Right! Also the "escaping" bit only applies when a suspect is escaping "lawful" custody I.E. Under arrest, or in police custody.

🤡🤡🤣🤣🤣🤣 Classic

A corrupt or stupid cop? I can't decide.

You're.

Do-nuts have no sense, that's why they are Do-nuts.

If he had the powers to detain, then he would have detained, e.g., Section 1 of PACE. The fact he did not detain, means he did not have the power to detain.

He doesn't want to do that: he's a coward.

An rc hobbyist poises less danger.

​@@lamarw7757 poses

Tyrant logic lol

Copsplaining.

He wanted to detain him, but he had no legal premise to detain. Thus, using coercion and duress to make him stay.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, SCHEDULE 9, Section 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" Had he not given the officer any information than there would have a been an offence and the officer could have taken the drone away from him.

I thought you was right, but when you check the legislation, they do actually have the power to

​@@4TheRecord you're wrong

@@4TheRecord I think you have up to 7 days to provide the relevant information afaik. It's rushed legislation that goes against your human rights and I doubt would stand up in court if there was no other circumstances, incidents, endangerment, suspicion of an offence.

​​​@@4TheRecordyou're wrong, you need to learn the law.

Not for a sub-250 gram drone. @MrChipsFromAbove

100%. know the rules then claim against the rotten bastards who make false arrests. they need to be weeded out of the police force ASAP.

​@MrChipsFromAbove no. The police ascertained that it was under 250g in which case no crimes were committed. Hence no further information need be provided.

@MrChipsFromAbove What reasonable grounds did the officer have to suspect him? Even after showing the officer the drone with Operator ID displayed

@MrChipsFromAbove You mentioned it would be a lawful arrest. Only if the officer had reasonable grounds to ask for the info

The word "detained" means far from nothing.

They can detain if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a person has or is about to commit an offence. They need to state the section of law under which they are detained, the crime they are suspected of, and the grounds to suspect that crime. The only exception is carrying out a stop & search under Section 1. In this case, he did not state any section of law, or crime, or reasonable grounds for that crime, i.e., he had no grounds to lawfully detain.

You described the police perfectly: "what a joke". Nothing else needed

"peeler" now there's a word I haven't heard in decades

So would i.DJ would never give his ID as willingly as this weak man did.

@@Peter-gg1hx No, because they can only demand the OP ID if they suspect a person has committed an offence, e.g., the drone went out of line sight.

DJ would invite him to dinner🏳‍⚧

That's what I was thinking .

Mrchips Stop talking balls you 🤡

@MrChipsFromAbove he would have to state a specific law, and he had not broken any so yes there could be a claim for wrongful arrest.

Don't talk rubbish, troll @MrChipsFromAbove

@MrChipsFromAbove i agree, but he went on to ask his name etc. he knew zero about drones and the Op number applies to the owner of the drone not the flier although usually it will be the same person. I have both Operator and Flier ID.

schedule 9 (2) of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

@@PINACI Only if the flight and drone are subject to compliance to certain registration requirements for the flight, flying a sub 250 drone in open airspace doesn't fall under that as it doesn't need permission for the flight and doesn't need any special registration requirements for the said flight. This drone only needs an operator ID, the pilot doesn't need any cretification or training nor insurance for it unless it's for commercial purposes.

@@Phil-SandsOf course his drone requires a registration, what do you think and operator ID is ? its the number you get given by the CAA after you 'register' the drone, and his drone is required to be registered because it has a camera on it..... In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016- >>>> (a)article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator); > (b)article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);

@@PINACI you need to learn what this is before sprouting such crap.

@@Phil-Sands and for under 250g you dont need insurance even if using for commercial purposes.. its recemended but no law to say you must have insurance..

Not the section he has quoted. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/12/schedule/9/enacted According to the section the plod only has to suspect a flight has taken place. 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. As I said to someone above, it is as clear as mud.

Yeah, one of the worst audits I've seen, capitulated.

Mine too .

Policing is definitely at an all time low in the UK how can we respect them when this is how they do their job

I agree.And that is why i unsubscribed.

@@Peter-gg1hx I think he couldn’t have been more helpful unless he supplied the Vaseline.

Imagine trying to explain quantum mechanics to this knob

Exactly. Those two eyes could have been lasers.

Coward cops

Yes, and know the law more comprehensively.

@MrChipsFromAbove Exactly. A lot of these fools would end up having their drones taken from them and being arrested if they continued to fail to provide the details and would end up with a summary conviction to a fine in the end. Sometimes people have to learn the hard way with a criminal record instead of learning the laws beforehand.

Lots of 'Reasonable grounds' powers given there...

The piggy didn't lie, you can look up the laws yourself online. Ignorance of the law doesn't count as a defence against it. So you can't claim you didn't know to get out of being arrested.

ok lets get it right.. yo udo not need to register the drone.. you need to be registered as a operator of the drone if this is your drone.. and only need a flyer id if your flying someone elses sub 250g drone or a drone over 250g...... for the dji mini , mini 2 , mini 3. mini 3 pro and mini 4 pro he only needs operator id......

Well clearly your an expert and I know fuck all as a fully licenced UAV Pilot. The legislation changes almost weekly @@philldownes8685

@ukmedic .. You are wrong. Go back to the drawing board and learn the difference between an Operator ID and a Flyer ID and when each one is required, please.

Does it really matter it's useful to have both. Give it a rest and crawl back under your rock, I have been flying drones considerably longer than you I suspect@@painterman235

yeah infuriating to watch

to be fair the whole legislation is as clear as mud.

Great spot! Maybe the Thin Blue Line could be changed to the Thick Blue Line at least then it would be more accurate in its description of this plods IQ

spot on

Yep! Totally agree.

Both need reasonable grounds. Schedule 9 (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 for the flight, and (b)has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight. Subsection 1 lays out the ground work that constables require reasonable grounds in order to use powers conferred in Schedule 9. Hope this helps.

@@MrHater72Schedule 9 (2) only requires reasonable ground that a flight took place and that the drone used required registration. Schedule 9 (1) doesn't apply to his sub 250g drone. Schedule 8 require reasonable grounds of an "offence" before you can be order to land.

You have this one wrong. Those schedules don't apply to this size of drone under THOSE circumstances. Reading a schedule out of a series of rules can confuse. It's exactly what the police love doing. In simple terms... no details if NO CRIME SUSPECTED. In this instance ABSOLUTELY no crime took place.

very interesting stuff, thanks for sharing your knowledge, i hope you continue this discussion between yourselves here, so we can all be more informed of what applies in the situation shown in the video...@@PINACI

I have just read through this and you need to read it in conjunction with the Air navigation order 2016. This references checking the competency of the pilot under various sections of article 265, which seem to me to be aimed at specific drones. I'll read up a bit more when I have a spare 4 hrs 😂

@MrChipsFromAbove only if they suspect you of a crime.....

@MrChipsFromAbove hhahahhahahhahah

Correct so when shown the drone is 259g that should have been the end of his investigation. The constable obtained the proof that no crime took place making anymore investigation going forward null and void due to the fact he had no evidence or suspicion of a crime being committed anymore.

Unfortunately, drone flyers now have to give over the operators ID and matching name, even if they’re not suspected of committing an offence with the drone. also, apparently an officer is now allowed to quickly inspect the drone to make sure there’s no attachments added to take it over 250g. I wasn’t 100% sure of the situation when I made this video, but I’ve since been sent lots of information. it’s also interesting to see how police act when someone is pretty chilled (tired from a 3 hour walk 😆) they often attempt to push the boundaries a little more 👍 thanks for watching though.

Only if they know that the drone has a camera (not a toy) and they will only know if you either tell them or tell someone else who informs them.

Not all drones, I have a Hubsan Zino Mini Pro (sub 250g drone) and no such restrictions exist.

The auditor's drone is NOT classed as a toy as it has a camera, a 'toy' does not need an operator ID.

operator id not flyer id

@@philldownes8685 😂😂 you are correct. I always get them mixed up.