On this bitterly cold wintery day, I bring some news that will hopefully warm the cockles of your heart.
A prominent social media auditor has had his wings clipped by the court.
If anyone isn't familiar with social media auditing and Community Protection Notices (CPNs) then they might like to refer to my earlier articles for a bit of context.
A CPN can be issued by the police (or local authority) to an individual or business whose conduct is unreasonable and has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in a particular locality. That conduct does not need to be criminal in its own right, but breach of a CPN is a criminal offence.
I should also say that YouTuber Street Video Reviewer, who opposes the banal pastime of social media auditing, has provided the material for this article. I am grateful to him for his endeavours in this regard.
Philip Scott, 64, of Impala Way, Hull, was convicted of eight offences of failing to comply with the conditions of a CPN when he appeared at Leeds Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 16th September 2025.
Failure to comply with the conditions of a CPN is an offence under section 48(1) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It has a maximum sentence of a fine at level 4 (£2,500), but more significantly allows the court the opportunity to make a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO), should the prosecution successfully make such an application.
Scott is the "brains" behind the BP Visits YouTube channel, through which he engages in social media auditing. He travels to various business and Government premises, positions himself at the gate, films whatever he can see and flies his drone over the top.
Most auditors pretend to carry out their activities for the noble purpose of defending the right of public photography. However, what really motivates them is a desire to provoke a response, thereby generating clickbait content that they can monetise to within an inch of its life.
To be fair to Scott, his content is very much at the milder end of the spectrum. Irritating as his visits might be, he is generally quite calm and innocuous. He generally respects private property and in the event that he wanders where he shouldn't he will leave, without argument or resistance, as soon as he is asked to.
Most of Scott's issues arise from the way he edits and shares his content to YouTube. His videos, like those of every other social media auditor, often attract very abusive, unjustified and ill-informed criticism of those featured in them.
As a consequence of his auditing activities Scott was made subject to a CPN on 11th April 2025. The conditions of the notice, too numerous to repeat here, can be viewed in this accompanying document. It is a very comprehensive notice, which is no doubt due to Scott being a bit of a "smart arse".
On 12th April 2025, the day after being served the notice, Scott was in breach by failing to remove YouTube videos as instructed.
He further breached the notice on 18th April, 25th April, 2nd May, 5th May, 9th May, 12th May and 16th May 2025, by uploading footage to YouTube without the prior documented consent of people featured therein.
Scott was fined £266 and ordered to pay £106 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.
He's done quite well there, as the court could have fined him for each of the breaches instead of in totality.
Elsewhere in auditor land, self-appointed "hotel inspector" AY Audits, real name Anthony Barnes, 45, of London, denied an offence of failing to comply with the conditions of a CPN when he appeared at Guildford Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 18th November 2025.
It is alleged that Barnes breached a condition excluding him from Surrey. He denies the matter on the basis that he never received the notice. The prosecution say the notice was correctly served, with someone having signed for receipt of it.
The matter has been listed for trial on 26th September 2026 and Barnes was granted unconditional bail until that date.
2 comments:
Your refusal to discuss the full list of conditions is noted. For the avoidance of doubt, most if not all of the conditions appear to be illegal/ultra vires. Let's take a look at some of them, shall we?
Condition 2: "reasonable steps"? No, it's an unenforceable trap. The YouTuber can't reasonably be expected make what is ultimately an opinion call as to whether a comment is unlawful. He is not a lawyer, and even lawyers and judges get the law wrong. The condition is void for uncertainty and will be struck out the moment any competent lawyer waves the harassment case Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2001) in front of a High Court judge. Forcing a private citizen to decide, on pain of criminal prosecution, whether a comment crosses the criminal threshold is absurd, impossible, and illegal.
Condition 3 is the cowardly little brother of Condition 2, and a legal death trap at that. It orders him to delete or report comments that break platform rules/laws when brought to his attention. He's expected to decide complex criminal law questions that routinely stump judges and lawyers. He's also expected to decide whether comments break platform rules, which are often opaque and arbitrarily enforced. Again, he is forced into the role of quasi-judicial arbiter. This clause is not just disproportionate; it's impossible to obey without committing a crime. Just bin the entire notice.
Condition 5 is legal illiteracy on steroids: he’s exempt from GDPR twice over. His activities are not business/commercial, and even in the event that they are, he is covered by the journalistic exemption. The CPN issuer can't unilaterally declare him a data controller in this manner. Forcing him to give his details to anyone he films not only reverses the entire structure of data protection law, it is an Article 8 breach. The entire notice should perish on this condition alone.
Condition 6 is fraudulent. Section 76 CAA 1982 does not ban overflight over private land. It never has. The Civil Aviation Authority will say it. Every judge will say it. Even the police should say it. Turning a civil tort into a criminal prohibition via a CPN because the overflight is for "social media" is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will get laughed out of the High Court in under 30 seconds. Yet another nail in the CPN's coffin.
Condition 7 is embarrassing nonsense. Regulation 785/2004 does not apply to personal or private use of a drone. Recreation drone footage uploaded to YouTube is not commercial, even if the footage is subsequently monetised by ads. He does not need compulsory insurance for what he is doing (but it doesn't hurt to have it - some people can't stand being filmed and have violent tendencies). This clause is factually and legally illiterate - another reason the whole CPN is heading for the shredder.
If you've got a barrister or solicitor friend (or even a judge friend) who does public law, send them the CPN and ask for their observations. It's so comically bad, I'd love to know what they say when they stop laughing.
The conditions are rather lengthy, which is the only reason they appear in the linked document. He's in a bit of a strange situation, having admitted these offences when he might disagree with the legality of the CPN - particularly when it appears he has also withdrawn an appeal against that notice.
I guess he could apply to the court to set aside his convictions, but he'd need to have a pretty good reason as to why he's admitted the offences.
Post a Comment