ROY the Greenhat ( My Hero)

[IDIOT]

YouTube has a 'privacy' policy. Basically if someone is uniquely identifiable and they don't want to appear on the site they can fil a privacy complaint.

Name, work organization is enough to trigger a privacy complaint. If a complaint is lodged the uploader gets a message to remove the content voluntarily or file a dispute.

Easiest way to deal with this is to mute their name if an whenever they say it to avoid any privacy complaints after uploading to YouTube.

[Hercule Parrot]

My misunderstanding then, based on what I was told, obviously by someone who didn't know. Still, if they don't want the calls recorded, their call, literally.

Absolutely. But the problem is that they want to talk to Roy. They have some kind of youth probation thing on his son, which presumably involves meetings and interviews over a certain period of time. If Roy Snr and Roy Jnr have right to record these discussions and they choose to exercise it, then the council youth justice either have to accept that or leave them alone.

Leaving them alone would be a failure to carry out the court order, and they would have egg on their faces if they did that. Also every juvenile criminal under probation would hear about it, and they would all start recording their meetings. It would be a golden ticket if they could scare officials away just by showing them a mobile phone...

Seems to me that the council youth justice have to accept this is the modern world for better or worse. The Police have cameras stuck in their faces at every incident now, it's a fact of life. It has become an important factor in moderating police misconduct, because they have to remember to behave themselves. Same for this council department - they just have to do their job, fairly and politely, and stop worrying about things they can't control.

In this one particular aspect Roy is just standing by his rights, although comparisons to Rosa Parkes may be premature...

[longdog]

Seems to me that the council youth justice have to accept this is the modern world for better or worse.

I think this is something all organisations are going to have to adapt to whether they like if or not. The technology to record telephone conversations is ubiquitous and it's not just the fringe lunatics who are recording telephone conversations it's also perfectly ordinary members of the public who are sick of call centres saying one thing and then doing another.

I have had occasion to record calls to utility companies and government departments as evidence that the fu**ers were saying one thing and then doing another and I'm hardly a member of the awkward brigade... Well... I am but even so it's a useful tool in the fight against genuine incompetence.

[Forsyth]

My understanding (which I accept may well be incorrect), is that they have the right to record a telephone call so long as they have the permission of one of the callers (that is to say, they are not intercepting the call), but not to distribute it to others without the permission of both parties.

Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me?

No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ ... rvfaq3.htm

If they are in a public place and there is no expectation of privacy (which would be normal, with some exceptions) then they may record and distribute the recording, though rules on harassment may apply. In a building to which the public have access then their right to record (and, indeed, their access to the building) may be restricted. The fact that the building is owned by the council does not give them the right to enter every part of it at any time of the day or night, nor does it mean they can use the premises to hold a sleepover or a rave. Similarly, if they are told that they are not allowed to record and then do so, it is my understanding that they would become trespassers and could be removed.

It is not illegal to take photographs or video footage in public places unless it is for criminal or terrorist purposes.

There will be places where you have access as a member of the public, but will have to ask permission or may be prevented altogether. These could include stately homes, museums, churches, shopping malls, railway stations and council / government buildings. You need to check the situation out on a case by case basis.
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q717.htm

[IDIOT]

It's about being fair with folk bottom line.

Some worker on bugger an an hour, just wants to graft and get the bills paid without the likes of Roy sticking their name, job title and office location all over YouTube. Not that he gets a million views per video but all the same even if the worker slips up in a comment he/she doesn't deserve having their name up somewhere where they didn't sign up to.

Harassment calls from ambulance chasers are different fodder in my book, name and shame so people can add the company phone number to their blocked list.

Roy just seems to pick the wrong fights with the wrong people. I don't know what he gets out of it other than his YouTube 'fame' 50 views per video-mostly from here.

[Joinder]

I agree upthread. It's always some poor bod on the counter, traffic warden, security who get plastered over YouTube for abuse and threats.
Must be a worry if you live in the local community and can be identified.
Some people just go out and film in places where they just know they will eventually be questioned and so create a drama for their channel
Some American with the inevitable YouTube channel has been flying his drone over prisons and is flabbergasted when wardens come out to question him about his actions.

[Joinder]

I agree upthread. It's always some poor bod on the counter, traffic warden, security who get plastered over YouTube for abuse and threats.
Must be a worry if you live in the local community and can be identified.
Some people just go out and film in places where they just know they will eventually be questioned and so create a drama for their channel
Some American with the inevitable YouTube channel has been flying his drone over prisons and is flabbergasted when wardens come out to question him about his actions.

The channel is "captaindistrictcopblock" if anyone is interested, not relevant to this thread, but amusing anyway

[FatGambit]

I'd imagine it'd be quiet hard to lift off with an inmate hanging on the drone lol.

[PeanutGallery]

In some of these I can understand the photographers position, which is that they are technically doing something legal and while pushing right up to the boundary of what the law allows are careful to try and not step over it. To that extent I often find the reaction to be exaggerated and a sign of an endemic paranoia (especially in America) regarding law enforcement and their interactions with citizens. Of course further discussion on that topic would be politicking and lead to disharmony.

However some of these stunts, such as flying the drone over the prison, is operating in an area where the law hasn't caught up with technology yet. I would suggest that an amendment to law, allowing for locations to designate certain areas at certain altitudes no fly zones, or no remotely piloted aircraft zones would curb the practice.

I don't think we can really have an objection if someone is doing something the law does not prohibit. It may be unfortunate that it is a legitimate course of conduct, but until it is outlawed it must be considered a valid pursuit. At the same time a lot of people are easily swayed to paranoia about having their personal details published. Very little will happen, but objecting to Roy is only going to encourage the opposite behaviour, I would suggest inviting him to film and removing the controversy about it. He is only filming in order to get you to tell him to stop.

[PeanutGallery]

I'd imagine it'd be quiet hard to lift off with an inmate hanging on the drone lol.

It's more that drones are routinely being used to smuggle drugs and other contraband into prisons. A drone may not be able to carry a man, but it could carry enough Heroin to make someone a very tidy profit on the inside.

[Skeleton]

In some of these I can understand the photographers position, which is that they are technically doing something legal and while pushing right up to the boundary of what the law allows are careful to try and not step over it. To that extent I often find the reaction to be exaggerated and a sign of an endemic paranoia (especially in America) regarding law enforcement and their interactions with citizens. Of course further discussion on that topic would be politicking and lead to disharmony.

However some of these stunts, such as flying the drone over the prison, is operating in an area where the law hasn't caught up with technology yet. I would suggest that an amendment to law, allowing for locations to designate certain areas at certain altitudes no fly zones, or no remotely piloted aircraft zones would curb the practice.

I don't think we can really have an objection if someone is doing something the law does not prohibit. It may be unfortunate that it is a legitimate course of conduct, but until it is outlawed it must be considered a valid pursuit. At the same time a lot of people are easily swayed to paranoia about having their personal details published. Very little will happen, but objecting to Roy is only going to encourage the opposite behaviour, I would suggest inviting him to film and removing the controversy about it. He is only filming in order to get you to tell him to stop.

The CAA regulate drone use in the UK, and although unclear in certain areas the rules are clear in regard to structures and people. I only found this out because we had one wise ass who thought it was ok to fly his UAV next to a busy international airport to get happy snaps of the planes.

You can not fly one within 150 metres of a congested area and 50 metres of a person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the pilot. You also are not free to film people as you see fit. Your also restricted to 400M height and 500M horizontally, ie, in sight. Not controlling them through a GPS via a monitor etc

A great deal of the wonderful footage on YT of drones buzzing around Blackpool Tower etc is actually being filmed illegally.

[PeanutGallery]

That is the state in the UK, however the drone pilot is over in the USA and the law their may be different. Then again I'm not up on the specifics of aviation law and certainly would bow to Skeletons greater level of experience, being that I understand he works in the field.

[NG3]

The CAA regulate drone use in the UK, and although unclear in certain areas the rules are clear in regard to structures and people. I only found this out because we had one wise ass who thought it was ok to fly his UAV next to a busy international airport to get happy snaps of the planes.

You can not fly one within 150 metres of a congested area and 50 metres of a person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the pilot. You also are not free to film people as you see fit. Your also restricted to 400M height and 500M horizontally, ie, in sight. Not controlling them through a GPS via a monitor etc

A great deal of the wonderful footage on YT of drones buzzing around Blackpool Tower etc is actually being filmed illegally.

We've had that in Nottingham too

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingha ... story.html

A security guard who flew a drone over top sports grounds across the UK to film Premier League games for his own YouTube channel has been fined £1,800.

Nigel Wilson, of Rockingham Grove, Bingham, pleaded guilty to nine counts of failure to comply with air regulations when he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday.

The 42-year-old attached cameras to his robot aircraft and hovered over matches after honing his skills in his back garden, the court heard.

Wilson filmed Nottingham Forest in action at the City Ground, as well as matches at the Etihad Stadium, the Emirates, Anfield Stadium, Derby City stadium and the Britannia Stadium. He also uploaded footage of Big Ben and Buckingham Palace on to his channel.

[Skeleton]

The CAA regulate drone use in the UK, and although unclear in certain areas the rules are clear in regard to structures and people. I only found this out because we had one wise ass who thought it was ok to fly his UAV next to a busy international airport to get happy snaps of the planes.

You can not fly one within 150 metres of a congested area and 50 metres of a person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the pilot. You also are not free to film people as you see fit. Your also restricted to 400M height and 500M horizontally, ie, in sight. Not controlling them through a GPS via a monitor etc

A great deal of the wonderful footage on YT of drones buzzing around Blackpool Tower etc is actually being filmed illegally.

We've had that in Nottingham too

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingha ... story.html

A security guard who flew a drone over top sports grounds across the UK to film Premier League games for his own YouTube channel has been fined £1,800.

Nigel Wilson, of Rockingham Grove, Bingham, pleaded guilty to nine counts of failure to comply with air regulations when he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday.

The 42-year-old attached cameras to his robot aircraft and hovered over matches after honing his skills in his back garden, the court heard.

Wilson filmed Nottingham Forest in action at the City Ground, as well as matches at the Etihad Stadium, the Emirates, Anfield Stadium, Derby City stadium and the Britannia Stadium. He also uploaded footage of Big Ben and Buckingham Palace on to his channel.

I know a guy who loves his drone, more than his wife according to her, and he gets very irate at people such as the idiot you mention. The drone community are well aware that the odd few are ruining it for the rest and tighter restrictions are coming because of them.

[Skeleton]

That is the state in the UK, however the drone pilot is over in the USA and the law their may be different. Then again I'm not up on the specifics of aviation law and certainly would bow to Skeletons greater level of experience, being that I understand he works in the field.

Peanut the laws in America are still being written but basically the FAA like the CAA will have the lead. They were accused of lagging behind other countries who said "treat like a real aircraft, they follow those rules, plus some special ones," but one can easily see why. America as usual is thinking outside the box, News co-operations are a fine example, replace helicopter with drone get same footage at far cheaper cost. The FAA have released a set of guidelines that are very similar to the UK, but that is all they are so far, guidelines. The FAA are trying to make places such as Washington D.C. a "no drone zone" following several incidents at the White House and flying them out of National Parks is already not allowed. It is a lot more complicated in America and i am guessing that you will end up with Local Govt making the rules overseen by the FAA.

Please do not bow to me btw, i have learnt far more off your postings than you ever will off mine. Aircraft just happen to be my thing.

[FatGambit]

I'd imagine it'd be quiet hard to lift off with an inmate hanging on the drone lol.

It's more that drones are routinely being used to smuggle drugs and other contraband into prisons. A drone may not be able to carry a man, but it could carry enough Heroin to make someone a very tidy profit on the inside.

Don't tell Peter, he might try to drop ship a WeRe chequebook to Ceylon when he's banged up so he can recruit some inmates

[PeanutGallery]

Please do not bow to me btw, i have learnt far more off your postings than you ever will off mine. Aircraft just happen to be my thing.

Meh. I'm nobody special and lets not start pretending that I am. I have always taken it that the mark of intelligence is not specifically what you know, but being aware of what you don't and when faced with a scenario that asks a question you cannot answer being prepared to seek advice from someone more qualified.

Aviation is certainly your thing and world of warships, therefore it is logical that I should listen to your opinion and learn from your experience in this field than boorishly show my ignorance by talking from the position of idiocy.

[schismatrix]

A new attempt to get himself arrested from our latest legal scholar. It will all be fine though, because Roy knows his rights and all about signage laws and copyright and what applies to a man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmhsc_mWcJA

[vampireLOREN]

A new attempt to get himself arrested from our latest legal scholar. It will all be fine though, because Roy knows his rights and all about signage laws and copyright and what applies to a man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmhsc_mWcJA

This man is wonderful......always leaves you wanting more.

[Joinder]

A new attempt to get himself arrested from our latest legal scholar. It will all be fine though, because Roy knows his rights and all about signage laws and copyright and what applies to a man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmhsc_mWcJA

This man is wonderful......always leaves you wanting more.

A national treasure....the parting shot where he called the guy "shifty " was priceless.