My pleasure and thanks for joining the premier! It is nice to have a good example of public vlogging/journalism to refer to, which is a growing and arguably essential part of modern society.
Congratulations Makai on your promotion to second Dan! Sorry to miss you in the chat. Great that job you got a position. We definitely need you. Thank you too, as per; Mr D.
@@BlackBeltBarrister I respectfully argue you make the production appear deceptively easy. Accepting of course there is no actual deception. Maybe you could explain a rattle -off -list of necessary steps to get a video idea to our eyeballs and ear drums? Software, hardware, time, different skills, etc.
I once was on my way to work (as a security officer) and I happened upon a group of people clustered around something. Among them I could see a couple of rough sleepers looking around anxiously and signaling me over. When I arrived, I could see a female rough sleeper collapsed and convulsing on the pavement, along side her was her partner holding her. Anyhow, I got to work treating her and making her comfortable and asking relevant questions while relaying the information to the emergency services over my 'phone. By chance, a Doctor happened to be passing and took over. Apart from myself and the two rough sleepers that had called me over, not one of the twenty or so bystanders had 'phoned the emergency services, or even attempted to help. But they all had filmed it. I set about roundly bollocking the bystanders and told them to delete any footage immediately (they actually did, while shuffling uncomfortably realizing that maybe, just maybe, they should have done 'something').
Isn’t it about time the government/police forces make a serious attempt to inform, properly, police officers and security personnel exactly what the law is?
Exactly I have seen dozens of videos of the police accusing the Auditor of hostile surveillance with absolutely NO justification. It is almost as common as I can smell cannabis or you fit the description (which is code for you're black). Cops are so obvious in their lies and fishing expeditions. They also seem to have a sexual fetish for ID.
Is that why the cops have started using the excuse of “I believe your are carrying out a terrorist act by hostile surveillance, so I require your identification (or else)”? As if the police weren’t obnoxious enough with all their powers already, we should all be extremely concerned with the additional police powers act currently being considered by the House of Lords (although I believe the Lords threw it out as it stands?). Considering that even during the height of “The Troubles” in N. Ireland there were no attacks on mainland police stations, it’s interesting how often the police get so triggered and believe someone with a camera is carrying out hostile reconnaissance and isn’t just a photographer with an interest in architecture! Not every building used by the police was built solely for their use but they are being replaced and the old buildings are demolished. Hostile/covert surveillance is so much easier these days as the price of long focal length lenses has become easily affordable, and thanks to the Armed Forces I have enough training to do a decent job if I wished, but that’s not my thing. The latest generation of cell phone cameras have incredible capabilities and whilst they can’t compare to a decent DSLR and lens, they are far easier to use in plain sight, whereas the DSLR is far more obvious, but the police only appear interested in those of us that use a camera!
@@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate And lets not forget that total reconnaissance has already been carried out in full HD and 3D including satellite view courtesy of Google. For any budding terrorist that would be the first port of call for all of the images needed for any terrorist attach which as you've quite rightly stated already as well as myself many times, NEVER in the history of Britain has there been a terrorist attack on a police station.
@@PINACI Just to add to the context, I’ve been present at a couple of N.Ireland police stations during my career from 1978-2008 as a Royal Marine Commando Officer. I imagine it’s the reason why I’m so disappointed with the police officers that you encounter? Whatever the reason, please stay safe and keep going, Best regards to you and yours David
@@PINACI very accurately/succinctly put. The MoD in their “infinite” wisdom, trained myself as a 2Lt plus a couple of my men, to set up OP’s in Crossmaglen, Northern Ireland and we’d frequently record some of the most vile IRA members known. I lost track of the number of times that either I or a colleague would have a bead on these barstewards yet our gutless politicians tied our hands and stopped us from doing what we were trained to do. More than that I cannot say or else the rozzers will be kicking in my front door.
@@gingerbill128 Real auditing is performed in many walks of life. As a now retired person in an industrial workplace we were required to perform a safety audit at the commencement of every shift. Our testing processes used to be audited by external profesional auditors in cases where our product was to be used in specific applications.
I initially thought it was concerning *auditing* a university course! You can sit in, listen and learn but you don't have to take any tests. Your "grade" is A for Audit, but it doesn't earn points towards your degree.
in the USA the police that murdered George Floyd (and went to prison) tried to stop the filming of their murder. One of the bystanders, Darnella Frazier, that kept filming after being ordered to not film won a Pulitzer Prize for Journalism even though she was not a journalist. One of the most important goals of auditing is to educate police and the general public that the "freedom or press" is not to be stopped, it not encouraged.
From what ive seen the auditors are really testing to see if security personnel will overstep their boundaries. There seems to be a tendency that such personnel will try to enforce their personal or the publics opinions rather than the law (and in a lot of cases they simply don't know the law)
@@fordcapri6288 Call it what you like mate. I don’t consider someone with a camera and sticking it in the faces of Police or security and hoping for a reaction is ‘activism’. I call it ‘someone with too much time on their hands’. I’ve met a few while working and some are decent and genuine. The ones who aren’t are those who will try anything to provoke whoever they can, then say “that’s how you talk to ‘em” or “get another job”. Got no time for them. I just let them get on with it. As long as they don’t cross a line with me, they can film whatever they want.
@@fordcapri6288 I love being on camera mate. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest….because I do my job and do it well. Only fair that they record me while I’m recording them. Only problem is my face is too damn ugly and I’m not very photogenic. But nobody’s perfect.
@@raflaughter3474 nail on head. Naff all to do with protecting civil liberty and highlighting tyranny and everything to do with making some cash. Only the most obtuse or seriously deluded would think it’s the former. If UA-cam stopped the ad revenue they’d ALL disappear overnight. That said I do find some of them amusing. Auditing Britain in particular is legendary with his trolling.
They are creating a disturbance for clicks. The real question should be do they declare their You Tube earnings when they are bound to be on welfare benefits if they have so much available time free during the day. If they work at night they wouldn't be out filming in the day. That is the real question: how many of these "auditors" are committing criminal benefits fraud?
2:28 There are three types of privacy. Absolute, reasonable, and none. Absolute applies to private homes or private activities such as being in a public convenience. Reasonable means being in public but doing something which others should not pry on such as a private conversation on a park bench or typing in a PIN on an ATM. None is anywhere else, be it in public places or even private places which is visible to the public.
There is also just not being a bellend with a camera in public, nothing to do with law but just being a decent person. Maybe go get a job to occupy your day instead?
The downside of 'auditing' is that it will inevitably lead to the introduction of new rules and regulations which actually curb or stop filming in certain situations, effectively removing the 'rights' that many auditors claim to be upholding, but then most seem to lack foresight on potential damage in this regard.
@@christopherweatherill348 I think the auditing was in quotes was to get to those who aren't actually interested in just recording in public or seeing if there recording is accepted, but are rather more interested in provoking an argument/confrontation as believing it'll get more youtube hits. I would guess the suggestion is that too much of the latter is likely to lead to more rules and regulations. Going around recording, asking reasonable questions without being a dick and generally being considerate of others etc is unlikely to lead to such an outcome.
Ummm - have you thought about blaming the Politicians when this happens? PS: look at the new Australian surveillance law!! Soon to be coming to a location near you 😘
A place that under the official secret act should also protect the employees. If an auditor is outside the employees inside can't go home. They are potentially putting people lives and therefore their families at risk if they record the employees of GCHQ , Mi5 or Mi6 .
Hi BB Barister, as a follow on from this, would it be possible for you to have a look through some "Auditing" videos and point out where you think there may be breaches of section 26 by police officers? That would be VERY interesting.
I do not understand how someone's actions that are well within the law can be deemed as "provocation" in any way by the police? It seems to me that for the public, law is pretty black and white....but for the police/judicial system, there seems to be a huge grey area where they mostly choose to operate where they can easily swing decisions based on their own subjectivity and interpretation.
Most of the "frauditors" literally fish for content to feed to their braindead subscribers. What they do, although not illegal per se, annoys people these useless rejects of society loiter around. And that's precisely what they want: trigger reactions to generate views. Just because something is not illegal it doesn't mean it's right.
Me repeatedly calling you a cunt to your face is within the law, yet it would still be provocative. I wouldn't do it because personally I'd expect someone to retaliate to that sort of thing. It's a matter of common decency. It sounds extremely autistic to equate legality with manners.
let me try to answer .lady falls over and breaks her hip ! police arrive first and start giving first aid . Johnny auditor has an orgasm and rushes up with his camera whilst bitching to his followers about how many police ? does it take to give first aid, Johnny doesn't give a shit about privacy of injured person, provocation ......
@@stephenfisher7114 What if the reason her hip was broken was because of an assault that was only caught on camera by this type of live streamer? The police would request and welcome that footage then. What if the police were the ones in the wrong and were caught on camera operating outside the law, maybe they caused the broken hip? The lady may then welcome the footage as evidence. If the police have the right to record in public, then so does everyone else. The law applies to us all.
I think these people sticking cameras in security guards faces should be classed as harassment and dealt with akin to stalking because they use it as a weapon to bait people and no amount of passive aggressive dialogue will undo the stress it causes knowing they will be ridiculed and uploaded for thousands to see.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
lol, conversely security guards ought to be wearing their ID (by law) and stop walking up to the camera to say "don't film me", they are ignorant of the law but still insist on bossing people around - it works both ways mate, and the number of security guards i've seen in videos just being plain rude to a member of the public - who could be anyone from joe blogs to royalty - they should have better manners at minimum, go watch a few of DJAUDITS videos for examples of both first class security and twats who just want to push people around with no regard for what the law says. i've never seen any auditor, good or bad "shove a camera" in someone's face, if you don't want to be filmed, turn away, walk away.
if you get baited then you need to take a long hard look at your personality, there's no excuse for front of house to be unprofessional or rude - you have to be the better man, both auditors AND security.
@@HarryNicNicholas its simply a way to bait people into a reaction and get a video out of people. if someone you didnt know started filming you doing your job or following you around filming you would either feel awkward/intimidated/angry and would react negatively( or at least a vast number of people would). Even though it is not against the law to film in public areas these people use it as a power trip trying to catch people out and provoke them( " i have a right to film type of reply always comes back") fair enough but it leaves the person feeling passive aggressively attacked especially when you dont know who it is. You mention the guard should have his badge on display. Where is the badge of these auditers? what governing body does said person work for? You dont need one..eh . ok who the hell is he/she then a rational person would always sense a threat or unease at best.
@@HarryNicNicholas if someone did it to you outside your house or filmed your children in a public area or your wife at work you would feel uneasy and have a negative reaction. All the things an "auditor" does may be legal and guards etc may not follow rules but you would do the same thing in an example above or similar or protect family members in similar. Whatever the situation. You might thinl its a personality issue as you stated but if you were being filmed what would your persomality deem the correct response. Laugh maybe ..then what. What is his intentions.. its bait and click for youtube and dangerous at worst.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
I have watched many videos on this, and for the most part I agree with the Barrister's viewpoint. What I don't like to see, are "auditors" who go out of their way to "bait" security and police, and then use a belligerent, or rude manner to force their point, but there again, I have the same problem with police and security staff who act the same, and then start spouting ridiculous rules, regulations, under the "colour of law" in order to make an arrest and search. I also disagree with auditing military bases, (a) because your average soldier doesn't know the law, and (B) he is bound by his chain of command, and is simply following orders, and (C) there is also an obvious national security risk, so I would always err on the side of common sense regarding military installations. What does alarm me is that this barrister has no problem with the law being "altered," or new laws introduced to prevent auditing. That concerns me, because any public body, or official should always be under scrutiny by the public, for abuse of power, abuse of authority, and abuse of the law. When authority is unchecked, and unaccountable, it always leads to corruption and abuse. I was one of those who welcomed the body cam, because it does make the police think twice about how they handle an incident, so I'm completely in favour of full public scrutiny.
Exactely..its one thing genuinely wanting to make sure someones rights are being protected and respected by authority, its another when they're deliberately rude, nasty and antagonise and bait the people they're ''auditing''!
@@elcapitan667 I've watched many of these, and in nearly all cases, auditors are usually respectful and polite until they encounter belligerence from their subjects or "Officials" that try to lay down "The Law" as they understand it. And this includes Police Officers.
well security guards and police or any other busy body shouldnt even go near to someone doing photography its not a crime or any of there business the rude person is the one being nosey about someone doing a perfectly legal hobby
I have watched several of these videos and often section 43 is deployed right away, usually when the auditor declines to give their details. Most are not willing to be arrested and capitulate. The police know if they do overstep their powers and arrest someone there will be no consequence for them.
AB has won a couple of civil suits over this. He has become a lot more confident since his wins. I almost feel sorry for the police officers who go there, he even warns them about a civil suit.
@@8cyl6speedActually not. Public property is not the same as "accessible to the public". Private property may be accessible to the public, but the rules for the owners apply to that property (for example, I may invite you to my house but I reserve the right to kick you out)
9:16 You say that no-one is under any obligation to answer question unless they are being detained or arrested for those questions. I would disagree with you on that point as no-one is under any obligation to answer questions *even* if detained or arrested. I would go further and say that all legal advice is not talk to the police and not answer their questions as police only ask questions in order to get people to incriminate themselves.
They read your rights when something happens which is like a spell and if your not educated or in the heat of the moment you don't understand what they are talking about
I think part of the problem is whichever magistrate said you can film what you see didn't consider telephoto lenses. It should have been film what you can see without using close up technology. Now that some auditors are using drones to overly buildings and courtyards that cannot be seen from the public area ..could this be breaking the expectation of privacy?
Charlie has for a long time crossed the line between assertive and aggressive. See numerous examples ( The ones with more views) of his aggression towards people with substance abuse and/or mental health issues in Piccadilly Gardens. He knows exactly what he's doing. Conflict means more views. Simples!
That 'hostile reconnaissance' sounds like a load of crap that could be used every time someone pulls out their Brownie 127. If I was indulging in hostile reconnaissance, I could almost guarantee nobody would know I was doing it. I'd have newspaper in front of my face with a hole in it.
Whilst the guidance is what it is, there is also the well known phrase "overt to be covert".....which depends on the profile..read the i think it was Howard Marks book where he said Customs surveillance teams were better as they used old dears, short arses etc and not easily profiled 5'10 guys in barbour jackets
I echo the call for you to comment on the behaviour of the police in some of these type of content blogs, One of the reasons filming of the police in public interactions has become so prevalent has been some quite shocking abuse of powers and misuse of the laws of this country in my opinion.
There need to be rules for this, too! I'm glad to see some uploads because you can rewind and see clearly how things could have been handled better. There are also uploads that leave you wondering why the camera was running before everything kicked off. Not very clever.
Mike Boden Let's not kid ourselves that ALL audits are some sort of social service. The vast majority are for YT hits and likes......which can be lucrative.
@@steveross8326 Very true, some of them are just outright provoking. But the principle of large numbers of police officers not knowing or deliberately misusing laws on a whim or because their ego is bruised is worrying. Lets face it, the police have long ago left the friendly "Bobby" on the beat behind.
Hi Daniel, I've noticed on various auditors video's that when rightfully refusing to give their details when being demanded by the police, they are then forced to do so by being hit with a section 50, antisocial behaviour, where it is a separate offence not to give your details. This is clearly an abuse of the act. Your thoughts please Daniel. Many thanks as always, Darren.
I’d say many of the auditors who have had s50 used against them, had them used against them in a completely lawful way. Especially the auditors who like to shout at passing officers, or passing vehicles as they pull into the station. That would definitely constitute ASB.
@@user-co9ye6yl4v hmmm intentionally cause alarm distress with violent, threatening, intimidation behaviour. Now most auditors can be loud towards police who hear it every day but they do not threaten. So s50 can be used if the person is already detained for so say but most cops go straight to s50 without any detention for ASB or s5. It is a ploy to gain information and if used in this way as a stand alone act is illegal and ergo an assault which could lead to a s26 against the cop
@@user-co9ye6yl4v I dare say that maybe true on some occasions with some auditors, but I have seen more times where it has been abused just to get details from auditor's as it is offence not to, regardless of the s50 being warranted or not.
@@user-co9ye6yl4v It still amazes me that the police either don't know many of the laws they are enforcing, or blatantly lie about them, for example, the amount of times you see an officer saying that it is an offence to refuse to give your details when asked by the police is just ridiculous.
Agreed,50 is the section that suspends your right to remain silent, forcing you to give up your details before being arrested,--------- or you'll be arrested.Thats a catch 22. Its, "give up your details ....... Or else!!"
Side note, I sort of appreciate the sentiment of what some auditors are trying to achieve, but I think it's an absolutely insane flash-in-the-pan situation that sees it currently legal to fly a drone over any privately owned site, domestic or industrial, and photograph and film downwards. DJ Audits does this a lot and while he's technically correct that it's currently legal, if anything his efforts have just convinced me that it really shouldn't be legal, because he's essentially harvesting sensitive site layout and ops information on hundreds of business premises and dumping it online.
I had 2 sgts telling me filming in publc is illegal. When i debated it he used the old " i smell cannabis" HOW CA NOT 1 BUT 1 SGTS FROM POLICE SCOTLAND NOT KNOW THIS?
I have a question, the Supreme court in the USA has said that it can be necessary for auditors to announce to law enforcement that they are auditing or exercising their constitutional rights. I don't know if there has been any such rulings in the UK?
Probably not, but they're making themselves look more suspicious the more questions they won't answer. If they'd simply say who they are and what they're doing, they'd likely be left alone.
I think you should add clarification that "Auditing" does not mean filming and or publishing on UA-cam, many organisations pay for audits, the government regularly carry out audits on regulated industries and schools.
10:06 A s43 search under the terrorism act can only be done when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person with the camera is a terrorist. And not answering questions cannot give rise to reasonable suspicion. Nor can any negative attitude, as a terrorist will most likely appear friendly and obedient if not subservient in order to ally any suspicions. Nor can the camera which is typically a smart phone which every has. Or even if the camera is a bulky professional camera. The simple fact is that the use of the camera is overt and not as the NPCC memo states, covert. A s43 search can only be carried out when there has been other information that the person is likely to be a terrorist, such as repeatedly watching the building or other intelligence from anti-terror departments in the police. A constable spotting a person with a camera and performing a s43 search based on a few questions will mean that the reasonable suspicion does not exist nor will the constable know what they are looking for.
Its my opinion that the section 43 searches that many of us have seen on UA-cam have been done out of absolutely NOTHING more that ill tempered SPITE, nothing more, and certainly not reasonable suspicion ...... The police just get away with it because their arrogance and ego get totally in the way of any professional standards ..... and they also know that if they have messed up, well ..... wink wink nothing will come of it!!
@@spectrumisgreen7252 And AB's win against the police for their unlawful and illegal s43 search should be the start of the process of the police re-thinking that strategy.
@@TheSadButMadLad ABs case was not only for section 43 but also because the police didn't identify himself and I think he didn't have a collar or shoulder number, that cop was more bent then a right angle
@@darshan2good But I doubt the police would pay out $1500 just because a constable didn't identify themselves. It was more than that. The detention, the search, the inappropriate use of s43.
I found this video rather interesting as it implies a very major change in the laws from a couple of decades ago when I did some work as a semi-professional photographer. At that time a law course lecture I attended made clear the very interesting aspects listed below: 1. It's legal to take photographs or images in: (a) any public place, or (b) any private place where you have the prior permission of the owner or tenant in control of the premises, or (c) any semi-public place such as a shopping centre, or (d) any Crown land or property that is NOT designated and signs posted as being restricted from photographs or imaging such as a Defence Establishment. 2. It's NOT legal to take photographs or film of the inside of private property from a public place unless you have the prior permission of the owner or the tenant in control of the property. 3. It's NOT legal to take photographs or film inside of a semi-public place such as a shopping centre if they have signs posted prohibiting such activity or an authorised person in control of the semi-public place instructs you to cease taking photographs or film within the premises. 4. It's NOT legal to publish any image of a person that shows sufficient of that person's features to be able to identify them unless: (a) you have a signed release authority form from them, or (b) it's newsworthy event such as fire, car crash, etc. The making of a financial return on the publication is not relevant to the legality of the publication without approval. The points (2), (3), and (4) were to comply with the relevant privacy laws. It strikes me that while auditing would be valid and legal under point (1) the publication would likely be in violation of point (4) and possibly in violation of points (2) and (3). I'd be interested to know how the privacy laws were changed to allow the publication. ........... While no one can have an expectation of privacy in a public place they should not have to have an expectation of them being there being made public without a very valid reason other than 'I want to post a video.'
If anyone wants to be an Auditor then they should attend a six month course about do's and don't's while Auditing and should be licensed and identified by officials like Police, Site/Facility Security, Military Personel and government officials (after all, they should have nothing to hide). If they become belligerant to officials questioning their motives then they run the risk of license revoke and arrest and prosecution.
A few years ago I spotted that the still-occupied (at the time - I don’t know about now) landmark Police Station in Taunton had a big “For Sale” sign fixed on it, and I thought it was worth taking a photo record ~ “Law and Order” and those Tory buzzwords, yet they’re flogging off the offices. I was photographing from the pavement when 2 officers came out and asked what I was doing, and I explained. I’m just a bloke with a camera, no particular intention to upload the photos, but it did seem to me that the act of asking about my taking the photos, within my rights, was itself an intimidation. I’ve got to say, I don’t really understand the attraction of “auditing”, and in the few cases I’ve seen on You Tube the auditor (I don’t know who it was) seemed to be deliberately acting in a suspicious manner and pushing the boundaries.
There is a large scale of talent out there Some of these guys are the best wordsmiths you'll find anywhere. Some of them have been given a second chance to earn an honest living, with the talent they have and would never be able to work as an official reporter for bbc-MSM. I wish them luck, there's far worse you could be doing.
I follow half a dozen Auditors and they all conduct their selves with firm respect, it’s always the cops that are arrogant, pushy pricks abusing the law, trying to intimidate. These include, Focus Pocus, PJ & DJ Audits, AB, Plod to Plod. They are all exposing the Authoritarian practices of what has sadly become all to prevalent within today’s police FORCE! A side note, they all express delight when they have interactions with decent coppers.
Sadly too many "auditors" are just looking for a confrontation. That's what gets the clicks/views/cash. I find auditing normal members of the public (ie, not police/security) to be really distasteful even if it is legal.
It would be an interesting addendum to this video to discuss exactly why Section 44 was repealed. From what I can gather the police were abusing this law as using it as their ‘go to’ legislation to detain and arrest individuals, particularly photographers. To quote - The power is clearly being overused, as Lord Carlile QC warned in the UK terror law watchdog’s 2009 annual report: ‘I have evidence of cases where the person stopped is so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there is not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist, and no other feature to justify the stop’.
I think the intention for the police, is to use sec 50 ,as the successor to 44, that's a nasty "damned if you do,damned if you don't" section.look out for 136 ,coming up fast on the rails, as one for the police "snatch teams" to chew over.
I have asked these "Auditors" to do an audit on run down council estates and let us all see how the junkies and smack heads in the council estates react to the auditors giving them their words of wisdom and filming them at the same time. I bet they do not take me up on my request.
Hahaha that would be fun 😂😂 I remember reading about one trying to do a builders yard and one of the young lads laid him out 😂😂😂😂😂, they know they're safe with the police that's what makes them so pitiful
@@sheeeene7 These "auditors" do not have the balls to do this. If they did try it, they would end up with their cameras taken off them and them quickly visiting the nearest Accident and Emergency hospital.
@@DJFAmenHeavy So they are scared of auditing council offices or depots in these areas ? How about Council flats where there is council employees working ? Is that outside the auditors remit ?
Paragraph 1.3 shows how inept even organisations such as these are: I quote "They are also well versed in their own rights...". Nope - it should say that 'there are some/many/numerous of them who know their legal/lawful rights' (as many of them do, but many of them don't). It's an official document, and as senior officers of the law, they should know all too well that wording is everything, and it's hardly a lengthy or complex document after all. Did they draw it up over breakfast using sentences copied from cereal packets? Please don't forget that after years of officers lying, cajoling, intimidating, harassing, using excessive force and even assaulting and/or killing the public, many of these auditors whilst appearing extreme at first, when one puts their behaviour into perspective, are actually doing us all a darned good favour. Having travelled much of the world, the UK (English) police are the worst I have ever seen in terms of malpractice, dishonesty and unprofessionality, and that's in comparison even with China and Soviet Russia. Don't forget they partly privately sponsored now - what could possibly go wrong? And lifelong career officers (now retired), who are friends and acquaintances of mine, wholeheartedly agree with my observations and feelings about them.
I love the polite Auditors and there are a few of them, I hate the ones that go in to stations and repeatedly swear at the police and call them names as there just isn't a need for that. I started keeping a video feed on me after being approached a few times while doing public photography, I've even filmed Charles and he's reposted one of my videos of him with permission.
The main thing that concerns me is the fact that local councils are using police forces to issue public protection notices to auditors restricting their rights to film in public. Councils are elected and paid for by the public so by issuing PPO's against people who are bringing to light the level of abuse by public officials is very underhanded and shows that the councils are assisting the police to cover up their abuse of authority and legislation. It would be good and I would be interested to see if you could elaborate on how councils and police forces can use these PPO's to redtrict our rights, and maybe do a video on our rights and how they can be removed from us using legislation. Even answer the question of do we have protected rights here in the UK?
Can you give an example where "auditing" actually brought to light an abuse of power, please, as most in my experience seem focused on out witting or embarrassing police in the course of their duties?
There's always Google Street view that anyone can use to get more information about the outside of building that the auditor's can't see or get video of.
Nobody is trying to 'get information'. They are just trying to provoke altercations. It's just more narcissistic attention-seeking from idiots on yotube.
Daniel, can you do a video about the Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 that auditors keep trotting out please? (Extension of definition of “public place” in Public Order Act 1936. ) - I've seen a lot of them relying upon this to say that they're in a public place and that what they are doing is legal, when in fact they are on private property.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime....
Military Bases in the UK can stop this as it's seen as a possible act of recon for terrorist or espionage etc... (I don't know how the Official Secrets Act ties in or doesn't?)
6:14 So if there is a real threat against a building and the people in it, then security should do its job properly. However, in many cases where the auditor is filming a police station the police act as if the station is on par with MI5 in terms of security. When in reality, even the MET's own training manuals around terrorism do not list police stations as a potential terror threat. Terrorists create terror and they will not get very far with the police who are the only people who are armed and trained to use force. The MET's training manuals list places such as shopping centres and areas where the public congregate such as tourist spots and entertainment places as the most likely targets. This is where security should be high, not at police stations which already have lots of security features such as high fences and a large number of CCTV cameras.
I have a question for you, on the back of this video, Sir! As I now live in the USA, and see a lot of these Auditors out and about, wandering around with their cameras, giving grief to the Police or Security, Yes I know some deserve it, and over here it is a First Amendment Protected Activity, so they really can't be touched by the police for it, but they can still be parts about it!! Anyway, After watching several Audits from the UK, I've noticed a pattern emerges from the Police, and if the person doesn't want to give up their ID, there is no cause to give it anyway, they immediately jump to the Terrorism clause, no chatting no formality, it is straight to we have a safety concern under the terrorism act! So they are not even trying to find out if you are just a UA-camr, you are immediately under suspicion of terrorism! Is this really how the Police or authorities should treat private citizens? And they wonder why the public has lost trust in them? Also what is to stop any terrorist now just watching the uploaded videos of their intended target and get all the information from there? Besides I think most terrorists wouldn't be out in front of the local nick taking pictures in plain sight, they'd be ensconced in a room locally watching covertly or from the back of a van!
it didn't bother the Arianna Grande bomber either - he went out on two reccys videoing both so he could plan his attack......all because lefty goody twoshoes think people should be allowed to film anywhere anytime for any reason...........well this guy did and 22 children and adults were blown to bits and 1,000 injured.
"So they are not even trying to find out if you are just a UA-camr, you are immediately under suspicion of terrorism! Is this really how the Police or authorities should treat private citizens? And they wonder why the public has lost trust in them?"................a casual picture taker/journalist would not be outside a facility for hours on end taking video/pics for a 'story'....even THEY have limitations on their time (although they will declare the opposite every time ) they would only be 10 mins and gone but the police/staff showed up so they will stay all day if they want to......why stay anyway if it was only going to take 10 mins working on your story ?.................they forget their lies.............they just don't want the police to follow them to their long wayaway parked vehicle so police could run a Sex Offender Register check through the car's plate.........we ain't stupid bauy.
If I want to take a picture of a police station as I'm walking by I will stop, take the pics and then move on............that's not the issue, what IS the issue is if I stand there for three hours I obviously am wanting more than a few pictures........I'm now suspicious and ~i don't care wtf you interpret it as but no normal person going about their everyday business does that - not even News Crews 'working on a story'
As one intelligent police officer commented to an auditor, "to some extent you're generating your own content" by deliberately being as un-cooperative as possible, dragging out an encounter for as long as possible when most people would quickly satisfy the officers that nothing untoward was happening and the officers would move on. Auditors do provide a useful service in that as soon as they start filming the bad apples tend to fall out of the box and make idiots of themselves by overstepping their powers and behaving like bullies. It is gradually educating police and security to know the laws properly and that a uniform is not an excuse to be abusive. However, most auditors I have viewed are also pretty annoying, provocative, arrogant plonkers and the point they are making is very much less significant than the amazing and really difficult job the police have to do in preventing the whole of society becoming a hell ruled by predators. Police deserve a bit of respect for doing a job most of us couldn't or wouldn't do. The auditors love to demand respect from cops, but it's sad to see them take delight in being rude and disrespectful in return.
9:00 a word of advice, if you think the cops might resort to section 43 ask them "do you think i'm a terrorist" cos the knee jerk to that kind of question is usually "no, of course not" but once they have said that then section 43 is pure harassment - they said they don't suspect you of being a terrorist.
I was stoped and searched for taking a photo of a street advert that had no building in the background. They even said I would be arrested if I did it again. Also stoped for taking photos of a block of flats under construction.
Great, an informed and balanced 'presentation' on auditing legalities. Whilst 'auditing' as discussed here ,comes with many approaches and objectives, it highlights two extremes in my view. The aggressive/abusive which gives power to a negative police response, to the polite and often very witty 'auditor' exposing on occasions police who are poorly informed and/or deliberately ignoring the public's legal rights.
@@budgetnuclearweapons7858 The problem is then what is classed as private or public access, the police seem to change the definition to suit themselves depending on the situation. IE. this is a public area so you are not allowed to .... then next time for the same place they will say this is private property so you are not allowed to.... It does seem to be very flexible where the police are concerned. Also if you are on private property then it is only trespass which is not a criminal offence and therefore not under the remit of the police.
@@lightningstrikes7314 one of the things is that can see a fair no. of comments on audits are of the "i hate the pigs" type where tbh their very existance is what ppl hate. Others are ppl weighing in with comments that police office of Asian appearance are Taliban, shouldnt be in uniform..in other words, far right white nationalists. Those type of ppl have the crediblity of ppl who say that the UK needs a 2nd Amendment but that only white ppl should be allowed guns..rather like how that law was applied in US for abt 200 years..liberty for some
@@vanpallandt5799 Racist comments in the auditing world are rare but they do exist. It's just a fact of life unfortunately. Some may be plants and provocateurs. Also race wasn't even an issue on this thread so why bring it up? You just make yourself look like a shill and undermine your own credibility.
It doesn't work like that. A shopping centre has a right to install cctv because it's THEIR property. You don't have a right to film on their property.
@@WeAreThePeople1690 Actually a lot of places can tell you not to video or take photos as part of their entry conditions, eg courts, some museums and others. Just because you have permission to enter does not mean that places cannot place conditions of entry.
It appears, in my experience, cameras are the trigger. I use discrete or body cameras. When shooting buildings l frequently say l am recording architectural styles. Plods buildings are similarly dealt with by recording how money has been used to make a building attractive or if a building is a utilitarian design. Number plates are public information. If someone expresses a wish to examine pictures, simply explain your pictures are transmitted back to the office and no record is kept on your equipment.
Every work place in Britain needs to display this simple notice in staff canteens and notice boards . " If you see ANYONE filming without prior arrangement DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT ! DO NOT SPEAK ! DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE !" Every action gets a reaction , auditors know that no one likes being filmed . Zero reaction will make dull content on the videos . Who really wants to see what the outside of a Biscuit factory or an Amazon warehouse looks like on the outside? If workplaces like those were so interesting there would be coach party's outside of every factory.
Yes, you can, as they aren't outside of the law (even though they may think they are). It would be a citizen's arrest. You can even use force against a police officer who has committed a crime (Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967). You are allowed to restrain and detain anyone who has committed a crime using reasonable force to stop them from escaping. There is no time period, but obviously it would be best to phone the police for assistance. Good luck with that, you had better be filming it!
@@barryfoster453 also arrest powers can only be used where the service of a summons is not practicable and for certain other specifc grounds..the old idea of arrestable offences has effectively gone except for certain presrved powers of arrest
I'm interested in the situation of an inncoent 'auditor/blogger's film being used by criminals/terrorists. While the auditor is behaving within the law, what about the information garnered by them and uploaded to a public domain. In effect, the terrorist needn't risk reconnaissance or 'hiding in plain sight' if some innocent person does it for them?
James Ireland - I still believe that way. I've never yet had any interaction with the Police that led me to believe otherwise. Hard working, professional and courteous is my impression. Perhaps they give to me the same attitude that I give to them?
This barrister should be asking more pertinent questions: do "auditors" declare their You Tube earnings to the taxation department and how many receive welfare benefits seeing they seem to have ample time free during the day to wander about creating films?. Anyone who works at night most certainly wouldn't be out daily making films. I have a gut feeling there will inevitably be a taxation crackdown on "auditors" just as there was when 100s of Ebayers were caught out not declaring income. It''s early days yet but the arrogance of every single 'auditor" (never seen a"humble" one yet") suggests they do not declare income no matter how small it is.
Auditors create content that contains tension and the potential for conflict. This is the type of content that is popular. So the best response from the police is to avoid interactions, and communication. Without the police reaction there is no content.
I do wonder how most people would react to someone walking up to them and shoving a camera in their face when they're trying to work. I'd get pretty irritated by it, personally, and if they persisted I fear events might conclude in a brief case of guerilla endoscopy.
As a drone flyer , these youtube ‘auditors’ are giving hobbyists a bad name flying over mundane businesses and attracting hostile reactions . I got accused of ‘auditing’ whilst flying my small mavic mini over a beautiful lake until i explained I wasn’t filming anyone directly and not trying to bait security staff
The problem with these audits is people like marty...live free..etc give audits a bad name. The abuse they give people is embarrassing. AB....thats how you do a audit.
I am not a big fan of AB. He is often rude for no particular reason. The Oxford audit is one example. I do not think he is a particularly nice person and is overrated.
My understanding is that anyone may 'ASK' or 'REQUEST' anything. It is the right of the listener who is being 'asked' to decide if they wish to comply with the request. The only area of which I am aware, where it is an offence against an Act of Parliament or Regulation is Industrial Relations or Employment Law/Regulations (Australia) in terms of 'asking' for personal information at an interview relating to a job application; e.g. intention of a female to start a family through either birth (maternity leave entitlement) or by adoption.
On a realted note: what constitutes a public space/area? For example, if I stand on the pavement outside the Home Office vs I stand on the forecourt of the Home Office vs I stand in the foyer of the Home Office... I think you get the point.
I have been following the auditing community for a long time good, bad and the ugly. From my observations, the only and best advice I can give is to be nice to everyone you meet. Not only will it elevate you as an individual human-being, it will also help grow your auditing audiences to the next level! Keep up the good work Daniel, and have a magnificent day...
I seriously follow the American craze - Glennifer , Earl Worden, Princess Patty, Arselmo, Silence Boy, Amagansett Press the Gutterman, LIA(r), Sheepdog , all the News Now dipshits and so on and so on , ........over there it's a thing to test The Constitution 1st Amendment mainly which is originaly intended to prevent the future oppression of the citizen in it's various forms , however, like all single braincelled Libtards they have switched it around to now laughingly use the Ist Ammendment to verbally abuse private businesses, the general public and Federal Agencies in both public places and public spaces AND private places for absolutely no real reason other than to illicit confrontation for money-----the FACT is that their own posted videos prove they begin with malicious intent ,continously lie and cheat towards their victims (host venue) and knowingly ignore displayed Federal Regulations in Federal buildings just for the sake of confrontation - they even call the police themselves ffs then get their cerebally challenged subscribers to spam the local police and city halls with threatening phonecalls towards staff and their families....The difference to here is that USA is made up of States which create their own laws within their own borders and own State Constitution which itself must always offer less restriction than the Federal /Constitution framework...watch ANY American fraudy vid - they're a bunch of pathetic morons who are 99% convicted criminals , often rapists, assaulters and kiddy fiddlers, and ALWAYS habitual liars............as for Pottymouth 'AB' over here, ( maybe use an americanism here- "Arsehole Boy" ? well, how he's got this far in life without need of plastic surgery is a puzzle....but it's very dark up his own arse so I guess he feels safe wallowing in his own dipshittery.
But that won't get them the views on UA-cam they crave. Confrontation will. They are just attention seakers who need to get a life. As I've said in another comment one this video. If these people harassed me at work in this way. I would give them a smack and claim I was being harassed felt threatened so acted in self defence
The best thing for people to do is say nothing and not react to anything the frauditor does. That produces boring videos which are of no use. Also, I’ve heard that if you play music on your phone, there is a chance that UA-cam will demonetise the video, due to a copyright strike.
@@good7saint precisely . Its fake righteousness. These are the same people who bang on about privacy yet push cameras into someones face. Thanks for this. Admittedly, I like Charlie...i think because he tries to make intelligent points. Just shouting at perceived authoritarianism and taking the piss out of people just trying to just makes it worse. Its lazy morality lol
@@good7saint not all, i've waded through nearly all of DJAUDITS videos and it's disappointing the lack of conflict, he's really good at handling people, but he also takes a genuine interest in what he's filming, talks to as many people as possible, points out the good and the bad equally and 9 times out of 10 everyone is happy. i think the MAJORITY of the "attention seekers" are doing a good job, however badly they go about it, the police (not all cases but TOO MANY) are god awful at their job, they are ignorant of laws they use to boss other people around, they think they can boss people around and make up reasons to boss people around and they deserve to be called out - they are meant to uphold the law, not make up their own rules and use the uniform to hassle people, even the worst of the auditors do not compare to public servants who are paid to know the law and uphold it, not use it for their own egos.
You should do a short covering the Section 33 changes on publicly accessible areas. Seems a lot of people think this converts privately owned land & property into public, where the landowners or agents have lost their ability to impose conditions and revoke access. One of the BTP officers chatting to an auditor tried to explain this the other week.
@@fintonmainz7845 “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”. It's why auditors claim they can record/photograph literally anywhere that isn't fenced & gated off. They usually ignore, or are ignorant of other statutes or elements of common law which mean you can't interpret it literally as they have done.. The purpose of Section 33 is to extend the area where certain crimes can be committed to now include private land. Think public order offences in shopping centres, teenagers thrashing cars around a McDonalds car park. They happen on private premises, yet you can be punished as though they were on public land.
@@pup6728 section 33 first came into force way back in 1936 to allow the police to maintain order and control at political gatherings and rallies such as those held by Oswald Mosley‘s fascist party. It is entirely to do with public order and absolutely nothing to do with implied rights of access. The problem is that most auditors are too stupid to realise this and tend to believe the nonsense uttered by Blabberer and co. The second problem is that the police have never heard of it and being too stupid to either research it or seek advice they rather foolishly tend to allow the auditors to rant on.
If ' hostile reconnaissance' (hr) includes 'recording shift patterns, patrol routes, venue layout' etc then surely any photography outside a site could be construed as h r and therefore any 'auditor' as a possible hostile?
I have to disagree with the definition given of auditing. I'm sure there are many so called auditors who do it purely for reactions and the bigger the reaction the bigger the potential monetization. However the auditors I watch and enjoy all do it in defence of the right to do it and for everyone else's right to do it, not for a reaction, infact all the auditors I watch are genuinely happy when they dont get a reaction and their rights are respected.
Although I tend to agree with your sentiment (these type of ‘auditors’ do rub me up), but If they are not breaking the law, the police officers shouldn’t be reacting to their obnoxiousness.
@@minimanukuk nice to receive a civil and polite reply for once in the youtube comments section so thank you! I have seen some videos in the past of those types of "auditors'" and personally I think they are just trolls/grifters looking to make a quick buck out of the popularity of auditing in general, and they do rub me up the wrong way also. I'm a big fan of the genuine auditing community and feel they provide a vital public service.
I know, UA-cam’s comments sections isn’t the most civilised of platforms. 😂 I think the reason for the popularity of the nonsense is the disproportionate compensation levels in the US. I think delusional UK auditors think they’re going to be in the money, or they’re just being a twat. I must admit, I would love to question the police if they did a ‘random’ traffic stop, but if I’m honest, I’ve not got the bollocks for it.
The issue is not the *original purpose* of the recording, but the *final potential use* of it. If the information being recorded is potentially useable by bad actors, it really doesn't matter whether the bad actor covertly (or overtly, hiding in plain sight) records the information themselves, or whether it's recorded by a frauditor, because the frauditor will always upload the information to a place (eg UA-cam) where bad actors can view it anyway - and with no risk to themselves.
You mean... Like Google Earth? There is no record, or noted pattern of any criminal ever using UA-cam info to spec out 'a target'... think about what you are suggesting, so a criminal sits and watches and researches 1000s of hours to find the one that suits their needs... really? There is a plethora of other 'normal' alternatives don't you think? but hysteria, even the barrister joins in by siting the 'terrorist act' as a means to stop and search but forgets, most coppers who used it have been taken to the cleaners for £££££, So that said, shall we give the Police more powers to terrorise all public photography and filming, including Google with more taxes being wasted...? one thing auditing does show is how the Police love to invent and abuse plus have a huge chip for vengeance if the question on their dodgy knowledge of the law!
This is exactly what I was thinking whilst watching this, although the auditors themselves may not be engaged in hostile reconnaissance, anyone who would be engaged in that kind of activity could watch their videos and not even have to attempt to be covert themselves
this goes higher up than UK law,,,,, ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ECHR) is a European treaty in which the human and civil rights of all residents of the member countries are laid down (article 10). allows filming in the public sector, even public in and government buildings , everything you can see from public (even into private buildings and sites) you can photo and record it since November 4, 1950, Google Earth (with zoom options) Google Maps (with zoom options) Google Street View (with zoom options) hundred cars with a dash cam recording them every day
My guess is that pretty soon by judicial precedent, trespass while intending to cause a disturbance by filming will amount to "aggravated trespass", which IS a crime. Auditing covers a broad spectrum. From those performing genuine public photography from a public ROW , to those causing havoc on private properties provoking, abusing, and insulting people. One end of that spectrum is on a path of self destruction.
@@leathleyg5995 There is a problem which you point out. What should eventually become the norm is that any kind of photography will be approached by security, and others as antisocial behaviour, a young dumb piglet will come along and hand out a dispersal order so as to not have to answer the situation and get rid of you. Then you are not expected to go to court to defy the criminals that have wronged you.
It's great that you've covered this topic, but I find some of your conclusions somewhat troubling. Firstly, that engaging in a lawful activity, in this case filming in public, constantly needs to be justified by the person engaging in it, lest it be regarded as suspicious. The problem as I see it, is that it risks subverting a well-established principle of common law in the UK, namely, that a person should remain unmolested by law enforcement so long as he or she is doing nothing unlawful. The danger of going down this route - clearly on display in many of the responses that many auditors capture on film in the U.K.- is that it puts the burden of proof on the photographer to prove that they pose no danger to, e.g., the building or person(s) being filmed. But why should he/she accept this? By accepting what amounts to an inversion of the principle of innocent until proven guilty, we have created a free-for-all for authoritarian types and their bullying ways in the U.K. in recent years. A member of the public who is photographing in public should not be held responsible for the paranoid tendencies of anybody wearing a lanyard and a high-vis jacket, tendencies which, in any case I contend, are mostly proffered as little more than fig-leaf pretexts for attempting to snuff out the sunlight of transparency that public photography creates. After all, the argument "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" seems curiously one-directional when trumpeted by the authorities, doesn't it, in this context?
Yeah, but a lot of these people are going out to do this 'auditing' are setting out to create situations to get views on their blog or youtube channel or whatever. In the US, though, people get worked up about being recorded by strangers.
@@pandorasbox4238 Fair point, but does that excuse the often criminal ways in which those being "audited" respond, such as getting physical with the cameraman simply because he doesn't want to be filmed or feels his authority is being challenged? Could we argue, for example, that police "provoke" criminals by engaging in crime prevention techniques, such as high visibility patrols and forms of surveillance? Hardly, so I don't see why "auditors" - assuming all they are doing is filming in a public place - should be regarded as agent provocateurs simply for engaging in what is, after all, a perfectly lawful activity. The question of whether the over-reaction of the authority figures being "audited" is being sought is, for me, neither here nor there, since the authority figure being filmed is the one who initiates the confrontation in the first place and who unreasonably demands some form of justification for why the "auditor" is engaging in a perfectly lawful activity.
@@Interdiction And the rest. Auditing Britain just got £1500 for only a couple of hours false confinement (hostage). 14 days they will be paying easy 5 figures. Police would much prefer to pay out of court than have it effect their figures.
I've seen a few 'auditing' videos and most of their methods, with regard to what they're supposedly trying to achieve, are going to do more harm than good. Who's auditing the auditors?
This auditing makes me uncomfortable in that while in individual cases it may be argued that they are innocent the reality is that what they publish will be used in the bigger picture to build a more comprehensive open source intelligence and data picture of a target so in effect the "Auditor's" could in effect be acting as unwitting agents for real terrorist threats - I grew up in Africa and you could not take pictures of a lot of bridges, dams, post offices, telephone exchanges, government buildings etc etc etc - I feel the UK should introduce a Keypoint Act for strategic installation and protect these from what I see as a dangerous abuse which can affect all of us
Got approached myself one time when I was filming the site of the former railway works in Swindon, which is a public space where the Steam Museum and a shopping centre. It was for the purpose capturing images to put to music for the purpose of entering a competition. Never imagined there was any issue with filming the buildings, but I got approached and questioned because an adjacent building was a secure building housing sensitive records. They were okay when I explained the purpose of my filming, but warned me I should not be filming this particular building. So that's a situation where even someone not engaging in auditing could inadvertently be including a secure building and attract suspicion.
PS: How many terrorists have been caught filming a police station and how many stations have been targets of terrorist attacks? Now compare that to how many terrorists have used Google Maps/Earth to do all their surveilling and carry out attacks?
a terrorist with a brain would not do that he would get someone to do it for him!! and google maps do not film inside buildings. Perhaps if you had lost someone in a terrorist attack you would have the view i do that 99% of these auditors are SCUM!!
We haven't always had the ability to pull a 4G phone out and zoom in on something within a few seconds, but you might want to use that phone and look up how the various terror groups in Northern Ireland planted bombs both there and here on the mainland in the hope of achiving their aims. Pubs, Police Stations, Car Bombs even the hotel in Brighton almost killing the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and each time with many innocent people killed and injured, now real life is not like Hollywood ! Reconnaissance is very much hiding in plain sight as Hayley says, but if you can get all your info because a fat idiot who hasn't had a wash for 3 weeks has stood outside a Police Station and drawn attention to himself enough to cause a concern then the terrorists will learn alot from that video.
Dear BB, one issue that does not seem to have come up but is in this auditor's video over drone insurance ua-cam.com/video/taNObM_2fP4/v-deo.html , is that these people are earning money from this via youtube or whatever. In simple terms they are running a commercial operation and therefore they are no longer 'private citizens''. This triggers requirements for insurance, compliance with health & safety, and affects rights such as use of public rights of way and access to property. What I suspect a number of these auditors may not have realised is that they are basically operating a business and that changes things dramatically. Can I suggest a video explaining this as I think some may need a wake up call before they learn the hard way in a civil or indeed criminal court? Also in the video above the auditor makes false statements about the police policy on body worn - they say they have to tell people before or when they turn it on but nowhere in the policy does it say that. Does that officer have any recourse given the auditor is clearly wrong (highlighting the fact that whilst these videos show police and others getting things wrong in most videos the auditors make at least as many mistakes as their victims). As you rightly point out at some point this is going to become a problem and a legal issue
it is 100% legal, and the police also know it is. so when they cause you alarm and distress making threats for filming be sure to seek legal action for damages and report their low standards to the IPCC so they can be re-trained to serve the public better.
In the first 4 minutes he explains that it isn't "100%" anything. Even in the US, frauditors can be charged if they record something that is private such as the information on screens in squad cars, private communications such as text messages etc. I'm all for transparency and accountability (part of my job is fulfilling FOI requests) but I don't think it's found by unemployed fuckwits pretending to be journalists whilst trying to provoke a compensation claim... yet another drain on the taxes of hardworking folk.
Not sure what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to do with anything, but maybe that's another of those hidden laws and rights that only agressive harassing 'auditing' twats seem to be able to see. Personally if I started seeing shit that doesn't exist, I'd take a drug test and ask for some anti-psychotics if it comes back negative, but apparently the 'auditors' seem to think they're fine. Used to work security while studying and I tossed out quite a number of arrogant people who argued they could follow around everybody and film them. All of them invariably argued they'd 'sue you' as they got escorted/carried/kicked out, but 10+ years later and even one of those cases is yet to materialise. When I say don't harass staff and don't scream in our faces just because you got a phone, I mean it and ignoring it has consequences, who'd have thunk?
There seem to be instances out there where the auditors are causing alarm/distress to multiple people, which seems like a harassment offence - and additionally, they publish these monetised videos containing personally identifiable data online which the subjects clearly object to, which seems like it should be possible to take to court on GDPR grounds. Is it the case that although filming in public in itself is legal, they could likely be commiting several other offences depending on how they go about it and what they do with the footage afterwards?
Great video..... Having watched plenty of auditing videos, the quotes used in this video from the NPCC guidance really hold the Police to account. That being, either the Police are too undertrained or ill-versed in general, so they willfully ignore the guidance. Either way it's a VERY poor reflection on each force. And the forces that come unstuck are widespread. It's alarming that it's so widespread. The police should be upholding the law. NOT enforcing imagery laws in order to make themselves feel safer in their office buildings from a non-existent threat. There are numerous accounts where the public wait hours, days or even weeks for the police to attend a crime scene, yet they're like a rat up a drain pipe for anyone holding a phone outside their workplace (a place where were they really should be spending minimal time considering that should be out of the best or investing crime on locale.
This is broadly correct but the last point is uncharitable. The huge amount of desk time for modern officers is due to the mountain of strict bureaucracy and procedure that has gradually been shovelled onto their responsibilities - the same mountain that makes them accountable and consistent and gives us the means to correct their mistakes and overreaches.
needs to be made illegal, however in the following areas, showing a perimeter layout of a building police station, government station, security measures ingress and egress points. Filming of civilian cars entering or leaving a protected place, showing face of driver and number plate. Filming of carparks and parked cars in a police station including government stations. Filming of persons leaving or entering a police station or government station. I know a great deal of police officers that do not want their neighbours and the places where they live to know they are in the police. Some work covertly in sensitive roles including child protection. Some covert surveillance cars are in those carparks and a auditor may inadvertently film them. One auditor video recently had a video of a lady entering a police station whom happened to be an informant. I understand why people audit, and understand that holding to account is lawful. However harassing and taking police time leaves a member of the public not getting help when needed. Or a crime not being investigated. Some of it is baiting for a reaction. Also an auditor hanging around a police station for example may put a nervous member of the public from entering to give information, report a crime. Most law abiding public get very nervous and anxious when entering a police station. For some its the worst thing that can happen. Most if the time audits are just a nuisance.
Regarding wasting Police time, on the few I’ve viewed (and I agree they are annoying) the police come out, usuallymore than one, and waste there own time. Surly there can’t be an officer 👮♀️ in the country that doesn’t know that filming in a public space is legal, so just ignore the auditors.
@@jonmartin1272 Ah yes but they're not coming out cos someone is filming in a public place, they're coming out to find out why said person is filming all the civilian cars going in and out of the staff car park. If someone was taking pictures of my registration plate, I'd want to know why as well. I remember seeing an 'audit' video not that long ago where the fella was filming an Audi R8 parked up, the owner came along and asked why he was filming his car and the auditor just went straight into belligerent mode "It's a public place. I can take pictures of anything. You can't stop me." What's the matter with "That's a really nice car, I just wanted to show UA-cam." ?? But no, auditors want hostility so they've got spicy content for their subscribers. Edit: Actually, not all of them. That Charlie Veitch fella is usually very nice and friendly to people.
Auditing would not be a thing if cops didn't invite it by breaking the rules constantly. Do you think they would be out there auditing if all they ever recorded was "-Can I help you? -No, -Ok, have a nice day"?
Tell me if I am wrong. If the government outlawed street photography wouldn't every CCTV in the land be outlawed and decommissioned as well ? Once again, as the law stands,. Anything and anyone can be be photographed from a public place. Regardless of status And age. Would you defend a person who has been detained, searched and held in the local police station when the arresting officer knew who the photographer was and knew he/she was a blogger and even watched his/her channel ? There are lots of retaliation by officers who are breaking the laws in attempting to teach auditors a lesson. Those officers should not be officers .
Whilst walking down my road one day, I saw a man photographing an unaware woman. (I presumed he was photographing her, as she was wearing tight and revealing leggings, and was physically 'fit' and attractive). There was nobody else there apart from her child. When I reached him, I challenged him and demanded to see his phone, at which point he fumbled around and presumably deleted the image. I phoned the police, as the position he's taken the photo from was visible from a traffic light's camera, which I had assumed was recording somehow. The police told me that wasn't the case, and there was nothing they could do. Was there anything I could have done in this situation, or if I encounter the same thing happening ever again?
Sadly no. If he was on a public right of way and the woman was not in a position, place or situation where she could expect privacy, then no offence was committed.....however creepy it is!
In the US, auditors are now auditing schools, women's refuges and also (weirdly) private businesses just for clicks. People lose interest in audits unless there is some confrontation and so auditors are pushing the boundaries further and further. Ultimately, what will happen in the UK is that new laws will be brought in to prevent this type of filming thus eroding a right we already have. A well thought out video by the way and I think there was a hint from Daniel that he can see a law change if this grows.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
This issue of forbidding filming public buildings under 'terror reconnaissance' is idiotic "Look Ahmad, the building looks like this, this is what we call Police Station..." it is foolish. If they are public buildings then they are known anyway and can be observed by anyone, in real life, online etc...and could be filmed at a distance or close up and concealed, and no-one would know anything about it. What could any mastermind get from a video of a public building that, they couldn't get in a number of other ways or just by walking past it etc? However, I think filming public buildings, 'sensitive' buildings just for the purpose of getting a reaction and attention seeking online is pretty moronic, but social-media is indeed full of moronic behaviour.
Thanks you for this... there does appear to be double standards going on. I saw one of these 'auditors' over the Christmas break videoing a police station, walking around the back, filming number plates etc, and they were actively looking to get attention and seek interaction... after all, they are in it for the clicks and rewards, right? However, when I started filming the 'auditor' filming the police, the auditor felt HE was being infringed, and asked me to delete the footage. Pots and kettles spring to mind. Needless to say, they auditor in question did NOT post his audit of that particular police station. I also back up your point of a terrorist hiding in plain sight. Private Lee Rigby was brutally murdered by an ISIS member outside a British Army base, so people 'hanging around' military installations deserve to be asked questions. As you say, one or two announce who they are and get on with it. But people like to see the confrontational stuff and the auditors know it. Equally I am not saying the police are doing very well with this either. Obviously training and guidance will need to be fast tracked because a lot of the younger officers these days seem to extend their powers without actually knowing the law.
Christ where to start many of the police have tried to film the auditors while on duty and of course the auditor is entitled to a copy of that footage as the person is working as a public servant as part of a business therefore it’s nothing to do with pot or kettle as for terrorist attacks on police stations there has only been one in Northern Ireland since about 1970 and that was during the height of the troubles…….! As for the police there is a disgusting lack of knowledge of using common sense to apply these legislative powers Just because someone is auditing is not grounds to use or rather miss use the counterterrorism act there has to be a reasonable suspicion in many cases these police have been given the opportunity to not only interact reasonably but to review the footage and learn from it …… neither has happened ! in 99% of the interactions auditing Britain for example has shown those interactions that did go well and there was some very positive comments from the general public in the comment section ! however the police generally seem to be aware of the fact that auditing Britain is who he is ! yet they still arrest him under suspicion that he may be a terrorist….? they know who is this is! And why he is there yet they’re still arresting him which is a total breach of their powers! it’s also a demonstration of their ego ……And there personal opinions and feelings interfering with their ability to interact with members of the public and do their job properly and in a reasonable and professional manner! If you were unaware of these things you need to watch more of the interactions! I too when I first watched was under the impression that perhaps auditors were perhaps a little out of line and being a little to pushy or over confident in someway it felt like they were being too cocky or sticking their neck out then it dawned on me that in actual fact most of the police officers they interacted with seem to be under the impression that this was totally reasonable grounds for them to rugby tackled him to the floor put them in handcuffs and then sling him in a cell for half a day under the grounds that they were suspicious…….. this is a crazy time where the general public are afraid to even approach or go near a police station for fear that they will be immediately detained searched and possibly arrested for no good reason I think many people are under the impression that the police are quite within their rights to do this this is why auditing is so damned important! for example filming police cars coming and going from the police station ! Well there’s no problem with that is there that’s standard auditing and perfectly acceptable but claim that this could be deemed as dangerous activity Because the video being shown might reveal their personal cars and the Number plates this is an excuse at best they are public servants and if when they drive away from the police station for example when they are leaving to go home from work if they know they have done a decent days work and not infringed on peoples rights unnecessarily then they I would suspect her unlikely to face any repercussions obviously there are extreme examples there always will be however none of these attacks as I say have taken place an army base is a completely different matter being a military target! There is a reason in this country that we have a saying it’s a fair cop one of the oldest sayings that was publicised over the years and many of the old time criminals used to use it demonstrating that even though they were breaking the law and being arrested for it ………if they weren’t fitted up ……… they would use this saying as a demonstration that it was a fair cop…….. indicating that they knew the risks and they had it coming and didn’t blame any of the offices for merely doing their job protecting other members of the general public from their illegal activity………… we would do well to not discount this sort of thing as it demonstrates the psychology behind interactions between the criminal and the enforcer! there is no expectation to privacy in a public place particularly when you are working as a public servant ! if they are so terrible at their job that everyone hates them ? I suggest that their practice and adherence to their codes of practice …..may be in need of a review ……..perhaps even a case of considering whether or not the person should be employed in the role in the first place ? as clearly they are abusing their powers ! most people in the general public will back down even when it comes to their rights being abused by police because of the perceived authority of the police officer! unfortunately the police themselves seem to be under the same Illusions ……..for example believing that they have the ability to stop and search someone without even giving a reason ! Worse still that the police Taylor how heavy-handed they are with someone according to that persons understanding of their rights and In the case of those that don’t often police officers grounds for reasonable suspicion are anything they happen to make up at the time including misquoting the counterterrorism act citing things like section 55 or 44 neither of which exist ! I suggested in any other job if someone Made such atrocious and diabolical errors as these they would be fired for gross miss conduct ! so why is someone in the role of a public servant as a police officer getting away with Working in that role when they have little or no understanding of the legislation or how to apply it let alone being able to cite the correct legislation when giving a reason for a stop and search under supposedly sound and reasonable grounds for suspicion!!! And the clincher to all of this is if they do not understand what part of the legislation to site and cite it correctly …….The old occasion where they may be in the process of arresting someone who has committed a crime whether it is a victim that victim will not receive justice and the person being arrested will be let off due to the incompetence of those who arrested them under the wrong piece of legislation! So heavy-handed and useless in most circumstances and don’t get me started on the fact that they can turn up and stop and search a person with a camera with no grounds for suspicion while it takes them five days to turn up to someone breaking and entering and stealing possessions from your home or just simply being attacked on the street I noticed these particularOpportunities for police to use the legislation to protect members of the general public and maintain order seem to be the last priority on the list yet if you make the mistake of filming from a public place a company for example which has their own security and that said security staff decide to call the police instantaneous attendance will ensue minutes after the initial call! Bloody disgusting!!! Yep the auditors are doing a vital job!!!
@@melissaflood505 Jason mentioned the terrorists hiding in plain sight in relation to a terror attack outside of military barracks and pointed out why you might be questioned for hanging around filming entrances and exits to those places. Because a member of the military is a high value target to said terrorists I think they are quite within their right to be twitchy about people filming faces of the exiting and entering said places
they are mainly a bunch of people who like to feel important , they aren't but auditing gives them the illusion of doing something worthwhile . IT's basically a silly hobby but they tell each other how they are fighting the good fight , they aren't.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
My experience of UA-cam vlogers is that when approached by the 'authorities'; i.e. police, etc. they become aggressive even though they might believe they are being assertive. It seems to me that they deliberately 'bait' or wish to attract attention to make a point, albeit a point that is neither funny nor entertaining and I refuse to give them my time or to increase their view counts. In particular, often the vloger's accent 'sounds' like they come from a European background OR from the lower classes of the UK where there is likely to be a high degree of belligerence against authority, especially the police. I regard these vlogers as 'click bait' and no longer give them my time.
I feel exactly the same way. I've basically commented every time on their videos ( WIND UP MERCHANT) even though it pains me to have conformed to the UA-cam algorithm
The point is consistency & a proportionate response. The police will never earn the public's respect when they respond, en masse, armed & in quick time, to a call from the high street bank concerned by a person with a camera phone, yet do not have the resources to respond to an aggravated burglary of an elderly, vulnerable lady.
I have seen that there are a number of videos of people flying drones over locations that seem to be chosen to provoke confrontations and so ensure videos that will attract views and therefore income. One that interested me was someone flying a lightweight drone over an industrial site. They quoted CAA rules that they said allowed this activity. However when I was at work on an industrial site we had to have written risk assessments and method statements (RAMS) in place before any activity was carried out to comply with HSE requirements based on the Health and Safety at Work Act. On at least one occasion we had a drone operator in to examine the state of a high roof and so RAMS were completed before the activity. So, do the CAA rules override the Health and Safety at Work Act or can the CAA rules be trumped by the Health and Safety at Work Act to stop this drone activity over a workplace?
The CAA puts the onus of safety on the pilot, who must do a safety course online, and has legally defined responsibilities, so the situation is similar to that of road drivers. When a delivery driver enters commercial property, you don't perform a risk assessment, ask to see their driving licence or insurance - but you do if you employ the driver. As property controller you have - hopefully - already assessed vehicle risk and installed roadways, turning-heads, parking bays, kerbs, crash barriers, traffic flows, pavements, signs, loading bays, gates, traffic signs, road markings etc., all to Department of Transport regulated standards. The driver takes note of your infra-structure through situational awareness and drives accordingly. Some vehicles need special licences to drive. Drones are also vehicles, and just as you might have PSV, HGV, motorcycle or tracked vehicle licences, so it is with drones. Or lawnmowers. Or spacecraft. Drones under 250 grams can be flown in "Open Airspace", which is from the ground up to 120 metres altitude. Their designs are certified as airworthy, and they pose such a low risk that they can be flown over people (but not crowds). The rest is up to the pilot. Open Airspace is like a public road. Anyone with a licence can use it wherever the DoT allows, subject to the rules. Landowners can't obstruct that traffic. If someone breaks the law, phone the Police. If someone doesn't... don't. Simple.
Your suggestion that things may change in the next few months, based on what, what changes? You also lean towards the argument (at the end of your video) that depending on what is happening on that day, you could be arrested under terrorism legislation. Will this be so for ALL journalists or just those that film for UA-cam?
I would like to understand the objective of this type of filming, what are they auditing? What is the scope? Have they attempted to gather their evidence in a less confrontational way? I am not a fan of the Police and I believe the whole judicial system in England is broken. I just don’t see what this brings to the table. I will stand corrected if I have missed something.
In theory Auditing is supposed to be about highlighting when a police officer in the normal course of their duties abuses or oversteps their authority. The reality though is that it has increasingly become more about gaining a following on social media and people are willing to go to sometimes pretty extreme lengths to get something worth posting. Notable examples of how rabid these people can get in their desperation to provoke a response is the a recent news article of 2 "auditors" in America who followed a police patrol for 2 hours shouting abuse at them before getting detained and crying about how unfair it was. Or the case of Zhoie Perez who couldn't get a negative response while "auditing" so she ramped things up far enough that she ended up getting shot. (She has a history of similar encounters, including one amusing one where she was abusive towards police because they defended her right to film and thus robbed her of her cheap clickbait video)
Almost found you to be a sympathiser to an extent. In most cases theses auditors we see online are just being a nuisance and trying to wind people up and cause a reaction, as the definition states.
As someone that audits for a living. Auditing to me is documenting and assessing if things are as they should be to procedures and highlighting any gaps that may cause issues..
I'm not sure what it takes to become an auditor, other than a video recorder or phone... but bumping into one in the street, I'm not taking them as any moral authority on any topic.
@@John1873-- not sure what the people shown in the video are auditing against tbh. And my thoughts are the same as yours. I was just answering the question that was asked. But auditing is a necessary part of health and safety, food safety and anything that requires good standards. It is an integral part of any manufacturing process.
@@carolinew4699 I realise that, but if I contact a company over quality concerns - if they then audit their production line or review their records, that's all well and good... But when someone comes up to me on the street with their phone recording and performs, what appears to be, a "gotcha" moment, those folks can go do one for all I care.
Let’s not forget that Campbell [2002] essentially gave rise to the ECHR article 8 into tort (even though the judgment stated it was not that intent), and it was 20 years that gave rise to the principle of legitimate expectation of privacy. Got to love when horizontal law become vertical
What happens when an auditor tries to film at a place of national security? I know I cannot film (even dash cams need turning off) when entering due to the Official Secrets Act. How do they get away with walking into the security office and then putting it on UA-cam?
Exactly 👍 It could result in a breach of security or worse, an attack, because the ‘auditor’ was, in fact, planning an attack. Very dangerous game imo.
There are also cases where they have “audited” shelters for victims of domestic violence. The rights of the victims to be protected surely outweighs the right of the auditor to audit even if the building is publicly funded
@@BionicRusty This is going to go badly wrong at some point and these fools are going to lead to formal legal restrictions on filming etc due to the growing number of people with cameras who ignore good sense, basic decency and privacy and basic press protocols as well as the need for security at some sites.
This guy is an auditor ,news now Scotland ,the police really really don’t like him and he has been arrested a few times ua-cam.com/video/sjvVsb4kUjE/v-deo.html
The issue I have been auditors is that they do it TO antagonize people. Surely these channels that show it, is enough evidence to charge with them harassment now? But they're hiding behind a legal right to film in public.
What if they enter private or commercial premises? Surely that ceases to be a public space and filming for the purpose of intimidating staff could be aggravated trespass
It does not really matter if photographing or making video recordings is a security concern. The only thing that matters is if there is legal grounds for interfering with the auditor.
Brilliant video Daniel. Thank you for using me as a positive example. Good clarity
My pleasure and thanks for joining the premier! It is nice to have a good example of public vlogging/journalism to refer to, which is a growing and arguably essential part of modern society.
Charlie! You are doing an essential public work, and you are documenting life and culture. I think you are also doing God's work in part. Peace :)
Congratulations Makai on your promotion to second Dan! Sorry to miss you in the chat. Great that job you got a position. We definitely need you. Thank you too, as per; Mr D.
Viewed as entertainment. Says it all....
@@BlackBeltBarrister I respectfully argue you make the production appear deceptively easy. Accepting of course there is no actual deception. Maybe you could explain a rattle -off -list of necessary steps to get a video idea to our eyeballs and ear drums? Software, hardware, time, different skills, etc.
I once was on my way to work (as a security officer) and I happened upon a group of people clustered around something. Among them I could see a couple of rough sleepers looking around anxiously and signaling me over. When I arrived, I could see a female rough sleeper collapsed and convulsing on the pavement, along side her was her partner holding her. Anyhow, I got to work treating her and making her comfortable and asking relevant questions while relaying the information to the emergency services over my 'phone. By chance, a Doctor happened to be passing and took over. Apart from myself and the two rough sleepers that had called me over, not one of the twenty or so bystanders had 'phoned the emergency services, or even attempted to help. But they all had filmed it. I set about roundly bollocking the bystanders and told them to delete any footage immediately (they actually did, while shuffling uncomfortably realizing that maybe, just maybe, they should have done 'something').
I think if it was a wealthy man in a suit on the floor an ambulance would have been called straight away.
@@pinkdiamond1847 to be honest, I doubt it.
@@pinkdiamond1847 I doubt it..... someone would have mugged him instead!
no right to ask them to destroy evidence
@@squeakmillward 'Evidence' of what? If I videoed them, the very same whiney shitvalves would be screaming about their civil rights.
Isn’t it about time the government/police forces make a serious attempt to inform, properly, police officers and security personnel exactly what the law is?
Exactly I have seen dozens of videos of the police accusing the Auditor of hostile surveillance with absolutely NO justification.
It is almost as common as I can smell cannabis or you fit the description (which is code for you're black). Cops are so obvious in their lies and fishing expeditions. They also seem to have a sexual fetish for ID.
And explained to these viewhunters ( they are not interested in auditting freedoms or laws ) that being civil works in both directions
The older ACPO photography guidance memo published in 2010 is also still valid and confirmed to me as such from the NPCC.
Is that why the cops have started using the excuse of “I believe your are carrying out a terrorist act by hostile surveillance, so I require your identification (or else)”? As if the police weren’t obnoxious enough with all their powers already, we should all be extremely concerned with the additional police powers act currently being considered by the House of Lords (although I believe the Lords threw it out as it stands?).
Considering that even during the height of “The Troubles” in N. Ireland there were no attacks on mainland police stations, it’s interesting how often the police get so triggered and believe someone with a camera is carrying out hostile reconnaissance and isn’t just a photographer with an interest in architecture! Not every building used by the police was built solely for their use but they are being replaced and the old buildings are demolished.
Hostile/covert surveillance is so much easier these days as the price of long focal length lenses has become easily affordable, and thanks to the Armed Forces I have enough training to do a decent job if I wished, but that’s not my thing. The latest generation of cell phone cameras have incredible capabilities and whilst they can’t compare to a decent DSLR and lens, they are far easier to use in plain sight, whereas the DSLR is far more obvious, but the police only appear interested in those of us that use a camera!
@@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate And lets not forget that total reconnaissance has already been carried out in full HD and 3D including satellite view courtesy of Google. For any budding terrorist that would be the first port of call for all of the images needed for any terrorist attach which as you've quite rightly stated already as well as myself many times, NEVER in the history of Britain has there been a terrorist attack on a police station.
@@PINACI Just to add to the context, I’ve been present at a couple of N.Ireland police stations during my career from 1978-2008 as a Royal Marine Commando Officer. I imagine it’s the reason why I’m so disappointed with the police officers that you encounter?
Whatever the reason, please stay safe and keep going,
Best regards to you and yours
David
@@PINACI very accurately/succinctly put. The MoD in their “infinite” wisdom, trained myself as a 2Lt plus a couple of my men, to set up OP’s in Crossmaglen, Northern Ireland and we’d frequently record some of the most vile IRA members known. I lost track of the number of times that either I or a colleague would have a bead on these barstewards yet our gutless politicians tied our hands and stopped us from doing what we were trained to do. More than that I cannot say or else the rozzers will be kicking in my front door.
Its a memo not law.
And its badly worded...
(Wrong)
Ex-Accountant here. Came for an 'auditing/verifying accounting accuracy' video. Was not disappointed even though it wasn't what I expected!
hmm, it worries me that an accountant needs to watch a youtube video to know whether the auditing of statutory accounts is legal lol
I was extremely confused, as a (financial) auditor, I thought I had missed something about my job.
that's the only auditing i have ever heard of .
Same, or process auditing for a workplace.
😂
@@gingerbill128 Real auditing is performed in many walks of life. As a now retired person in an industrial workplace we were required to perform a safety audit at the commencement of every shift. Our testing processes used to be audited by external profesional auditors in cases where our product was to be used in specific applications.
I initially thought it was concerning *auditing* a university course! You can sit in, listen and learn but you don't have to take any tests. Your "grade" is A for Audit, but it doesn't earn points towards your degree.
in the USA the police that murdered George Floyd (and went to prison) tried to stop the filming of their murder. One of the bystanders, Darnella Frazier, that kept filming after being ordered to not film won a Pulitzer Prize for Journalism even though she was not a journalist. One of the most important goals of auditing is to educate police and the general public that the "freedom or press" is not to be stopped, it not encouraged.
From what ive seen the auditors are really testing to see if security personnel will overstep their boundaries. There seems to be a tendency that such personnel will try to enforce their personal or the publics opinions rather than the law (and in a lot of cases they simply don't know the law)
@@fordcapri6288 It’s an attempt to get some juicy videos on UA-cam so they can make a bit of money. Nothing more.
@@fordcapri6288 Call it what you like mate. I don’t consider someone with a camera and sticking it in the faces of Police or security and hoping for a reaction is ‘activism’. I call it ‘someone with too much time on their hands’.
I’ve met a few while working and some are decent and genuine. The ones who aren’t are those who will try anything to provoke whoever they can, then say “that’s how you talk to ‘em” or “get another job”. Got no time for them. I just let them get on with it. As long as they don’t cross a line with me, they can film whatever they want.
@@fordcapri6288 I love being on camera mate. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest….because I do my job and do it well. Only fair that they record me while I’m recording them.
Only problem is my face is too damn ugly and I’m not very photogenic. But nobody’s perfect.
@@raflaughter3474 nail on head. Naff all to do with protecting civil liberty and highlighting tyranny and everything to do with making some cash. Only the most obtuse or seriously deluded would think it’s the former. If UA-cam stopped the ad revenue they’d ALL disappear overnight.
That said I do find some of them amusing. Auditing Britain in particular is legendary with his trolling.
They are creating a disturbance for clicks. The real question should be do they declare their You Tube earnings when they are bound to be on welfare benefits if they have so much available time free during the day. If they work at night they wouldn't be out filming in the day. That is the real question: how many of these "auditors" are committing criminal benefits fraud?
2:28 There are three types of privacy. Absolute, reasonable, and none. Absolute applies to private homes or private activities such as being in a public convenience. Reasonable means being in public but doing something which others should not pry on such as a private conversation on a park bench or typing in a PIN on an ATM. None is anywhere else, be it in public places or even private places which is visible to the public.
That’s insightful, thanks 👍
I'm trying to decide if your post is reasonable or absolute Sad....😂😂
There is also just not being a bellend with a camera in public, nothing to do with law but just being a decent person. Maybe go get a job to occupy your day instead?
@@shaunohagan1491 Point is being a 'bellend' isn't illegal and taxpayer money shouldn't be wasted policing 'bellends'.
@@lightningstrikes7314 So it's ok if I camp outside your home in the street then with a camera?
The downside of 'auditing' is that it will inevitably lead to the introduction of new rules and regulations which actually curb or stop filming in certain situations, effectively removing the 'rights' that many auditors claim to be upholding, but then most seem to lack foresight on potential damage in this regard.
Most interactions will be caught by CCTV, and most CCTV is unsecured so there will be a record, assuming the Police do not delete it.
@@jjhw2941 I think you’re missing the point that jackbox is making!
Don't do it, so we can keep the right to do it?
@@christopherweatherill348 I think the auditing was in quotes was to get to those who aren't actually interested in just recording in public or seeing if there recording is accepted, but are rather more interested in provoking an argument/confrontation as believing it'll get more youtube hits. I would guess the suggestion is that too much of the latter is likely to lead to more rules and regulations. Going around recording, asking reasonable questions without being a dick and generally being considerate of others etc is unlikely to lead to such an outcome.
Ummm - have you thought about blaming the Politicians when this happens?
PS: look at the new Australian surveillance law!! Soon to be coming to a location near you 😘
A place that under the official secret act should also protect the employees. If an auditor is outside the employees inside can't go home. They are potentially putting people lives and therefore their families at risk if they record the employees of GCHQ , Mi5 or Mi6 .
Hi BB Barister, as a follow on from this, would it be possible for you to have a look through some "Auditing" videos and point out where you think there may be breaches of section 26 by police officers? That would be VERY interesting.
Or breaches by the Frauditers
@@Wolfsschanze99 That's a long video.!
@@Wolfsschanze99 hose being filmed or filming
@@Wolfsschanze99 ive not seen any accounts in any so defo frauditers
@Uncle Heavy Here is a good start ua-cam.com/video/j1tFmKc8adU/v-deo.html
I do not understand how someone's actions that are well within the law can be deemed as "provocation" in any way by the police? It seems to me that for the public, law is pretty black and white....but for the police/judicial system, there seems to be a huge grey area where they mostly choose to operate where they can easily swing decisions based on their own subjectivity and interpretation.
Most of the "frauditors" literally fish for content to feed to their braindead subscribers. What they do, although not illegal per se, annoys people these useless rejects of society loiter around. And that's precisely what they want: trigger reactions to generate views.
Just because something is not illegal it doesn't mean it's right.
Me repeatedly calling you a cunt to your face is within the law, yet it would still be provocative. I wouldn't do it because personally I'd expect someone to retaliate to that sort of thing. It's a matter of common decency.
It sounds extremely autistic to equate legality with manners.
The law is never black and white, more often than not it is nuanced and interpreted.
let me try to answer .lady falls over and breaks her hip ! police arrive first and start giving first aid . Johnny auditor has an orgasm and rushes up with his camera whilst bitching to his followers about how many police ? does it take to give first aid, Johnny doesn't give a shit about privacy of injured person, provocation ......
@@stephenfisher7114 What if the reason her hip was broken was because of an assault that was only caught on camera by this type of live streamer? The police would request and welcome that footage then. What if the police were the ones in the wrong and were caught on camera operating outside the law, maybe they caused the broken hip? The lady may then welcome the footage as evidence.
If the police have the right to record in public, then so does everyone else.
The law applies to us all.
I think these people sticking cameras in security guards faces should be classed as harassment and dealt with akin to stalking because they use it as a weapon to bait people and no amount of passive aggressive dialogue will undo the stress it causes knowing they will be ridiculed and uploaded for thousands to see.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
lol, conversely security guards ought to be wearing their ID (by law) and stop walking up to the camera to say "don't film me", they are ignorant of the law but still insist on bossing people around - it works both ways mate, and the number of security guards i've seen in videos just being plain rude to a member of the public - who could be anyone from joe blogs to royalty - they should have better manners at minimum, go watch a few of DJAUDITS videos for examples of both first class security and twats who just want to push people around with no regard for what the law says. i've never seen any auditor, good or bad "shove a camera" in someone's face, if you don't want to be filmed, turn away, walk away.
if you get baited then you need to take a long hard look at your personality, there's no excuse for front of house to be unprofessional or rude - you have to be the better man, both auditors AND security.
@@HarryNicNicholas its simply a way to bait people into a reaction and get a video out of people. if someone you didnt know started filming you doing your job or following you around filming you would either feel awkward/intimidated/angry and would react negatively( or at least a vast number of people would). Even though it is not against the law to film in public areas these people use it as a power trip trying to catch people out and provoke them( " i have a right to film type of reply always comes back") fair enough but it leaves the person feeling passive aggressively attacked especially when you dont know who it is. You mention the guard should have his badge on display. Where is the badge of these auditers? what governing body does said person work for? You dont need one..eh . ok who the hell is he/she then a rational person would always sense a threat or unease at best.
@@HarryNicNicholas if someone did it to you outside your house or filmed your children in a public area or your wife at work you would feel uneasy and have a negative reaction. All the things an "auditor" does may be legal and guards etc may not follow rules but you would do the same thing in an example above or similar or protect family members in similar. Whatever the situation. You might thinl its a personality issue as you stated but if you were being filmed what would your persomality deem the correct response. Laugh maybe ..then what. What is his intentions.. its bait and click for youtube and dangerous at worst.
I'm surprised you didn't discuss prohibited places, which are the few places in the UK where it is straight-up illegal to film/photograph.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
@@2000jago inside privates areas from private, knowingly. I'm assuming.
@@2000jago A few places are covered by the Official Secrets Act but they will have clear signs saying that photography is not allowed.
@@debatable1984Yes. That often includes the interiors of shops.
Very few of them. And you can still film them from public places. You will find it difficult to get into them without the appropriate clearance.
I have watched many videos on this, and for the most part I agree with the Barrister's viewpoint. What I don't like to see, are "auditors" who go out of their way to "bait" security and police, and then use a belligerent, or rude manner to force their point, but there again, I have the same problem with police and security staff who act the same, and then start spouting ridiculous rules, regulations, under the "colour of law" in order to make an arrest and search. I also disagree with auditing military bases, (a) because your average soldier doesn't know the law, and (B) he is bound by his chain of command, and is simply following orders, and (C) there is also an obvious national security risk, so I would always err on the side of common sense regarding military installations. What does alarm me is that this barrister has no problem with the law being "altered," or new laws introduced to prevent auditing. That concerns me, because any public body, or official should always be under scrutiny by the public, for abuse of power, abuse of authority, and abuse of the law. When authority is unchecked, and unaccountable, it always leads to corruption and abuse. I was one of those who welcomed the body cam, because it does make the police think twice about how they handle an incident, so I'm completely in favour of full public scrutiny.
Exactely..its one thing genuinely wanting to make sure someones rights are being protected and respected by authority, its another when they're deliberately rude, nasty and antagonise and bait the people they're ''auditing''!
Agreed
What's this?! This is youtube! There's no place for this kind of sensible and reasonable thinking here!
@@elcapitan667 I've watched many of these, and in nearly all cases, auditors are usually respectful and polite until they encounter belligerence from their subjects or "Officials" that try to lay down "The Law" as they understand it. And this includes Police Officers.
well security guards and police or any other busy body shouldnt even go near to someone doing photography its not a crime or any of there business the rude person is the one being nosey about someone doing a perfectly legal hobby
I have watched several of these videos and often section 43 is deployed right away, usually when the auditor declines to give their details. Most are not willing to be arrested and capitulate. The police know if they do overstep their powers and arrest someone there will be no consequence for them.
Now that one certainly deserves the 'Generalisation of the Week' award.
@@Jon962-h4i ?
AB has won a couple of civil suits over this. He has become a lot more confident since his wins. I almost feel sorry for the police officers who go there, he even warns them about a civil suit.
@dhouse what is boniafide media?
Sounds like an appeal to authority fallacy.
@@robertfletcher11And that's where they leave after a short investigation realising nothing is wrong, simple 🤷♂️
Some of the auditors have gone into places like shelters for victims of domestic abuse. A lot of them are jerks.
I've not seen one do that ,which one are you talking about
if its public, it's public
Cops and cctv record everything, why aren't you concerned with them?
@@8cyl6speedActually not. Public property is not the same as "accessible to the public". Private property may be accessible to the public, but the rules for the owners apply to that property (for example, I may invite you to my house but I reserve the right to kick you out)
@@Stettafire yea but public isn't private, it's public
@@Stettafireassessable to public means able to be recorded by public
9:16 You say that no-one is under any obligation to answer question unless they are being detained or arrested for those questions. I would disagree with you on that point as no-one is under any obligation to answer questions *even* if detained or arrested. I would go further and say that all legal advice is not talk to the police and not answer their questions as police only ask questions in order to get people to incriminate themselves.
They read your rights when something happens which is like a spell and if your not educated or in the heat of the moment you don't understand what they are talking about
I think part of the problem is whichever magistrate said you can film what you see didn't consider telephoto lenses. It should have been film what you can see without using close up technology. Now that some auditors are using drones to overly buildings and courtyards that cannot be seen from the public area ..could this be breaking the expectation of privacy?
It won't be long before one of them gets his collar felt.
Charlie has for a long time crossed the line between assertive and aggressive. See numerous examples ( The ones with more views) of his aggression towards people with substance abuse and/or mental health issues in Piccadilly Gardens. He knows exactly what he's doing. Conflict means more views. Simples!
good to see someone knows the truth
He's a total pirck.
That 'hostile reconnaissance' sounds like a load of crap that could be used every time someone pulls out their Brownie 127. If I was indulging in hostile reconnaissance, I could almost guarantee nobody would know I was doing it. I'd have newspaper in front of my face with a hole in it.
Lol
Whilst the guidance is what it is, there is also the well known phrase "overt to be covert".....which depends on the profile..read the i think it was Howard Marks book where he said Customs surveillance teams were better as they used old dears, short arses etc and not easily profiled 5'10 guys in barbour jackets
I'd be feeding the Ducks, in St James' Park. ;-)
Google earth is the best recce tool out there.
I echo the call for you to comment on the behaviour of the police in some of these type of content blogs, One of the reasons filming of the police in public interactions has become so prevalent has been some quite shocking abuse of powers and misuse of the laws of this country in my opinion.
Agreed.
Yes, something like "Audit the Audit" for the UK would be useful.
There need to be rules for this, too! I'm glad to see some uploads because you can rewind and see clearly how things could have been handled better. There are also uploads that leave you wondering why the camera was running before everything kicked off. Not very clever.
Mike Boden
Let's not kid ourselves that ALL audits are some sort of social service. The vast majority are for YT hits and likes......which can be lucrative.
@@steveross8326 Very true, some of them are just outright provoking. But the principle of large numbers of police officers not knowing or deliberately misusing laws on a whim or because their ego is bruised is worrying. Lets face it, the police have long ago left the friendly "Bobby" on the beat behind.
Hi Daniel, I've noticed on various auditors video's that when rightfully refusing to give their details when being demanded by the police, they are then forced to do so by being hit with a section 50, antisocial behaviour, where it is a separate offence not to give your details. This is clearly an abuse of the act. Your thoughts please Daniel. Many thanks as always, Darren.
I’d say many of the auditors who have had s50 used against them, had them used against them in a completely lawful way. Especially the auditors who like to shout at passing officers, or passing vehicles as they pull into the station. That would definitely constitute ASB.
@@user-co9ye6yl4v hmmm intentionally cause alarm distress with violent, threatening, intimidation behaviour. Now most auditors can be loud towards police who hear it every day but they do not threaten. So s50 can be used if the person is already detained for so say but most cops go straight to s50 without any detention for ASB or s5. It is a ploy to gain information and if used in this way as a stand alone act is illegal and ergo an assault which could lead to a s26 against the cop
@@user-co9ye6yl4v I dare say that maybe true on some occasions with some auditors, but I have seen more times where it has been abused just to get details from auditor's as it is offence not to, regardless of the s50 being warranted or not.
@@user-co9ye6yl4v It still amazes me that the police either don't know many of the laws they are enforcing, or blatantly lie about them, for example, the amount of times you see an officer saying that it is an offence to refuse to give your details when asked by the police is just ridiculous.
Agreed,50 is the section that suspends your right to remain silent, forcing you to give up your details before being arrested,--------- or you'll be arrested.Thats a catch 22. Its, "give up your details ....... Or else!!"
Side note, I sort of appreciate the sentiment of what some auditors are trying to achieve, but I think it's an absolutely insane flash-in-the-pan situation that sees it currently legal to fly a drone over any privately owned site, domestic or industrial, and photograph and film downwards. DJ Audits does this a lot and while he's technically correct that it's currently legal, if anything his efforts have just convinced me that it really shouldn't be legal, because he's essentially harvesting sensitive site layout and ops information on hundreds of business premises and dumping it online.
I had 2 sgts telling me filming in publc is illegal. When i debated it he used the old " i smell cannabis" HOW CA NOT 1 BUT 1 SGTS FROM POLICE SCOTLAND NOT KNOW THIS?
I have a question, the Supreme court in the USA has said that it can be necessary for auditors to announce to law enforcement that they are auditing or exercising their constitutional rights. I don't know if there has been any such rulings in the UK?
Probably not, but they're making themselves look more suspicious the more questions they won't answer. If they'd simply say who they are and what they're doing, they'd likely be left alone.
I think you should add clarification that "Auditing" does not mean filming and or publishing on UA-cam, many organisations pay for audits, the government regularly carry out audits on regulated industries and schools.
10:06 A s43 search under the terrorism act can only be done when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person with the camera is a terrorist. And not answering questions cannot give rise to reasonable suspicion. Nor can any negative attitude, as a terrorist will most likely appear friendly and obedient if not subservient in order to ally any suspicions. Nor can the camera which is typically a smart phone which every has. Or even if the camera is a bulky professional camera. The simple fact is that the use of the camera is overt and not as the NPCC memo states, covert. A s43 search can only be carried out when there has been other information that the person is likely to be a terrorist, such as repeatedly watching the building or other intelligence from anti-terror departments in the police. A constable spotting a person with a camera and performing a s43 search based on a few questions will mean that the reasonable suspicion does not exist nor will the constable know what they are looking for.
Its my opinion that the section 43 searches that many of us have seen on UA-cam have been done out of absolutely NOTHING more that ill tempered SPITE, nothing more, and certainly not reasonable suspicion ...... The police just get away with it because their arrogance and ego get totally in the way of any professional standards ..... and they also know that if they have messed up, well ..... wink wink nothing will come of it!!
@@spectrumisgreen7252 And AB's win against the police for their unlawful and illegal s43 search should be the start of the process of the police re-thinking that strategy.
@@TheSadButMadLad ABs case was not only for section 43 but also because the police didn't identify himself and I think he didn't have a collar or shoulder number, that cop was more bent then a right angle
@@darshan2good But I doubt the police would pay out $1500 just because a constable didn't identify themselves. It was more than that. The detention, the search, the inappropriate use of s43.
Ooff so this bent cop will be paying through his teeth ua-cam.com/video/j1tFmKc8adU/v-deo.html
I found this video rather interesting as it implies a very major change in the laws from a couple of decades ago when I did some work as a semi-professional photographer. At that time a law course lecture I attended made clear the very interesting aspects listed below:
1. It's legal to take photographs or images in: (a) any public place, or (b) any private place where you have the prior permission of the owner or tenant in control of the premises, or (c) any semi-public place such as a shopping centre, or (d) any Crown land or property that is NOT designated and signs posted as being restricted from photographs or imaging such as a Defence Establishment.
2. It's NOT legal to take photographs or film of the inside of private property from a public place unless you have the prior permission of the owner or the tenant in control of the property.
3. It's NOT legal to take photographs or film inside of a semi-public place such as a shopping centre if they have signs posted prohibiting such activity or an authorised person in control of the semi-public place instructs you to cease taking photographs or film within the premises.
4. It's NOT legal to publish any image of a person that shows sufficient of that person's features to be able to identify them unless: (a) you have a signed release authority form from them, or (b) it's newsworthy event such as fire, car crash, etc. The making of a financial return on the publication is not relevant to the legality of the publication without approval.
The points (2), (3), and (4) were to comply with the relevant privacy laws.
It strikes me that while auditing would be valid and legal under point (1) the publication would likely be in violation of point (4) and possibly in violation of points (2) and (3). I'd be interested to know how the privacy laws were changed to allow the publication.
...........
While no one can have an expectation of privacy in a public place they should not have to have an expectation of them being there being made public without a very valid reason other than 'I want to post a video.'
these 'laws' are from the dark ages, looks like
@@TheBlueCream Do you mean the new ones or the older ones I mention that protected personal privacy?
Your points simply assert the opinion of the author. No reference as to why it might be legal, or not
If anyone wants to be an Auditor then they should attend a six month course about do's and don't's while Auditing and should be licensed and identified by officials like Police, Site/Facility Security, Military Personel and government officials (after all, they should have nothing to hide). If they become belligerant to officials questioning their motives then they run the risk of license revoke and arrest and prosecution.
No
A few years ago I spotted that the still-occupied (at the time - I don’t know about now) landmark Police Station in Taunton had a big “For Sale” sign fixed on it, and I thought it was worth taking a photo record ~ “Law and Order” and those Tory buzzwords, yet they’re flogging off the offices. I was photographing from the pavement when 2 officers came out and asked what I was doing, and I explained.
I’m just a bloke with a camera, no particular intention to upload the photos, but it did seem to me that the act of asking about my taking the photos, within my rights, was itself an intimidation.
I’ve got to say, I don’t really understand the attraction of “auditing”, and in the few cases I’ve seen on You Tube the auditor (I don’t know who it was) seemed to be deliberately acting in a suspicious manner and pushing the boundaries.
There is a large scale of talent out there
Some of these guys are the best wordsmiths you'll find anywhere. Some of them have been given a second chance to earn an honest living, with the talent they have and would never be able to work as an official reporter for bbc-MSM. I wish them luck, there's far worse you could be doing.
They could be doing , soz typo
Similarly to you having the right to take photos, there's nothing preventing the police from asking anyone what they're doing.
I follow half a dozen Auditors and they all conduct their selves with firm respect, it’s always the cops that are arrogant, pushy pricks abusing the law, trying to intimidate. These include, Focus Pocus, PJ & DJ Audits, AB, Plod to Plod. They are all exposing the Authoritarian practices of what has sadly become all to prevalent within today’s police FORCE! A side note, they all express delight when they have interactions with decent coppers.
Sadly too many "auditors" are just looking for a confrontation. That's what gets the clicks/views/cash. I find auditing normal members of the public (ie, not police/security) to be really distasteful even if it is legal.
It would be an interesting addendum to this video to discuss exactly why Section 44 was repealed. From what I can gather the police were abusing this law as using it as their ‘go to’ legislation to detain and arrest individuals, particularly photographers.
To quote - The power is clearly being overused, as Lord Carlile QC warned in the UK terror law watchdog’s 2009 annual report:
‘I have evidence of cases where the person stopped is so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there is not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist, and no other feature to justify the stop’.
I think the intention for the police, is to use sec 50 ,as the successor to 44, that's a nasty "damned if you do,damned if you don't" section.look out for 136 ,coming up fast on the rails, as one for the police "snatch teams" to chew over.
I have asked these "Auditors" to do an audit on run down council estates and let us all see how the junkies and smack heads in the council estates react to the auditors giving them their words of wisdom and filming them at the same time. I bet they do not take me up on my request.
Hahaha that would be fun 😂😂 I remember reading about one trying to do a builders yard and one of the young lads laid him out 😂😂😂😂😂, they know they're safe with the police that's what makes them so pitiful
What's the point? The point of auditing is to test police knowledge of the law. They are our public servants. Residents of run down estates are not!
I've asked them to audit a travellers site! 😂
@@sheeeene7 These "auditors" do not have the balls to do this. If they did try it, they would end up with their cameras taken off them and them quickly visiting the nearest Accident and Emergency hospital.
@@DJFAmenHeavy So they are scared of auditing council offices or depots in these areas ? How about Council flats where there is council employees working ? Is that outside the auditors remit ?
Paragraph 1.3 shows how inept even organisations such as these are: I quote "They are also well versed in their own rights...". Nope - it should say that 'there are some/many/numerous of them who know their legal/lawful rights' (as many of them do, but many of them don't). It's an official document, and as senior officers of the law, they should know all too well that wording is everything, and it's hardly a lengthy or complex document after all. Did they draw it up over breakfast using sentences copied from cereal packets? Please don't forget that after years of officers lying, cajoling, intimidating, harassing, using excessive force and even assaulting and/or killing the public, many of these auditors whilst appearing extreme at first, when one puts their behaviour into perspective, are actually doing us all a darned good favour. Having travelled much of the world, the UK (English) police are the worst I have ever seen in terms of malpractice, dishonesty and unprofessionality, and that's in comparison even with China and Soviet Russia. Don't forget they partly privately sponsored now - what could possibly go wrong? And lifelong career officers (now retired), who are friends and acquaintances of mine, wholeheartedly agree with my observations and feelings about them.
Very well said 👍🏻
I love the polite Auditors and there are a few of them, I hate the ones that go in to stations and repeatedly swear at the police and call them names as there just isn't a need for that.
I started keeping a video feed on me after being approached a few times while doing public photography, I've even filmed Charles and he's reposted one of my videos of him with permission.
Freedom of speech should not be limited to BS politeness if your rights are being violated.
@@blurtam188Tell me you don't understand free speech without telling me you don't understand free speech
@kippkipper4126 Your rights are not subject to your character! And they shouldn't be!!
@@Stettafire LOL What? Haha
The main thing that concerns me is the fact that local councils are using police forces to issue public protection notices to auditors restricting their rights to film in public. Councils are elected and paid for by the public so by issuing PPO's against people who are bringing to light the level of abuse by public officials is very underhanded and shows that the councils are assisting the police to cover up their abuse of authority and legislation.
It would be good and I would be interested to see if you could elaborate on how councils and police forces can use these PPO's to redtrict our rights, and maybe do a video on our rights and how they can be removed from us using legislation. Even answer the question of do we have protected rights here in the UK?
Can you give an example where "auditing" actually brought to light an abuse of power, please, as most in my experience seem focused on out witting or embarrassing police in the course of their duties?
I elected and pay for my local council and I’m quite pleased they’re clamping down on these agitators.
@@annoyingbstard9407 they can't the law allows anyone to snap away and film any thing from public land period
@@andyhulme2274 So why is the OP saying that they are doing the very thing you say they can’t?
@Annoying B'stard because corrupt people don't obey the law.
There's always Google Street view that anyone can use to get more information about the outside of building that the auditor's can't see or get video of.
You can record off google street view as well using screen recorders etc.
That’s not the point of it
Nobody is trying to 'get information'. They are just trying to provoke altercations. It's just more narcissistic attention-seeking from idiots on yotube.
Daniel, can you do a video about the Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 that auditors keep trotting out please? (Extension of definition of “public place” in Public Order Act 1936. ) - I've seen a lot of them relying upon this to say that they're in a public place and that what they are doing is legal, when in fact they are on private property.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime....
Military Bases in the UK can stop this as it's seen as a possible act of recon for terrorist or espionage etc... (I don't know how the Official Secrets Act ties in or doesn't?)
I misread the title as “ is auditing Britain legal” and thought wow this channel has changed direction 😂
6:14 So if there is a real threat against a building and the people in it, then security should do its job properly. However, in many cases where the auditor is filming a police station the police act as if the station is on par with MI5 in terms of security. When in reality, even the MET's own training manuals around terrorism do not list police stations as a potential terror threat. Terrorists create terror and they will not get very far with the police who are the only people who are armed and trained to use force. The MET's training manuals list places such as shopping centres and areas where the public congregate such as tourist spots and entertainment places as the most likely targets. This is where security should be high, not at police stations which already have lots of security features such as high fences and a large number of CCTV cameras.
Most terrorism is government sponsored. That's why
@@metalicminer6231 the Israelis wanted to make Al-Q look bad PIRA were really peaceful ppl etc
I have a question for you, on the back of this video, Sir!
As I now live in the USA, and see a lot of these Auditors out and about, wandering around with their cameras, giving grief to the Police or Security, Yes I know some deserve it, and over here it is a First Amendment Protected Activity, so they really can't be touched by the police for it, but they can still be parts about it!!
Anyway, After watching several Audits from the UK, I've noticed a pattern emerges from the Police, and if the person doesn't want to give up their ID, there is no cause to give it anyway, they immediately jump to the Terrorism clause, no chatting no formality, it is straight to we have a safety concern under the terrorism act!
So they are not even trying to find out if you are just a UA-camr, you are immediately under suspicion of terrorism! Is this really how the Police or authorities should treat private citizens? And they wonder why the public has lost trust in them?
Also what is to stop any terrorist now just watching the uploaded videos of their intended target and get all the information from there?
Besides I think most terrorists wouldn't be out in front of the local nick taking pictures in plain sight, they'd be ensconced in a room locally watching covertly or from the back of a van!
it didn't bother the Arianna Grande bomber either - he went out on two reccys videoing both so he could plan his attack......all because lefty goody twoshoes think people should be allowed to film anywhere anytime for any reason...........well this guy did and 22 children and adults were blown to bits and 1,000 injured.
"So they are not even trying to find out if you are just a UA-camr, you are immediately under suspicion of terrorism! Is this really how the Police or authorities should treat private citizens? And they wonder why the public has lost trust in them?"................a casual picture taker/journalist would not be outside a facility for hours on end taking video/pics for a 'story'....even THEY have limitations on their time (although they will declare the opposite every time ) they would only be 10 mins and gone but the police/staff showed up so they will stay all day if they want to......why stay anyway if it was only going to take 10 mins working on your story ?.................they forget their lies.............they just don't want the police to follow them to their long wayaway parked vehicle so police could run a Sex Offender Register check through the car's plate.........we ain't stupid bauy.
@USA UK stand together no....silly is relying on intel that is three years old and only poorly defines the outdoor infrastructure
If I want to take a picture of a police station as I'm walking by I will stop, take the pics and then move on............that's not the issue, what IS the issue is if I stand there for three hours I obviously am wanting more than a few pictures........I'm now suspicious and ~i don't care wtf you interpret it as but no normal person going about their everyday business does that - not even News Crews 'working on a story'
As one intelligent police officer commented to an auditor, "to some extent you're generating your own content" by deliberately being as un-cooperative as possible, dragging out an encounter for as long as possible when most people would quickly satisfy the officers that nothing untoward was happening and the officers would move on.
Auditors do provide a useful service in that as soon as they start filming the bad apples tend to fall out of the box and make idiots of themselves by overstepping their powers and behaving like bullies. It is gradually educating police and security to know the laws properly and that a uniform is not an excuse to be abusive.
However, most auditors I have viewed are also pretty annoying, provocative, arrogant plonkers and the point they are making is very much less significant than the amazing and really difficult job the police have to do in preventing the whole of society becoming a hell ruled by predators. Police deserve a bit of respect for doing a job most of us couldn't or wouldn't do. The auditors love to demand respect from cops, but it's sad to see them take delight in being rude and disrespectful in return.
Yep. Well put.
9:00 a word of advice, if you think the cops might resort to section 43 ask them "do you think i'm a terrorist" cos the knee jerk to that kind of question is usually "no, of course not" but once they have said that then section 43 is pure harassment - they said they don't suspect you of being a terrorist.
I was stoped and searched for taking a photo of a street advert that had no building in the background. They even said I would be arrested if I did it again. Also stoped for taking photos of a block of flats under construction.
Great, an informed and balanced 'presentation' on auditing legalities.
Whilst 'auditing' as discussed here ,comes with many approaches and objectives, it highlights two extremes in my view. The aggressive/abusive which gives power to a negative police response, to the polite and often very witty 'auditor' exposing on occasions police who are poorly informed and/or deliberately ignoring the public's legal rights.
It helps if the auditors know where they actually HAVE those rights.
Generally, they don't.
They twist the law to justify filming on private property.
Most auditors who become aggressive or abusive usually do so after being pointlessly engaged.
@@budgetnuclearweapons7858 The problem is then what is classed as private or public access, the police seem to change the definition to suit themselves depending on the situation. IE. this is a public area so you are not allowed to .... then next time for the same place they will say this is private property so you are not allowed to.... It does seem to be very flexible where the police are concerned. Also if you are on private property then it is only trespass which is not a criminal offence and therefore not under the remit of the police.
@@lightningstrikes7314 one of the things is that can see a fair no. of comments on audits are of the "i hate the pigs" type where tbh their very existance is what ppl hate. Others are ppl weighing in with comments that police office of Asian appearance are Taliban, shouldnt be in uniform..in other words, far right white nationalists. Those type of ppl have the crediblity of ppl who say that the UK needs a 2nd Amendment but that only white ppl should be allowed guns..rather like how that law was applied in US for abt 200 years..liberty for some
@@vanpallandt5799 Racist comments in the auditing world are rare but they do exist. It's just a fact of life unfortunately. Some may be plants and provocateurs. Also race wasn't even an issue on this thread so why bring it up? You just make yourself look like a shill and undermine your own credibility.
Obviously it's legal other wise their cameras n cctv wouldn't be an most are well versed on the laws surrounding it
It doesn't work like that. A shopping centre has a right to install cctv because it's THEIR property. You don't have a right to film on their property.
You do if its publicly accessible.
@@WeAreThePeople1690 Actually a lot of places can tell you not to video or take photos as part of their entry conditions, eg courts, some museums and others. Just because you have permission to enter does not mean that places cannot place conditions of entry.
I was talking from a public place point of view
It appears, in my experience, cameras are the trigger. I use discrete or body cameras.
When shooting buildings l frequently say l am recording architectural styles. Plods buildings are similarly dealt with by recording how money has been used to make a building attractive or if a building is a utilitarian design.
Number plates are public information.
If someone expresses a wish to examine pictures, simply explain your pictures are transmitted back to the office and no record is kept on your equipment.
Every work place in Britain needs to display this simple notice in staff canteens and notice boards .
" If you see ANYONE filming without prior arrangement
DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT !
DO NOT SPEAK !
DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE !"
Every action gets a reaction , auditors know that no one likes being filmed .
Zero reaction will make dull content on the videos .
Who really wants to see what the outside of a Biscuit factory or an Amazon warehouse looks like on the outside?
If workplaces like those were so interesting there would be coach party's outside of every factory.
Can you arrest a police officer committing a crime, and how long can you hold them for?
Yes, you can, as they aren't outside of the law (even though they may think they are). It would be a citizen's arrest. You can even use force against a police officer who has committed a crime (Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967). You are allowed to restrain and detain anyone who has committed a crime using reasonable force to stop them from escaping. There is no time period, but obviously it would be best to phone the police for assistance. Good luck with that, you had better be filming it!
There is a difference in 'any person' and 'a constable' powers
@@barryfoster453 also arrest powers can only be used where the service of a summons is not practicable and for certain other specifc grounds..the old idea of arrestable offences has effectively gone except for certain presrved powers of arrest
I'm interested in the situation of an inncoent 'auditor/blogger's film being used by criminals/terrorists. While the auditor is behaving within the law, what about the information garnered by them and uploaded to a public domain. In effect, the terrorist needn't risk reconnaissance or 'hiding in plain sight' if some innocent person does it for them?
Remember a time when the police force were highly respected and people felt that they were there to help and assist us?
James Ireland - I still believe that way. I've never yet had any interaction with the Police that led me to believe otherwise. Hard working, professional and courteous is my impression. Perhaps they give to me the same attitude that I give to them?
yeah in the 1960s
@@StonyRC Then you are lucky
The same question can be posed for the medical and legal community - sorry Daniel.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.. NO. 😒
This barrister should be asking more pertinent questions: do "auditors" declare their You Tube earnings to the taxation department and how many receive welfare benefits seeing they seem to have ample time free during the day to wander about creating films?. Anyone who works at night most certainly wouldn't be out daily making films. I have a gut feeling there will inevitably be a taxation crackdown on "auditors" just as there was when 100s of Ebayers were caught out not declaring income. It''s early days yet but the arrogance of every single 'auditor" (never seen a"humble" one yet") suggests they do not declare income no matter how small it is.
Auditors create content that contains tension and the potential for conflict. This is the type of content that is popular. So the best response from the police is to avoid interactions, and communication. Without the police reaction there is no content.
I do wonder how most people would react to someone walking up to them and shoving a camera in their face when they're trying to work. I'd get pretty irritated by it, personally, and if they persisted I fear events might conclude in a brief case of guerilla endoscopy.
They’d react accordingly
... maybe " tv presenter" is not the job for you? 😉
The police are people
When does this ever happen? Auditors are approached 99.9% of the time... Get real!
You mean if my employer wanted to video me at work!
Fixed it for you
As a drone flyer , these youtube ‘auditors’ are giving hobbyists a bad name flying over mundane businesses and attracting hostile reactions . I got accused of ‘auditing’ whilst flying my small mavic mini over a beautiful lake until i explained I wasn’t filming anyone directly and not trying to bait security staff
And why would you explain yourself to complete strangers?I think it's you that needs to see a doctor!
They will ruin it for us. I guarantee that.
The problem with these audits is people like marty...live free..etc give audits a bad name. The abuse they give people is embarrassing.
AB....thats how you do a audit.
I am not a big fan of AB. He is often rude for no particular reason. The Oxford audit is one example. I do not think he is a particularly nice person and is overrated.
AB is a terrible example. He literally got caught stalking someone (illegally and creepily) on another channel, and is often abusive for no reason.
He is a creep who likes to argue with women ,hangs around the back of police stations until somebody spots him then cries foul !
My understanding is that anyone may 'ASK' or 'REQUEST' anything. It is the right of the listener who is being 'asked' to decide if they wish to comply with the request.
The only area of which I am aware, where it is an offence against an Act of Parliament or Regulation is Industrial Relations or Employment Law/Regulations (Australia) in terms of 'asking' for personal information at an interview relating to a job application; e.g. intention of a female to start a family through either birth (maternity leave entitlement) or by adoption.
On a realted note: what constitutes a public space/area? For example, if I stand on the pavement outside the Home Office vs I stand on the forecourt of the Home Office vs I stand in the foyer of the Home Office... I think you get the point.
I have been following the auditing community for a long time good, bad and the ugly. From my observations, the only and best advice I can give is to be nice to everyone you meet. Not only will it elevate you as an individual human-being, it will also help grow your auditing audiences to the next level! Keep up the good work Daniel, and have a magnificent day...
I seriously follow the American craze - Glennifer , Earl Worden, Princess Patty, Arselmo, Silence Boy, Amagansett Press the Gutterman, LIA(r), Sheepdog , all the News Now dipshits and so on and so on , ........over there it's a thing to test The Constitution 1st Amendment mainly which is originaly intended to prevent the future oppression of the citizen in it's various forms , however, like all single braincelled Libtards they have switched it around to now laughingly use the Ist Ammendment to verbally abuse private businesses, the general public and Federal Agencies in both public places and public spaces AND private places for absolutely no real reason other than to illicit confrontation for money-----the FACT is that their own posted videos prove they begin with malicious intent ,continously lie and cheat towards their victims (host venue) and knowingly ignore displayed Federal Regulations in Federal buildings just for the sake of confrontation - they even call the police themselves ffs then get their cerebally challenged subscribers to spam the local police and city halls with threatening phonecalls towards staff and their families....The difference to here is that USA is made up of States which create their own laws within their own borders and own State Constitution which itself must always offer less restriction than the Federal /Constitution framework...watch ANY American fraudy vid - they're a bunch of pathetic morons who are 99% convicted criminals , often rapists, assaulters and kiddy fiddlers, and ALWAYS habitual liars............as for Pottymouth 'AB' over here, ( maybe use an americanism here- "Arsehole Boy" ? well, how he's got this far in life without need of plastic surgery is a puzzle....but it's very dark up his own arse so I guess he feels safe wallowing in his own dipshittery.
But that won't get them the views on UA-cam they crave.
Confrontation will.
They are just attention seakers who need to get a life.
As I've said in another comment one this video.
If these people harassed me at work in this way.
I would give them a smack and claim I was being harassed felt threatened so acted in self defence
The best thing for people to do is say nothing and not react to anything the frauditor does. That produces boring videos which are of no use. Also, I’ve heard that if you play music on your phone, there is a chance that UA-cam will demonetise the video, due to a copyright strike.
@@good7saint precisely . Its fake righteousness. These are the same people who bang on about privacy yet push cameras into someones face. Thanks for this. Admittedly, I like Charlie...i think because he tries to make intelligent points. Just shouting at perceived authoritarianism and taking the piss out of people just trying to just makes it worse. Its lazy morality lol
@@good7saint not all, i've waded through nearly all of DJAUDITS videos and it's disappointing the lack of conflict, he's really good at handling people, but he also takes a genuine interest in what he's filming, talks to as many people as possible, points out the good and the bad equally and 9 times out of 10 everyone is happy.
i think the MAJORITY of the "attention seekers" are doing a good job, however badly they go about it, the police (not all cases but TOO MANY) are god awful at their job, they are ignorant of laws they use to boss other people around, they think they can boss people around and make up reasons to boss people around and they deserve to be called out - they are meant to uphold the law, not make up their own rules and use the uniform to hassle people, even the worst of the auditors do not compare to public servants who are paid to know the law and uphold it, not use it for their own egos.
Very helpful and interesting content.
Could you perhaps make a video discussing the notion of a "Public Place" one day?
You should do a short covering the Section 33 changes on publicly accessible areas.
Seems a lot of people think this converts privately owned land & property into public, where the landowners or agents have lost their ability to impose conditions and revoke access.
One of the BTP officers chatting to an auditor tried to explain this the other week.
Absolutely.....
Whats s33?
@@fintonmainz7845 “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”.
It's why auditors claim they can record/photograph literally anywhere that isn't fenced & gated off. They usually ignore, or are ignorant of other statutes or elements of common law which mean you can't interpret it literally as they have done..
The purpose of Section 33 is to extend the area where certain crimes can be committed to now include private land. Think public order offences in shopping centres, teenagers thrashing cars around a McDonalds car park. They happen on private premises, yet you can be punished as though they were on public land.
@@pup6728 section 33 first came into force way back in 1936 to allow the police to maintain order and control at political gatherings and rallies such as those held by Oswald Mosley‘s fascist party.
It is entirely to do with public order and absolutely nothing to do with implied rights of access. The problem is that most auditors are too stupid to realise this and tend to believe the nonsense uttered by Blabberer and co. The second problem is that the police have never heard of it and being too stupid to either research it or seek advice they rather foolishly tend to allow the auditors to rant on.
@@marshman5184 Yep - it's why a quick video on it would be useful, and interesting.
It's always the recent amendment they quote.
If ' hostile reconnaissance' (hr) includes 'recording shift patterns, patrol routes, venue layout' etc then surely any photography outside a site could be construed as h r and therefore any 'auditor' as a possible hostile?
I have to disagree with the definition given of auditing. I'm sure there are many so called auditors who do it purely for reactions and the bigger the reaction the bigger the potential monetization. However the auditors I watch and enjoy all do it in defence of the right to do it and for everyone else's right to do it, not for a reaction, infact all the auditors I watch are genuinely happy when they dont get a reaction and their rights are respected.
Although I tend to agree with your sentiment (these type of ‘auditors’ do rub me up), but If they are not breaking the law, the police officers shouldn’t be reacting to their obnoxiousness.
@@minimanukuk nice to receive a civil and polite reply for once in the youtube comments section so thank you! I have seen some videos in the past of those types of "auditors'" and personally I think they are just trolls/grifters looking to make a quick buck out of the popularity of auditing in general, and they do rub me up the wrong way also. I'm a big fan of the genuine auditing community and feel they provide a vital public service.
I know, UA-cam’s comments sections isn’t the most civilised of platforms. 😂
I think the reason for the popularity of the nonsense is the disproportionate compensation levels in the US. I think delusional UK auditors think they’re going to be in the money, or they’re just being a twat.
I must admit, I would love to question the police if they did a ‘random’ traffic stop, but if I’m honest, I’ve not got the bollocks for it.
The issue is not the *original purpose* of the recording, but the *final potential use* of it. If the information being recorded is potentially useable by bad actors, it really doesn't matter whether the bad actor covertly (or overtly, hiding in plain sight) records the information themselves, or whether it's recorded by a frauditor, because the frauditor will always upload the information to a place (eg UA-cam) where bad actors can view it anyway - and with no risk to themselves.
You mean... Like Google Earth? There is no record, or noted pattern of any criminal ever using UA-cam info to spec out 'a target'... think about what you are suggesting, so a criminal sits and watches and researches 1000s of hours to find the one that suits their needs... really? There is a plethora of other 'normal' alternatives don't you think? but hysteria, even the barrister joins in by siting the 'terrorist act' as a means to stop and search but forgets, most coppers who used it have been taken to the cleaners for £££££, So that said, shall we give the Police more powers to terrorise all public photography and filming, including Google with more taxes being wasted...? one thing auditing does show is how the Police love to invent and abuse plus have a huge chip for vengeance if the question on their dodgy knowledge of the law!
This is exactly what I was thinking whilst watching this, although the auditors themselves may not be engaged in hostile reconnaissance, anyone who would be engaged in that kind of activity could watch their videos and not even have to attempt to be covert themselves
this goes higher up than UK law,,,,, ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ECHR) is a European treaty in which the human and civil rights of all residents of the member countries are laid down (article 10). allows filming in the public sector, even public in and government buildings , everything you can see from public (even into private buildings and sites) you can photo and record it since November 4, 1950, Google Earth (with zoom options) Google Maps (with zoom options) Google Street View (with zoom options) hundred cars with a dash cam recording them every day
There can be no argument that it is fundamentally lawful, regardless if any person may in the future make it illegal
My guess is that pretty soon by judicial precedent, trespass while intending to cause a disturbance by filming will amount to "aggravated trespass", which IS a crime.
Auditing covers a broad spectrum. From those performing genuine public photography from a public ROW , to those causing havoc on private properties provoking, abusing, and insulting people. One end of that spectrum is on a path of self destruction.
There are several circumstances where it isn't.
@@leathleyg5995 There is a problem which you point out. What should eventually become the norm is that any kind of photography will be approached by security, and others as antisocial behaviour, a young dumb piglet will come along and hand out a dispersal order so as to not have to answer the situation and get rid of you. Then you are not expected to go to court to defy the criminals that have wronged you.
What about filming children? I understood that taking images of children was illegal? Or have I got that wrong?
It's great that you've covered this topic, but I find some of your conclusions somewhat troubling. Firstly, that engaging in a lawful activity, in this case filming in public, constantly needs to be justified by the person engaging in it, lest it be regarded as suspicious. The problem as I see it, is that it risks subverting a well-established principle of common law in the UK, namely, that a person should remain unmolested by law enforcement so long as he or she is doing nothing unlawful. The danger of going down this route - clearly on display in many of the responses that many auditors capture on film in the U.K.- is that it puts the burden of proof on the photographer to prove that they pose no danger to, e.g., the building or person(s) being filmed. But why should he/she accept this? By accepting what amounts to an inversion of the principle of innocent until proven guilty, we have created a free-for-all for authoritarian types and their bullying ways in the U.K. in recent years. A member of the public who is photographing in public should not be held responsible for the paranoid tendencies of anybody wearing a lanyard and a high-vis jacket, tendencies which, in any case I contend, are mostly proffered as little more than fig-leaf pretexts for attempting to snuff out the sunlight of transparency that public photography creates. After all, the argument "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" seems curiously one-directional when trumpeted by the authorities, doesn't it, in this context?
Yeah, but a lot of these people are going out to do this 'auditing' are setting out to create situations to get views on their blog or youtube channel or whatever. In the US, though, people get worked up about being recorded by strangers.
@@pandorasbox4238 Fair point, but does that excuse the often criminal ways in which those being "audited" respond, such as getting physical with the cameraman simply because he doesn't want to be filmed or feels his authority is being challenged? Could we argue, for example, that police "provoke" criminals by engaging in crime prevention techniques, such as high visibility patrols and forms of surveillance? Hardly, so I don't see why "auditors" - assuming all they are doing is filming in a public place - should be regarded as agent provocateurs simply for engaging in what is, after all, a perfectly lawful activity. The question of whether the over-reaction of the authority figures being "audited" is being sought is, for me, neither here nor there, since the authority figure being filmed is the one who initiates the confrontation in the first place and who unreasonably demands some form of justification for why the "auditor" is engaging in a perfectly lawful activity.
Held under Section 43 for up to 14 days...that could get very expensive for the Police.
Hmm not really .Solitary confinement with only the very basics .£ 10 A day max
@@Interdiction And the rest. Auditing Britain just got £1500 for only a couple of hours false confinement (hostage). 14 days they will be paying easy 5 figures. Police would much prefer to pay out of court than have it effect their figures.
I've seen a few 'auditing' videos and most of their methods, with regard to what they're supposedly trying to achieve, are going to do more harm than good. Who's auditing the auditors?
Why is that
@@tomdude75 isn't it obvious?
@@mapledelight no
"auditors" are, by and large, a bunch of clowns seeking likes through antagonising people.
@@SuperBobbster cry more
This auditing makes me uncomfortable in that while in individual cases it may be argued that they are innocent the reality is that what they publish will be used in the bigger picture to build a more comprehensive open source intelligence and data picture of a target so in effect the "Auditor's" could in effect be acting as unwitting agents for real terrorist threats - I grew up in Africa and you could not take pictures of a lot of bridges, dams, post offices, telephone exchanges, government buildings etc etc etc - I feel the UK should introduce a Keypoint Act for strategic installation and protect these from what I see as a dangerous abuse which can affect all of us
open source intelligence is already a huge thing, a couple of people looking at the police isn't gaining any info real threats won't have.
Got approached myself one time when I was filming the site of the former railway works in Swindon, which is a public space where the Steam Museum and a shopping centre. It was for the purpose capturing images to put to music for the purpose of entering a competition.
Never imagined there was any issue with filming the buildings, but I got approached and questioned because an adjacent building was a secure building housing sensitive records. They were okay when I explained the purpose of my filming, but warned me I should not be filming this particular building.
So that's a situation where even someone not engaging in auditing could inadvertently be including a secure building and attract suspicion.
PS: How many terrorists have been caught filming a police station and how many stations have been targets of terrorist attacks? Now compare that to how many terrorists have used Google Maps/Earth to do all their surveilling and carry out attacks?
a terrorist with a brain would not do that he would get someone to do it for him!! and google maps do not film inside buildings. Perhaps if you had lost someone in a terrorist attack you would have the view i do that 99% of these auditors are SCUM!!
We haven't always had the ability to pull a 4G phone out and zoom in on something within a few seconds, but you might want to use that phone and look up how the various terror groups in Northern Ireland planted bombs both there and here on the mainland in the hope of achiving their aims. Pubs, Police Stations, Car Bombs even the hotel in Brighton almost killing the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and each time with many innocent people killed and injured, now real life is not like Hollywood ! Reconnaissance is very much hiding in plain sight as Hayley says, but if you can get all your info because a fat idiot who hasn't had a wash for 3 weeks has stood outside a Police Station and drawn attention to himself enough to cause a concern then the terrorists will learn alot from that video.
Dear BB, one issue that does not seem to have come up but is in this auditor's video over drone insurance ua-cam.com/video/taNObM_2fP4/v-deo.html , is that these people are earning money from this via youtube or whatever. In simple terms they are running a commercial operation and therefore they are no longer 'private citizens''. This triggers requirements for insurance, compliance with health & safety, and affects rights such as use of public rights of way and access to property. What I suspect a number of these auditors may not have realised is that they are basically operating a business and that changes things dramatically. Can I suggest a video explaining this as I think some may need a wake up call before they learn the hard way in a civil or indeed criminal court? Also in the video above the auditor makes false statements about the police policy on body worn - they say they have to tell people before or when they turn it on but nowhere in the policy does it say that. Does that officer have any recourse given the auditor is clearly wrong (highlighting the fact that whilst these videos show police and others getting things wrong in most videos the auditors make at least as many mistakes as their victims). As you rightly point out at some point this is going to become a problem and a legal issue
it is 100% legal, and the police also know it is. so when they cause you alarm and distress making threats for filming be sure to seek legal action for damages and report their low standards to the IPCC so they can be re-trained to serve the public better.
In the first 4 minutes he explains that it isn't "100%" anything. Even in the US, frauditors can be charged if they record something that is private such as the information on screens in squad cars, private communications such as text messages etc. I'm all for transparency and accountability (part of my job is fulfilling FOI requests) but I don't think it's found by unemployed fuckwits pretending to be journalists whilst trying to provoke a compensation claim... yet another drain on the taxes of hardworking folk.
It's legal in the same way driving around with a trunk full of rope, tie wraps and a shovel is legal
Not sure what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to do with anything, but maybe that's another of those hidden laws and rights that only agressive harassing 'auditing' twats seem to be able to see.
Personally if I started seeing shit that doesn't exist, I'd take a drug test and ask for some anti-psychotics if it comes back negative, but apparently the 'auditors' seem to think they're fine.
Used to work security while studying and I tossed out quite a number of arrogant people who argued they could follow around everybody and film them. All of them invariably argued they'd 'sue you' as they got escorted/carried/kicked out, but 10+ years later and even one of those cases is yet to materialise.
When I say don't harass staff and don't scream in our faces just because you got a phone, I mean it and ignoring it has consequences, who'd have thunk?
Unfortunately vulnerable adults and children can be at public buildings and should expect some privacy.
There seem to be instances out there where the auditors are causing alarm/distress to multiple people, which seems like a harassment offence - and additionally, they publish these monetised videos containing personally identifiable data online which the subjects clearly object to, which seems like it should be possible to take to court on GDPR grounds.
Is it the case that although filming in public in itself is legal, they could likely be commiting several other offences depending on how they go about it and what they do with the footage afterwards?
AB does an interesting one. He says he's evidence gathering about police abuses of searches and section 43.
@D. There you go. Jumping to preconceived views of what a terrorist looks like. Perhaps if he turbaned up, he would be arrested more often.
@@unhingedbracket121 He said _what 90% of people picture_ and there _you_ go conflating a general observation with prejudice.. Grow up.
Great video..... Having watched plenty of auditing videos, the quotes used in this video from the NPCC guidance really hold the Police to account. That being, either the Police are too undertrained or ill-versed in general, so they willfully ignore the guidance.
Either way it's a VERY poor reflection on each force. And the forces that come unstuck are widespread. It's alarming that it's so widespread.
The police should be upholding the law. NOT enforcing imagery laws in order to make themselves feel safer in their office buildings from a non-existent threat.
There are numerous accounts where the public wait hours, days or even weeks for the police to attend a crime scene, yet they're like a rat up a drain pipe for anyone holding a phone outside their workplace (a place where were they really should be spending minimal time considering that should be out of the best or investing crime on locale.
auditors are just dicks wasting police time
They are too far away from their donut supply if they are out of the station.
@@edeledeledel5490Glazed doughnuts and coffee
This is broadly correct but the last point is uncharitable. The huge amount of desk time for modern officers is due to the mountain of strict bureaucracy and procedure that has gradually been shovelled onto their responsibilities - the same mountain that makes them accountable and consistent and gives us the means to correct their mistakes and overreaches.
needs to be made illegal, however in the following areas, showing a perimeter layout of a building police station, government station, security measures ingress and egress points. Filming of civilian cars entering or leaving a protected place, showing face of driver and number plate. Filming of carparks and parked cars in a police station including government stations. Filming of persons leaving or entering a police station or government station. I know a great deal of police officers that do not want their neighbours and the places where they live to know they are in the police. Some work covertly in sensitive roles including child protection. Some covert surveillance cars are in those carparks and a auditor may inadvertently film them. One auditor video recently had a video of a lady entering a police station whom happened to be an informant. I understand why people audit, and understand that holding to account is lawful. However harassing and taking police time leaves a member of the public not getting help when needed. Or a crime not being investigated. Some of it is baiting for a reaction. Also an auditor hanging around a police station for example may put a nervous member of the public from entering to give information, report a crime. Most law abiding public get very nervous and anxious when entering a police station. For some its the worst thing that can happen. Most if the time audits are just a nuisance.
Absolutely agree- who audits the auditors
Regarding wasting Police time, on the few I’ve viewed (and I agree they are annoying) the police come out, usuallymore than one, and waste there own time. Surly there can’t be an officer 👮♀️ in the country that doesn’t know that filming in a public space is legal, so just ignore the auditors.
@@jonmartin1272 Ah yes but they're not coming out cos someone is filming in a public place, they're coming out to find out why said person is filming all the civilian cars going in and out of the staff car park. If someone was taking pictures of my registration plate, I'd want to know why as well. I remember seeing an 'audit' video not that long ago where the fella was filming an Audi R8 parked up, the owner came along and asked why he was filming his car and the auditor just went straight into belligerent mode "It's a public place. I can take pictures of anything. You can't stop me." What's the matter with "That's a really nice car, I just wanted to show UA-cam." ?? But no, auditors want hostility so they've got spicy content for their subscribers. Edit: Actually, not all of them. That Charlie Veitch fella is usually very nice and friendly to people.
Auditing would not be a thing if cops didn't invite it by breaking the rules constantly. Do you think they would be out there auditing if all they ever recorded was "-Can I help you? -No, -Ok, have a nice day"?
Well better start with google earth with the perimeter suggestion. whit google we can see the layout of buildings inside which pavement auditors cant
Tell me if I am wrong. If the government outlawed street photography wouldn't every CCTV in the land be outlawed and decommissioned as well ?
Once again, as the law stands,. Anything and anyone can be be photographed from a public place. Regardless of status And age.
Would you defend a person who has been detained, searched and held in the local police station when the arresting officer knew who the photographer was and knew he/she was a blogger and even watched his/her channel ?
There are lots of retaliation by officers who are breaking the laws in attempting to teach auditors a lesson. Those officers should not be officers .
Whilst walking down my road one day, I saw a man photographing an unaware woman.
(I presumed he was photographing her, as she was wearing tight and revealing leggings, and was physically 'fit' and attractive).
There was nobody else there apart from her child.
When I reached him, I challenged him and demanded to see his phone, at which point he fumbled around and presumably deleted the image.
I phoned the police, as the position he's taken the photo from was visible from a traffic light's camera, which I had assumed was recording somehow.
The police told me that wasn't the case, and there was nothing they could do.
Was there anything I could have done in this situation, or if I encounter the same thing happening ever again?
Sadly no. If he was on a public right of way and the woman was not in a position, place or situation where she could expect privacy, then no offence was committed.....however creepy it is!
In the US, auditors are now auditing schools, women's refuges and also (weirdly) private businesses just for clicks. People lose interest in audits unless there is some confrontation and so auditors are pushing the boundaries further and further. Ultimately, what will happen in the UK is that new laws will be brought in to prevent this type of filming thus eroding a right we already have. A well thought out video by the way and I think there was a hint from Daniel that he can see a law change if this grows.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
This issue of forbidding filming public buildings under 'terror reconnaissance' is idiotic "Look Ahmad, the building looks like this, this is what we call Police Station..." it is foolish. If they are public buildings then they are known anyway and can be observed by anyone, in real life, online etc...and could be filmed at a distance or close up and concealed, and no-one would know anything about it. What could any mastermind get from a video of a public building that, they couldn't get in a number of other ways or just by walking past it etc? However, I think filming public buildings, 'sensitive' buildings just for the purpose of getting a reaction and attention seeking online is pretty moronic, but social-media is indeed full of moronic behaviour.
Thanks you for this... there does appear to be double standards going on. I saw one of these 'auditors' over the Christmas break videoing a police station, walking around the back, filming number plates etc, and they were actively looking to get attention and seek interaction... after all, they are in it for the clicks and rewards, right? However, when I started filming the 'auditor' filming the police, the auditor felt HE was being infringed, and asked me to delete the footage. Pots and kettles spring to mind. Needless to say, they auditor in question did NOT post his audit of that particular police station. I also back up your point of a terrorist hiding in plain sight. Private Lee Rigby was brutally murdered by an ISIS member outside a British Army base, so people 'hanging around' military installations deserve to be asked questions. As you say, one or two announce who they are and get on with it. But people like to see the confrontational stuff and the auditors know it. Equally I am not saying the police are doing very well with this either. Obviously training and guidance will need to be fast tracked because a lot of the younger officers these days seem to extend their powers without actually knowing the law.
Christ where to start many of the police have tried to film the auditors while on duty and of course the auditor is entitled to a copy of that footage as the person is working as a public servant as part of a business therefore it’s nothing to do with pot or kettle as for terrorist attacks on police stations there has only been one in Northern Ireland since about 1970 and that was during the height of the troubles…….!
As for the police there is a disgusting lack of knowledge of using common sense to apply these legislative powers
Just because someone is auditing is not grounds to use or rather miss use the counterterrorism act there has to be a reasonable suspicion in many cases these police have been given the opportunity to not only interact reasonably
but to review the footage and learn from it ……
neither has happened !
in 99% of the interactions auditing Britain for example has shown those interactions that did go well and there was some very positive comments from the general public in the comment section !
however the police generally seem to be aware of the fact that auditing Britain is who he is !
yet they still arrest him under suspicion that he may be a terrorist….?
they know who is this is!
And why he is there yet they’re still arresting him which is a total breach of their powers!
it’s also a demonstration of their ego ……And there
personal opinions and feelings interfering with their ability to interact with members of the public and do their job properly and in a reasonable and professional manner!
If you were unaware of these things you need to watch more of the interactions!
I too when I first watched was under the impression that perhaps auditors were perhaps a little out of line and being a little to pushy or over confident in someway it felt like they were being too cocky or sticking their neck out then it dawned on me that in actual fact most of the police officers they interacted with seem to be under the impression that this was totally reasonable grounds for them to rugby tackled him to the floor put them in handcuffs and then sling him in a cell for half a day under the grounds that they were suspicious…….. this is a crazy time where the general public are afraid to even approach or go near a police station for fear that they will be immediately detained searched and possibly arrested for no good reason I think many people are under the impression that the police are quite within their rights to do this this is why auditing is so damned important!
for example filming police cars coming and going from the police station ! Well there’s no problem with that is there that’s standard auditing and perfectly acceptable but claim that this could be deemed as dangerous activity Because the video being shown might reveal their personal cars and the Number plates this is an excuse at best they are public servants and if when they drive away from the police station for example when they are leaving to go home from work if they know they have done a decent days work and not infringed on peoples rights unnecessarily then they I would suspect her unlikely to face any repercussions obviously there are extreme examples there always will be however none of these attacks as I say have taken place an army base is a completely different matter being a military target! There is a reason in this country that we have a saying it’s a fair cop one of the oldest sayings that was publicised over the years and many of the old time criminals used to use it demonstrating that even though they were breaking the law and being arrested for it ………if they weren’t fitted up ………
they would use this saying as a demonstration that it was a fair cop…….. indicating that they knew the risks and they had it coming and didn’t blame any of the offices for merely doing their job protecting other members of the general public from their illegal activity………… we would do well to not discount this sort of thing as it demonstrates the psychology behind interactions between the criminal and the enforcer!
there is no expectation to privacy in a public place particularly when you are working as a public servant !
if they are so terrible at their job that everyone hates them ?
I suggest that their practice and adherence to their codes of practice …..may be in need of a review ……..perhaps even a case of considering whether or not the person should be employed in the role in the first place ?
as clearly they are abusing their powers ! most people in the general public will back down even when it comes to their rights being abused by police because of the perceived authority of the police officer!
unfortunately the police themselves seem to be under the same Illusions ……..for example believing that they have the ability to stop and search someone without even giving a reason !
Worse still that the police Taylor how heavy-handed they are with someone according to that persons understanding of their rights and In the case of those that don’t often police officers grounds for reasonable suspicion are anything they happen to make up at the time including misquoting the counterterrorism act citing things like section 55 or 44 neither of which exist !
I suggested in any other job if someone Made such atrocious and diabolical errors as these they would be fired for gross miss conduct ! so why is someone in the role of a public servant as a police officer getting away with Working in that role when they have little or no understanding of the legislation or how to apply it let alone being able to cite the correct legislation when giving a reason for a stop and search under supposedly sound and reasonable grounds for suspicion!!!
And the clincher to all of this is if they do not understand what part of the legislation to site and cite it correctly …….The old occasion where they may be in the process of arresting someone who has committed a crime whether it is a victim that victim will not receive justice and the person being arrested will be let off due to the incompetence of those who arrested them under the wrong piece of legislation!
So heavy-handed and useless in most circumstances and don’t get me started on the fact that they can turn up and stop and search a person with a camera with no grounds for suspicion while it takes them five days to turn up to someone breaking and entering and stealing possessions from your home or just simply being attacked on the street I noticed these particularOpportunities for police to use the legislation to protect members of the general public and maintain order seem to be the last priority on the list yet if you make the mistake of filming from a public place a company for example which has their own security and that said security staff decide to call the police instantaneous attendance will ensue minutes after the initial call! Bloody disgusting!!!
Yep the auditors are doing a vital job!!!
@@melissaflood505 Jason mentioned the terrorists hiding in plain sight in relation to a terror attack outside of military barracks and pointed out why you might be questioned for hanging around filming entrances and exits to those places.
Because a member of the military is a high value target to said terrorists I think they are quite within their right to be twitchy about people filming faces of the exiting and entering said places
they are mainly a bunch of people who like to feel important , they aren't but auditing gives them the illusion of doing something worthwhile . IT's basically a silly hobby but they tell each other how they are fighting the good fight , they aren't.
@@melissaflood505 Have you ever considered getting a girlfriend? Nah I’m just joking I know nobody likes you.
Dj audits aka nigel dicks adaptors r us leister leave him a one star review. This guy has been harassing and doxxing the working man. Also Cherie Robinson partner in crime
My experience of UA-cam vlogers is that when approached by the 'authorities'; i.e. police, etc. they become aggressive even though they might believe they are being assertive.
It seems to me that they deliberately 'bait' or wish to attract attention to make a point, albeit a point that is neither funny nor entertaining and I refuse to give them my time or to increase their view counts.
In particular, often the vloger's accent 'sounds' like they come from a European background OR from the lower classes of the UK where there is likely to be a high degree of belligerence against authority, especially the police. I regard these vlogers as 'click bait' and no longer give them my time.
Absolutely agree, perhaps we should stand outside these auditors houses filming their comings and goings, let’s see how they respond?
Yes they must be chimney sweeps or something cor blimey govner I’m a working class cunt that hates authority 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Couldn't agree more.
Would love to see how an auditor would feel if they were being audited.
I feel exactly the same way. I've basically commented every time on their videos ( WIND UP MERCHANT) even though it pains me to have conformed to the UA-cam algorithm
The point is consistency & a proportionate response. The police will never earn the public's respect when they respond, en masse, armed & in quick time, to a call from the high street bank concerned by a person with a camera phone, yet do not have the resources to respond to an aggravated burglary of an elderly, vulnerable lady.
I have seen that there are a number of videos of people flying drones over locations that seem to be chosen to provoke confrontations and so ensure videos that will attract views and therefore income. One that interested me was someone flying a lightweight drone over an industrial site. They quoted CAA rules that they said allowed this activity. However when I was at work on an industrial site we had to have written risk assessments and method statements (RAMS) in place before any activity was carried out to comply with HSE requirements based on the Health and Safety at Work Act. On at least one occasion we had a drone operator in to examine the state of a high roof and so RAMS were completed before the activity. So, do the CAA rules override the Health and Safety at Work Act or can the CAA rules be trumped by the Health and Safety at Work Act to stop this drone activity over a workplace?
The CAA puts the onus of safety on the pilot, who must do a safety course online, and has legally defined responsibilities, so the situation is similar to that of road drivers.
When a delivery driver enters commercial property, you don't perform a risk assessment, ask to see their driving licence or insurance - but you do if you employ the driver. As property controller you have - hopefully - already assessed vehicle risk and installed roadways, turning-heads, parking bays, kerbs, crash barriers, traffic flows, pavements, signs, loading bays, gates, traffic signs, road markings etc., all to Department of Transport regulated standards. The driver takes note of your infra-structure through situational awareness and drives accordingly.
Some vehicles need special licences to drive. Drones are also vehicles, and just as you might have PSV, HGV, motorcycle or tracked vehicle licences, so it is with drones. Or lawnmowers. Or spacecraft. Drones under 250 grams can be flown in "Open Airspace", which is from the ground up to 120 metres altitude. Their designs are certified as airworthy, and they pose such a low risk that they can be flown over people (but not crowds). The rest is up to the pilot.
Open Airspace is like a public road. Anyone with a licence can use it wherever the DoT allows, subject to the rules. Landowners can't obstruct that traffic. If someone breaks the law, phone the Police. If someone doesn't... don't. Simple.
Your suggestion that things may change in the next few months, based on what, what changes?
You also lean towards the argument (at the end of your video) that depending on what is happening on that day, you could be arrested under terrorism legislation. Will this be so for ALL journalists or just those that film for UA-cam?
I would like to understand the objective of this type of filming, what are they auditing? What is the scope? Have they attempted to gather their evidence in a less confrontational way? I am not a fan of the Police and I believe the whole judicial system in England is broken. I just don’t see what this brings to the table. I will stand corrected if I have missed something.
In theory Auditing is supposed to be about highlighting when a police officer in the normal course of their duties abuses or oversteps their authority. The reality though is that it has increasingly become more about gaining a following on social media and people are willing to go to sometimes pretty extreme lengths to get something worth posting.
Notable examples of how rabid these people can get in their desperation to provoke a response is the a recent news article of 2 "auditors" in America who followed a police patrol for 2 hours shouting abuse at them before getting detained and crying about how unfair it was. Or the case of Zhoie Perez who couldn't get a negative response while "auditing" so she ramped things up far enough that she ended up getting shot. (She has a history of similar encounters, including one amusing one where she was abusive towards police because they defended her right to film and thus robbed her of her cheap clickbait video)
@@Kizron_Kizronson I’ve seen a couple here in the UK, didn’t realise it spread far and wide. I do find myself agreeing with you.
Almost found you to be a sympathiser to an extent. In most cases theses auditors we see online are just being a nuisance and trying to wind people up and cause a reaction, as the definition states.
Nonsense
As someone that audits for a living. Auditing to me is documenting and assessing if things are as they should be to procedures and highlighting any gaps that may cause issues..
I'm not sure what it takes to become an auditor, other than a video recorder or phone... but bumping into one in the street, I'm not taking them as any moral authority on any topic.
@@John1873-- not sure what the people shown in the video are auditing against tbh. And my thoughts are the same as yours. I was just answering the question that was asked. But auditing is a necessary part of health and safety, food safety and anything that requires good standards. It is an integral part of any manufacturing process.
@@carolinew4699 I realise that, but if I contact a company over quality concerns - if they then audit their production line or review their records, that's all well and good...
But when someone comes up to me on the street with their phone recording and performs, what appears to be, a "gotcha" moment, those folks can go do one for all I care.
Let’s not forget that Campbell [2002] essentially gave rise to the ECHR article 8 into tort (even though the judgment stated it was not that intent), and it was 20 years that gave rise to the principle of legitimate expectation of privacy. Got to love when horizontal law become vertical
What happens when an auditor tries to film at a place of national security? I know I cannot film (even dash cams need turning off) when entering due to the Official Secrets Act. How do they get away with walking into the security office and then putting it on UA-cam?
Exactly 👍
It could result in a breach of security or worse, an attack, because the ‘auditor’ was, in fact, planning an attack.
Very dangerous game imo.
There are also cases where they have “audited” shelters for victims of domestic violence. The rights of the victims to be protected surely outweighs the right of the auditor to audit even if the building is publicly funded
@@BionicRusty This is going to go badly wrong at some point and these fools are going to lead to formal legal restrictions on filming etc due to the growing number of people with cameras who ignore good sense, basic decency and privacy and basic press protocols as well as the need for security at some sites.
I had no idea people did this! Any Auditors out there: what's the motivation? What's the pay off?
Pay off is varied:
Financial
Public service
Nortiriety
Fun
Educational
I suggest Auditing Britain for starters
@@graytoby1 I'll take a gander.
One of the motives is to hold people in authority positions accountable and keep them honest.
@@graytoby1 The only people auditors "educate" is each other, on extremely weird and incorrect interpretations of the law and access rights.
This guy is an auditor ,news now Scotland ,the police really really don’t like him and he has been arrested a few times ua-cam.com/video/sjvVsb4kUjE/v-deo.html
The issue I have been auditors is that they do it TO antagonize people. Surely these channels that show it, is enough evidence to charge with them harassment now? But they're hiding behind a legal right to film in public.
So? They are fully within the law doing so. Them making new laws and legislation to get around it is just less freedom for everyone.
@@swaggadash9017They will make new laws, as this barrister says. And it will affect all of us.
I can tell you have no legal training.
@@lamf4846 and your qualifications are???
@@andyscullion I don't need any to know that PINAC. Something you're too dumb to recognise.
What if they enter private or commercial premises? Surely that ceases to be a public space and filming for the purpose of intimidating staff could be aggravated trespass
It does not really matter if photographing or making video recordings is a security concern. The only thing that matters is if there is legal grounds for interfering with the auditor.