Frauditor gets Channel TERMINATED by YouTube



Check out our second Anti-Frauditor channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiH4KRa7zhh76jUeixJtkyQ Join the anti …

source

28 thoughts on “Frauditor gets Channel TERMINATED by YouTube”

  1. What's to stop him from just putting up a new youtube channel under a different name? It seems similar to when businesses file under a "Limited Liability Company" (LLC) and get shut down or go out of business avoiding lawsuits and payment of debts and then just file a new LLC under a different name. Hope Youtube has some safeguards in place to prevent jerks like him from coming back.

    Reply
  2. All frauditors should be shut down or at least demonitized. Good luck finding new jobs once prospective employers find out that they're probably going to get sued. I once hired a little weasel who tried to fake a back injury after working about 3 hours.

    Reply
  3. I wasn't a fan of his but getting things banned because you don't like them smacks of fascism. If people want free speech, you can't cherry pick the parts you like and ban everything else.

    Reply
  4. 1. His channel is still very active so … this is fake.
    2. A child he isn't. 😊 He is 17 so he is if anything a minor and I'm afraid you are perfectly within your rights to photograph children in the UK in a or from a Public place. A public place is designated as anywhere, whether paid entry or otherwise, the public have access to. So again this is fake.

    The 'child' on the other hand commited several offences under UK law known as public order offences by swearing in public or within public which were likely to cause someone harassment alarm or distress. Being called a nonse (pedophile), and accused of wΒ£nking in his pants are just two of the public order offences the lad committed. Approaching a member of the public in a manor likely to imply a threat of violence is another.

    So I just happened upon this channel by accident but this video was riddled with nonsense. UK law is quite clear…

    No expectation of privacy in a public or publically accessible place. If you are on private land you can still film. You may be asked to leave but if you don't this is trespass and the police have no power to remove you unless you commit other crimes. Trespass is now a civil matter.

    As a further note it is extremely unlikely that a 17 y/o would be anywhere near a vaccination centre legally. I suspect he lied to get employment there however I cannot say for certain. The vaccination centres require any attending to give their personal medical details to ID them for the purposes of giving them a vaccination . Which are then checked against a live NHS database. I don't believe a 17 y/o would be given that kind of role. Other roles could be swabbing and testing patients and again this would be extremely unlikely and finally as a client martial which is a security role. As these were given to G4S security services I again think it highly unlikely he was that. Factually he wouldn't be permitted to give any vaccinations as these are only given by qualified nurses. This was actually a testing centre and he shouldn't have been there.

    The second video is again nonsense. Police websites across all UK forces specifically state that Police must allow themselves to be filmed performing their duties. The PC was not behaving correctly. You cannot move a person on from a public place if they are doing nothing ilegal. so again no you've either misled your viewers or made a mistake.

    Reply

Leave a Comment