Both presenters are enthusiastic and engaging, undeniably. And yes, this is a data point.
But this isn't science.
Partly because they claim they've 'proved it because we eliminated variables' (3'57"), when they clearly haven't.
Partly because one of the basic tenets of science is repeatability. As I noted above, there's a 1 in 4 chance of getting this result if you assume equal probabilities of clockwise / counter-clockwise. That assumption should be the starting point of any experiment around this effect.
Food colouring should have been put in - for some of the repeated experiments at least - before the valve was open, to confirm the water was in fact still motionless. (Or to show that it wasn't.)
Similarly that little match-stick cross on one of the pools - those should have been present on both pools, probably several of them, spread around the surface (though surface motion is not necessarily indicative of sub-surface movements).
I could go on.