My understanding (could be wrong) is that his friends snuck into the EastEnders set, but that he deliberately sat it out in order to not risk violating his court order after the Big Brother stuff, and that when the police came to the scene they arrested him anyways on suspicion of "conspiracy" to commit burglary (which already seems vindictive, but ok at least something they were maybe within their authority to do) and then impounded all of his expensive personal effects knowing that the bureaucracy will keep it all from being released for months (which seems totally out of line).
Not that out of line. For him to go along anyway, on what is essentially a entertainment show he will get money for, sounds like he was hoping for a confrontation.
Because he is now an entertainment entity, he need's to constantly produce content to keep his income up. And if the episodes where he gets confronted by the law do better than the disused factory tours and tops of bridges, then of course he's going to get caught. But that makes it harder for everyone who makes these videos.
Basically, if he's a dick to security/police, and he gets to monetise that, then it won't take much for authorities to get upset and decide to up the penalties for trespass and relax what amount of force can be used against trespassers.
It's annoying because some of the non-confrontational videos are astounding, but they can't be made without knowing there will be consequences.
And when it comes to something like a BBC set, of course the consequences are more. It's a high profile target. They have to deal with enthusiastic fans, stalkers or the possibility some nut wants to make a public statement there.
Also working against him is that, especially now, established social media is in a rush to be seen to be "doing something" in a number of matters relating to self-regulation. To the extent that one news discussion show on Thursday, one that I subscribe and have alerts for, was hidden from my feed just because it had a gun in the thumbnail.