?

Hi Texas, have you watched Reggie Photo.

Texas loving UK vids 😊👍

I think shes from Texas not called Texas

@@andrewgilbertson5356 you’re crazy mate!

As someone who does, and has been doing the job u saw here (Security Forces), just because the gate where IDs are checked is further up, doesn’t mean they don’t have jurisdiction outside of it. The base I’m currently at, we have 2 spots where we have proprietary jurisdiction outside the base, where there is no gate, and public can access. There are three types of jurisdiction: exclusive, proprietary, and concurrent. All Air Force installations have a demarcation line (or are supposed to) which shows when u are on the property. At my current base, that is about 100 yards prior to getting to the gate. So don’t just assume that because u haven’t passed an ID checkpoint that u aren’t on military property.

Why ? The camera?

They're always unfailingly polite, just very noticeable compared to UK police and military. No point auditing them, they don't get flustered and don't rise to anything. I used to live near a US base in Suffolk and everyone loved them...polite, charming, professional guys and girls.

making polite conversation to give the police time to arrive

NO RESPECT. They're foreign terrorists committing & guilty of horrendous war crimes & crimes against humanity, & unwelcome invaders on sovereign UK soil interfering with OUR inalienable freedoms.

@@GiBMan70 yet you watch American audits and that is the opposite of what happens here.

@ubiquitousubiquitous3843 Incorrect, SOCAP has not removed any of the protections given to military establishments, those still stand, so you've got it wrong there, they are still all covered under section 1 and 3 of the 1911 OSA, which is about to be replaced and guess what? Even more non military (that being MOD buildings) have been added to the prohibited places, the penalties have also been amended, from removing people from the area, new prison terms and fines (or both), updated terminology for UAV's, video and photography, so that people cannot fail to understand it or the repercussions attached to the new laws.

@ubiquitousubiquitous3843 Section 1 and 3 do cover trespassing, and the NSB has been passed, its just waiting for Royal Assent.

@ubiquitousubiquitous3843 It does apply because you don't understand what it is telling you, you don't get to choose what is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state, the state get to do that, and I have over the past put plenty of information up from legal sources that back me up, including examples given by said legal sources. And then you also seem to miss out section 2? "On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State" This section is very one sided, you don't have to be spying to be done under the act, you can read this>>> after downloading it, plenty of information in there regarding what is and isn't legal. white paper 375 official secrets act

Dipped in tea before he got there....soggy is the word 😆

Yer....looks dodgy...dosent conform to any uniform I can find but military po po can be a bit gung ho around these bases. Horsham seems to be the hot one at the moment.....be careful if you visit they hate cameras with a venom.

Good question actually 🤔

@Open Paranormal I don't think soldiers have diplomatic immunity pursay

NO THEY CAN'T

@Open Paranormal interesting

@Open Paranormal Actually only certified members of the US armed forces are allowed to carry government issued fire arms on any US or joint military installation. However we are not allowed to bring our firearms off base when we are off duty overseas. Security forces have jurisdiction inside the installation and a few meters outside the installation. If however we need public authority we can always dispatch civilian police to help out with a citizen of the country that does not have access to the installation. We do indeed have civilian contractors who are citizens of the UK and only those have access on base. Just because you are a citizen of your country does not mean you have a right to enter the installation without permission and if you do so Security forces are allowed to use force and apprehend or detain a civilian and hand them over to local authorities. It is up to the locals though to decide whether or not to charge them with a crime or trespassing, depending on the severity of the case. Hope this clears up some of the confusion.

The missiles being removed from RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth had nothing to do with peace protestors. They were removed simple because the cold war ended and the global threat no longer existed. In fact you could argue that the protestors and the CND movement in general helped lengthen the cold war as their actions emboldened the Warsaw pact and as history has shown was partly funded by the USSR.

@@johncallaghan2205 the missiles were removed because of the INF treaty signed not long after they arrived.I know this because I was stationed there.

Quite a bit grey legal techical issue. Legally no one (person) can have (on person) a firearm on British soil unless licenced (authorised by British Police). Next issue is called discharge of a firearm on British soil. Techncally self defence rules applies. This means, a good reason for having a firearm in your posession, next a good reason why you discharged. Now military land RAF or USAF would come under MOD Investigation jurisictions before British normal police. Off base would be normal police jurisictions first but then SIS would take over. Issue is where the MOD land boundries are not the fence line. Now your question, can a US soldier carry a gun off base, technically no. Did these soldiers leave the base boundries, no. If in an emergency they needed to, the Base Commander would be told, so would British Police Control and the reason why and the police to attend too. Now super grey area in British law.... these soldiers identified themselves as Security Forces (not MP) so they would have good reason to tell a HMCTS Judge if in an emergency to slightly leave base with a gun in order to secure the base. They would also have harministation agreement with UK Government defining engagements. This does not mean a armed US Solider can leave base to go to the local postoffice or shop, or drive off the base with "wearing a firearm or active firearm" (unless having chitty saying they can) as that is not a reasonable reason in their job role, so no. Again using (discharging) a firearm is a different question to wearing holding one on person. Factual answer is no. Legal answer, is grey area but engagement agreement proberly exists. Reality answer, is possible with a valid reason or chitty.

@Irigouis88 Yeah, they call it airside.

They can in the line of duty

@ubiquitousubiquitous3843 Glad you agree then....

@ubiquitousubiquitous3843 Again so glad you agree then.

I've been a few places. MeXiCo, Morocco, US, Eastern Europe ... Everyone I've spoken to would back the military over police to back the people.

I do the same job in the military, been all over the world. We train our guys to respect our host nation counterparts. We obviously don’t want to be rude as guests when they want us there. Obviously there are outlying cases. But in uniform, it is instilled in everyone at the very start of basic training to treat everyone with respect. This was no surprise to be by the SF. I can’t wait to get stationed in Europe again

It is a British base built by us in ww2 but just least to tje us atm

About 10 mins in, maybe 11

RUBBISH

Read the highway code relating to STOP signs on the highway, you seem to be getting confused with GIVE WAY signs.

its not american soil its British soil its operated by the USAF

These guys are Air Force not Navy. So they don't care.

what ?.

Thank you for the info! Love it when I find out these little trinkets of knowledge 👌

There was a bunch went to the gate at area 51 and filmed, nothing happened other than the guards posing and laughing.

@@roscothesecond6722 thats a lie lol

@@zcharged8294 prove it a lie, lol

@@roscothesecond6722 well you tell me the video name to search then, lol

@@zcharged8294 I have better things to do than yenta with you over this, buh-bye.

Well we're all entitled to our own opinions but I'm glad you like my stuff! 😅

@Irigouis88 Yes but you would find the reaction of the guards particularly interesting at Welford.....I,ve guarded nuclear stores and the rules of engagement...(shooting someone dead) are very different.....Barford is not run by the USAF, and has not been for a long long time...Nor the CIA and that leaves??? begins with N.....and they can find out the last time you kissed your boyfriend or took a dump before you get back to your car.

@Irigouis88 It's the security levels you don't see that are important...but I am glad that you are so well informed.........take a walk around the wire at Barford.....don't look at who comes to confront you...look for the guys that stay well back. Usually big black SUVs (or they were a couple of years ago).

The backwards flag, or mirrored flag, simulates a soldier running forward in the early battles, making the flag fly backwards.

@@Crashawsome I should complain

Yes, its a bit hillarious to use it as its only for accessing a building for the likes of deliveries by using a path or driveway (postie, milkman, paperboy etc), walking through a gate that is open onto private land is tresspass, the fence and barbed wire sort of give you a clue, and the difference is that on military installations its not civil tresspass but criminal.

@@Crashawsome Right, as you have most of that totally incorrect, lets correct you. Implied right of access has nothing to do with presumption in favour of public access, nada, zero, nothing, its a totally different issue about the access to MOD land when there are public footpaths crossing it, the implied right of access is basically this:- A right of way may be implied where it is necessary for the reasonable use of a property. This basically means that just walking through an open gate because its open gives you no right what so ever to do so, you only have a right to access a property on some form of business with the owner, be this a post man, milk man, delivery man, paperboy etc, that is what an "implied right of access" is, so they can access a property without fear of trespass. MOD land on the other hand has a right to access if using a public footpath or right of way, these can be closed if there is live firing going on, they may be open if there is dry training but as with any crossing of MOD land, you must stick to the footpaths due to any ordnance that could be lying around, and you must not remove anything found lying around either. If the red flags or lights are visible then you must not access the land due to the above life firing/training. In this above respect, the MOD also give prior notice to the land being closed for live firing, its available on the internet if you wish to look up any area where there is public access onto MOD land. Now, in respect to the "open gate", its plain trespass, but as its an MOD site, its not a civil trespass matter, its a criminal trespass matter, if you cannot get that the 12+ foot fence with razor wire on top isn't a hint, then those accessing it are pretty stupid, it's not hard to see what a fence is for in the first place, plus as its private property, the use of camera's or video equipment is also banned unless specific and prior authorisation is granted by the landlord or landowner.

@@Crashawsome Lol, said like a true idiot who does zero research and thinks they know it all 😄 You've just made yourself look stupid to the world.

Good thing that was Air Force and not the army. Leave Sgt Ace alone please

@@aidanholt9868 ah, fits in cockpits