As I’ve mentioned before, these people are not auditors.
The YouTuber who has been warned by police after a confrontation with ex-Apprentice star Luisa Zissman is part of a worrying new trend known as ‘auditing’ that sees creators harass innocent landowners and security guards to create controversial videos.
Harry Holton is part of the ‘auditors’ craze that has swept across Britain and has previously attempted to fly his drone over Premier League side Aston Villa’s training ground.
The vlogger’s H Audit social media channels are littered with angry confrontational videos of failed attempts to take pictures while he is on private property.
They are designed to attract hundreds of thousand of clicks and can bring in hefty advertising revenue when viewed on YouTube and TikTok.
Holton’s recent offering where he targeted mother-of-three Luisa, 37, on her sprawling Grade II-listed country estate has already clocked more than four million views on TikTok alone.
But the Apprentice star has fought back and last night is thought to have travelled nearly two hours to track down his home address.
As mentioned in the article, frauditing has a history in the USA, and a number have been arrested and convicted of crimes in their attempts to hold people to account. This has something been hilariously walking into private property and demanding the right to film. They seem to think that they are entitled to do this. While the law does not prevent filming in public – and nor should it – these people go one step further in that they harass people going about their work and in some cases invading people’s privacy in places like social security offices or post offices.
The video-makers say they are checking up on organisations’ performance including health and safety compliance while also asserting the right to film and take photographs on public land – and their clips can bring in hefty advertising revenue when watched on sites such as YouTube or TikTok.
I can’t speak for TikTok, but YouTube does demonetise these people if there is enough fuss made. As afar as checking H&S compliance, these organisations will be subject to audits carried out by people who have the relevant competence to do so, not some jumped up, self-appointed jerk looking for clicks.
Luisa then threatens to ‘get the gun and shoot your drone down’ if he goes ahead.
‘I will shoot your drone,’ she says.
‘We have a gun, we have a gun licence. We shoot deers, we shoot foxes, we shoot rabbits. And drones. Because you are flying your drone over my private property.’
Asked by the YouTuber if she has done it before, Luisa says: ‘No one has been stupid enough to come fly a drone… but yeah Ian [the estate manager] has actually shot a drone before.
Regardless of the legality of doing so, the police won’t help the landowner who is being harassed, so shooting it down is the only viable option. If these people come onto your property, the police are minutes away when seconds count, so Manhandling them off the property and worry about it later is likely to be the outcome eventually as people become tired of this behaviour.
I can write a 2,000 word essay on this – but I’ll try and abridge it to
“Publicly threatening to violate both the law and the Conditions of your Firearms Certificate usually leads to an immediate revocation of said Certificate”.
Muppets on both sides.
Indeed.
Though did she threaten to violate the law? I’m not an expert of firearms law, not having one.
She didn’t threaten him, only the drone. Which is property damage and a civil matter. She could argue she felt threatened by it.
But she would have had to go and get the gun, so premeditation. And she said she would get someone else, which is conspiracy.
As you say, Muppets.
If you’re someone with a certificate, I would have thought you’d be very careful about what you say about it, since the police are very eager to take them away at the slightest hint of transgression.
Doesn’t matter to the Stasi. They simply revoke the certificate and refuse to renew it. They don’t have any should issue laws it is all up to each different county and they all have different rules because they make them up as they go along.
Not long ago the people looking after the FACs were shooters themselves now they are limp wristed bureaucrats that actually get delight in turning people down. I had one telling me of her experience refusing a cert to a guy because he argued with her. One of the questions they have is if you are belligerent or not. So argue and you are out. I was told that the previous person was too lax and she was there to fix it.
I asked how many people the previous approver had approved that went on to break the law and she was surprised but said none, but her predecessor was too lax and approved too many.
They can get away with it because like everything else it is all feelings now and you have no appeal.
Fucking wusses, the lot of them.
“Did she threaten to violate the law?”
Well, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 Section 1 (destroying or damaging property), Section 2 (threats to destroy or damage property) and Section 3 (possessing anything with intent to damage or destroy property) seems to be applicable here.
Additionally, the FAC* or SGC granted will have conditions applied by the granting Police Force. These will, at a minimum, cover where the specific firearms listed on the Certificate can be used and for what purpose. They are written in the form “The listed firearms can ONLY be used…”.
At face value, the threat issued is to shoot down a drone flying over her own property – firstly she needs to have Permission from the Owner of land over which she intends to shoot (a “permission”). Note the future tense! Whilst it’s implicit that she has permission to shoot over her own land, the issuing Police Force of the FAC/SGC has to know about this in advance and agree that usage of specific firearms on the land is compatible with public safety. If it’s not explicitly allowed in the Conditions, it’s a breach of the Conditions.
Secondly, the two reasons** for granting an FAC/SGC are for target shooting or shooting live quarry (vermin control or hunting). Again, the Conditions will explictly allow a use for specific firearms. Shooting at a 3rd party’s drone is not recognised target sport, nor is it hunting – so this would also be a breach of the Conditions.
The Firearms Act 1968 (Chapter 27, Part 1, Section 1, Clause 2) says that “It is an offence for a person to fail to comply with a condition subject to which a firearm certificate is held by him”.
Whilst it’s probably going to be a shotgun used against a drone, as it’s easier to hit with a cartridge full of shot rather than a single bullet, if they attempt to use a rifle to down it then firing into the air (even on Permissioned land) is inherently dangerous behaviour and will contravene a raft of other Acts for the Police to draw charges from.
* And there must be an FAC if they “hunt deer” as it it not legal to do that with a shotgun in the UK. There may also be a Shotgun Certificate, as a separate issue.
** Some Vets are licensed for Humane Dispatch weapons, but this is a vanishingly small proportion of Certificates issued!
These idiots seem to think that because they’re in a public place, they have a right to film.
They don’t.
Other laws take precedence over that right.
You can stand on a street and film your neighbours teenage daughter getting changed through her window.
You can’t follow someone around all day and film them, even if they’re in a public place – it’s harassment. Though that rule changes if you’re a public figuRe because the privacy expectations change for public figures.
Black Bwlt Barrister has talked about this a few times on his channel and what constitutes a public place and what doesn’t.
Usually the courts judge on public interest.
If you film from the public street just to see what people are up to, they won’t be impressed. If you do it because you suspect foul play and find someone feeding a body into a wood chipper, then they’ll be ok with it.
Erm, that’s meant to read that you can’t stand on the street filming your neighbours teenage daughter…
Heck of a Typo
“Thou shalt commit adultery” (An early edition of the King James Bible); you’re in good company.
There’s a Golden Age science fiction story in which a scientist develops a way to watch what anyone else is doing (an unintended consequence of looking for a way to view past events); the predicted consequences have dire implications for individual privacy. (‘The Dead Past: Isaac Asimov, 1956).
It’s frightening to think, while it was once purely fiction, we are now well on the way to that particular dystopia – along with so many others – with an addition Asimov odd not foresee; the potential for individuals to monetise the intrusion through social media.
i watch some of the ‘audit’ things. Some are actually ok, in my opinion.. But others are diabolical. The attitudes of both sides, but often the frauditor is worse. They say they want yo expose tyrants…whilst being the biggest tyrant themselves, out-tyranting the other party entirely. They never give in, to anything that is ‘their right’. Never, no matter what.