquotes and misrepresents what I have said about aggravated trespass. I have not once stated that merely photographing on private premises while trespassing is aggravated trespass. That could constitute aggravated trespass as part of other behaviour, but on its own is unlikely to be considered aggravated trespass. I am fully familiar with the subject of aggravated trespass and other areas of law relevant to this channel. That is why I started this channel in the first place. I would not be discussing these matters unless I were familiar with them. Please stop telling me that I don't know the law when I patently and clearly do. It's a strawman. Apart from anything else, you lot have been telling me for months that I am wrong about data protection, but now most of you realise that in fact I have been right all along and you ARE subject to data protection! Likewise, auditors who trespass do often fall into aggravated trespass. Again, you keep saying that's not the case, but it clearly is. I explain the law in all my videos - which is more than what you lot do. That's because, unlike you, I actually know the law. Before you reply or comment again on my channel, please just stop, pause and consider the possibility that I may have actually already considered the points you raise and that I may actually be right. It's amazing, I know, but just consider the possibility and, just for once in your life, try extracting your overblown head out of your own arse. Furthermore, whenever I refer to aggravated trespass, I refer to section 68. It is astonishing - utterly astonishing - that in your lengthy, condescending comment that essentially tells us nothing, you do not once refer to section 68, which is the defining statutory provision for aggravated trespass in England & Wales. How on earth can you write seven paragraphs on the subject without once referring to the law that defines the very offence that you are talking about? That level of ignorance (arrogance too) is just beyond my comprehension. Apart from that, the behaviour that you describe is exactly what we see in the videos. You are blind to this because you are just another deluded supporter who only wants to look at one side of it. Of course you don't think they are committing aggravated trespass, because you support them! We can't rely on you to be objective about it. Instead we get half-truths and cherry-picking.

[@dWFnZWVr]

@@streetvideoreviewer ngl, I didn’t watch the video lol. I am subscribed to your channel, however, my comment was actually in relation to another video of yours which I watched a little while back - not sure which one though. This video just appeared on my feed and it prompted me to write the comment. I’m honoured to wear the KZbin badge of honour - a pinned comment 🤙

[@auditnerd8767]

Reading law, is tedious. Understanding law is even more so. As humans, we often follow the path of least resistance. So its no surprise that auditors accept and believe the rantings and mantras of other auditors over an informed critique. And it then follows that they reject said critique, in order to protect the misguided beliefs that form the foundation of their whole movement. The auditing community in this country covers a spectrum of society, but its clearly very heavily weighted toward one end. I would strongly argue, that with the exception of Banaman and a couple of other auditors who possess at least a modicum of intelligence, the auditor movement is incapable of the comprehension of, trespass law, landowner rights, the true meaning of section 33, property boundaries and curtilage, the difference between a right and a permission, privacy law, GDPR, and a host of other factors that can impact on their chosen passtime. I commend and applaud SVR on his efforts to educate both the auditors themselves and the swathes of bloodthirsty audit fans who clamour for the opportunity to abuse and insult from behind their keyboards. Its an uphill struggle at best. And an impossible task at worst. The best of luck to you Sir.

[@daveanthony5390]

Frauditors will always argue the toss and never admit any wrong doing

[@user-mi6wi8fr3u]

Still never seen any auditor auditing a gypsy traveller's site. Why would that be anyone know? 😊

[@dazndi6209]

No cus thyd get destroyed

[@jons9721]

Laws already exist. Trespassing for the purpose of creating a security response is automatically aggravated trespass and a criminal offence (its the equivalent are saying bomb at an airport). Photography for the purpose of intimidating security is a public order offence/harassment or even terrorism (yes photography can form part of a crime). That is not even getting in GDPR breaches. The problem is security guards simply aren't paid enough to deal with this crap and the police/CPS have better things to do that spending resources on these relatively 'minor' crimes

[@auditnerd8767]

Ignorance of the law is also a factor. Police are told to avoid getting involved in civil law situations. Yet many are unaware that when audits occur on police premises they can use civil law to remove trespassers. Security guards and retail and company employees are also instructed to avoid physical contact, and succumb to the toothless threats from auditors of "if you assault me...". Your right, the laws are there to deal with auditors that cross the line. But up to now we've seen a reluctance to implement them.

[@jons9721]

If a trespasser is asked to leave by a land owner and representative and refuses to then its no longer a civil dispute its a public order (and criminal) matter. The landowner/representative can use reasonable force to remove the trespasser as can the police . You are right while bouncers are pubs (which is in effect exactly the same job) are expected to use (reasonable) force in their job description security guards elsewhere are generally not @@auditnerd8767

[@jblack5323]

These auditors don’t like it because it’s their livelihood. They worry about their KZbin views being compromised. It’s like someone getting their Universal credit revoked 😂

[@aireboat7988]

Yes, debunking section 33 is a huge threat to them. If you even question its validity you're seen as a hater, troll, enemy, sausage, muppet, officer.....I've had 'em all...

[@jblack5323]

@@aireboat7988 unfortunately for them it can’t be sustained. It’s already saturated and most of society will soon get bored of the videos and security training will get a boost on how to engage with them, it will get to the point where it wouldn’t be worth the effort/fuel costs, although I do feel these special breeds get more of a kick from the situation as opposed to the financial gain…

[@jons9721]

Laws in the end will be changed. This isn't the US there is no 'right' to do anything . Parliament can pass any law it wants restricting anything it wants@@jblack5323

[@mdmoore100]

@@jblack5323 I agree, but for many this is the equivalent of the village idiot getting an enormous audience to spout sanctimonious nonsense and self importance. A chance for a following where there was once none…

[@tonyb1223]

@@aireboat7988 You forgot boot licker, I had that one because I proved them wrong 😆

[@tomalex4806]

For audiors to understand they'd have to have this video's playback speed on 0.25x. As it takes them awhile to grasp what anyone's saying

[@auditnerd8767]

And maybe subtitles?

[@auditpundit1199]

@@GRPLiningServices Some of them have a button in the cell to call a guard.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@tomalex4806 Nothing wrong with struggling to understand. For some people, the law isn't their thing. I don't mind people who struggle to learn. What I do mind are those who refuse to learn.

[@zapbrannigan000]

off topic question : in his latest video DJE Media flies his drone over a building site and... * refused to show his drone license to the security guard.....i thought a drone operator had to provide this. * once inside the building site perimeter flies his drone very low, perhaps 12 feet off the ground. the drone was well below the roof line of a nearby building (20 meters away) and close to other obstacles such as light poles. did he break the law and should he be reported?

[@three-phase562]

It is a legal requirement for the operator ID number to be displayed on the drone itself. However, it is only required to be shown to a Police Constable. So a security guard can ask, but there is no requirement to comply. Flying low is problematic. I am not aware of a case where a sub 249g drone pilot has been convicted just for flying low, actual danger has to have arisen from the flight. If they interrupt a business or cause a privacy breech by using the drone to view through upper windows, then that is a civil matter between the company and the drone pilot akin to trespass. The CAA will only deal with safety concerns but they require certain information to investigate concerns, which cannot usually be obtained from the videos.

[@auditnerd8767]

Yes. It was a trespass. You can trespass "by drone" The landowner 'does' own the airspace. Especially in the 'lower stratum' - area immediately above and around the property, buildings and structures upon it, where the land retains full rights. Its probably a public order offence of H,A, &D, although harassment as a separate charge requires 2 or more incidents. And the one I would like to see being used, is privacy laws. Its almost certainly a breach of privacy flying so low while recording. These (potential) offences on their own could also amount to a breach of drone regs too.

[@aireboat7988]

@@auditnerd8767 " Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos " One of my favourite principles, Top three at least.

[@three-phase562]

@@EdWeeks999 I haven't watched that video, I may get round to it. Unfortunately sub 249g drones complicate things. Whilst their are specific distances for drones above that weight, there are none for these smaller drones. The generalised rules of the drone code state that the pilot must not infringe on peoples privacy or endanger other people or property. So it becomes very subjective. If a drone is being flown so low that it could be hit by someone on the ground with a pole, then there may be a good argument that the drone code is not being followed. If they have flown around without issue though, then the argument will be they haven't endangered anyone or anything. If they hit something, then that argument is lost. I agree that it is highly unlikely to be investigated. I doubt the CAA would investigate, although it may be of interest to them for future drone code legislation. I also doubt that the company would take any civil action, as the outcome isn't guaranteed and the potential compensation would be minimal.

[@three-phase562]

@@auditnerd8767 Are you aware of any case law regarding drone trespass though? Even if is was successful I doubt the compensation for such a trespass would be anything significant. The land owner doesn't own the airspace above them, they have rights to it based upon Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews [1978] 1 QB 479 and Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I believe that used to define the Lower Stratum as being up to 1000 feet, but this has since been lost in current legislation and it is more of a case by case basis for the land owner to show that the airborne trespass has affected their use of the land. I do hear a lot of 'flying above roof height' is acceptable, but I am not aware of any case law that backs this up. Whilst I would agree that the use of the drones in these audits would likely constitute a breach of privacy, that still remains a civil matter between the two parties and the CAA would not get involved unless there were also safety concerns.

[@speedtriplerider7853]

As a person with no legal training or experience in the area of trespass and as a person who likes to ramble in the countryside I have always relied on common sense to guide me as to whether or not I have a legal right to be somewhere. My understanding is that public roads which are categorised as 'A' or 'B' roads are for public use, as are motorways. As far as all other land is concerned, I rely on OS maps and their indication of public rights of way whether they be footpaths, bridleways or any other indicated route. My common sense would tell me that I have no right to simply wander into Manchester Freight Terminal or any othe such commercial site without explicit permission. So far, I have managed to avoid any trespass issues. What are your expert thoughts on my rather simplistic approach? As far as this video response is concerned I think it exemplifies perfectly the old adage 'that a little knowledge is dangerous'. In my opinion, people at work shoud be free from harassment and left to get on with their work. I sometimes wonder how many people have ended up being reprimanded or worse because of their interaction with these nuisance so-called auditors. Keep up the good and useful work SVR, I for one appreciate what you do; your work has really opened my eyes to the danger of these people. Like so many other issues (speed bumps, road cameras) we're all going to end up paying the price for the idiotic actions of the few.

[@auditnerd8767]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Up until the arrival of auditors we relied on common sense to tell us where we should or could go. If it looked like it was private property we avoided it. Auditors come along and apply the notion that commonsense is not required. If there's no law against it, the they 'can' do it. Of course they totally ignore the fact that torts and civil offences don't count !

[@jons9721]

Presumably is you did accidentally trespass you would say sorry mate and just leave. End of matter. It's an civil offence but if there are no damages or disruption (like hanging around to argue) there is no offence. To be fair all laws have to be created with the lowest in society in mind. Most people would not go around killing everyone even if it was legal but you still need laws for those who do

[@auditnerd8767]

@@jons9721 That's why you can only sue for trespass if you've suffered a tangible loss. A genuine rambler being lost is a minor issue. A large group of walkers stomping through a field of crops, damaged wall, fences and gates may not be.

[@jons9721]

True but I would argue deliberately creating a security alert is a real loss but is actually criminal as it disrupts business@@auditnerd8767

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@speedtriplerider7853 I think @auditnerd8767 and @jons9721 sum it up better than I can. As they say, in an accidental trespass situation where it's a genuine mistake, it's likely nothing is going to happen other than perhaps being asked to leave, and as long as you do leave (within reason), the landowner will have no practical remedy against you and you have nothing to worry about. Admittedly, the question of what is and is not a public right of way (PROW) can get very complicated and some private roads and paths that are thought to be entirely private could in fact also be highways (and therefore PROWs) but are not on the local authority's Definitive List/Definitive Map. This stuff does become confusing and full of paradoxes when you dig into it, mainly I think because unlike many other jurisdictions, our laws in England are not completely arranged in codes, instead have evolved over centuries with lots of grey areas, paradoxes and contradictions.

[@owensmith4651]

This channel is ace, it's like Roger Cook and his investigations from the 80's.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

If only you knew what I have planned...

[@Tonystony1984]

Roger Cook and the dodgy tash 🤣

[@jblack5323]

@@streetvideoreviewer 😀

[@mdmoore100]

But alas we don’t get to see SVR getting a kicking on the edge of a local travelers site or Doner Kebab patch? 😆

[@mdmoore100]

@@Tonystony1984 come on he was a legend! Wonder what he’s up to now?

[@richrichie378]

Credit to your efforts to break down all these laws, that's a good comprehensive understanding. Unfortunately this rarely put to auditors on the spot, which would be good and stop the harassment elements if their work.

[@babettesfeast6347]

Banana man how aptly named

[@williamgeorgefraser]

Does this guy actually believe that if you leave your front door open it is an invitation to every Tom, Dick or Harry to walk in and sit down in your living room? I wonder if this guy also goes by the name of Mizzy.

[@aireboat7988]

Trespass is a civil offence, not a crime. They deliberately blur the lines that define what is an innocent mistake of trespass, and a deliberate act of intimidation, harassment, and provocation. They know full well they are morally over the line, but think the law protects them through the section 33 nonsense.

[@auditpundit1199]

Would that be the same Mizzy that is currently serving an 18 week jail term? 😂

[@jons9721]

What they tend to ignore is even if its civil the landowner can use reasonable force to throw the trespasser out and the trespasser can not legally use any force to prevent them (including threatening to hit them). The police can throw you out regardless of whether its civil or criminal as can anyone@@aireboat7988

[@tomalex4806]

I'm sure banaman said he works as an event steward in one of his videos

[@davidwatson9124]

Well done. We will wait to see if we get a reply from Banaman. If you have a minute just go to Ace Audits community page. There is a post about GDPR from a audit she did. It will make you laugh.

[@juliandavies1974]

Marks reply will probably be 10 pages long, and involve the phrase "the bigger picture'.

[@davidwatson9124]

@@juliandavies1974 you are correct. I am still waiting for the bigger picture. Lol.

[@mdmoore100]

Another fabulous rebuttal of this s33 misinterpretation. It’s a pity there is even a need for this. There is no opinion or interpretation you can be accused of making on this, it’s just pure fact as written in the legislation, s33 isn’t even confusing or vague at all, it’s very clear as to what it means in the first line, as is the further clarification for offences in the 1986 Act. I’m not sure why people can’t seem to accept this? You make really good eloquent points around the psychology of why these auditors are keen to endorse and believe such selective pseudo legal opinions without question. I’ve never really thought about that in depth before. I’m guessing everyone is always in love with the underdog, the state-smasher, the auditors very own Che Guevara or Robin Hood? Even when they are plain wrong and have questionable motivations for their arguments. I genuinely wonder whether it might be worth trying to ask someone like black belt barrister or the like for their take on s33 (and trespass) to put this nonsense to bed once and for all? I don’t doubt your credibility and you are entirely right in your statement of fact around the law but whilst I also don’t doubt your qualification, to them you’re just another bloke on KZbin, it would be nice to try to beef up the facts with a qualified (or at least overtly qualified) source?

[@looneytune6955]

Ah bless. the caped crusader Banaman coming try and rescue a damsel in distress. But failing badly. Cos thats the problem with auditors, once they are in balls deep in the law they have no idea. Bananaman does have a level of intelligence above the usual auditor, but is better off sticking to laws he understands.

[@whitemonkey7932]

Ohhh Banaman....ask him how his old friend the molester is...the guy who he and the rest of his cronies failed to report and worse they decided to protect. As an aside the purpose of the 1971 Act was to allow police to prosecute offences on pub car parks etc not to give a right of access.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@whitemonkey7932 Thanks. If you can, feel free to e-mail me more about the allegation you mention. If it is relevant to their auditing activities, I am willing to cover it on this channel. What you say about the 1972 Act is interesting and I am going to take it as true. I've been unable to obtain Hansard entries for it so just assumed that the motivation for the Act was something to do with the Provisional IRA and National Front, etc, who were becoming prominent at that time.

[@whitemonkey7932]

@@streetvideoreviewer kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3-tlqmtq6ytaLcsi=5zA0-rABSm7f3oPW A good part of the '72 Act was to stop people sitting in pub carparks over the limit waiting for their moment...most small towns and villages the police do the rounds and it's easy enough to learn the drill...the game changes when the police can enter the carpark and nick you if your are in possession of the keys. Police are also able to prosecute offences such as no insurance whilst committed on a private publically accessible car park.

[@whitemonkey7932]

@@streetvideoreviewer Bonney was covered up for by Banaman - they had formed a website with rampage, blagborough and one other who I forget...they all knew what was going on but covered for him.

[@whitemonkey7932]

Oh and Bonney had a previous conviction for indecent behaviour with a girl under the age of consent...they all knew about that too

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@whitemonkey7932 Sorry, who's Bonney?

[@whitemonkey7932]

Banaman talking about police uniforms? Didn't he get prosecuted for mincing around in his police uniform?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@whitemonkey7932 You may well be right. I do remember that one of them used to attend public demos wearing a police uniform.

[@whitemonkey7932]

@@streetvideoreviewer he had a vid up where as usual he was being obnoxious while collecting his seized equipment and was dealt with by a very senior officer who was amazingly patient

[@BANAMAN]

Wrong again, all charges dropped, your both a couple of fools making wild assumptions. I have never been prosecuted for wearing a police uniform even though I have worn one in public on multiple occasions for filmmaking. Police Act 1996 section 90 was never breached 😂

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@BANAMAN I would suggest anybody who finds this thread should take a look at the offences in section 90(2) and (3) of the Police Reform Act 1996, paying attention to the way those sub-sections are worded, then compare it to the statement above in which Banaman admits that he has worn a police uniform in public. I understand he has done so on more than one occasion and videos show him being mistaken for a police officer by members of the public as a result.

[@BANAMAN]

@@streetvideoreviewer You can't even quote the correct act, I spelt it out for you and you tried gaslighting people to make them think it is the Police Reform Act 1996 when I don't believe it even exists unless you can point me to it? If you're going to quote the police reform act, it is 2002, make it clearer! Low IQ comes to mind, but hey ho, it's how it go... You obviously misread my comment clearly stating Police Act 1996 section 90 was never breached. The link is included below for your's and everybody else's quick reference and section (2) or section (3) was never enforceable because I complied with all sections including (1) (2) (3) and (4) Yes I wore police items that used to belong to the police. I admit it, lock me up and throw away the key... but you did not give your opinion why you think I broke the law so why would you automatically assume that the wearing of police uniforms and the possession of ex-police items is deemed an offence? I know why, because he is hoping you will draw your wrong conclusion and think I broke the law. The truth of the matter is this, he knows he can't refute this statement, so he is relying on people to make the wrong assumption! Here is the link to the correct legislation, not the Police Reform Act as he clearly thought I stated 🤣 He does make me laugh with his presumptions and obviously can't accept being wrong! This is the link to check Street Video Reviewer; www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90/enacted I remember agreeing to disagree with you over interpretation of public space, we left it at that and then you decided to make an almost 1 hr long video gaslighting and wasting your own time, people will make their own minds up, we do not need to prove anything to each other and so far, all you have highlighted is the fact that you have an opinion and interpretation just like I have. why you would waste your time making your second video is because you can't take the criticism and difference of opinions even though you spout it like you think you own it. Thanks for enlightening me more about the way you think, you are educating me more and more about dummy and how to spit one out 👍 Even Black Belt Barrister would agree that you can wear and own police costumes even ex police items so long as you comply with the legislation which I did 👍 In fact, I think Black Belt Barrister would make a great arbitrator in these points raised so far, public space, only a trespasser when informed your a trespasser, the wearing of police uniforms in public... Truth is, I would be more inclined to think Black Belt Barrister could have an opinion that may put an end to some of these potty mouth interpretations if they exist 🤣 At the moment I am tolerating Street Video Reviewer, but soon I will just ignore him because he appears to be struggling with rational thought provocation! I expect one of three things to happen now as follows; He will ban me 🤣 He will reply to me 🤣 He will delete all my posts 🤣 But surely he won't bother making another video based on this reply about wearing police uniforms 🤔 I look forward to your reply because you love a challenge when it comes to learning other peoples opinions... He is certainly not short of criticising and insulting people, so lets see how he likes the reflections in this reply to his biased proclamations!

[@lucindafergusonart]

As far as I can tell Banaman is more of a Citizen Journalist than an Auditor or maybe a combination of both , I thought that about Curtis Media slightly mad investigations ( DJE MEDIA )where he comes up with what's happened then harasses everyone until everyone believes what everyone in comments said happened instead of what actually happened , then by the time its clear he is wrong he moves on to different county . So what's the difference between a Citizen Journalist and an Auditor ? I get it though i.e. you're summing up, its imperative that people exercise their own due diligence when watching Banaman or any Auditor in relation to what you can and cant do, is it wise to remove you're electric meter and place it on the outside wall ? Probably not.

[@dannycrotch5188]

Irrelevant is the mute that is not relevant, beware of the dog behind that open gate.

[@Tonystony1984]

That guy is division one 🔔 end

[@aireboat7988]

Potential League Champion...?

[@Tonystony1984]

@@aireboat7988 👍🏆🤗

[@three-phase562]

It gives an interesting insight into how these auditors think doesn't it. The law is extremely complex, it twists and turns and flops around like a fish out of water and takes a great deal of time and concentration to review and apply, that you seem to be able and desire to do to get an holistic understanding. The vast majority either can't or won't do that and end up cherry picking bits and pieces to justify their understanding and behaviour. They do seem to like the notion that because they can physically do something, it means that they are allowed to, and seem to have no concept of lawful and unlawful behaviour. I can imagine one comeback will be that the security hut is for vehicles and not pedestrians using the footpath, I have seen that notion from a number of auditors. At the end of the day, lawful behaviour requires a person to behave in a reasonable manner. There is nothing that stops me from breaking any law really, other than I understand what is right and wrong and maintain a basic respect for other people and their property. We perhaps need to be a little bit careful with labelling Ace Audits as a business. As far as I am aware, you only have to register with HMRC if you exceed £1,000 income annually from an activity. I don't know what the income level is with regard to KZbin viewing figures and at what point that kind of income would be achieved.

[@jons9721]

It's not as complex as people make out. If doing something the vast majority of people would think is extremely anti social is 99.99% of the time illegal. The police has general 'catch-all' laws for anti social behaviour. They don't need laws like 'photography in public is illegal for some public photography to be illegal. There aren't any magic loop holes. Filming generally on a street wouldn't be seen as anti social by most people, filming someone being carried into an ambulance is (and would be illega)

[@auditpundit1199]

@@jons9721 Filming on public streets is perfectly legal. With a few exceptions, your free to film who and what you like. When an auditor steps off the public street, onto a private property, it does become a complex matter. The auditors claim justification by means of the section 33 myth, and the fact that they're not breaking any law. Whereas, they tend to be ignorant of the rights of the landowner and the legitimate use of force empowered by trespass law.

[@three-phase562]

@@jons9721 Generally speaking for anti-social behaviour to be considered by the police / courts it has to be built around multiple occasions. They will very rarely act on one off instances. In the case of Ace Audits, I think it would be a stretch to say it is anti-social behaviour, she does remain calm and just states her case, albeit based upon misinterpretation of the law. Other 'auditors' are a lot more aggressive and deliberately antagonistic and in some instances there may be the potential for aggravated trespass and assault charges. In the UK, it is legal to film emergency services working in public places unless in carrying out that filming you obstructed them from doing their work, entered the work zone they had created or became abusive towards them. If the film of a person being treated was published, then that individual may have a privacy complaint, but it would be a civil matter between them and the publisher. It would be dealt with in a case by case basis, someone receiving superficial treatment and just walked into the ambulance may not have a claim. On the other hand, somebody seriously injured who the paramedics and cut clothes off to treat would have a much stronger claim.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@three-phase562 Ace Audits is paid for what she does, so she is a business for data protection purposes. That's what I said in the video. What you refer to is with regard to income tax, which, has absolutely nothing to do with this as we are talking here about data protection, not tax. Apart from that, you're mistaken anyway. Even when the Trading Allowance applies, an individual is still a business for tax purposes in the eyes of HMRC, it's just that he or she is allowed to not pay income tax.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@three-phase562 I more or less agree with everything you say there about public photography.

[@Alan_Watkin]

can i just say on the "reading writing to an advanced level" i slightly disagree (ish) here see i write in a manner that gives that impression me, i was gifted the wonderful inability of Dyslexia and as unlikely as it may seen from my scribbling's, it doesn't affect over understanding or intelligence, im not saying this is the case with our Banana-man here but you can't always judge someone from their writing

[@BANAMAN]

Thats right, you tell him, I don't care that someone has Dyslexia, but I also notice that Street Video Reviewer has not reflected over what you stated and at very least apologised to you for criticising people and their dyslexic problems, the mans a fraud in my view, no different to a fraudulent solicitor with dirty hands, but I am sure one day we will reach a point where we will discuss fraudulent solicitors and dirty hands! You made a great point, thank you for educating Street Video Reviewer and putting him in his place 👍

[@Alan_Watkin]

@@BANAMAN he has no need to appologise to me, i was only pointing that out about someones writing can't always be use to define intelligence. for instance how i write in no way resembles how i speak, vocabulary or other.... i dont really see how you can argue when he pulls up the law sections and talks through them clearly alot of the Audiors think they know law better that they actually do. without a law degree said field, come on a lot of these people a good few of them are thugs, are only out to get reactions for youtube clicks and know very little about actual law, it's not right goading members of the public till they lose there cool, its not a nice or fair thing to be doing, i get why some may do it with the police or even security but members or the public just trying to do their jobs..... Na

[@BANAMAN]

@@Alan_Watkin That was just my opinion about an apology, but it also extends to all the people who do suffer from dyslexia, the man thinks all his points are valid and fails to recognise that he is no solicitor! I don't argue with the guy, simply debate my point of view and use the same legislation to direct it word for word and meaning for meaning, and if you believe everything he states, that's your prerogative. Auditing if done in the right way, can be a good thing and if a professional is supposed to have good customer service skills for example, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the camera should not change their professional attitude. There are better ways to deal with auditors and a little bit of reeducation for businesses to take this on board, could go a long way in helping to not create a big fuss over a camera. It's not the camera that's the problem, it's the way people seem to think that the camera is a reason to then get unprofessional! My views and opinions will resonate with some, but not all. We live in a divided society and for all the haters out there of auditors, there are also lovers of auditors. You can please some of the people some of the time, but certainly not all of the people all of the time! Thank you for your reasonings.

[@tonyb1223]

@@BANAMAN Its the person behind the camera that is the problem, if you even understood why photographers melt into the background when taking pictures and are not confronting people by causing irritation and aggravation, which is covered in Article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act, something you should be following but don't, then you wouldn't have these issues. As for putting your opinion forward, considering that it has been explained to you without masking parts of the legislation that covers what is being discussed, you don't do that, SVR does, it is explained correctly, you just pick and choose what looks good without comprehending the full meaning of the Act of Law that you are quoting, this is either because you know you are wrong to start with or it doesn't suit your motive in the overall picture, either way your basics are wrong and if you try to build on a foundation that is wrong, everything else will also be wrong, and this is why auditors, being self appointed "upholders of the rights and laws of the people and photography" don't do that, they do the opposite, they oppress people's rights and laugh in the face of the law, because they know they will in most cases, get away with it.

[@ukwhitewitch]

​@BANAMAN I'd like to see your reply to Tony please...it was made two weeks ago, but you haven't yet explained your position!

[@19Neil67]

20:32 all auditors lie

[@TheGwentAuditorTGA]

Your understanding of GDPR being applicable to Auditors has already been thrown out by the ICO themselves, yet you continue to state that the ICO themselves are wrong about GDPR. Truth is you have nothing to back up your points on GDPR, I can understand from the Trespass point of view that you have stated, however to understand Aggravated Trespass you would need to study the case law, which generally takes more than someone refusing to leave.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@TheGwentAuditorTGA You are wrong. You are subject to data protection. The purpose of this video was to highlight why the reply from a case officer at the ICO was incorrect. You're just not listening. I have covered data protection over and over and over again on my channel and explained the law in detail with reference to a variety of circumstances. For your information, my subscriber complained about the incorrect ICO reply and he has received confirmation from the ICO that the position is as I say. You ARE subject to data protection - and you will be finding out soon enough what the implications are for you personally. As for aggravated trespass, it is always helpful to look at case law and I have. I don't usually go into that level of depth in my videos because I can only cover so much, and the law as stated in section 68 is clear enough. Auditors do commit aggravated trespass on a regular basis.