*UPDATE 2
16 January 2023
Complaint number 2 and counting...! YouTube video on this link; https://youtu.be/mnDD5JIYpKk BANAMAN is not responsible for professional peoples attitudes, or lack of it. Also, as a reminder, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, something worth remembering for future reference! Please also note, if you want to preserve privacy in public spaces, even public spaces on private property, this is a third party responsibility, not BANAMAN's. BITCHUTE will be the place for unblurred content when privacy complaints are received on YouTube! After all, how else can tyranny be exposed if they are going to try and censor it...
*End of update 2.
*UPDATE 1
13 January 2023
#censor #railstrike BANAMAN's #sociology news report received #privacy complaint from the railway station manageress. In response by BANAMAN, the privacy complaint was denied privacy on this video above, but not on the YouTube video on this link; https://youtu.be/mnDD5JIYpKk which at the time of this update, had over 3k views. BITCHUTE is the secondary channel were videos to controversial for YouTube , end up. While you are reading this, why don't you check out hundreds more videos from BANAMAN on his YouTube channel, plenty more controversy over there. Don't forget to subscribe then you won't miss the strange unorthodox, Sociological, BANAMAN Reports uploaded usually on a weekly basis; https://www.youtube.com/@BANAMAN
Please note, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space, and if you want to preserve privacy, this is a third party responsibility, not BANAMAN's.
I will include legislation link at the end of this update for a reference start point. BANAMAN's reasoning for being at the railway station was for lawful purpose and as controversial as this may be to some, it is not to others! Therefore, loitering allegations are allegations BANAMAN would have been happy for a judge to consider. Also, BANAMAN was asked to leave an area deemed a walkway to the Sheffield tram stop at the other side of the railway.
Police officer quoted bylaw 13 regarding station manageress request to leave. BANAMAN chose to leave in order to deescalate the situation.
Bylawys should only be used for legitimate lawful reasons. It would be reasonable to assume, that the railway station has a walkway as defined in legislation; The Highways Act 1980 - section( 31)
The section of walkway were the interaction took place, was deemed part of the walkway over to the Sheffield tram stop for Sheffield trams, BANAMAN was not loitering as defined in legislation and evidence is shown in the video.
Trespass at this location was also not taking place at the point were the interaction between station manageress, and what appeared to be a grumpy BT Police officer with a beard he may or may not smoke as the question was not answered!
Is this a matter for a judge to consider when the deemed walkway had a direction to the left and a straight on as you leave the railway station over the walkway from the Sheffield tram stop?
For quick reference with the question, the Sheffield tram stop was over the other side of the railway!
Highways Act 1980
Section 31
31.-(1) Where a way over any land, other than a way of such a character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication, has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it.
You can read further by clicking this link; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/pdfs/ukpga_19800066_en.pdf
None of this information is legal advice, and should not be construed as such!
*End of update 1.
Original Post
When the station manageress puts in a privacy complaint because she reflected on her own actions in the video, it's good to know indirectly that she has recognised she has no confidence to put her hand to the conduct. I would say face, but it was the hand in this case. There is no expectation of privacy in a public space whether on private property or not, This was a public area for people to venture and see people as they pass and go. The only problem appears to be the lack of professionalism in the way this challenging situation was dealt with. The statement of not being bothered, should never be used on a professional level and as clearly now identified, bothered is what should have been at the time!
